America as we know it was built largely upon and because of our rail industry, and today it remains…
CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube
So-Called "Railway Safety Act" Constitutes a Political Handout to Big Labor That Does Nothing to Improve Safety At All

America as we know it was built largely upon and because of our rail industry, and today it remains a pillar of our economy.

Unfortunately, a destructive proposal before Congress misleadingly named the "Railway Safety Act" (RSA), part of broader surface transportation reauthorization, threatens great harm to our railroads.

Simply put, the bill has nothing to do with improving safety, but has a lot to do with advancing the political agenda of Big Labor.  At a moment when inflation burdens American families and fragile supply chains remain vulnerable to disruption, the last thing our economy or rail sector need is another costly federal mandate imposed upon one of the nation’s most important transportation sectors.

As an initial matter, as noted by The Wall Street Journal, the…[more]

May 20, 2026 • 04:28 PM
Press Releases
Americans Say “No” to Google’s Energy Plan Print E-mail
Friday, October 17 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 17, 2008


More than 25,000 letters sent to Congress reject Internet giant’s $4 trillion boondoggle


ALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) today announced that its activists and supporters have flooded Members of Congress with more than 25,000 letters during the past week expressing outrage over an expensive, dubiously beneficial energy plan being peddled by Internet titan Google.


As outlined in its proposal, the company is calling on the federal government to spend $4.4 trillion in U.S. taxpayer money on alternative fuels in an effort to completely eliminate our nation’s use of fossil fuels. However, the only thing that’s “green” about Google’s plan is its ignorance on energy issues.


Google proposes establishing wind and solar as primary power sources. But those fuel sources – while they show future promise – now account for only a tiny fraction of America’s total power generation. Even assuming a 20 percent growth rate for the next 22 years (a feat even their staunchest supporters believe to be impossible), wind and solar would still meet less than five percent of the world’s energy demand.


“Google’s proposal is arrogant, naïve and dangerous, not to mention ironically anti-energy,” explains Timothy Lee, CFIF’s Director of Legal and Public Affairs. “The Internet company shows its self-fulfilling naiveté by suggesting a total elimination of fossil fuels—a notion even the most radical energy experts reject. This, at a time when the American people are struggling to pay prices at the pump.”


“True experts who - unlike Google - have experience and credibility in the energy field believe that only an ‘all of the above’ approach incorporating both traditional and alternative fuels will best meet America’s energy challenges,” Lee said. “Google barging in and attempting to act as dominant advisor on U.S. energy policy is just as absurd as Coca-Cola dictating our country’s Internet policy.


“If Google wants to spend its own money on a naïve energy proposal, it should have at it,” said Lee. “But taxpayers should not be stuck with a $4.4 trillion bill, much of which would go directly to pad Google’s bottom line.”


Founded in 1998, the Center for Individual Freedom (www.cfif.org) is a constitutional and free-market advocacy organization with more than 250,000 supporters and activists nationwide.

 


Page 291 of 303
Notable Quote   
 
"As home values skyrocket, taxpayers grow increasingly frustrated with 'dinner table issues' such as confidence in a secure financial future and anxiety over 'affordability.' Republican-led states enjoy budget surpluses, as a new trend of eliminating property taxes is emerging in red states.On Tuesday, the Florida State Legislature approved a November ballot measure that would abolish property taxes…[more]
 
 
— Amanda Head, Just the News
 
Liberty Poll   

The United Nations is reportedly nearing bankruptcy, due to numerous factors. Should the U.S. spend heavily to save it, or should it sink or swim based on the support of others?