Woolsey vs. Judd and Ruyle – Part 3
September 28, 2010
Woolsey vs. Judd and Ruyle – Part 2
September 28, 2010
Response to Barbara Boxer’s Form Letter
September 3, 2010
Here is a form e-mail letter I received from Barbara Boxer today. My comments are in [brackets].
September 02, 2010
Dear Friend:
As I keep working to help pull California out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, my top priority has been to create jobs and get our economy moving again. [Note: First off, I am not your friend. Your idea of creating jobs is creating government jobs. What you should be doing is cutting regulations and lowering taxes so investors will feel comfortable investing in the private sector again and pull the COUNTRY out of its recession!]
At the same time, we must begin attacking the federal budget deficit. Though economic growth and job creation are the best tools to reduce the deficit, we must take additional steps to eliminate the long-term budget deficit and protect future generations from a staggering burden of debt. [True though you have gone along with Obama and the Democrats on every spending bill since you took over the House and Senate!]
We did it before, and we can do it again. When President Bill Clinton and I first took office, the nation was suffering under a recession and a massive federal budget deficit. Eight years later, we had created 23 million jobs and the biggest budget surplus in history: $236 billion. Unfortunately, the failed policies of the last administration left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit and an economy in shambles. [If you remember, it was a Republican Congress that made this happen, not Democrats! And stop blaming the past administration and man-up. It's YOUR economy now!]
Here are some measures we could take right away to cut the federal deficit:
Adhere to “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) rules requiring any new federal investments to be offset by corresponding budget cuts – I have voted for PAYGO rules eight times since 2003; [Does anyone else remember a speech by Obama not that long ago saying we were going to be using PAYGO??? This is a NEW idea??? How about just living up to the original promise???]
Cut $36.5 billion over the next ten years in tax breaks for oil and gas companies; [Again with Big Oil. What about your Big Government salaries? And what happens when energy prices skyrocket?]
Cut $15 billion over ten years in tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas; [Who gave it to them in the first place and made it impossible to do business in the US?]
Cut $100 billion over ten years from the federal government’s travel budget, which rose by 75 percent during the Bush era; [Does this include the Michelle Obama trips with 40 of her friends or the Imam who is traveling overseas on our dime for an "outreach" program?]
Save $1.1 trillion over ten years by bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a close; [Oh sure, the one thing the Constitution says the government CAN do, you want to shut down our national defense. Our spending for 7 years of wars is a drop in the bucket compared to all the stimulus and other spending you guys have done.]
Cut $500 billion over ten years in wasteful payments made by the Federal government; [Starting with your salary, health care and retirement pension???]
Save hundreds of billions of dollars by allowing some of the Bush tax cuts to expire – even just those for millionaires. [Why target the rich? I have never gotten a job from anyone who is standing on a street corner. It is the rich who are providing the jobs by investing in the economy. If the rich are made poor how does that help anyone?]
In addition to these steps, I look forward to evaluating the recommendations of the bipartisan deficit reduction commission recently established by President Obama. I have voted to establish a bipartisan deficit reduction commission whose recommendations would get fast-track authority for Congressional approval, and I am glad President Obama took the initiative to establish a commission. [Make no mistake. The theory is that this bi-partisan commission is going to recommend a VAT tax... with us in the middle of a recession! Are you trying to send us into a DEPRESSION?]
Working together, I know we can put America on the road to a balanced budget and sustained economic growth. We did it before. We can do it again. [Working together we are going to retire you in November and put some real solution-oriented people to work on solving our fiscal problems.]
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
[Your "Friend"
FedUpEditor]
API Sponsors Job Rallies – Where are our Politicians?
September 3, 2010
Have you heard about the series of rallies being sponsored by API this month? The goal is to provide forums where interested citizens can voice their concerns about the economy, jobs, and ill-conceived energy proposals.
The first three rallies occurred yesterday in Texas and the turnout was truly incredible – more than 5,500 people attended.
While no rallies are currently planned for California, I wanted to share the following video recap highlighting the day’s events. With 15 million workers in unemployment lines, family budgets under pressure, and higher taxes looming on the horizon, I don’t need to tell you that these folks have enough to worry about, without adding even fewer jobs and higher energy prices to the list.
If you’re interested, more information about the rallies can be found at rallyforjobs.org, and, as always, let me know if you have any questions.
Jane Van Ryan
Senior Manager, Communications
E: vanryanj@api.org
Ethanol 15 – Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!
September 2, 2010
As you know, most of the gasoline consumed in the United States today contains up to 10 percent ethanol. Recently, however, the EPA has begun considering approving blends of up to 15 percent ethanol for public consumption as early as September, despite the fact that scientific reviews of E15’s impact on vehicle engines won’t be completed until 2011.
Needless to say, rushing to permit E15 could be a mistake. Higher-level ethanol blends like E15 could threaten vehicle performance and safety, void manufacturers’ warranties and confuse consumers. And it could cause air quality problems in California.
If you’re interested, here are some materials. First, a broad coalition of business, consumer and environmental groups, including API, recently wrote to the EPA to express their concerns.
I also recorded a podcast featuring Al Jessel, co-chair of the Coordinating Research Council (which is researching ethanol blends), discussing the EPA’s plan. Finally, I wanted to share an API briefing paper on the issue.
Jane Van Ryan
Senior Manager, Communications
E: vanryanj@api.org
API President says Senate leaders took right step to shelve flawed spill bill
August 5, 2010
WASHINGTON, August 3, 2010 — Senate leaders took the right step to shelve a flawed spill bill, and we look forward to working with lawmakers to improve the bill so that American taxpayers, domestic jobs, the economy and our economic security are protected, according to a statement by American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard:
“The decision today by the Senate leadership to shelve flawed spill legislation is a good one. The bill proposed by the Democratic leadership is not an effective or reasoned response to the spill. Instead it will cost American jobs, threaten our fragile economic recovery and jeopardize our energy security.
“Among the legislation’s shortcoming is the elimination of the cap on oil spill liability. Unlimited liability for spill damages would force most oil and natural gas companies out of the Gulf of Mexico because they would be unable to purchase insurance. This would put thousands of American jobs at risk and reduce the energy supplies we get from the Gulf.
“A robust, workable oil spill liability program – possibly including a mutual insurance element – is achievable and would cover the cost of a large spill without shifting huge costs to taxpayers.
“The bill falls short again in seeking to impose a new layer of federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing. This technology is essential to developing America’s vast reserves of shale gas, and states already do a good job regulating its use. Superfluous federal legislation would slow development of these vital domestic supplies of clean-burning energy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs associated its development.
“We strongly believe a bill is possible that could enhance offshore safety and ensure payment of damages from possible future accidents without discouraging job creation or domestic energy development. We stand ready to work with the Senate towards this goal.”
API Sounds Off on the Drilling Moratorium… The Second One!
July 15, 2010
There’s a lot happening today in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon accident — BP is testing the integrity of the Macondo well in hopes of capping it; the House and Senate are marking up energy legislation; and the deepwater drilling moratorium continues to threaten livelihoods in the Gulf.
I’d like to call your attention to a blog post we posted yesterday about the moratorium. Despite the administration’s stated reason for imposed the second moratorium, it will do nothing to improve the engineering and geological knowledge required to solve the Deepwater Horizon problem. It won’t help the industry contain blowouts. It won’t improve spill-response technology. And it won’t encourage safer operations. But it will put tens of thousands of Americans out of work, reduce domestic oil and natural gas production and make the United States increasingly reliant on other countries for energy. API’s CEO Jack Gerard also condemned the decision in a statement released on Monday.
I also wanted to give you a heads up that you are likely to see advertisements and other communications efforts from environmental groups who are seizing upon the oil leak to advocate for punitive measures against the oil and natural gas industry – new taxes in particular. API has developed a briefing paper on this issue that might be helpful to you in sorting out the facts.
And finally, API just issued a short statement on the markup of Rahall’s energy bill (CLEAR). It is attributed to Jack Gerard and says:
“The bill passed by the House Natural Resources Committee today moves well beyond a response to the tragic accident in the Gulf of Mexico, to the point where – if adopted by the Congress – provisions of the legislation will kill jobs, stifle economic recovery and punish an already-reeling Gulf Coast community.
“The numerous provisions that discourage U.S. oil and natural gas development have the potential to drive investment out of the United States, killing U.S. jobs and harming our economy.
“We support efforts to ensure safe and environmentally responsible operations, and we are committed to being part of the solution. But we cannot forget that oil and natural gas demand is growing and that it is critical to every sector of our economy. Any policy changes must bear that in mind. We can protect the environment without jeopardizing our economic security.”
Jane Van Ryan
API
Editor’s Note: With this same type of reasoning we would stop all air travel the next time a plane crashed. Obama and his goons think this is a justification for shutting down an industry they want to eventually put out of business! Pro business? HA! And remember that when government punishes big oil, those taxes are sent along to us in the form of higher energy prices. Environmentalists are also anti business and need to be stopped.
Drilling Moratorium Lifted
June 22, 2010
A federal judge in New Orleans today lifted the ban on deepwater drilling. In a 22-page ruling, Judge Martin Feldman wrote:
“The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
The White House announced it would file an immediate appeal.
In a statement, API welcomed Judge Feldman’s decision to lift the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and listed some of the activities the industry is taking to improve the safety of deepwater operations.
Immediately after the Deepwater Horizon accident, the industry formed two task forces to examine safety and environmental protection, and recently it formed two additional task forces on subsea well control and oil spill response.
With regard to the moratorium, API said:
“The moratorium was an initial reaction to concerns about the safety of offshore oil and natural gas operations. However, an extended moratorium would have a tremendous impact on the nation’s energy security – and cause significant harm to the region of the country that was already suffering from the spill – without raising safety or improving industry procedures. With this ruling, our industry and its people can get back to work to provide Americans with the energy they need, and do it safely and without harming the environment.”
Editor’s note: The President’s knee jerk reaction is as hystercal as would be banning of air travel after a plane crash. There have been relatively few incidents regarding deep water drilling, and this should be kept in perspective. Obama’s hope was to use this as an environmental wedge against Big Oil.
You Already Know This – OPINION
June 14, 2010
Lynn Woolsey called for a “progressive resurgence” in a Hill blog article today. Who the heck does she think got us to this horrible mess in the first place? Look who has been running government for the past 3+ years! Besides, there really hasn’t been time to have a real conservative resurgence… yet. Maybe she is looking into the future and what November will bring.
The problem with progressivism is that, just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government should be doing it or spending money on it. After all, their track record of success is pretty bleak no matter how noble they think their causes are.
The original founders saw the USA as a collection of individual countries (states) united under one limited federal government so that we would not end up where we are today; top down central planning. Instead they saw a country with a small federal government and strong state governments. Yet here we are 234 years after the Declaration of Independence, and we are exactly where they feared we would be; huge federal government (much more powerful than King George was?), unbridled deficit spending, freedoms being incrementally taken away in the name of “fairness” and religion kicked to the curb (unless you are a Muslim extremist). How did this happen? Over time, that’s how.
There is only so much bandwidth and money with which to tackle all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed over the years. And then our congressmen use those bad laws which survive to serve as precedents upon which to write more bad laws. This is the reason for the Constitution. It is a measuring stick by which laws are to be written (or not). But with Federal Judges seeing it as a “living, breathing document” they have twisted the Constitution to mean something other than what was originally intended. So it would seem the problem with progressivism is that in top down planning everyone must do it the same way regardless if it’s a good idea or not. Where’s the freedom? Besides that, it is not “constitutional”.
The original idea was that each state was a unique experiment free to try different things to see what worked to solve their challenges. It was even codified in the 10th Amendment in case the original version of the Constitution didn’t make that clear. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Obama and Progressives call this a “negative” right. Actually, it is exactly right (correct)… period. Each state government was supposed to decide for itself how it should be run. They could then look to other states and see what worked in order to implement or improve upon those which their constituents found favorable. Not so today. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any area in any state that didn’t come under the rule of some bureau of the federal government.
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to solve disputes and problems which crossed state lines. Read George Washington’s biography and you will learn that he viewed the federal government as a necessary evil and loathed the thought of it. He knew what “progressives” would do if given half a chance.
Examples of the founders intent for responsibilities of Federal government would be building and maintaining bridges between bordering states, or regulating commerce on shared waterways that touch several states. Two of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, defending our borders or protecting our freedom overseas, are the same things Progressives complain about spending money on. They say we should be spending the money here on infrastructure or education. As in debt as we are, we probably shouldn’t be spending the money anywhere!
If you want to see the failures of progressivism you only need to look at states like Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii or California and cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. to see that the progressive experiment doesn’t work. High crime and high unemployment are the norm for liberal bastions such as these. Yet what happens when Lynn Woolsey talks about how we need a progressive resurgence? Socialist ideologues come out of the woodwork and praise her, even though she and her buddies have spent us into the poor house thanks to progressives. Those people will never be persuaded to see the truth.
It is my belief that the majority of people in this area are liberal because they can afford to be. Things are pretty good for many people in Marin County. Fortunately, the high unemployment rate in California hasn’t really hit the San Francisco Bay Area yet… yet. Does that mean we should wait until it gets worse before we do something? Unlike an Obama administration spokesperson, we are not looking for a crisis to use to our advantage. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that to change people’s minds.
What we must do is seek out the reasonable Democrats, the patriotic ones who love our country and believe the party has left them, and turn them to our side like Reagan did. There are common sense, patriotic people on the other side who don’t like what their Democratic Party has become. They may not change parties, but they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate who wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and help businesses create jobs, among other ideals that will truly embody progress.
- FedUpEditor
API response to the president’s offshore development announcement
June 5, 2010
API’s President and CEO Jack Gerard has issued a statement in response to President Obama’s decision to delay and/or cancel offshore development projects and leases. Jack says, “Decisions that impact the industry’s ability to produce the oil and natural gas… will affect the lives of every citizen, every day.” The full statement is available here.
Jane Van Ryan
American Petroleum Institute
