Blog Archives

Obama’s Real Second Term Plan

You won’t recognize this country after his second term — the obvious reason he’s not telling you what he has in mind for it.

By Ned Ryun on 10.26.12 @ 6:08AM

Mitt Romney said it best in the last debate when he informed the President that, “attacking me isn’t an agenda,” which prompted the Obama campaign to immediately release what they call a plan for the second term. This 20-page repackaging of speeches notwithstanding, President Obama remains perhaps the only president in history to run for reelection who not only can’t talk about his record but also can’t discuss his real agenda for a second term.

Now it’s not that he can’t because he doesn’t have any ideas about what he wants to do. He does have big plans, but his vision of the future is profoundly different from that of most Americans. The America that Obama sees when he sits on the Truman Balcony at night and dreams about the next four years is radically altered reality for everyone. It should scare every American — unless you happen to be getting Obama’s free cell phone service.

Obama would like everyone to believe that his second-term policies will address what he sees as the great inequalities and unfairness inherent in the American system. He wants to level the playing field. What he can’t tell you — and what most Americans are realizing — is that leveling out America will reduce freedom, opportunity, income, innovation, and upward mobility in favor of a government-driven economy. With a government-driven society will come statism, and collectivism follows right on the heels of statism, which will destroy America.

Here’s the stark proof, keeping in mind that this is a mere snapshot of the “remaking” Obama has in store that will affect millions of American families and businesses. The President’s proposed budget projects will have federal spending soaring to $5.820 trillion per year, making Obama the biggest government spender in the history of the world. With all the talk from the President about spending cuts to satisfy independent voters, the sum of all of Obama’s spending over the next ten years could total more than $40 trillion that we simply don’t have.

We can’t afford Washington’s spending now. Do we really think only the wealthy will foot the bill for such dramatic increases in government expenditures? The President’s proposals will drive $100 billion in tax hikes next year and more than $2 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years hitting every American.

With more than 40 million Americans on food stamps, welfare is the fastest-growing portion of the budget under Obama. Food stamp usage is up a staggering 46% and the cost of the program has increased by 72%. Over the next four years, the President is preparing to increase spending on these programs to enable the government to increase benefits and provide for an increasing share of the population.

The slow creep of dependency will see a smaller middle class and a larger dependent class of not just the poor but individuals and families who once could afford to live without the government’s help, but due to inflation, lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher taxes must turn to the government for some form of assistance.

When it comes to crippling regulations to burden private enterprise, the Obama Administration is leading the charge to squash industry in favor of increasing government’s power and reach.

New greenhouse gas regulations will cost $300 to $400 billion per year and increase gas prices. The President’s insane “cow tax” will hit more than 37,000 farms and ranches and 90% of American livestock production. Obama’s attempt to stop hydraulic fracking for natural gas has more than a dozen federal agencies developing new, expensive regulations to prevent energy companies from drilling. His war on the coal industry will continue, costing as much as $110 billion over the next two decades and killing more than 300,000 jobs in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. So much for energy independence, and so much for job creation.

Despite the President’s assurance that costs won’t go up and jobs won’t be lost over Obamacare, the 16,000 IRS workers who will administer the tax provisions of the program will be very busy hitting millions where it hurts. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Congressional Budget Office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who’ll face tax penalties would be making between $55,850 and $115,250. They will all see their taxes go up starting next year.

Obama will add a $123 billion surtax on investment income, and new taxes on dividends despite the fact that more than half of all Americans invest in the market in one fashion or another. The $86 billion increase in the Medicare Payroll Tax is also coming down the pike, along with a $60 billion tax increase for health insurance companies.

In another uniquely-Obama effort to allegedly reduce healthcare costs, the President is also going to increase taxes by $32 billion on people who already have comprehensive healthcare coverage — because they have coverage. Of course, people who have coverage now that’s not up to the government’s standards will find their plans eliminated and forced to purchase more expensive coverage. He’s even going to tax medical device manufacturers to the tune of $20 billion because apparently that will help make Americans healthier.

In Obama’s America, religious schools, hospitals and charities will be labeled as non-religious employers specifically because they serve the common good of society. Churches and other faith-based institutions will be forced to provide services and even hire employees based on government mandates rather than their own, deeply-held values and beliefs. If they don’t, Obama’s government will gladly step in with an expensive government backfill for the services.

Here’s the good news — we can prevent Obama’s America from becoming a reality. We can stop statism and collectivism from taking us from “one out of many” to one of the many nations whose governments’ thirst for power and control led to the decline of great societies and nations. The choice is ours November 6, and the results of the election, whichever way they go, will resonate for generations to come.

Source

Saving Seniors from ObamaCare

By John C. Goodman

Two things about the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) are increasingly clear: (1) seniors have been singled out and forced to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of a new entitlement for young people and (2) the states are administratively just not ready to implement the new program in time for its January 1, 2014, start date.

So here’s a simple proposal that will not affect the federal deficit: Delay the scheduled cuts in Medicare spending by five years and pay for that expense by delaying the 2014 start date of ObamaCare by two years.

That would give everyone time to find a better way to reform the health care system. It would also impact this fall’s election. Every member of Congress would be asked to vote up or down on a single question: Who do you care more about: senior citizens or ObamaCare?

Over the next 10 years, ObamaCare will reduce Medicare spending by $716 billion. The Obama administration had hoped to achieve these spending reductions through increased efficiency, based on the results of pilot projects and demonstration programs. The problem: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said in three consecutive reports that these projects are not working as planned and are unlikely to save money. As a fallback device, the health reform law set up a bureaucracy, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), that will have the power to reduce doctor and hospital fees to such an extent that access to care for the elderly and disabled will be severely impaired.

In fact, the Medicare actuaries tell us that squeezing the providers in this way will put one-in-seven hospitals out of business in the next eight years, as Medicare fees fall below Medicaid’s. Harvard health economist Joseph Newhouse predicts senior citizens may be forced to seek care at community health centers and in the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals, just as Medicaid recipients do today.

Consider people reaching age 65 this year. Under ObamaCare, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55 year olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000—or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45 year olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.

In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the planned reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65 year olds, to age 71 for 55 year olds and to age 74 for 45 year olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to providers. This will decrease access to care for seniors dramatically, and ultimately create a two-tiered health care system—with the elderly getting second class care.

A five-year delay in Medicare payment cuts can be paid for by pushing back the start date of ObamaCare from 2014 to 2016. The reason: Beginning in 2014, state health insurance exchanges are supposed to be up and running for individuals and families who lack access to employer-provided health coverage and do not qualify for Medicaid. But more than one-third of states (16) have done almost nothing to prepare for the exchanges. Another 20 states have made some progress but not enough. Further, health insurance exchanges will require significant investments in information technology that states simply cannot afford.

The delays contemplated here will give Congress time to replace ObamaCare’s command-and-control approach to health care with reforms that will empower patients, free doctors and allow competition in the marketplace.

In the meantime, delaying the start of these two major provisions will protect seniors, save taxpayers money and allow lawmakers time to enact health reforms that actually work.

Source

Obama’s real legacy – $10 trillion in new federal debt over just four years

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) As Election Day nears, Americans certainly have some sobering choices to make. Whoever wins the White House has a monumental fiscal crisis to deal with – one that makes losses incurred during the Great Recession of 2008 look like pocket change.

Either way you cut it, the country has been, and will remain, on a path of unsustainable debt. Federal spending under George W. Bush added some $4 trillion dollars to the country’s already burgeoning national debt, but under President Obama that debt has skyrocketed to a staggering $16-plus trillion, and, if the current administration’s budget projections remain unchanged, Obama will have added an unprecedented, mind-numbing, calculator-busting $10 trillion in federal government debt that your children – and their children and their children – will likely have to pay off.

It’s stunning, really, to sit back and watch the country being spent into oblivion, but that’s what’s happening.

Modest growth + increased debt = insolvency; the question is when

“By the end of this year, the federal debt is expected to be $16.2 trillion, which is $6.2 trillion more than when President Obama first came into office four years ago,” says The Weekly Standard, a conservative publication, in a recent blog which included a graphic projecting record budget growth between now and Fiscal Year 2017, the end of a second Obama term if reelected.

Starting at an estimated $15.2 trillion of debt currently (which is about $5 trillion more than when Bush left office), federal debt is expected to rise to $17.5 trillion by next year, then rise by roughly a trillion dollars a year until 2016, when the federal debt is expected to exceed $20.3 trillion.

This isn’t hyperbole; under the current regime, the country has suffered through four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, and there is no reason to expect, given its history, that the current administration would change much.

“The Congressional Budget Office also says it expects the economy to continue recovering at only a modest rate the rest of this year, growing at a modest annual rate of 2.25 percent. The slow-moving economy and massive federal deficits are top-flight issues in this year’s presidential and congressional campaigns,” The Associated Press said in parsing a CBO estimate on current budget projections.

“Federal debt will increase to $25.4 trillion by the end of 2022, an increase of $10.6 trillion (72 percent) under the president’s budget policies,” adds the Senate Budget Committee.

Budget? What budget?

Part of the problem is unrestrained spending. As in, Congress has not voted on, and Obama has not signed, an actual budget in more than three years. According to the Standard, it’s been more than 1,212 days since Senate Democrats allowed a budget vote on the floor of their chamber.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to pass a federal budget. Despite the clear priority the Constitution gives to maintaining discipline in federal spending, the last time Congress enacted a budget was April 29, 2009,” more than three years ago, noted Mathew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Council.

Here are some more staggering numbers:

  • — Under current figures, the U.S. debt-per-person exceeds $50,900; U.S. debt per taxpayer; however, climbs to a staggering $140,000 each
  • — The current national debt is slated to surpass $16 trillion before Election Day
  • — The country’s Social Security liability is in excess of $15 trillion; the prescription drug liability is more than $20 trillion, and Medicare’s unfunded liability is $83 trillion, for a total unfunded liability of a massive, country-shattering $120.4 trillion – or every dollar in gross domestic product the U.S. will generate for the next eight years. And in case you’re interested, that’s a total debt of more than $1 million per taxpayer.

As Americans, we have some very important fiscal decisions to make when we go to the polls in November.
Sources:

http://www.weeklystandard.com
http://content.usatoday.com
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FISCAL CLIFF

Mamta Badkar | May 17, 2012, 10:54 AM

Investors and analysts everywhere are warning of the fiscal cliff that is approaching at the end of 2012 that could significantly hit the American economy.

Unless Congress acts, more than $600 billion in tax and spending provisions will change at the end of the year. And this will impose fiscal restraint at a time when the U.S. economy is growing very gradually.

But what is the fiscal cliff? What impact could it have on the economy? What are the most likely scenarios? And which companies most exposed to government spending stand to take a hit?

Click here to see the truth about the fiscal cliff >

Source

2013 Cliff Dive?

The election will determine whether a nasty dose of austerity can be avoided

https://i0.wp.com/media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120505_USD002_0.jpg

May 5th 2012
WASHINGTON, DC

AMERICANS have watched austerity sweep Europe with a certain Schadenfreude. But eight months from now they may get a dose of the same medicine. The political compromises that have produced much of America’s deficit of 8% of GDP are programmed to go into reverse at the end of the year, two months after the election. A stimulus package consisting of a payroll-tax cut, investment tax credit and enhanced unemployment insurance expires then, as do George W. Bush’s tax cuts (which have already been extended by two years from their original end-date of 2010). At the same time an automatic, across-the-board cut in domestic and defense spending, called a “sequester”, takes effect, cutting about $100 billion from government spending next year.

The economic impact of this fiscal cliff is a matter of some debate. The Congressional Budget Office reckons that the combined effects of the sequester and the expiring tax cuts would add up to 3.6% of GDP in fiscal 2013. But David Greenlaw of Morgan Stanley, which puts the total effect at almost $700 billion at an annual rate, argues that the calendar-year impact is much larger, at around 5%. Others think the effect would be smaller, noting that some people will not experience the full tax hit until they file their returns in 2014.Even the lower estimates could easily be enough to tip the economy back into recession. Mr Greenlaw says the closest precedent was in 1968, when individual, corporate, excise and payroll taxes collectively rose by the equivalent of 3.1% of GDP, mostly to pay for the Vietnam war and to damp down inflation. The next year, the economy fell into recession.

In America in 1968, as in Europe today, austerity was an explicit goal. It is not so in America now. Although both parties seem prepared to let the stimulus measures expire, neither party wants all the Bush tax cuts to end, or the sequester to take effect. But since they have radically different ideas of what should take their place, the question cannot be settled until after the election.

If Barack Obama is re-elected, he will presumably be more willing to let the Bush cuts expire than he was during his first term. He may well not have to worry about the Treasury hitting its debt ceiling until next February. Republicans, who will probably still control the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, may realize this. They may thus be more ready to strike a grand bargain—a deficit plan that both raises some new tax revenue and reduces the growth of entitlements, such as government-funded pensions.

But it would be hard to pass such complex changes by December 31st. At best, the two sides may agree on a framework for a bargain. They would then probably extend some or all of the Bush tax cuts and delay the sequester for a year. Yet there is no guarantee they would use that time wisely and reach a deal. Credit-rating agencies may well lose patience.

If Mitt Romney wins, Republicans, who would probably in that case control the Senate as well as the House, would have no incentive to negotiate with a lame-duck president. They would wait until Mr Romney is sworn in, then (retroactively) make the Bush tax cuts permanent, insulate defense spending from the sequester, and repeal Mr Obama’s health-care reform using a parliamentary process that cannot be filibustered. All that would take months. In the interim Mr Obama would presumably not, as his last act as president, extend the tax cuts he loathes so much or spare Republicans the pain of the sequester. The full force of unintended austerity would bite—for at least a few months.

Source

Three Years With No Budget: What, Me Worry?

Today Marks Three Years Since The Senate Passed A Budget; For A President Who Refuses To Lead, That’s Not A Big Deal

THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE LAST PASSED A BUDGET THREE YEARS AGO TODAY AND IS ACTIVELY FIGHTING AGAINST PASSING ANOTHER

The Senate Last Passed A Budget Three Years, 1,097 Days Ago. (S. Con. Res. 13, Roll Call 173; D 53-3, R 0-40, I 2-0, 4/29/09)

“In A Stunning Backtrack,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) Canceled A Scheduled Vote On A FY2013 Budget Bill. “In a stunning backtrack that virtually guarantees Congress for the third year will be unable to produce a budget, Senate Democrats’ top budget writer Tuesday canceled this week’s expected votes on a 2013 fiscal blueprint.” (Stephen Dinan, “Democrats Punt On Senate Budget Bill For 3rd Year,” The Washington Times, 4/17/12)

  • Conrad “Bowed To Pressure From Fellow Democrats” And Postponed Considering A Budget Until After The Election.Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) bowed to pressure from fellow Democrats on Tuesday and postponed a committee vote on a 2013 budget resolution, most likely until after the November elections.” (Erik Wasson, “Sen. Conrad Backs Off Plan to Vote On Budget,” The Hill, 4/17/12)
  • It Was A “Surprise” To Democrat Leaders That He Wanted To Pass A Budget At All. “So it was a surprise to Democratic leaders when Conrad indicated in a Fox News interview April 8 that he wanted to mark up a 10-year plan to guide the lame-duck session after the elections when major decisions such as expiring taxes will need to be addressed.” (Humberto Sanchez, “Conrad Budget Plan Puzzling,” Roll Call, 4/16/12)

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS “NO OPINION” ON WHETHER DEMS SHOULD PASS A BUDGET AND NO PLANS TO PROPOSE A BUDGET THAT CONTROLS OUR DEBT

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Says The White House Has “No Opinion” On Whether The Senate Should Pass A Budget. ABC NEWS’ JAKE TAPPER:The White House has no opinion about whether or not the Senate should pass a budget? The president’s going to introduce one. The Fed chair says not having one is bad for growth. But the White House has no opinion about whether – ” JAY CARNEY:I have no opinion — the White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” (White House Press Briefing, 2/8/12)

President Obama “Has Been All-Too-Willing To Avoid Making Tough Decisions.” “One of President Obama’s political weaknesses in his first term has been that he’s all-too-willing to avoid making tough decisions, hesitant to expend political capital for potential long-term gain.  Throughout his first term in office, he’s had a cautious governing style, and has avoided taking on some of his party’s core constituencies.” (Josh Kraushaar, “Obama Trying To Have It Both Ways,” National Journal, 11/30/11)

  • Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Admitted That The Administration Doesn’t Have A Plan, But “We Don’t Like Yours.” GEITHNER: “What our budget does is get our deficits down to a sustainable path over the budget window. Why do they take off again? Why do they do that?” REP. PAUL RYAN: “Because we got 10,000 people retiring every day, and healthcare costs going up…” GEITHNER: “That’s right. We have millions of Americans retiring every day, and that will drive substantially the rate of growth of healthcare costs. You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is, we don’t like yours.” (Committee On The Budget, U.S. House Of Representatives, 2/16/12)

According To CBO, The Massive Deficits Produced By Obama’s FY2013 Budget Will Reduce Economic Output. “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Obama’s 2013 budget will hurt the economy in the long term, arguing the larger deficits it would produce would reduce the amount of capital available to businesses. After five years, the CBO says, the Obama proposals would reduce economic output by between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent.” (Erik Wasson, “CBO Estimates Obama 2013 Budget Will Hit Economic Growth,” The Hill’s “On The Money,” 4/20/12)

Obama’s FY2013 Budget Increases The Deficit More Than His FY2012 Budget And Will “Have A More Negative Long-Run Effect.” “The effects of the 2013 budget differ from those of the preceding budget in four main ways. In particular, the proposals for 2013 would do the following: Increase deficits by a greater amount, largely because of a greater increase in spending compared with that in CBO’s baseline. Those larger deficits would provide a bigger short-run boost to output but then have a more negative long-run effect.” (“The Economic Impact Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, 4/20/12)

“Larger Deficits Caused By The Budget Would Cause The Government To Issue More Bonds, Sucking Up Private Capital To Finance Its Debts And Thereby Reducing The Funds Businesses Could Use To Expand And Hire, The CBO Said.” “Larger deficits caused by the budget would cause the government to issue more bonds, sucking up private capital to finance its debts and thereby reducing the funds businesses could use to expand and hire, the CBO said. An increased tax on capital gains included in the president’s plan would also tend to reduce private capital, it says.” (Erik Wasson, “CBO Estimates Obama 2013 Budget Will Hit Economic Growth,” The Hill’s “On The Money,” 4/20/12)

  • “Slower Economic Growth Tends To Increase Deficits By Reducing Tax Collection And Increasing Spending On Items Like Unemployment Insurance.” (Erik Wasson, “CBO Estimates Obama 2013 Budget Will Hit Economic Growth,” The Hill’s “On The Money,” 4/20/12)
Read more:

Three Years With No Budget: What, Me Worry? | RNC: Republican National Committee | GOP.

Side Effects: Obamacare Adds $17 Trillion to Long-Term Unfunded Government Spending

image

Last week, the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff released a report revealing that, over the next 75 years, Obamacare will add an additional $17 trillion in unfunded obligations—i.e., the benefits promised by the federal government that haven’t yet been paid for.

Before Obamacare, federal programs were already responsible for racking up 75-year unfunded obligations of an astounding $65 trillion. According to the report, Medicare accounted for $38 trillion, Medicaid was responsible for over $20 trillion, and Social Security added $7 trillion.

With the enactment of Obamacare, projected federal unfunded obligations have increased by $17 trillion, now totaling $82 trillion. Obamacare’s massive Medicaid expansion and new exchange subsidies are largely to blame.

The number was deduced from the Administration’s own estimates, the report explains:

The $17 trillion figure…is based on the long-term model used by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Service to estimate federal health expenditures over a 75-year period. The assumptions and methodology used to build the model is from [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] Office of the Actuary. Data on the cost of the Medicaid expansion and the premium subsidies in the 10-year window is from the Administration and the Congressional Budget Office.

Clearly, Obamacare is not just bad health care policy; American taxpayers can’t afford it. As Senator Jeff Sessions (R–AL), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said, “President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt.… This health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy.”

Obamacare may have been passed under a cloak of fiscal responsibility, but the facts continue to show otherwise. At a time when $1 trillion-plus deficits have become the norm and the United States faces ever-increasing debt, we simply cannot afford an unpopular government overhaul of health care that exacerbates our financial crisis.

Source

Chevron pulling plug on oil shale research on Colorado’s Western Slope

Chevron pulling plug on oil shale research on Colorado's Western Slope | Real Vail | Vail Valley News, Guides, and Information
By Troy Hooper
Real VailMarch 1, 2012

Chevron is giving up its experimental oil shale lease in western Colorado.

The company is one of only three that holds a federal lease to research oil shale energy development on the Western Slope, but officials say they would rather pursue other projects.

“Chevron has notified the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) that it intends to divest its oil shale research, development and demonstration lease in the Piceance Basin in Colorado,” the company announced Tuesday. “While our research was productive, this change assures that critical resources — people and capital — will be available to the company for other priorities and projects in North America and around the globe. We will work with the BLM and DRMS to determine the best path forward, timing and other issues.” Despite nearly 100 years of failed attempts to make oil shale commercially viable, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said the energy source will help fund his $260 billion transit package and U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, is pushing the Pioneers Act, which would revive a 2008 plan put together during the Bush administration to open 2 million acres of public lands in Utah, Wyoming and western Colorado to oil shale drilling. The House passed Lamborn’s bill this month.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report, however, which projected that Boehner’s bill would, over 10 years, leave the highway trust fund $78 billion in the red, and the Interior Department is looking at slashing the amount of land available for oil shale research to 462,000 acres.

“Chevron’s research hardly got started and they quickly concluded that they were throwing money down a rabbit hole. It’s indicative of the fact that oil and gas companies see much more profitable, and realistic, opportunities elsewhere,” said Colorado energy expert Randy Udall.

Squeezing energy out of oil shale requires immense quantities of water. Industrial-scale oil shale development could require as much as 150 percent of the amount of water the Denver Metro Area consumes annually, according to Bureau of Land Management estimates.

As early as 1921, oil companies have been trying to tap northwest Colorado for oil shale. The expense required to develop the energy source, however, has outweighed potential profits. About a dozen different projects have come and gone during that time — none remembered more than “Black Sunday” when ExxonMobil pulled the plug on a huge oil shale operation in western Colorado in 1982 that left the region in economic shambles.

Chevron and its subsidiaries started amassing acreage in Colorado for oil shale research back in the 1930s.

“Oil companies have been trying to pull the sword from the stone for nearly a century. Oil shale has no King Arthur,” said Matt Garrington of the Checks & Balances Project. “Chevron’s decision to pull out of oil shale is yet another reason why [U.S. Rep. Scott] Tipton [R-Colorado] and Lamborn should quit saying that melting rocks into oil will somehow fund critical repairs to our roads and bridges.”

Royal Dutch Shell and AMSO are the other two companies that hold oil shale leases in Colorado.

Chevron pulling plug on oil shale research on Colorado’s Western Slope.

%d bloggers like this: