Albany's Times-Union has a really good article on how Verizon is trying to get away with defrauding the state of million dollars in emergency government subsidies it should not have collected from the government after 9/11.

The article outlines it's 'double-dipping' accounting:

Auditors found that Verizon failed to tell the federal government just how much a private insurance settlement paid the company for its emergency 9/11 repairs.

Claims already covered by insurance and non-emergency repairs that didn't qualify for full reimbursement weren't all that state auditors questioned. They also disallowed almost $21 million in expensed straight time pay for employees and about $35 million for other costs that did not meet audit evidence standards.

In all, Verizon claimed more than $230 million more than the plan allowed and, as a result, collected almost $39 million more than it was entitled for emergency repairs, auditors concluded.

The auditors' report also said Verizon delayed or tried to obstruct the audit team's effort to document Verizon's claims. "As the audit progressed, we encountered serious difficulties in obtaining information from Verizon on such key items as labor and insurance proceeds. During the course of the audit, the latter issue developed into the single most significant topic," the auditors wrote in their report.

It would take over a year for the auditors to obtain documentation of Verizon's $825 million insurance settlement for all its 9/11 damages, according to the audit report.

Schumer, who worked to bring federal aid to New York City after 9/11, had no immediate comment on the audit.

The audit report comes at a time when Verizon Chief Executive Ivan G. Seidenberg is being scrutinized by shareholder activists focusing on excessive payments to executives.

I guess Verizon needs all that extra money to pay it's lobbyists so they can give it back to their favorite porkers on Capitol Hill.

A quick look throughout both FollowTheMoney.org and OpenSecrets.org gives us a clue as to how Verizon spent some of that money in Washington and Albany.

Energy will be one of our number one issues in coming years. The conflicting pull of increased demand overwhelming our grid and the need to cut carbon emissions to battle global warming before our 10-year window has passed. Both of these conflicting needs are critical needs and we have to find a way to address both.

The 21st century solutions, as seen by scientists, is increased efficiency, reforestation and new energy solutions like wind, biofuels, geothermal, tidal, and solar energy. But too often the American solution is a 19th century solution: coal. Using dirty coal, which affects our health, and adds carbon and pollutants to the atmosphere, is a relatively cheap solution to increased energy demand...but is completely stupid when we have only 10 short years to address global warming. Clean coal, which still adds carbon to the atmosphere but doesn't have as many problems as dirty coal, costs about the same as wind power...which is one of the cleanest and most practical solutions we have. Denmark, a much smaller economy than our own, generates more wind energy than the entire United States.

One problem is investment trends. Banks are slow to change their investment practices. The Union of Concerned Scientists is lobbying banks to change their investment practices to favor alternative energy over coal. I should note that I personally have profited from investing in both solar and geothermal.

The Times reports that Wal-Mart may have given up on its attempts to build a store in New York City:

Frustrated by a bruising, and so far unsuccessful battle to open its first discount store in the nation’s largest city, Wal-Mart’s chief executive said yesterday, “I don’t care if we are ever here.”

H. Lee Scott Jr., the chief executive of the nation’s largest retailer, said that trying to conduct business in New York was so expensive — and exasperating — that “I don’t think it’s worth the effort.”

Mr. Scott’s remarks, delivered at a meeting with editors and reporters of The New York Times, amounted to a surprising admission of defeat, given the company’s vigorous efforts to crack into urban markets and expand beyond its suburban base in much of the country. In recent years, Wal-Mart has encountered stout resistance to its plans to enter America’s bigger cities, which stand as its last domestic frontier.

In fact, it sounds as though it was more a moment of petulance than a strategic announcement: a company spokeswoman later tried to "amend" Scott's remarks and insist that Wal-Mart would still consider trying to place a store in the city.

Labor leaders, as you can imagine, were not exactly distraught over Scott's "announcement":