Using energy revenue for the poor
This is why Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming is such a great guy.
Wyoming is bearing much of the brunt of the federal government's expansion of drilling and mineral extraction across the West. While its a bad thing for rural dwellers in general and ranchers in particular, the state coffers tend to swell when there are people out their drilling.
But, instead of giving tax-breaks to the rich or mailing out rebate checks, Gov. Dave wants to put the money to work for the working poor:
Wyoming should take advantage of the mineral boom to enhance the lives of the state's working poor, Gov. Dave Freudenthal and first lady Nancy Freudenthal said Thursday evening during a televised town hall-style meeting."This state has an immense amount of working poor," the governor said, adding that the unemployment rate is low because many people are working multiple jobs - often for employers who cannot afford health insurance for those workers.
"We need to talk about the working poor, the people whose opportunity to move up is going to be dependent on changing their skills and on changing the mix of jobs that are available in the state for them."
Emmett O'Connell | July 2, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Money for schools and state funded programs for the poor... but what about environmental air quality?
From AP in nytimes:
"WYOMING: pollution forecast for parks Increased drilling for natural gas in western Wyoming could cause air pollution in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and nearby wilderness areas, according to a federal study. The Bureau of Land Management this week released a supplemental air quality study on its proposal to allow 3,100 new natural gas wells in Sublette County. It said the cumulative effects of more drilling would probably lead to haze above acceptable levels in the parks in the early stages of drilling, because of pollutants from drilling and increased traffic. The Grand Teton park could have eight days of haze annually, and Yellowstone could see three, the report said"
Do we really need to cloud some of the most pristine lands/parks in America so the state (with already A LOT of money) can have just a little bit more $? Will Cheney still be able to fly fish in the Snake River with all that haze? Let's hope so.
Posted by: cbrady | Aug 11, 2005 10:43:48 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
