The Middle East consumes way too much oil - By Michael A. Levi | Foreign Policy - 0 views
-
. It's true that daily Chinese consumption surged from 4.8 million barrels per day in 2000 to 7.9 million barrels in 2008, while Indian demand rose from 2.1 to 3 million.
-
Middle Eastern countries will gobble up nearly 50 percent more oil than India in 2030, despite being home to just a fifth as many people. Oil: The Long Goodbye An FP Special Report The reason? Massive oil subsidies that put China and India to shame
-
A 20 percent cut in oil consumption by the world's wealthy countries in 2030 would completely offset the expected increase in Chinese demand; a similar cut in U.S. gas guzzling would neutralize the expected Indian increase
Black Indians and Cherokee Freedmen - 1 views
Health Care: Now's the Hard Part | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary - 0 views
-
The bill must now go to a conference committee to resolve significant differences between the House and Senate versions. And history shows that agreement is far from guaranteed. In fact, just last year, a bill reforming the Indian Health Service died when the conference committee couldn't overcome its differences on abortion. Similarly, in 2007, bills dealing with issues as varied as campaign-finance reform, corporate pensions and closing tax loopholes passed both chambers but never became law. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }
-
It's important to remember that the House bill passed with just three votes to spare and the Senate bill received exactly the 60 votes needed for passage. Democratic leaders have little room to maneuver as they try to resolve such issues as:
-
The Public Option: The Senate rejected the concept of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) made it clear that inclusion of the so-called public option would cause them to join a Republican filibuster. They are justifiably concerned that a taxpayer-subsidized government plan would drive private insurance out of the market and lead to a single-payer government-run system. But the House did include a public option -- and retaining it has become the top priority for the Dems' liberal wing. Public-option advocates seemed willing to go along with a proposed Medicare "buy-in" for those 55 to 64, but even that compromise was dropped from the final Senate bill. Now Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn), among others, has made it clear his vote is in doubt if the final bill does not include some form of public option. And such liberal activist groups as Moveon.org have promised to spend the holiday vacation pressuring their allies to fight for the public option.
- ...3 more annotations...
freedmen.cherokee.org > Home - 2 views
1 - 16 of 16
Showing 20▼ items per page