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
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [clueless]: Fighting Childhood Obesity at School
July 2, 2010
Note: We are going to add comments in the body of the blog article to refute what she is saying. – Editor
It’s been 30 years since the regulations limiting junk food sales in schools were updated, despite big changes in nutrition science. Today, 23 million children and adolescents are obese or overweight. Obesity rates for children between 6 and 11 years old have more than tripled over the last 40 years. [Note: so has this ban helped? NO! Liberals think that by limiting something they can change people's behavior, but obesity is on the RISE! Take a look in the mirror, Lynn. You're getting up there yourself!]
Throughout their lives, these children are at greater risk for heart disease, Type 2 Diabetes, stroke, cancer, and social and psychological problems. One of the most important ways to help fight this epidemic is to ensure that higher quality, more nutritious foods are sold throughout the day in our schools. [Note: This will not solve the problem. What it will take is a change in mindset!]
This is why I have introduced H.R. 1324, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act, which requires that all foods sold in schools throughout the entire school day are based on the most current nutrition science. [Note: More nanny state government bureaucracy! We're too stupid to think for ourselves!]
This bill has 170 cosponsors and has been endorsed by over 90 public health, school, food and beverage industry, and nutrition groups, including the American Beverage Association, General Mills, and the American Heart Association. I am pleased that this language has been included in Chairman George Miller’s (D-CA) H.R. 5504, the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act. [Note: And if everyone said it was a good idea to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you do it, Lynn? (Please say yes!}]
This provision does not affect school parties or foods sold during sporting events or band concerts in which parents are present. It only regulates foods sold in schools, and allows USDA to exempt foods sold as part of fundraisers. It’s also important to realize that schools that are switching to selling healthier foods and are not losing revenue.
Studies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Center for Weight and Health at U.C. Berkeley found that the majority of schools switching to healthier foods in their vending machines and a la carte lines actually increased their total revenues.
In other words, it is a win-win situation for schools—healthier students and a healthier bottom line as well.
[Note: This is a lose-lose for our schools since kids will now go off campus to the 7/11 or Safeway to buy their junk, leaving less time for studies. Lynne Woolsey, you are a loser! Resign now and let the grown ups run the government!]
Lynn Woolsey’s Arrogance Shows Again
June 21, 2010
Hey, Lynn! The Marin taxpayers own half the Golden Gate Bridge if anyone does. Our tolls keep it open! – FedUpEditor
I am Lynn Woolsey, congresswoman from Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, which means that I own half of the Golden Gate Bridge, so that makes me perfectly situated to talk about poor people, right? No, but I am perfectly prepared because I was one, a person in need of a lot of the discussion that you have in your volume that I am going to participate in and I was honored to be able to contribute to the volume about how culture shapes the way people in poverty live. I mean, we have to think about that, don’t we? What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty, and as one of the essays in your volume illustrates, they also play important roles in shaping how lawmakers choose to address poverty issues. And it is a shame, a lot of people that make these decisions around here have never lived through anything but a really comfortable, easy life. But you know what? There are also a lot of members, even though they have not, that they get the picture. Our speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is one; I mean, she has had a very nice life. She understands and she cares very much about people who have less. So you do not have to have lived the life that I went through with my children at one point when we were on welfare to really get the picture. But, unfortunately, too many don’t and you can see it when all of a sudden the light goes on because they have got a grandchild with a disease, diabetes let us say, or something that they are facing – oh my goodness, this does happen. I am going on about my colleagues, but it is very important that even if they have not lived through something that you help them see and this volume that I participated in I hope they will read. The lesson I take from all of this is that those of us in Congress must constantly re-examine the way we frame problems on Capitol Hill. We have to see if we are keeping up with the changing reality on the ground.
In my commentary, I examined one area where lawmakers’ thinking and legislating has not kept pace at all, and that is the relationship between work and family. We are just starting to talk about that now, but it has been clear for many years now that the typical American family has changed. We used to be a nation of predominantly nuclear families, complete with one breadwinner, usually the male, and one at-home, full-time parent, 99.9 percent the female, home with the children, after school, what a nice way to live, Ozzie and Harriet. For the first time in history now women make up one-half of the workforce. Today four in five families with children still at home do not consist of the traditional male worker and the female homemaker. In addition, nearly four in ten mothers are primary breadwinners – primary breadwinners – for their families, while nearly two-thirds are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of their family’s earnings. While there is a growing cultural awareness of this change, the laws governing work-life balance have not kept up. In fact, our country, the wealthiest country on this globe, ranks at the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to such issues as paid sick and maternal and paternal leave, access to affordable childcare, policies that promote flexible workplaces. Lawmakers have been slow to recognize that the traditional distinctions between home and work and between sole breadwinner and stay-at-home mom have collapsed. The worlds of work and home have become interdependent and our legislation needs to reflect this. I mean, we have a society-and we are very responsible for that as legislators-we have a society where if a child is lucky enough to have two parents, both of those parents are in the workforce, not always but usually, and if the child has one parent, that parent certainly is in the workforce. So we need steps to integrate our laws in a more holistic way of seeing the relationship between family and work. Most notably, the Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] with its provisions for unpaid, protected leave. A bill I have introduced and reintroduced and reintroduced, called The Balancing Act, will carry us much further in the direction we need to go. It is comprehensive legislation, it is a package that includes bills introduced by other members of Congress; it is an omnibus bill, it is huge. And when I talk in front of Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs I watch the women business people at it, I watch the older businessmen – this is a surprise – who have daughters and in the workforce now-get it, and then there is the group in between who say, “Well, Congresswoman, this is all very nice but we cannot afford it,” and all I say is we cannot afford not to do this. Figure it out. The Balancing Act would provide paid family medical leave for workers to care for family members – so that they can bond with new children at the birth, and then not just the mother, the father too – or for recovering from an illness or helping a parent, there is this sandwich generation, I am looking around at you, a lot of you in this room are going to be taking care of your parents as well as taking care of children. So we would expand FMLA to cover more workers, to provide leave for children’s extracurricular activities, to allow workers time to cope with the effects of domestic violence. I mean right now, domestic violence – you do not get paid time off or you do not get protected if you have to take time off from your job. So the package also provides grants to build childcare centers and for schools to offer hot breakfasts, as well as to expand before- and after-school activities, and for voluntary universal preschool – so you can see it is huge. It has provisions to give part-time workers benefits – what a concept – and the bill would also encourage employers to allow their employees to telecommute and it supports flexible work schedules. There are other bills that recognize the new reality for American families, including efforts to permit employees to request flexible hours, expand the Family Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners, and allow breast-feeding in the workplace. The fact that these bills have been introduced shows that more and more lawmakers are recognizing the new reality of the American family. The fact that none of these bills has passed shows that we still have a very, very long way to go. So your efforts here are not wasted on most of us; it will be good I think to make sure that we get that out to all members of the House and the Senate so they cannot pretend like they have not seen it and it will not be the first time they have heard about these issues but maybe they can concentrate on one or two of them. And staff, staff are very important, so make sure that legislative staff know that you have put together this wonderful, wonderful piece of work. So, I thank you all. I do not know if you want questions and answers or for me to just go away, I will do whatever you want.
Editor’s note: Remember, Democrats have been working on poverty since before FDR and have not solved the problem yet. As long as Woolsey thinks she can keep her job talking about solving the problem, she’ll appease everyone. Jim Judd, on the other hand, is a business man who has actually created jobs and wealth in his community of Cotati instead of talking about it. A vote for him will go a long way to putting Woolsey out to pasture where she belongs!
Lynn Woolsey Killing Jobs Again!
June 18, 2010
Editor’s note: This is not about protecting workers. This is about Congress getting its grubby mitts on 1099 employees’ salaries so they can steal the taxes! Don’t fall for this. About the only place employment is growing is contracting because companies can not afford to hire full time. If business is forced to hire them as employees, it will stifle the job creation. Woolsey needs to be removed before she kills all new job growth.
On Thursday, June 17, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on preventing employers from misclassifying employees as independent contractors. The hearing focused on the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (EMPA), a recently introduced bill intended to reduce instances of worker misclassification through new record-keeping requirements, notice requirements, and the imposition of civil penalties for employer violations.
Chairman Harkin (D-IA) opened the hearing by arguing that independent contractors are not afforded sufficient protections under the labor law, such as those provided by minimum wage standards, overtime requirements, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, safety and health laws and antidiscrimination provisions. Harkin asserted that a few “unscrupulous” employers thus make economic challenges “even more difficult for their workers by intentionally misclassifying them as ‘independent contractors’ to gain an advantage over their law-abiding competitors.” Harkin also argued employee misclassification costs federal and state governments “billions of dollars in unpaid revenues.” For example, it deprives governments of the payments that support unemployment and workers’ compensation systems, as employers are only required to make these payments on behalf of employees and not independent contractors. Accordingly, Harkin posited that while employer misclassification laws are currently in place in several states, a federal legislative response is necessary.
Read the entire article here.
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
Graham, Lieberman and Kerry Want ANOTHER GAS TAX!
May 12, 2010
Editor’s note: Maybe we should have a tea party so they know we are taxed enough already… wait! We already have! Are they listening? NO. Graham, Kerry and Lieberman ALL must go! These three will be up for re-election in 2012. Then we will CLEAN HOUSE!
Today, Congress once again ignored what Americans want and introduced a new gasoline tax as part of a global warming bill that also contains a cap and trade energy tax on utilities. The section on the gas tax begins on p. 361.
Introduced by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), this bill requires American oil companies to pay a fee to the government for their global warming emissions.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who helped craft the gas tax, admitted the fee “will be passed on” to motorists in the form of higher gasoline prices.
But Senators Kerry and Lieberman are offended that any American would dare call it a gas tax.
Don’t be fooled. This is a government requirement that will increase the cost of gasoline. It’s a tax. So not only will we have to pay more for gas, we have the added insult of Senators insisting that what we can plainly see as a new gas tax is not actually a gas tax.
The American people know better. And according to an American Solutions poll, 71% of Americans oppose this new gas tax, even if politicians are insisting it is not a gas tax.
In addition, this bill creates a cap and trade system that will dramatically increase the cost of residential and commercial electricity prices.
Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says cap and trade will kill jobs and reduce American productivity.
With one bill, Congress will raise gasoline and electricity prices, raise the cost of energy, and kill jobs. This is not the way to create jobs and prosperity.
This bill is wrong for America. Will you help us defeat it?
We need to get information about this new tax to as many people as possible in the next 48 hours. Please visit our “Action Center” to forward your friends a special message about this gas tax.
Thank you,
Vince Haley
Vice-President of Policy
My Take on Mort Sahl’s Pacific Sun Interview
May 6, 2010
If you haven’t seen Mort Sahl’s interview, you should at least take a look. Fortunately, it’s still online at the Pacific Sun. Though I disagree with some of his political opinions, he isn’t very happy about most politicians, except perhaps Ron Paul whom he mentions favorably.
I was surprised. His take on Obama is right on. After all the promises to do it differently from Clinton or Bush, Obama is still in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He also hasn’t closed Guantanamo. Not that I am against either one, I am just agreeing with his point that Obama, in spite of promises for hope and change, he is more of the same.
Where I also disagree with Sahl is that these two wars are just like Vietnam and that enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried by the military. I was nearly drafted in the Viet Nam War… Drafted. There is no draft. All these soldiers in the Middle East are volunteers so that makes the current wars much different than the one in 1968. Sahl also talks about bankrupting the country, but doesn’t blame entitlement spending which is much more than any war we have fought. He blames paying for the wars as to why we are in debt. WRONG! And why should enemy combatants be tried in civilian courts and given the same rights as citizens? WRONG AGAIN!
Regardless of our political differences, I believe this is one person you could have a sane conversation. Apparently he frequents the Piazza D’Angelo’s in downtown Mill Valley. Who knows? I may have even seen him there and not recognized him!
- FedUpEditor
We Warned You! Gas Tax Coming!
April 28, 2010
Since gasoline prices have leveled out and everyone has gotten used to under $4 a gallon gas, Senators Kerry, Graham (a RINO who needs to be replaced) and Lieberman (remember when people thought he should become a Republican? He also would have been a RINO, something we don’t need in the Republican Party) are not understanding the TEA Parties. Throw them all out next election! - FedUpEditor
On Monday we may see a new gas tax introduced by Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman as part of the energy and climate legislation they have been working on together the last several months.
Earlier this week we asked your fellow American Solutions members in South Carolina to call Senator Graham’s office and ask him not to introduce new gas taxes. Many of them reported back that Senator Graham’s staff responded by saying that Senator Graham does not support new gas taxes and doesn’t have any plans to introduce new gas taxes.
We hope that is true and that Senator Graham, along with Senators Kerry and Lieberman, has indeed changed his mind. If so, it would likely be due in large part to the many American Solutions calls.
But we remain skeptical. We are concerned that the legislation we expect to see Monday will nevertheless contain new gas taxes. For the last several weeks it has been widely reported in the media that the legislation will contain new taxes on gas, diesel, and other transportation fuels. These will be assessed in the form of a fee or other costs imposed on oil companies, which will then be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
(At the bottom of this email you will see some examples of reporting on the new gas tax.)
If consumers pay higher fuel prices due to a requirement of government, we at American Solutions consider it a tax, whether it is imposed indirectly at the wholesale level of the oil company and then passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices, or directly at the retail level of the average American buying gas at the local gas station. We oppose new taxes on gas, diesel and other transportation fuels, which we believe will kill jobs and stagnate economic growth.
It seems as if the three Senators don’t share this view and believe that new costs imposed on oil companies by the government, which will be passed along to motorists at the gas station in the form of higher gas prices, are not new gas taxes.
We disagree, but we can certainly appreciate why they don’t want their new legislation to be seen as imposing new gas taxes. In a recent poll of 1,000 adults released by American Solutions, we found that:
- 83% of all adults and 61% of independent voters have very little or no confidence that a fuel tax will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- 71% of respondents oppose higher gas taxes (sometimes called “linked carbon fees”) in order to limit greenhouse gases.
- 78% believe that higher gas taxes will either kill jobs or have no effect on job growth.
- 69% oppose any new per gallon gas tax or fuel tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- 64% of all adults are less likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports a gas tax, and 67% of independent voters are much more likely not to support a gas-tax candidate.
With the average gallon of gas already 80 cents higher than a year ago, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Americans oppose new gas taxes, which at least one organization has estimated could increase the cost of gas by 27 cents per gallon.
Come Monday, if the legislation proposed by Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman contains measures that will increase the price of gasoline, you now know why American Solutions considers it a new gas tax and thus will vigorously oppose it. We will also be asking for your help in calling your Senators to oppose any such new gas taxes.
If next Monday the Senators are insisting that they are not introducing any new gas taxes, but instead are describing a “linked fee” or a requirement that oil companies buy carbon permits, you will know that they are supporting a bill that will raise gasoline, diesel, and other fuel prices.
We will report back with analysis after the introduction of the legislation next week.
Sincerely,
Vince Haley
Vice President for Policy
Arizona Passes Law that is Constitutional – Obama Says It’s “Misguided”
April 25, 2010
Newsmax: PHOENIX — The Arizona House on Tuesday approved a bill that would draw local communities deeper into the fight against illegal immigration despite arguments from opponents that it would do nothing to keep people safer.
House Republicans advanced the measure on a 35-21 party-line vote. The Senate approved the bill in February but must concur to changes made in the House before sending it to Gov. Jan Brewer.
Supporters celebrated the bill as a tough crackdown on illegal immigration that will protect the state from violent criminals.
Arizona’s struggling economy has driven many illegal immigrants from the state. But as the economy rebounds, “so too will the illegal immigrants — larger, stronger and more destructive than they were several years ago,” said Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.
“We need to put this law in place now so that when the new illegal immigrants come, we’re prepared to do battle with them,” he said.
The measure would create a new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document. It would allow officers to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they’re legally in the country.
The proposal also would ban so-called soft immigration policies at local police agencies. It would allow people to sue if they feel a government agency has adopted a policy that hinders the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.
The provision is designed to target law enforcement policies that prevent officers from asking people about their immigration status, but opponents worry it will make victims and witnesses scared to work with police and prosecutors.
“This is a false hope for the people of Arizona. It’s a false sense of security for our neighborhoods,” said Rep. Chad Campbell, R-Phoenix.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who is one of Arizona’s loudest voices opposing illegal immigration.
Tuesday’s vote demonstrated Pearce’s political power at the Legislature and underscored the pressure on Republicans to support crackdowns on illegal immigration. The measure won support from all 35 House Republicans, including a handful who said they had serious concerns with the legislation.
“This bill is filled with problems, huge problems. But more importantly it will not stem the tide of illegal immigration,” Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-Safford, said before adding that he feels “obligated” to support the bill anyway.
Konopnicki said the best way to address illegal immigration is with fences, electronic surveillance, air support and more border patrol agents.
Read the entire article here.
