Business & Economy
LUJACK’S IS FIRST CHEVY DEALER TO INSTALL EV CHARGER PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Gwen Tombergs   
Friday, 05 August 2011 10:54

(Friday, August 5, 2011) Lujack Chevy is proud to announce that they will be the first Quad City Chevy dealer to install an Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station. The installation will take place in the Lujack Chevy service department on Thursday, August 11, at 11:00 a.m. by a NECA member qualified local installer. A light lunch will be served

The SPX EL-50580 Voltec charging station, a Level 2 charging station, is an element in an infrastructure that supplies electric energy for the recharging of electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid (electric-gasoline vehicles) or semi-static and mobile electrical units such as exhibition stands. An average charge takes 4 hours with a Level 2 EV charger. The user finds charging an electric vehicle as simple as connecting a normal electrical appliance.

The Chevy Volt offers an initial electric range of 35 miles. Along with its onboard gas generator, the Volt will average a range of 375 miles. For an average of $1.50 a day most drivers can have a gas-free and tailpipe and emissions-free commute. The Chevy Volt was named Motor Trend Magazine’s 2011 Car of the Year.

Lujack Chevy, the Iowa Quad Cities’ only Chevy dealer, is currently taking orders for the new Chevy Volt. Early purchasers will be able to take advantage of the Federal Government’s $7500 rebate.

For more information call Gwen Tombergs, Lujack’s Marketing Director, at 563-343-2058.

“After all, we haven’t inherited this planet from our parents—we’re borrowing it from our children.” Chevrolet

 
Braley Statement on Debt Ceiling Vote PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Alexandra Krasov   
Tuesday, 02 August 2011 16:32

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) released thefollowing statement after the vote on the debt ceiling:

“The simple truth is, today’s vote is a symbol of everything that’s wrong in Washington: partisan brinksmanship, broken promises, backroom deal making, and kicking the can down the road. Enough is enough. I’ve been demanding a balanced approach of shared sacrifice from both the President and the Speaker since the beginning of the year. I’ve listened to my constituents at multiple town halls. Iowans know that when times are tough, families don’t just tighten their belts, they also take on extra jobs to increase their income. Today’s vote squarely places the burden of deficit reduction on middle class families, while demanding nothing of millionaires, billionaires and corporations making record profits. My constituents don’t agree with that, and neither can I.”

In recent months, Rep. Braley voted to cut nearly half a trillion dollars from the current budget:

He called for an immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would save over $1 trillion dollars.

He opposed the invasion of Libya, which has cost taxpayers over $700 million dollars in our 5 months of involvement.

He fought for legislation to end waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, which would save up to $700 billion.

He opposed the Bush tax cuts,which have already cost over $1.8 trillion dollars. And last December he opposed the extension of President Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. By not ending tax cuts for the wealthiest, we will spend another $700 billion over the next decade.

###

 
What's the Budget Deal mean for Rural America? PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Elisha Smith   
Tuesday, 02 August 2011 16:30

Center for Rural Affairs statement on debt ceiling and budget compromise

Lyons, NE - While President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and other Congressional leaders worked to reach an eleventh hour compromise that would allow the national debt ceiling to increase in exchange for, potentially, as much as $2 trillion in long-term spending cuts, many in rural America continued to try to sort out what all the horse-trading will mean for their communities.

“Rural development funding for small towns and small business will face growing pressure under the federal budget agreement, which will reduce annual appropriations for all programs by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs. “But rural development funding has already been cut by more than one fourth, just since 2003.”

According to Hassebrook, there is an alternative to reducing investments in the future of rural communities. “We should make the first cut by putting hard caps on subsidies to the nation’s largest farms – subsides they use to drive mid-size farms out of agriculture,” explained Hassebrook.

“The current policy of unlimited mega farm subsidies is so misguided that smart reforms could both save money AND strengthen rural America,” Hassebrook argued. “It seems like a no-brainer for both parties - cut counter productive spending first."

A 2007 Center for Rural Affairs analysis demonstrated that USDA and Congress have severely over-subsidized the biggest and most powerful farmers while consistently under-investing in rural America’s future, spending twice as much on subsidizing the 20 largest farms in each of 13 leading farm states as it invested in rural development programs to create economic opportunity for millions of people in thousands of towns in the 20 rural counties with the most out-migration in each respective state - (the full report - An Analysis of USDA Farm Program Payments and Rural Development Funding In Low Population Growth Rural Counties, a.k.a. Oversubsidizing and Underinvesting... can be viewed or downloaded at: http://www.cfra.org/node/603)

 
Vote against plan to increase the government's debt limit PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 02 August 2011 16:26

Senator Chuck Grassley issued the comment below regarding his vote against the deal with the White House to increase the federal debt limit.

“I voted against the plan because it delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees, and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.

“In fact, the White House said yesterday it will seek to increase taxes in the second part of the deal.  Tax increases are the wrong answer for a struggling economy, and recent history proves that higher taxes don’t go to the bottom line.  Instead, they’re a license for Washington to spend even more.  Since World War II, for every dollar in new taxes, the government has spent $1.17.

“The federal debt will continue to climb another $7 trillion under this deal, and the promise of cuts down the road, rather than making those decisions now, is more of the same from Washington.  Congress can always change the promises made in this deal, and the sad reality is that Congress has a record of abandoning fiscal responsibility when it’s time for tough decisions.  Putting the decisions off, as this deal does, raises skepticism about whether the commitment to dollar-for-dollar reductions will be met along with this historically high debt-limit increase, especially considering the fact that until Memorial Day, the President wanted to increase the debt limit with no strings attached.

“Remember also that in February, President Obama submitted his budget proposal to Congress that refused to address looming deficits and debt.  His budget would have added another $13 trillion to the national debt over ten years.  Then the President delivered a speech in April that magically found $4 trillion in spending cuts.  So, in just a matter of weeks, President Obama found $4 trillion in spending that no longer needed to be spent.  The American people have to wonder how Washington can be serious about budgets and spending if the President, in a matter of weeks, can find $4 trillion of spending that was of national importance on February 14, but is no longer necessary on April 13.  It’s this type of behavior that leads people to be cynical of Washington and the federal government.  It’s little wonder that lofty commitments from Washington are most often received in Middle America as just more empty promises and political rhetoric.

“During the last five years, debt-limit increases have averaged $800 billion for six months, so this $2.4 trillion increase is an extraordinary expansion of government debt, just the opposite of what we ought to be doing.  I wish this plan was proportional to the size of the problems we face.”

 
Harkin Statement on the Debt-Ceiling Vote in the Senate PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Harkin Press Office   
Tuesday, 02 August 2011 16:23

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement after the U.S. Senate voted 74-26 to approve the debt-ceiling deal.  Last night, Harkin delivered a floor speech in opposition to the measure. To view his video, click here.

“To say that this is the wrong policy at the wrong time is a gross understatement.  This deal will destroy millions of jobs in both the public and private sectors.  And by shutting off Federal funding and investment – a critical engine sustaining our sputtering economy – it could easily plunge America back into recession.

“I have advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction, including both spending cuts and revenue increases.  But this deal expressly rejects a balanced approach.  It offends people’s basic sense of fairness that Congress would slash funding for things like student loans and cancer research, essential funding for seniors, people with disabilities, and the most vulnerable people in our society but ask not one dollar of shared sacrifice from millionaires and billionaires, who have received huge tax breaks over the last decade.  

“Since the 1930s, Congress has routinely raised the debt ceiling 89 times, including seven times during the presidency of George W. Bush, and 18 times under President Reagan.  Yet, this time, Congressional Republicans held the economy hostage, threatening to default on our national debt and plunge America back into recession unless their demands were met.


“This deal was not about reducing the deficit; first and foremost, this deal was about preserving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for corporations and for the wealthiest people in our society.”

 

###

 
<< Start < Prev 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Next > End >>

Page 236 of 297