Video: Palin on energy and security

Considering this is her issue as an a Alaskan... that wasn't particularly impressive. I like how they cut her off as she rambles on, though.

 

I will give her credit, those were very good answers and responses to the questions. She is obviously well spoken one on one like that.

The issues will come about when some of her assertions are challenged, and if she can deliver like that under intense scrutiny from more hardline questioners. What she can possibly do is make Biden seem old and out of touch with her youth and enthusiam, just as Obama really does to McCain; if Biden doesn't step up to the plate. He better not take her for granted and be well prepared on her record and history of positions on the issues.

But also, she is opening up attack on Biden very hard, so she is opening the door for the return attacks, which is a good thing for the Dems. No one will accept her to play the victim when she is a very good attack dog. So let the games begin!

 

You support McCain/GOP primarily due to to foreign policy stances, right? What do you think of having a candidate a heartbeat away who has never once discussed Iraq, Iran, Russia, or the war on terror? Or whose international travels total to a trip to Ireland and two visits to US military bases?

 

Good points as well. I intended to mention those and forgot. Seems like they may have been covering up flubs by moving through the interview like that.

 

After a little reading, I see that the only reason she stopped the bridge to nowhere was because congress would not give Alaska the money.

link

So much for being a "reformer" and taking on her mentor Ted Stevens.

 

Meanwhile, back in the batcave...

WASHINGTON - Congress is putting the short-term future of renewable energy companies in jeopardy even as the presidential candidates and most lawmakers hail windmills, solar panels and biofuels as long-term solutions to high gasoline prices and global warming.


Some $500 million in investment and production tax credits will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them. Without that help, solar and wind power companies say they will reverse planned expansions and, in many cases, cut payrolls and capital investment.

Schott Solar has visions of quadrupling its operation in Albuquerque, N.M., to reach 1,500 jobs and $500 million in investment. But the investment tax credit, company spokesman Brian Lynch said, is what makes solar power cost-competitive. Without it, expansion plans must be reconsidered.

"We don't want to build a giant factory that the market doesn't need or want," Lynch said.

The Solar Energy Industries Association says some 20 utility-scale solar power plants, many in California and together capable of producing power for a million homes, are at risk because of the uncertainty in Congress.

Proponents of wind power, a nascent industry that relies on skittish investors, are in a similar predicament. Greg Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association says his group is predicting a loss of 76,000 jobs and $11.4 billion in investment if Congress allows its production tax credit to expire.

"Investors like to know what tax policies apply when they are putting millions of dollars down on a project. There's a pretty clear history that these projects are less likely to go forward without a credit," he said.

Congress let the credit expire in 2000, 2002 and 2004. In those three years, wind capacity installation dropped 93 percent, 73 percent and 77 percent, respectively, from the previous year.

Navigant Consulting, which advises on renewable energy technology, estimated that investments in wind and solar power in 2009 would amount to $26.6 billion with the credits; that would fall to $7 billion without them.

The credits are expected to total $334 million, according to congressional estimates.

"These companies are shutting down projects, firing people and it's Congress's fault," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Investment tax credits, available to homeowners and businesses that invest in solar power equipment, and the production tax credit, based on kilowatt hours of energy produced by wind, geothermal, biomass and other renewables, are only two of dozens of temporary tax breaks that die out after a year or two if Congress does not revive them.

This year Congress is considering tax-extenders worth more than $50 billion over the next decade. The production tax credit would cost $7 billion and two solar investment credits would cost $2.7 billion over 10 years.

In addition to breaks for renewable energy and energy conservation, several dozen other tax breaks are targeted to businesses and individuals. They include people paying state and local sales taxes; parents with higher education tuition costs; and teachers with out-of-pocket expenses.

Almost all the provisions are popular. But Senate Republicans have blocked consideration of tax-extender plans by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. GOP lawmakers are protesting efforts to offset the costs with other taxes or other items attached to the proposals. In the House, conservative Democrats promise to block any extension that adds to the deficit.

That's nothing new.

In 2006, Congress did not come together on a tax-extender deal until December, forcing the Internal Revenue Service to delay processing returns claiming several of the tax breaks. In 2007 Congress never agreed on extenders and again waited until December, causing more IRS disruption, to settle another annual tax crisis, the alternative minimum tax.

That tax was, enacted 40 years ago, was supposed to keep a tiny number of very rich people from avoiding taxes. But it never was adjusted for inflation and now reaches into the pockets of 4 million people, mainly upper middle-income. Millions more are threatened every year until Congress steps in, usually at the last possible moment. The Baucus bill has provisions to keep those affected by the tax from growing to 25 million, at a cost of $61 billion over the next decade.

"A big part of the problem is uncertainty," said Marie Lee, a tax analyst with the American Electronics Association. "Our companies are getting tired of this game."

The biggest concern for high-tech companies and manufacturers is the research and development credit, which expired at the end of last year. Some 17,700 corporations claimed $6.6 billion in credits in 2005, according to a recent study by Ernst & Young LLP. About 70 percent of that went to pay wages of scientists and engineers.

The credit has been allowed to expire 13 times since it was adopted in 1981. One repercussion, said Monica McGuire, executive secretary of the R&D Credit Coalition, is that more companies are taking their research dollars overseas.

"It's a global race for R&D dollars," she said, and the odds are not good when at least 20 developed nations offer tax incentives and the United States currently has nothing.

Putting expiration dates on tax breaks is a useful budget gimmick for lawmakers seeking to mask the growing federal budget deficit.

Because they are set to expire at a certain date by law, they do not count as revenue losses after that date even though most people assume Congress eventually will act to extend them. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are the biggest extenders of all in this respect. Trillions of dollars will be added to the federal debt if Congress chooses to make them permanent after they are set to expire in 2010.

AP via Yahoo

 

Wow...first BUSTED of her positions. I am posting the entire article for clarity and discussion.

Gravina Access Project Redirected Printer Friendly

07-192

Gravina Access Project Redirected

September 21, 2007, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge.

“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” The Department of Transportation has approximately $36 million in federal funds that will become available for other projects with the shutdown of the Gravina Island bridge project. Governor Palin has directed Commissioner Leo von Scheben to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds, while the department also looks for a more affordable answer for Gravina Island access.

“There is no question we desperately need to construct new roads in this state, including in Southeast Alaska, where skyrocketing costs for the Alaska Marine Highway System present an impediment to the state’s budget and the region’s economy,” said von Scheben.

“The original purpose of this project was to improve access to Gravina Island, and we will continue to work with the community to help them attain that goal,” von Scheben said.

The commissioner said his department would continue to work with local officials to discuss future plans for development of Gravina Island.

 

If we can tap into those 5 billion barrels of oil sitting under Alaska all our problems will be solved.... for a few months. That is, unless it goes to Asia.

I'm really loving this VP pick. Palin truly illustrates how transparent the McCain Bush energy policy is... Suck all possible oil outta the ground and then...well...???? one sentence about alternative energy is thrown in there for good measure.

Republicans wanted to drill in 2000, 2004, now 2008... Let's just admit who runs the republican party. OIL!

 

Excellent post! Many don't want to see or admit the truth. OIL = BUSH/CHENEY = CURRENT REPUBLICAN PARTY = MCCAIN/PALIN

 

If the VP debates focus on snowmobiles and hockey, Biden is in deep doo doo.

 

Don't forget curling!

 

Then we'd only be 1.5 million barrels per day less than the production numbers from the 80's... if ANWR produces a million barrels per day.

 

It's not THE measure, but it's certainly A measure of how familar one is with other cultures and countries. When one says "it's great to see another part of the country!" when visit Pennsylvania, that's not a real good sign, is it?

Certainly - energy policy is her expertise. The problem is there is a lot more to foreign policy than energy policy. How would she deal with Iran wanting nukes? Or instability in Pakistan? What are her thoughts on Afghanistan and the Taliban? The overall strategy for the war in terror in general? Her thoughts on Iraq amount to "we need a plan" (literally, that's what she has said on the topic).

Not a lot in their role as Governor. But generally, if they are running for President, they've spent many years in the planning stages and are well versed in the basic issues there.

That's not to say she's not qualified - I don't put a lot of value in length of experience - but what is relevant is that we have no idea what her views are. They may be good, they may not. She may be the smartest person on the planet for all we know there. You seem to make a huge deal about how important the "right" foreign policy is, but now you're on board with someone who you don't know anything about her views on the topic?

 

I honestly don't get the feeling she cares, that she would welcome it (possibly why she has the nickname Barracuda)..........one thing I have notice she has a tough spirit to her, which should make for finally a very interesting VP debate. Which is quite funny, because most people don't care about the VP debates (reason for just 1), but this year it is almost the opposite.

So you say the Dems want that, I'm not so sure................

 

Good points, but the same was true about Obama when he first started running, now we are really just starting to understand where he is on most the issues and the same will be true with Palin..........let's remember she just got the nomination, so in the coming weeks, especially after the RNC, we will get those answers.

 

You would have the exact same amount of oil available today.

Why? Because OPEC would have adjusted the amount of oil they produce downward.

 

Oh absolutely, I don't have a problem with the Palin pick at all - it may be good, it may be bad. We won't know until we know more about her, and she deserves that time before we make any conclusions. I just find it interesting that people for whom having the right foreign policy was the far and away top issue are now full-bore supporters of someone who's foreign policy views are completely unknown.