An Administration Of, By and For the Corporations

As Profits Soar, Companies Pay

U.S. Less for Gas Rights – New York Times By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

At a time when energy prices and industry profits are soaring,

the federal government collected little more money last year than it did five years ago from the companies that extracted more than $60

billion in oil and gas from publicly owned lands and coastal waters.

If royalty payments in fiscal 2005 for natural gas

had risen in step with market prices, the government would have received about $700 million more than it actually did, a three-

month investigation by The New York Times has found.

But an often byzantine set of federal regulations, largely shaped and

fiercely defended by the energy industry itself, allowed companies producing natural gas to provide the Interior Department with much

lower sale prices – the crucial determinant for calculating government royalties – than they reported to their shareholders.

As a

result, the nation’s taxpayers, collectively, the biggest owner of American oil and gas reserves, have missed much of the recent energy

bonanza.

The disparities in gas prices parallel those uncovered just five years ago in a wave of scandals involving royalty

payments for oil. From 1998 to 2001, a dozen major companies, while admitting no wrongdoing, paid a total of $438 million to settle

charges that they had fraudulently understated their sale prices for oil.

Since then, the government has tightened its rules for

oil payments. But with natural gas, the Bush administration recently loosened the rules and eased its audits intended to uncover

cheating. …

Royalties for natural gas have climbed sharply in the last three years. But while prices nearly doubled

from 2001 to 2005, the $5.15 billion in gas royalties for 2005 was less than the $5.35 billion in 2001. When oil and gas are combined,

royalties were about $8 billion in 2005, almost the same as in 2001.

Because much of the information about specific transactions

is kept secret, it remains unclear to what extent, if at all, the weakness in royalty payments stems from deliberate cheating or from

issues with the rules themselves. …

The possible losses to taxpayers in gas could be even higher than the losses tied to the

scandals over oil royalties. For one thing, natural gas production on federal land is worth twice as much as oil. …

“These

companies had knowingly been cheating on oil for years, if not decades,” [Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government

Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group that exposed many of the oil royalty scandals,] continued. “To ignore the likelihood that the same

thing is happening on the gas side is absurd.” …

In the wake of the scandals, the outgoing Clinton administration pushed through

tough new rules for valuing crude oil, which relied on comparing company reports with an index of spot market prices.

But the Bush

administration did not close any loopholes for valuing natural gas. Indeed, in March 2005 it expanded the list of deductions and decided

against valuing sales at spot-market prices when companies were selling to their own affiliates.

The industry-friendly stance was

intentional.

Rove Offers Republicans A Battle Plan For Elections

Rove Offers Republicans A

Battle Plan For Elections By Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove offered a

biting preview of the 2006 midterm elections yesterday, drawing sharp distinctions with the Democrats over the campaign against

terrorism, tax cuts and judicial philosophy, and describing the opposition party as backward-looking and bereft of ideas.

“At the

core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security,” Rove said. “Republicans have a

post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn’t make them unpatriotic — not at all. But it does make

them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.” …

Rove used his platform to excoriate Democrats for “wild and

reckless and false charges” against Bush on the issue of domestic spying ….

“Karl Rove only has a White House job and a security

clearance because President Bush has refused to keep his promise to fire anyone involved in revealing the identity of an undercover CIA

operative,” Dean said in a statement. Dean added: “The truth is, Karl Rove breached our national security for partisan gain and that is

both unpatriotic and wrong.”

It was four years ago this week when Rove, appearing at another meeting of the RNC, said Republicans

would make terrorism a central issue of the 2002 midterm elections. Rove’s remarks infuriated Democrats, who protested that, until then,

Bush had stressed bipartisanship and national unity in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Republicans made historic

gains in 2002, and Bush successfully used the issue again to help secure his reelection in 2004, despite growing public

dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq. Yesterday’s speeches by Rove and Mehlman signaled that

the White House and the RNC intend to pursue much the same strategy in a midterm-election year that begins with

Republicans on the defensive.

Wanted: Democrats who can show some spine

Wanted: Democrats that can

show some spine By Molly Ivins

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy’s sake? The majority of the American people (55

percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-

payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum

wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush’s tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The

majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do ”whatever it takes” to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent)

thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. Who are you

afraid of?

More of Jeffrey Gardner’s Nonsense

Regarding Jeffrey Gardner’s latest nonsense: No one

disputes that 9/11 happened. In fact, some of the strongest critics of BushCo include the families of those killed. Most of us realize

the terrorist threat has escalated dramatically thanks to our bumbling in Iraq. And all of us are aware that a free society will always

be at risk to unscrupulous scoundrels, domestic and foreign.

As a consistent critic of BushCo’s wrong-headed and ham-handed

response to 9/11, I don’t want a dime more money from Homeland Security in Albuquerque. Vast amounts are pouring into small towns all

over AmeriCo for security cameras in every corner — more corporate welfare. The lines between the police, the military and the spies are

all gone. I feel no safer than I did on 9/12.

I heartily agree with the Tribune that “the incompetence and ignorance of Homeland

Security and the Bush administration in addressing the real issues of homeland security is staggering.” mjh

[published 1/28/06 in The Albuquerque

Tribune: Opinions]

Home spun By Jeffry Gardner, Tribune

Columnist

Well, first and foremost is the fact that there truly is a terrorist threat. Ask the family members of the nearly 3,000

people murdered on Sept. 11, 2001. …

So, other than wanting money for money’s sake, why the beef with Homeland Security?

Clearly, it affords an opportunity for more Bush-bashing.
—–

mjh’s

Blog: Generous Jeffry January 7, 2005
mjh’s Blog: Everybody Knows Nihilists

Vote Libertarian November 4, 2004
mjh’s Blog: Right’s Wrong March 17,

2004

Let Duhbya Protect You!

You may have read about BushCo subpoenaing Google to provide

a massive amount of random data — which could include your queries. Kudos to Google for standing up to the Department of Justice. And

brickbats to Yahoo for giving in without a squeak.

Take a look at what all these fine companies are willing to do to work with China and wonder what they won’t do to stay in business in AmeriCo. mjh

Analysis: Google Case Raises New Questions –

Forbes.com By TOM RAUM

Already on the defensive about its domestic spying program, the Bush administration has alarmed privacy

and free-speech advocates by demanding search information from millions of users of Google and other Internet companies.

The

moves raise questions about how far the government should be allowed to go to probe into American homes. The administration is pushing

back hard, defending its surveillance as helping to protect the nation from terrorism and, to a lesser extent, shield minors from

pornography.

Critics see the moves as an unwarranted expansion of presidential authority.

Yahoo China journalist – Yahoo helped Chinese to prosecute

journalist

China’s tangled Web

U.S. companies enable China censorship, critics say
Have U.S.

high-tech giants helped China bring the Internet to heel?

Microsoft Defends Censoring a Dissident’s

Blog in China

Run Over This VERY Dumb Idea

ABQjournal: Coronado Puts New Ads on Parking Lot

Stripes By Charlotte Balcomb Lane, Journal Staff Writer

First it was billboards and bus placards. Then it was ads on the

stall doors of public restrooms.

Now Coronado Center is conducting an advertising campaign of a different stripe. The line

markings between 100 parking spaces at the south end of the mall near the JC Penney store have been topped with yellow and blue ads for

Qwest Internet service and digital television. …

[O]n a recent sunny January day, few shoppers seemed to notice as they walked

to and from the mall.

The consumers that did see them thought the parking spaces were blocked off or reserved for handicapped

parking. …

Qwest and General Growth Properties, which is the second largest mall owner in the United States, will decide whether

to stick with the experiment or pull it.

the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price

Amen to the suggestion from a Republican that “the principal remedy …

under our society is to pay a political price.” Make the Radical Right pay big this fall. mjh

Gore Says Bush Broke

the Law With Spying By Chris Cillizza, Special to The Washington Post

The president of the United States has been

breaking the law repeatedly and insistently,” Gore said in a speech at Constitution Hall in Washington. “A president who breaks

the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.” …

“The disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of

the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to Americans in both political

parties,” Gore said. The Bush administration’s actions have “brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of

the Constitution,” he added. …

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has called Attorney General Alberto R.

Gonzales to testify at a hearing about the eavesdropping program. Specter said Sunday that if Bush broke the law in authorizing wiretaps

without going through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to get warrants, he could face impeachment.

“I’m not

suggesting remotely that there’s any basis” for impeachment, Specter told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” “After

impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political

price.”

[updated 1/19/06]

Gore’s Challenge By David S. Broder

Former vice president

Al Gore has turned himself into a one-man grand jury, ready to indict the Bush administration for any number of crimes against the

Constitution. Whether you agree with Gore’s conclusions or not, the speech that the 2000 Democratic nominee for president gave this week

in Washington was as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush’s ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to

find. …

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out

the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent

the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism. …

Gore is certainly right about

one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to “start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you’re

supposed to be,” he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.

Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance

– New York Times By SCOTT SHANE

A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush

administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are

“inconsistent with the law.”

The analysis was requested by Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on

the House Intelligence Committee, who said in a Jan. 4 letter to President Bush that she believed the briefings should be open to all the

members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Instead, the briefings have been limited to the Republican and Democratic

leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees, the so-called Gang of Eight. …

Of the Congressional Research

Service analysis, Ms. Harman said, “It’s a solid piece of work, and it confirms a view I’ve held for a long time.”

A White House spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program was classified, said, “We continue to brief the

appropriate members of Congress as we have been for the last several years.”

White House Disputes Gore on NSA Spying By Peter Baker,

Washington Post Staff Writer

“Al Gore’s hypocrisy knows no bounds,” Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan, responded. “If he

is going to be the voice of the Democratic Party on national security matters, we welcome it.” [mjh: i.e. “Bring it

on!”]

McClellan dismissed yesterday’s court complaints as “frivolous lawsuits” that “do nothing to help enhance civil

liberties or protect the American people.”