What if?
July 28, 2011
I am tired of the same people who have been running the country into the ground telling us, “this is the best deal we can get.” As if compromise is not what has gotten us to this point in history to begin with. Especially when compromise means liberals always getting their way… just not as much as they want.
For example, what if we compromised on slavery? What if we compromised on rape? What if we compromised on murder? What would those compromises look like?
My point is that there is right and wrong. This debt “crisis” is just another example of what is wrong with this country. Raising the debt limit by $2 trillion immediately while cutting spending over 10 years is NOT a compromise, no matter what Boehner or other establishment Republicans say. Never mind the fact that Congress cannot bind another congress to a budget, how is this good for the Conservative movement? I have an answer.
It isn’t. While talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham say we should accept the deal and say, “we win,” she couldn’t be more wrong. If Republicans cave just because we can “get something done”, it will go a long way to pushing a third party. We should hold out for a much better deal or let the country default. It is not the Republicans who are causing this. It is the Democrats, and should be echoed over and over again that this is the case. How many plans has Obama come up with? (Here’s a hint: zero.)
Our country is broke. True, we have taxes (revenue) coming in all the time, but we have over spent years beyond those. The fact that the national debt is well over $14 trillion and soon to be $16 trillion should tell the story. But for some reason, liberals look past that fact.
As I pointed out in a letter to the IJ editor which I sent today, Marin do-gooders love to talk about all the wonderful social programs that government provides. What they fail to understand is that after the money gets to Washington, most of it goes to set up the bureaucracy to manage that program. Very little of that money goes to help the intended recipients. And these middle-class government bureaucrats are the ones who keep voting for the party that perpetuates their jobs. It is vote buying, plain and simple. They do not help the poor as they advertise.
Republicans need to understand that the time for “business as usual” is over. That is why the Tea Party caucus is holding firm in the House and is why they were elected. Just because we have been doing it one way for a long time (for example, slavery), does that mean we have to continue doing it that way? Not when it’s wrong.
- FedUpEditor
Another study details the benefits of Gulf drilling
July 21, 2011
Another economic analysis shows that stepping up the pace of oil and natural gas development in the Gulf of Mexico could give the U.S. economy a much-needed boost. The study examines the “activity gap” between energy development and the current pace of Gulf permit approvals. Compared to historical trends, pending exploration plans are up by nearly 90%, approvals are down by 85%, and the approval process has slowed from an average of 36 to 131 days.
Written by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and IHS Global Insight, the study shows that increasing the pace of permitting in the Gulf would boost employment opportunities in almost every state, enhance tax and royalty revenues, and help stabilize America’s energy security.
Specifically, the study shows that aligning the permitting process with the industry’s production capacity could result in:
• 230,000 American jobs;
• More than $44 billion in US gross domestic product;
• Nearly $12 billion in tax and royalty revenues for state and federal treasuries; and
• $15 million reduction in the amount the US sends to foreign governments.
And that’s by the end of 2012.
Jane Van Ryan
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Where are our jobs?
July 16, 2011
Job creation is one of the most important topics being discussed, especially now that the unemployment rate is up to 9.2 percent.
As you know, a lot of people in the oil and natural gas industry have lost their jobs due to the offshore drilling moratorium and the “permitorium.” Today, API and the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) released a study that quantifies the job losses as well as the opportunities for job creation. According to the study:
- The offshore oil and gas industry currently supports 242,000 jobs across the country;
- 60,000 jobs in the Gulf states alone have been lost since 2008 due to the poor economy, deepwater moratorium and continued slow pace of permitting; and
- Greater access to Gulf development could increase offshore employment by 77 percent – from 242,000 jobs in 2010 to 430,000 jobs in 2013 – with almost a quarter of the new jobs outside of the Gulf region.
For more information on the study, check out this news release and my colleague Mark’s post on the Energy Tomorrow Blog. As always, let me know if you have any questions.
Jane Van Ryan
Senior Manager, Communications
E: vanryanj@api.org
T: 202-682-8181
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Funny if it weren’t so true!
July 14, 2011
Are Environmental Groups Doing Themselves In?
July 9, 2011
Some time ago I saw a special on the building of the Alaska pipeline. One of the interesting items of note was how the environmental movement essentially got its start and gained traction in the early 70’s. It talked about how, much to their surprise, environmentalists were successful in slowing the construction by using the courts for push their agenda. This emboldened them to continue fighting their causes in the courts, only having to convince one or several judges, rather than counting on undependable legislators. Didn’t this country break from England to get away from one person rule?
As a result, what I have seen develop is a cottage industry of businesses catering to environmentalism. Everything from cars to dish soap and solar panels are being pitched to us on television with the promise that if we buy their products, we will help save the planet from catastrophic consequences. I believe people of the future will look back on this society’s belief in this environmental hype much as we do now about those who thought the earth was flat.
As a good Conservative, I don’t want to be seen as a person against clean air and water. After all, who would? However, I think much of the environmental movement is going too far. And now that the economy is suffering, they are shooting themselves in the foot. As with any other business they too must have a market to thrive. Here’s what I mean.
I do consulting for a company that does environmental impact studies. This is a group of about 60 people, many of whom ride their bikes to work or drive their hybrids and sit in the dark (to save the planet, I’m guessing) working at their computers to hash out environmental impact studies which are required for various building and redevelopment projects. Their work costs a lot of money so if a project ends up not netting a reasonable profit for the speculators, then they do not move ahead and hire them. As a result, this company is taking a hit and is having to lay off people.
I find it ironic that these same people who provide a service required by the various government authorities (federal, state, county and local) before permits will be granted for construction are against development. It makes no sense, even though their very financial existence is dependent on it. This would be funny if our economy wasn’t in such sad shape. And when big developers are hurting they cannot afford to hire environmental impact studies.
On another front, Michelle Bachmann reintroduced the “Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act”. I think this is a brilliantly titled bill. After all, isn’t it about expanding our choices, not limiting them? If current legislation is allowed to stand, incandescent bulbs will be phased out of existence, and our only choice, for the most part, will be the CFL bulbs. By the way, these have that dangerous mercury in them. You know, the mercury that used to be in the same thermometers liberals saw fit to ban. So now mercury is okay in light bulbs? Well then, where is my mercury thermometer? Either it’s dangerous or it’s not.
This doesn’t mean I am against CFLs if people want them. But I resent the fact that government is dictating I must use them. This is none of their business, despite what our local GOP seems to think. If it’s about saving energy, I ask why? Because we have a lousy energy policy. If it’s about saving the planet, I say nonsense. The planet will do fine long after we are all gone.
At the same time, we have a bunch of people trying to push electric cars. How is that saving energy when everyone will be plugging in at night to drive the 50 miles or so a person can only get on one charge? Where will that electricity come from?
Nuclear is out now that Japan has shown us how dangerous it is. (Of course the fact that the reactors were built in a potential flood zone doesn’t seem to matter to those who are against them.) Coal is a no go. Obama has promised to bankrupt that industry. What about hydro-electric? Nope, we have to think about the effect on the fish. In fact, there is a movement to tear down dams across the county! So we are down to solar and wind.
Regardless of the fact they have proven to be ineffective in solving our energy problems, that even east and west coast liberals don’t want windmills or solar panels in their neighborhoods, it is the first thing people think of when they hear about clean, green energy. So what if the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?
Please don’t suggest I submit this to the IJ. It is way too long, and I thank those of you who have read to the end. Yet it seemed timely just when our Marin GOP is considering writing a letter chastising Michelle Bachmann for misrepresenting the CFL legislation as a ban on incandescent bulbs. But when the law’s regulations and energy standards make it impossible for light bulb manufacturers to continue producing them, what else could you call it?
FedUpEditor
