July 20-21, 2008
Jul 20 00:11 To Increase Taxes or Not to Increase Taxes Jul 20 11:39 Warner's OCS Triangulation Jul 20 12:22 Ralph Peters: Al Qa'ida Stock Dropping Jul 20 21:37 President Bush's Mythical "Drill Only" Policy? Jul 20 23:39 The Tale of the Tape Jul 21 02:09 Spin Cycle In Full Operation Jul 21 13:26 This Is Obama's Plan To Repair American Relations Abroad? Jul 21 21:15 North To Alaska!!!
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
To Increase Taxes or Not to Increase Taxes
That't the question many people here in Minnesota's Sixth District will ask DFL candidate El Tinklenberg once they hear about this article .
The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.I'd like to know if Mr. Tinklenberg would support this tax increase. The collapse of the I-35W Bridge was the reason why he jumped into the race. Mr. Tinklenberg thought there was a need then. Since then, nothing has happened that's made things better, at least from a federal perspective.
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded, with a prod from the construction industry, that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.
According to this article on WCCO's website, Mr. Tinklenberg "was lukewarm on a proposal to raise the federal gas tax to fix bridges" but he also said this:
"All of us knew that we could no longer tolerate sitting by while so many things were happening in our country that were the result of a kind of inattention that we were facing in our infrastructure," he said at a Capitol news conference, flanked by about three dozen supporters including red-shirted union workers.If the inattention to our infrastructure is so great, how does Mr. Tinklenberg plan on paying for upgrading it? Does he think that this will all pay for itself? My bet is that he'd have no qualms voting for a tax increase. His biggest problem is admitting it before the election.
Unfortunately, I won't give Mr. Tinklenberg that much wiggle room. I'll assume that he favors increasing the gas tax unless he gives a compelling reason why he opposes increasing it.
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment 1 by Donna Foster at 20-Jul-08 08:04 AM
I'm supposed to believe that Tinklenberg recognizes inattention when it comes to infrastructure...but he and his fellow Democrats have never recognized that we needed to confront worldwide terrorism after decades of inattention? They still attempt to claim that Bush and Cheney are more of a threat to us than Al-Qaeda! I heard Tinklenberg was the DOT Commissioner for Ventura. Did I hear wrong? Does this mean he has recognized his own inattention to infrastructure? I wish someone would look into what they did and didn't fix when he was the Commish. Didn't I hear that there was a recommendation to fix those gusset plates on the I-35 Bridge during that time? If what I've heard is true...this man should be hiding his face in shame...not parading around like an authority telling us all what needs to be done. Typical Democrat - their judgement gets PROVEN to be WRONG - and they expect to be elected on that very judgement! Too bad most of the people never hear all the facts. If they did, the Democrat Party wouldn't have a prayer!
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 20-Jul-08 09:21 AM
I'll ask again: Since the legislature and Congress could, at abaolutely any time, decide to spend more on roads and bridges and less on something else, who is responsible for this "inattention"? If roads and bridges are our highest priority, then what is the lowest priority item in the State or Federal budget that got left behind so that we could fund the all-important infrastructure? If roads and bridges are top priority for taxpayer dollars, why do you need more taxpayer dollars to fund them? Finally, what did you do with the last $6 Billion you took for "transportation"?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-08 04:48 PM
Dona, I'll answer your questions:
Q: I heard Tinklenberg was the DOT Commissioner for Ventura. Did I hear wrong?
A: You heard right.
Q: Does this mean he has recognized his own inattention to infrastructure?
A: I can't prove that he's admitted to his inattentiveness. (I'm not holding my breath, either.)
Q: I hear that there was a recommendation to fix those gusset plates on the I-35 Bridge during that time?
A: You heard right. I posted about that here.
Donna, There's an old saying in politics that says "If you're gonna get run out of town, you might as well jump in front & act like you're leading a parade."
This means that Mr. Tinklenberg is practicing his parade march.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-08 04:52 PM
Jerry, I'll give you this tasty tidbit about Mr. Tinklenberg:
Before a penny was appropriated for LRT, Mr. Tinklenberg had 10 people working for him in MnDOT that worked solely on LRT issues.
Now that's prioritization!!!
Warner's OCS Triangulation
Jim Gilmore sparred with Mark Warner in a U.S. Senate debate. When the debate turned to drilling on the OCS, Mr. Warner tried triangulation rather than be straightforward:
Apart from general questions of trust, the dominant issue of the debate was drilling for oil offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, currently forbidden by a federal moratorium.Mr. Warner's calling Newt's Drill Here, Drill Now plan a gimmick tells me that he's trying his best to diminish it. His saying that that sound bite won't "solve the problem" is spin. The sound bite won't; the policy will. How does Mr. Warner explain the huge drop in oil prices this week after President Bush announced the lifting of the executive ban on drilling on the OCS? We started the week with St. Cloud gas stations selling at $4.09/gallon. Saturday night, I filled up because the price had dropped to $3.69/gallon.
Gilmore favors drilling in both areas and wants the federal government to have the final say. Warner opposes drilling in ANWR. He says the federal moratorium on offshore drilling should be lifted but that states can decide for themselves whether to actually drill.
"The 'drill here, drill now, pay less' sound bite isn't going to solve the problem," Warner said. He called it a gimmick.
Gilmore has made domestic oil drilling a centerpiece of his energy plan; apart from drilling, he and Warner both favor a variety of other energy initiatives, including more emphasis on alternative fuels.
Drilling domestically "makes a significant difference. It must be done," Gilmore said. "Mark Warner has said he is against drilling in ANWR, and he has fuzzed up and confused his position on offshore drilling."
Warner has said that while he favors exploring for oil and gas offshore, he's concerned about the environmental impact of developing potential oil reserves.
I don't know how you triangulate on this issue. I don't know why Mr. Warner would try. Saying that you favor drilling but that you're worried about the "environmental impact of developing potential oil reserves" plays to environmentalists and economists. He can't please both groups.
The question I have is whether Warner has the fortitude to say no to the environmental extremists. I'm not confident of that. At this point in history, we need to shove the environmental extremists off the political stage. They've impeded American industry every time they've had the opportunity.
Mr. Warner likely can get away with a policy that says yes to the OCS but no to ANWR. He'll have trouble, though, if Gilmore is able to cast doubt about Warner's commitment to opening up the OCS. There are several acceptable positions to take in this crisis. Doing nothing isn't an acceptable position.
At the debate his message seemed more favorable to drilling, but Warner said he has made no change in his position. "Jim Gilmore refuses to take 'yes' from me on offshore [drilling]," he told reporters after the debate.Mr. Warner is a smooth politician who thinks that he can charm his way through things. His saying that Jim Gilmore refuses to accept yes on offshore drilling is cute and possibly effective. Nonetheless, it's a squishy answer, one that Gilmore should exploit.
One last thing: While Warner is saying yes now, why should we think that he'll say yes when it matters?
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:40 AM
No comments.
Ralph Peters: Al Qa'ida Stock Dropping
According to Ralph Peters' latest NY Post column , al Qa'ida's stock is about to bottom out. Col. Peters doesn't think it'll recover, either. Here's his harshest words, directed at the Democrats, though he doesn't do it by name:
The partisan hacks who insisted that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda have missed the situation's irony: Things are getting worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because our attention was elsewhere, but because al Qaeda has been driven from the Arab world, with nowhere else to go. Al Qaeda isn't fighting to revive the Caliphate these days. It's fighting for its life.I'll remind everyone that Ralph Peters isn't a pro-Bush shill. This is simply his honest opinion on the trouble al-Qa'ida is in. That he's saying that al-Qa'ida is fighting for its life is pretty dramatic. Col. Peters isn't given to making such statements very often.
Where do Osama & Co. stand today? They're not welcome in a single Arab country. The Saudi royals not only cut off their funding, but cracked down hard within the kingdom. A few countries, such as Yemen, tolerate radicals out in the boonies but they won't let al Qaeda in. Osama's reps couldn't even get extended-stay rooms in Somalia, beyond the borders of the Arab world.The contrast between Osama 2001 and Osama 2008 is stark. They're now outcasts throughout the Arab world. (Pakistan is al-Qa'ida's stronghold but it isn't considered an Arab country from what I've found in my research, though Arabs and Persians both ruled the nation at different times.)
And the Arab in the (dirty) street is chastened. Instead of delivering a triumph, al Qaeda brought disaster, killing far more Arabs through violence and strife than Israel has killed in all its wars. Nobody in the Arab world's buying al Qaeda shares at yesterday's premium, and only a last few suckers are buying at all.
What must be most galling for Democrats is what Col. Peters says about President Bush:
Democrats make a great fuss over the Bush administration's failure to capture Osama (although they themselves have no idea how to do so). But it now looks like the judgment of history, after the political rancor has settled into the graves of today's demagogues, will be that the administration of George W. Bush defeated al Qaeda.
There's plenty of work still to be done. Al Qaeda will behave viciously in its death throes. Other terrorist groups await their turn to appall the world.
But the second-greatest irony of our time is that, fumbling all the way, the Bush administration did what it set out to do after 9/11: It exacted vengeance on those who attacked us and toppled their towers, al Qaeda's fantastic dreams of global jihad.
So what's the greatest irony? The president's oft-mocked declaration of "Mission Accomplished" wasn't wrong, after all, just premature .
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:24 PM
No comments.
President Bush's Mythical "Drill Only" Policy?
Over the years, I've grown weary of Ms. Pelosi's intellectual dishonesty. I've now reached a new level that's best described as total aggravation. This Pelosi press release is the singular source of that aggravation. Here's what Ms. Pelosi said that put me over the top:
"The President's 'drill only' approach to energy has led us to record gas prices. The New Direction Congress will continue to fight for a greener, more affordable and less oil-dependent future that will expand our economy and make us more secure."That characterization is a bald-faced lie and Ms. Pelosi knows it. President Bush issued a fact sheet when he signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Here's a factoid from that fact sheet:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will help reduce America's dependence on oil by :That doesn't sound like a "drill only" policy to me. I'll bet that it doesn't sound like a "drill only" policy to any intellectually honest person.
Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. Although the President proposed a more ambitious alternative fuels standard in his State of the Union Address, the RFS in the bill he signed today represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels.
Reducing U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel. Last January, the President called for the first statutory increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles since they were enacted in 1975, and the bill he signed today delivers on that request. The bill also includes an important reform the President has called for that allows the Transportation Department to issue "attribute-based standards," which will ensure that increased fuel efficiency does not come at the expense of automotive safety.
Here's the fact sheet's next paragraph:
By addressing renewable fuels and CAFE standards, this bill will build on progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive energy strategy for the 21st century. The Energy Policy Act signed by the President in August 2005 represented the first major energy security legislation in more than a decade. The Act encourages energy conservation and efficiency by promoting residential efficiency, increasing the efficiency of appliances and commercial products, reducing Federal government energy usage, modernizing domestic energy infrastructure, diversifying the Nation's energy supply with renewable sources, and supporting a new generation of energy-efficient vehicles.Again, I'm asking Ms. Pelosi if proof exists of President Bush's mythical "drill only" energy policy. If Speaker Pelosi can't provide documented proof of this allegation, I'll write Ms. Pelosi's statements off as spin intended to deflect criticism away from the Democrats' failed energy policies.
There's an old pollitical adage that says "If you're about to get run out of town, you're better off jumping in front and act like you're leading a parade."
If Ms. Pelosi's unsubstantiated allegations aren't enough to infuriate you, perhaps this statement will:
"Yesterday, House Democrats demonstrated our strong support for responsible drilling to increase our energy supply and our energy independence, including in already-designated lands in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Unfortunately, 162 Republicans voted against our legislation, the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, preventing passage from the House.This is circular logic if I've ever seen it. (Yes, I'm using that term lightly.) First Ms. Pelosi says that House Democrats want to lower gas prices by increasing supplies by letting oil companies drill where drilling is already allowed. Next, Ms. Pelosi says that increasing supplies "won't save Americans one penny for at least a decade" even though there's proof conrtadicting that.
"Opening new lands to drilling won't save Americans one penny for at least a decade, but there is an immediate way to impact gas prices. The President has ignored calls for nearly two weeks now to free our oil by releasing a small amount of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which would increase supply quickly and increase our economic security.
BTW, before anyone says that prices dropped because consumption dropped, I'm not buying that. We've had fluctuations in consumption rates but this is the first time that I've seen price at the pump drop 42 cents a gallon in a week. Prior to this week, the biggest fluctuation I'd seen in a week's time was in 14 cents.
Here's how Ms. Pelosi opens the press release:
"This weekend, House Republican leaders will take their allegiance to the President's failed policies to a new latitude. They will follow him all the way to the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska instead of touring the 68 million acres of onshore and offshore lands that oil companies have already leased, but have not developed.It's insulting for Ms. Pelosi to call Section 1002 pristine wilderness. While it's true that parts of ANWR are truly pristine wilderness worthy of protecting, Section 1002 isn't one of those majestic pristine parts. It's barren tundra that looks best during the six months of darkness that envelop ANWR during winter.
It's time Ms. Pelosi stopped with the demagoguery and started dealing with verifiable facts. If she insists on continually using unsubstantiated claims instead of facts, I'll point them out, which will hurt Ms. Pelosi's credibility. (Assuming that she's got any credibility with a 9% approval rating.)
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:38 PM
No comments.
The Tale of the Tape
According to this Strib article , El Tinklenberg's in a difficult position. Here's what I'm basing that on:
Bachmann, a Republican, raised nearly $2 million in this election cycle, with $382,511 coming in the last quarter, her staff said Tuesday. She has nearly $1.3 million in cash on hand.For Mr. Tinklenberg to be trailing by almost $1.1 million in COH is bad enough. For Mr. Tinklenberg to have only individual contributors is pathetic. It isn't a stretch to say that Mr. Tinklenberg isn't stirring up the faithful.
Tinklenberg, a Democrat and former Minnesota transportation commissioner, raised $533,261 in the election cycle and has $225,238 in available cash, according to documents filed recently with the Federal Election Commission.
Bachmann has benefitted greatly from large donations; 125 of the 1,129 individual contributions to her campaign were for $2,300. For Tinklenberg, 16 of 182 contributions were $2,300.
It's wise to never underestimate your opponent but Mr. Tinklenberg's numbers simply don't look threatening. At this point, he doesn't have the look of a serious challenger.
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:39 PM
No comments.
Spin Cycle In Full Operation
The minute it was announced that a delegation of House Republicans were going on a fact-finding mission, I anticipated that the Agenda Media would go into full spin cycle mode. Now that's happened. Check out the spin in this Strib article . Here's the part I'm most dubious about:
The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) holds too little oil to reduce gas prices more than a few cents per gallon, and new sources of oil could take decades to develop, according to government analysts.Our old friends from the EIA are back peddling their BS again. What they lack in predictive skills, they make up in inaccurate redundancy. Perhaps Mr. Budzik could explain why gas prices wouldn't drop from an actual increase in oil production in light of the 42 cent a gallon drop St. Cloudites experienced this week following President Bush's lifting of the executive ban on drilling on the OCS.
Oil shale in Western states might be significant enough to one day exceed imports from Saudi Arabia, but it faces tough technological hurdles to become reality.
"It [oil shale] is sort of meaningless in the sense that it's such a large resource base and we're so far from producing it," said Philip Budzik, an oil and gas analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration. "It's not going to be tomorrow, and it's not going to be in 10 years."
Better yet, perhaps he can explain why we should even start drilling new wells if it's only going to drop gas prices "a few cents per gallon." If that's true, then Mr. Budzik's telling us that we'll simply have to put up with high gas prices for the next decade. In fact, if what he's aying is true, $4.00/gallon gasoline will look reasonable in a few years.
If Mr. Budzik is right, the ramifications on our economy will be staggering. Not only will our gas, groceries and utilities be more expensive, high gas prices will put many OTR truckers out of business. Tourism will be crippled. Airlines would be in desperate straits.
Fortunately, Mr. Budzik isn't right. Increasing the cushion between demands and supplies will have a significant effect on gas prices. I don't know whether it'll drop prices into the $2.00/gallon range but I'd be surprised if it didn't drop prices significantly. If we increased drilling in the areas that are curretly offlimits, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw gas at $2.75/gallon or even less. It's already dropped almost .50 in a week.
Before anyone says that President Bush's pushing drilling on the OCS isn't what caused that drop, that it's just about supply fluctuations, I'll simply ask when the last time was that they saw gas prices drop .40+ in a week. They can't point to it because it hasn't happened other than following a catastrophe. Katrina comes to mind.
One last thing: Government analysts say that "new sources of oil could take decades to develop." Why should we trust bureaucrats instead of industry experts? During the last House blogger conference call, we were told that it would "take months" to see production if they fitted oil rigs off California's coast with new technology. That's months, not decades.
Another thing that we were told was that it won't take that long to get production going on rigs near existing infrastructure.
That's before considering the fact that oil is sold on futures contracts. While it might take 3-5 years to get things running full steam, the signal that increasing production would have a near instantaneous impact on prices.
This opinion isn't worth much either:
"The low-hanging fruit is not energy production, it's conservation," said Robin West, an energy consultant who ran the U.S. offshore drilling program while assistant secretary of the Interior under President Ronald Reagan. "The simplest way...is enforce the speed limit...and then drop it."That sounds like a page out of Jimmy Carter's or Richard Nixon's rationing pages. Forgive me if I ignore West's suggestions. The sound like pages out of the children's book "The little engine that couldn't."
West also favors government action to require greater fuel efficiency than a 35 miles-per-gallon target recently approved by Congress, and more spending on mass transit.
This section is buried near the bottom of the article's second page but it's worth reading:
Scores of U.S. House members are backing bills calling for developing ANWR and restricted areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and Western oil shale. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., has joined Bachmann in supporting six measures, two of which also include provisions to expand oil refineries and nuclear, wind and clean-coal technologies.Frankly, i wouldn't have a problem with some of the government's revenue from leases being invested in alternative research. I'd be opposed, though, to using lease revenues to subsidize alternatives like we did with ethanol. I'd prefer the marketplace, not the government, determining who prospers.
"We ought to be doing more to develop American energy," Kline said, adding that technological advances have greatly reduced environmental hazards offshore and in Alaska.
Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., joined Kline and Bachmann in supporting a measure allowing drilling in ANWR on condition that some of the revenue from the new oil leases be invested in alternative energy.
Peterson's signing onto such legislation won't help, though, because Speaker Pelosi stated that she won't give such legislation a vote. That's why Thursday's DRILL Act vote was under a closed rule. Ms. Pelosi couldn't give Republicans the opening to offer an amendment to open leasing for the OCS. If DRILL were open for amendments, there's no doubt but that enough Democrats would side with Republicans to pass such an amendment.
Here's what Minority Leader John Boehner said about that:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said Congress is ready to lift the ban on offshore drilling but is being blocked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).If Ms. Pelosi prevents voting on drilling on the OCS, she could see a significant reduction in her majority. I'll guarantee the fact that the NRCC highlighting the fact that Democrats didn't challenge Ms. Pelosi when their constituents needed them fighting for their prosperity, not party discipline.
"Nancy Pelosi and the liberals here in the Congress, they worship at the altar radical environmentalism. The last thing that that group wants is more drilling," said Boehner in an interview with Bloomberg TV Saturday.
The Ohio Republican argued that lawmakers are ready to sign off on lifting the ban in order to increase fuel supplies to lower record high gas prices.
"There's a majority of the House and Senate who are for more drilling. We have to produce more supply if we're going to bring down the price," Boehner said.
Expect more spin pieces in the days ahead, especially the closer the election becomes. Just remember that spin can't beat facts in a crisis.
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 2:10 AM
No comments.
This Is Obama's Plan To Repair American Relations Abroad?
The Obamessiah has frequently mentioned the need for him to repair America's supposedly damaged image in the world. Now we're seeing how he plans on doing that. This article provides some insight into the Obamessiah's healing methods:
Lest there be any illusions about the desired target audience for Obama's trip, the foreign media, including the BBC, have been left on the Tarmac. Only American reporters are on board "Obama One" as his plane heads from one country to the next.So the Obamessiah's method of healing the imaginary rift between the U.S. and the world is to push aside British PM Gordon Brown and ignore the European press?
He will have a 45-minute meeting on Saturday morning with Gordon Brown followed by a press conference, which Obama will conduct on his own outside Downing Street in a blatant departure from the usual protocol.
There will be no Brown at his side to spoil the No 10 backdrop for American voters, even though it would be unthinkable for a British prime minister to appear in the White House Rose Garden without the president.
Brown will say a few words later in the day, once Obama has gone.
Of course, this isn't the type of thing that will sink his campaign but it is an insight into his narcissistic attitude about himself. It's all about what makes the Obamessiah look good. If you have to push a world leader out of the spotlight to hog the spotlight, it's done without hesitation.
While that fits my description of a new politician, that doesn't mean that I think it's a positive description.
While Sen. Obama will take every opportunity to look presidential on his campaign swing, it's important to ask whether his policies are disastrous. Thus far, I haven't seen evidence that Sen. Obama has a clue about foreign policy. His Iraq policy would've been a disaster. In contrast, Sen. McCain's advocating for the Surge was the right decision because it essentially devastated Sadr's militias, shrunk Iran's influence with Iraqi Shiites and all but destroyed al-Qa'ida's presence in Iraq.
It's one thing to look presidential. It's another to be presidential. All it takes to look presidential is a relaxed look and an expensive suit. To be presidential requires a command of the facts, a detailied knowledge of the geopolitical history of the place you're visiting. That's something that Sen. Obama has shown a stunning lack of understanding of during this trip.
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 1:27 PM
No comments.
North To Alaska!!!
Check out Michele Bachmann's latest post from Alaska. Michele nails this point:
If we couple increased oil production with the emerging technologies we witnessed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, then our nation will be the world's leader in energy innovation and no longer left to the whim of foreign exporters who often wish us harm. This is the All-of-the-Above strategy that Republicans have put forth to the American people. The only thing we've heard from the Democrats is "Drive Less, Pay More ."It's understatement to say that Democrats haven't led on this issue. They've been the party that's said there's nothing we can do to make gas cheaper. Democrats are losing this issue because they refuse to believe polls that say that they're on the 27% side of a 73-27% issue. You can get away with that once in awhile but it's suicide when you're the 27% on the most important issue of this election.
Originally posted Monday, July 21, 2008, revised 22-Jul 4:08 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 22-Jul-08 08:24 AM
You know Garry there is something about the Clinton impeachment we might want to remember here. While people weren't eager to impeach Clinton (the polls after all were basically two to one in favor of no impeachment which Democrats listened) what drove those polls was that people understood Clinton was leaving office in about a year and at the same time voted for Bush in what was suppose to be a Gore year.
Here and those tone death Democrats don't get it we're hurting because of gas prices. I literally destroyed my whole budget when I bought a new car in March. I noticed something about the display sticker for the car. It said I was going to be spending over a thousand dollars for gas if I got the expected mileage and if I drove the expected mileage with them assuming the price of gas was just $3.50. By their estitmate they're off over one hundred dollars. Throw in gas taxes. I'm hurting for something I have to do. People will care about this.
And the party that claims they care for the working people they don't show much caring.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
