Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
Capitol Comment 230 - Senate Bill 819: The Everglades Entitlement Act
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 230 - Senate Bill 819: The Everglades Entitlement Act

On April 15, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) introduced the "National Parks Preservation Act" (S. 819). This legislation calls for substantial funding for national parks throughout the United States. However, S. 819 has major funding inequities, mandates billions of new spending, and might better be called the Everglades Entitlement Act.

05/04/1999
Capitol Comment 230 - Senate Bill 819: The Everglades Entitlement Act
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 230 - Senate Bill 819: The Everglades Entitlement Act

On April 15, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) introduced the "National Parks Preservation Act" (S. 819). This legislation calls for substantial funding for national parks throughout the United States. However, S. 819 has major funding inequities, mandates billions of new spending, and might better be called the Everglades Entitlement Act.

05/04/1999
Capitol Comment 228 - Walling Off Windows: Nationalization is a Hostile Takeover of Consumer Interests
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 228 - Walling Off Windows: Nationalization is a Hostile Takeover of Consumer Interests

Ten years ago the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and government-planned economies were on the decline. Today, attorneys general from 19 states met with Microsoft to negotiate a settlement in their pending antitrust suit. Unfortunately, the state attorneys general have proposed the largest peacetime takings in history. They advocate a radical plan to take control and to nationalize the software industry in America. At its essence, economic regulation is a statement of belief. Regulators believe that they know more about what is good for consumers than consumers do.

03/30/1999
Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Incentive for Ratification. The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, seemed all but dead until the "Credit for Early Reductions Act," (S. 547) was introduced in the Senate. Designed to make ratification of the treaty more politically enticing, the bill would give President Clinton the power to hand out billions in subsidies to companies willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the agreement is even implemented. The only catch is that companies cannot cash in the subsidies until the Kyoto Protocol is ratified, making a vote for S.

03/10/1999
Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 227 - Early Emissions Credits: Subsidizing the Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Incentive for Ratification. The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, seemed all but dead until the "Credit for Early Reductions Act," (S. 547) was introduced in the Senate. Designed to make ratification of the treaty more politically enticing, the bill would give President Clinton the power to hand out billions in subsidies to companies willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the agreement is even implemented. The only catch is that companies cannot cash in the subsidies until the Kyoto Protocol is ratified, making a vote for S.

03/10/1999
Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?

Dr. James Hansen — the same scientist who alarmed Americans in 1988 with claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases — has declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible.1 Hansen’s pronouncement shakes the foundation of the climate policy debate, because without reliable climate model projections and almost no evidence of a warming trend, there is little reason to anticipate catastrophic global warming.

03/03/1999
Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 226 - NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible: Is it Time for a New Climate Change Policy?

Dr. James Hansen — the same scientist who alarmed Americans in 1988 with claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases — has declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible.1 Hansen’s pronouncement shakes the foundation of the climate policy debate, because without reliable climate model projections and almost no evidence of a warming trend, there is little reason to anticipate catastrophic global warming.

03/03/1999
Capitol Comment 225 - Rails and Wires: What’s the Difference?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 225 - Rails and Wires: What’s the Difference?

As Congress takes up reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board, lawmakers will surely hear from rail shippers who want expanded "competitive access" for railroads. The basic idea is to treat railroad tracks the same way the 1996 Telecommunications Act treats local telephone wires – as facilities open for use by all competitors at a regulated rate. Under this concept, a shipper served by only one railroad could expand its options by forcing that railroad to let competing railroads use its track.

02/22/1999
Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol

Estimating the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, the international global warming treaty, has produced disagreement among the government’s energy analysts. President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) put the cost of the treaty at $12 billion annually.1 Energy experts at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) put the yearly impact as high as $397 billion.2 Who’s right? Judging by the continued failure of international negotiators to create alleged cost-saving implementation measures, such as global emissions trading, the dire projections by EIA may be all too real.

02/10/1999
Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol

Estimating the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, the international global warming treaty, has produced disagreement among the government’s energy analysts. President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) put the cost of the treaty at $12 billion annually.1 Energy experts at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) put the yearly impact as high as $397 billion.2 Who’s right? Judging by the continued failure of international negotiators to create alleged cost-saving implementation measures, such as global emissions trading, the dire projections by EIA may be all too real.

02/10/1999

Pages