Maria asks…
Why isn’t our government doing more to promote and subsidize renewable energy?
Set aside your biases about global warming for a second. America’s energy consumption is outgrowing it’s ability to produce said energy. Every summer, power grids around the country have experienced brown-outs and shutdowns to keep the energy grids running. This is only expected to increase as the population and dependence on coal based electricty increases.
The technology exists to lower fossil fuel consumption and augment it with renewable resources. Why not spend less money providing subsidies and tax breaks to oil and coal, and instead work to subsidize renewable energy into the market. For instance, invest in private companies to develop and sell solar technologies to businesses at a reduced rate. Or, give a tax credit to homeowners for investing in solar roofs or windmills on their property. Renewable energy may never replace traditional fuels, but there is a definite need to grow this industry and it seems like the government doesn’t care.
I asked this question last night, but wanted some fresh opinions this morning.
Should states take the high road and start pushing for alternatives? Massachusettes already has a solar energy credit program for homeowners.
The Expert answers:
Some states have these tax breaks but not on a federal level because good ol’ oil boys Bush n’ Cheney are still in power.
Meanwhile, in reality-land, individuals can do alot to help conserve energy.
When you buy your next car, look for the one with the best fuel economy in its class.
In some states, you can switch to electricity companies that provide 50 percent to 100 percent renewable energy. In other states, utilities offer “green power” choices. Ask your electric company to provide you with “Green-e” certified renewable power.
When it comes time to replace appliances, look for the Energy Star label on new appliances. (Refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, air conditioners and water heaters use the most energy.) These items may cost a bit more initially, but the energy savings will pay back the extra investment within a couple years.
AND finally the simplest solution: RECYCLE!
Carol asks…
What are your thoughts on Obama scaling back on the business tax credits in favor of new and bigger tax breaks?
for renewable–energy development and production instead?
Another campaign promise broken? One that could help get people to work?
“During the campaign in October, Mr. Obama had proposed a tax credit of $3,000 for each new hire made by businesses, in response to mounting job losses”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123180807306575741.html
The Expert answers:
He lied, lied and lied and continues to lie, and is doing NOTHING as he promised. He will have all kinds of excuses of why he can not do what he said, and I guarantee he will blame it on some one or some thing else. His agenda was to lie and get elected and to hell with promises cause , what ya gonna do…. Fire him. We can’t until 012
Obama’s bailouts if for Trial Lawyers, not citizens.
The jobless rate just hit its highest level in 16 years, 7.2%, which means more than 11 million Americans are unemployed. So the Democratic House responded by passing two bills making it more costly to hire workers.
Barack Obama has been preaching that our economy is in crisis and Congress absolutely must pass another mammoth stimulus package right now. The latest jobs report, he said, “only underscores the need to move with a sense of urgency and common purpose.”
But, alas, his first legislative priority is a stimulus package for trial lawyers and liberal-feminist special interest groups. The only things these two bills will stimulate is more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States.
President-elect Obama has promised to sign these bills if the Senate passes them. They are loaded with real money, so they are a big payback to the lawyers and feminists who supported him and the Democrats in 2008.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would eliminate the current statute of limitations (either 180 or 300 days, depending on the state of employment) on discrimination claims so that a worker can sue in federal court for alleged pay discrimination 20 years earlier.
This bill would reverse the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would remove existing statutory caps and allow for unlimited money damages to be awarded, even without proof of discriminatory intent.
It would mandate new federal “guidelines” about the relative worth of different types of jobs, a long-sought feminist goal called “comparable worth,” which means imposing wage control by freezing wages of jobs traditionally held by men and inflating wages of jobs traditionally held by women.
Obviously, these bills would expose large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for business to hire more workers, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation.
Ledbetter was employed for 19 years at Goodyear Tire & Rubber, eventually retiring with benefits. She enjoyed the advantages of this job despite receiving poor evaluations from several supervisors, which resulted in slightly lower pay than other employees.
Out of the blue, Ledbetter suddenly claimed that her supervisor, now long dead, had committed gender discrimination against her more than a decade earlier. Many trial lawyers are eager to sue deep pockets and plead for a “victim” in front of a spread-the-wealth jury in this type of case.
It’s impossible to refute lies about discrimination dating back decades when supervisors and witnesses are no longer around to defend themselves. So the jury awarded Ledbetter a shocking $3,285,979 in punitive damages, plus $223,776 in back pay and $4,662 for mental anguish, thereby demonstrating how ignoring statutes of limitation is like winning the lottery.
New Haven plaintiff attorney Karen Lee Torre, who has won many sex discrimination cases, said: “I know a victim when I see one; Lilly Ledbetter is no victim. . . . She hawked her case to a jury without the man she accused of sexism there to tell his side.”
Imagine what this kind of verdict does to a company struggling to compete with foreign manufacturers that are not subject to this nonsense. Goodyear has manufacturing operations in 25 countries, and it would be no surprise if it downsizes its U.S. Work force even further to avoid this type of expensive litigation.
Statutes of limitation prevent frivolous cases like this, and the law under which Ledbetter sued contained such a provision. Goodyear appealed and won before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court also agreed with Goodyear, remarkably ruling that “we apply the statute as written, and this means that any unlawful employment practice, including those involving compensation, must be presented to the EEOC within the period prescribed by statute.” Three cheers for the Supreme Court, which refrained from the liberal temptation to rewrite a law passed by Congress.
When Barack Obama was toadying to the trial lawyers and the feminists during last year’s presidential campaign, he tried to make Lilly Ledbetter his answer to John McCain’s Joe the Plumber. Ledbetter told the press that “Obama said he would see me in the White House when he signs the bill.”
Liberal special interest groups can barely control their excitement as they anticipate all this booty coming their way as they fleece businesses for alleged sins of 20
Lizzie asks…
Reduce your carbon footprint?
Would you pay an outside company to help you offset your carbon footprint like plant trees or buy renewable energy credits.
The Expert answers:
First thing you need to do is reduce your footprint on your own. Replace your incandescent light bulbs with CFLs or LEDs, insulate your ceiling, lower your heater temp in the winter and raise the temp in the summer, lower your water heater temp by 5-10 degrees, check the seals on any refrigerators or freezers, put as many non-critical electrical items on multi port power strips and then turn those off in the evening. AFTER you do as much as you can, then you can look at purchasing energy credits, but do some research on the companies that offer them. Like anything else there are some that are less than great.
Just purchasing credits without doing your part is much like the church in the middle ages selling indulgences. You could buy forgiveness without having to have real morals.
George asks…
Instead of threatening vets and old people with cuts and delayed payments, why not some of these programs?
ObamaCare $1.5 trillion
Planned Parenthood (annually) $330 million
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $145 billion
Amtrak $1.9 billion
Unspent Stimulus/ War Chest $60 billion
National Endowment for the Arts $133 million
National Endowment for the Humanities $140 million
National Broadband Coverage Map $350.0 million
Federal Employee Flight Upgrades $146.0 million
Beach Re-sanding $3.0 billion
Payments Not to Use Land (conservation) $2.0 billion
International Abortions/Population Control $650.0 million
Libya Kinetic Military Action $750.0 million
Consumer Protection Bureau $329.0 million
United Nations $6.4 billion
NPR/Corporation for Public Broadcasting $451.0 million
Renewable Energy Tax Credits (mostly wind) $6.9 billion
Tax Credits to IRS employees/Others $513.0 million
Federal Weatherization Programs $5.0 billion
Doesn’t it make more sense to cut these programs instead of holding social security recipients hostage?
My numbers are correct. I checked them on three different sites. And no we do not need to give more money to Planned Parenthood or anyone else. People can buy their own condoms or take themselves to the health department and get them for free.
The Expert answers:
Good point and good work. Obama wasted 1.6 million dollars in my city by replacing perfectly good siding and sidewalks in the projects.
Charles asks…
What do you think of Republicans screewing us again for big oil companies?
The tax changes would have channeled $11 billion over 10 years into development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and power from wind turbines. It provides an additional $18 billion in other tax breaks — from tax credits to clean and renewable energy bonds — to support improvements in energy efficiency, clean coal technology, development of gas-electric hybrid cars that could be plugged into the national power grid and other alternative energy programs.
Major oil companies would have paid most of the tab.
REPUBLICANS REJECTED THE CHANGE AGAINST DEMOCRATS 57YES-34-NO VOTES….60 VOTES NEEDED TO PASS
The Expert answers:
The first thing that should pop into any sensible person’s head when the Dem’s want to tax the oil companies is higher gas prices. Why do they not reduce the state and federal taxes on gasoline? You also (evidently) are not old enough to buy your own food, ethanol (a hoax) is driving the food prices up. Food is rising faster than gasoline.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
