Arrogance and Ignorance in the Aristocracy

Wearing the Badge of Stupid ----- Proudly

2012-02-09T09:14:00.000-08:00

President Obama is constantly telling America that he wears the badge of protecting the middle class with honor. It is hilarious every time he says such nonsense.

President Obama has done nothing to put middle class Americans back to work.

He has done nothing that will improve the economy.

He has done nothing about utilizing the abundant natural energy resources in the United States.

He has done nothing to lower the cost of energy in the United States.

It is quite understandable from his viewpoint that average Americans have no clue as to what is happening around them. Therefore he knows that he can say anything that he wants in his almost daily appearances in front of an anxious media. Who among them will challenge him on anything?

President Obama knows that he can buy his re-election and he will have enough money to make it happen. He KNOWS that Americans live by the sound bites coming from the liberal media, never mind his future Super-PACS and their political ads.

He recognizes the fact that the media is behind him and that they will not pursue any avenue that reflects poorly on him.

President Obama officially rejected the Keystone XL pipeline in January after three years of review by the Environmental Protection Agency and his administration.

Fred Barnes, in his Weekly Standard in July of last year, wrote: “The Keystone XL pipeline from the oil sands in Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast is another win-win issue for Obama, if only he’d embrace it. Canada is America’s leading foreign supplier of oil. The more Canada exports to the United States, the less we’re forced to rely on unfriendly folks in the Middle East and on Latin American countries (Mexico, Venezuela) whose oil production is declining. With the new pipeline, Canada would increase its exports by as much as 700,000 barrels a day. (The United States consumes 10-11 million barrels daily.)

A permit to build the pipeline was requested nearly three years ago by TransCanada. Because it would cross an international border, approval must be granted by the State Department. This was expected to be a snap, particularly after gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon. White House aides thought so, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated she was ready to approve it.

Then the environmental lobby, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, began a campaign against approval, and the Environmental Protection Agency joined in. It criticized the State Department’s first environmental impact statement, which found the pipeline would have little effect on the environment. Clinton buckled, and a second impact statement was ordered. [In June of 2011], EPA said the new study was 'inadequate.'

Besides oil, the Keystone project would create 20,000 jobs directly and 118,000 'spin off' jobs, according to TransCanada, and invest $20 billion in the American economy. Even if those projections are exaggerated, it’s clear the pipeline would be an economic boon. TransCanada has also signed building contracts with four labor unions.”

What part of jobs, revenue and employment does the Obama administration not understand?

If the president ever had any desire to put Americans back to work, he would have done so two years ago.

Instead of leading America, President Obama is willing to sell America out to the Chinese. If he cannot recognize the benefits of a new energy resource or the employment opportunities for unemployed Americans, Canada will sell its oil to China. The Chinese leader recognizes an opportunity.

It might be more appropriate to say that President Obama actually wears the badge of stupid ------ proudly.

Wearing the Badge of Stupid ---- Proudly! Clueless but Green in D.C.

2012-01-29T15:16:00.000-08:00

The Institute for Energy Research noted that “In 2011, the United States spent more on renewable energy than China, beating China’s ‘clean energy’ investment for the first time since 2008. In 2011, the United States spent a total of $55.9 billion of government and private funds on ‘clean energy’ projects, a 33 percent increase from 2010, compared to China’s $47.4 billion, 1 percent higher than in 2010.”

IER also made mention of the fact that “There is no guarantee these subsidies will pan out. Last year, three U.S. solar companies, including Solyndra, benefitting from U.S. government loans, went bankrupt, in part due to increasing competition from Chinese manufacturers. Besides these solar companies, Ener1, a battery maker that had received a $118 million government grant went bankrupt as well.”

The other two solar companies, that went bankrupt, were Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt.

Barrack Obama has no problem spending other people’s money - American taxpayers’ money.

He will not stop after all of these failures. He will continue to spend American taxpayer money without a second thought.

Why?

He fully expects future generations of Americans to pay for the debt that he and his administration leave behind.

Florida Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns is leading the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into the bankruptcy of Solyndra.

What does Congressman Stearns think about all of these failures racked up by the Obama administration?

He has said that “One bankruptcy may be a fluke, two could be coincidence, but three is a trend.”

What did President Obama say in his State of the Union address about his poor performance record in picking the winners for America's future energy needs?

He said that he is going to “double down.”

Why not?

It is not his money that he is spending. Why not gamble some more and spend even more taxpayer money on inefficient modes of energy?

President Obama said that “We’re not going to cede the wind industry or the solar industry or the battery industry to China or Germany because we’re too timid to make that same commitment here in the United States.”

His brains and the American taxpayer money are the commitment. It is all too obvious which one he will bank on.

President Obama said that “Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. I will not walk away from the promise to clean energy.”

It is hard to reckon with stupidity. When a president and his administration have cornered the market on stupidity while bankrupting the country, there is little more to say.

Wearing the Badge of Stupid ---- Proudly!

2012-01-22T10:10:00.000-08:00

What can be said about a man and his administration being so blind and ignorant that they continuously dismantle the nation one piece at a time, fundamentally transforming the United States into a third world country?

The election of a novice to the White House has been a disaster.

The Obama campaign website, “Creating energy independence and a clean-energy economy” is the usual brainless claptrap propagated by President Obama and his childish administration - devoid of any commonsense and oblivious to reality.

What are the claims of this disastrous administration and its President?

From the Obama campaign site: “President Obama has taken steps to make us energy independent and create an economy that’s built to last. He's been a strong supporter of domestic energy production, has made historic investments in clean energy technology, and has nearly doubled fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Because of the progress we've made, our dependence on foreign oil is the lowest it's been in 16 years. Yet, conservative groups funded by big oil are spending millions trying to distort the President’s record.”

What has the President and his minions done in their strong efforts to support domestic energy production other than to spend massive amounts of American taxpayer money for a clean energy technology that has resulted in failure?

The Institute for Energy Research: “[W]e have the sordid tale of bankrupt Solyndra, the California solar company which received a $535 million federal loan from the federal government.

This loan was made despite Solyndra accumulating losses of $558 million in the five prior years.

The company’s...bankruptcy and layoff of 1,100 apparently caused President Obama to forego mentioning 'green jobs' in his September 8th Jobs for America speech.”

Barack Obama has no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money. And, he has no idea how long lasting jobs are created.

The Institute for Energy Research: “Did not DOE Secretary Stephen Chu tell the New York Times that solar technology would have to improve fivefold to be competitive?

Government trying to pick energy winners has instead picked energy losers - and picked the taxpayer’s pocket."

Evidently the Obama campaign believes that subsidizing a failure with $535 million of taxpayer money is something to be proud about. Why should he waste a minute reflecting on the fact that he is responsible for blowing money and increasing the national debt, a debt that will have to be paid for by future generations?

He has realized his American dream and will continue to increase his fortune by virtue of the office to which he was elected. His family will never know the daily grind of the middle class American.

And what has this “green” president done about the opportunities to put middle class Americans back to work? Does he put his money where his mouth is or does he speak out of both sides of his mouth?

What do you think?

President Obama and his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put the brakes on uranium mining in some of America’s richest uranium reserves located in southern Utah and northern Arizona. The moratorium of uranium mining for one million acres of this land was supposed to expire in July of 2011.

Senator Orrin Hatch responded to the uranium moratorium by saying, “Once again we have a Democratic administration using the rim of the Grand Canyon as a backdrop to killing jobs in Southern Utah. If any further proof was required about this Administration’s war on energy development in the West, this should put any lingering doubt to rest. With this decision, the President is putting 4,000 jobs and $30 billion worth of economic activity on hold. He is also breaking faith with southern Utah and northern Arizona by breaching a longstanding bipartisan agreement to allow uranium mining in the area. This is unconscionable.

We have a president who says he wants to create jobs and attack climate change, but then puts our nation’s best source of uranium off-limits, thus killing thousands of high-paying rural jobs. I have never seen a bigger disconnect between a President’s stated goals and his actions. As was the case with the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996, this Administration is killing jobs for Utahans, without input from Congress or from the stakeholders who will be impacted the most.

We were hoping for some certainty for the uranium industry and its stakeholders so that this important work could go forward in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Instead, we now have more uncertainty than ever, and a very confused energy policy coming out of the Obama administration. I was under the impression that the President was for green energy jobs. Well, these projects would have created about 4,000 green energy jobs in southern Utah and led to the reopening of an existing uranium mill in Garfield County. This decision effectively sabotages that. It also increases our near-total reliance on uranium from foreign nations.”

On January 9th of this year, the Nuclear Energy Institute noted: “U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar... announced a 20-year ban on new hardrock mining claims on one million acres surrounding the 1.2 million-acre Grand Canyon. The region is rich in uranium deposits.”

If the venture does not include spending billions of American taxpayer dollars, including middle class taxpayer dollars, on an idiotic project that leads to nowhere, President Obama will not favor the idea.

He believes that Americans must subsidize energy AND pay for it on the receiving end also - and if enough energy is not created - cut back on their lives and livelihoods.

The Nuclear Energy Institute’s Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Alex Flint, had this to say about the ban: “Because there is no scientifically verified threat to the Grand Canyon’s environment from uranium mining, the nuclear energy industry opposes the prohibition announced today. Without scientific justification, the administration’s decision prevents mining for some of the nation’s best high-grade uranium deposits.

This decision actually makes more challenging the difficult struggle to reduce America’s dependence on imported sources of energy. The land covered by this prohibition contains as much as 375 million pounds of uranium, seven times current U.S. annual demand. Our nation’s ability to realistically pursue energy independence hinges in part on our ability and willingness to produce uranium supplies domestically. Thirty years ago, reactors here used U.S.-mined uranium for all of our electricity production, but the level today is less than 10 percent.

The nuclear energy industry prides itself on our record of environmental stewardship at facilities across the nation. This commitment includes programs certified by the Wildlife Habitat Council, collaborative efforts with organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Audubon Society, and activities endorsed by myriad state departments of environmental conservation. These programs protect manatees, blue birds, bald eagles, crocodiles, wetlands, and much, much more.

There is nothing in the environmental impact statements evaluating this mining prohibition to suggest that the uranium mining would compromise our record of ecological excellence. Phantom fears do not a reasoned, successful energy policy make.”

What are the other “facts” that are in error on the Obama campaign site?

The Institute for Energy Research: “Th(e) [Obama website] is an intentional effort by the Obama campaign to distort the President’s abysmal energy record. After all, energy production on federal land is down under President Obama and the Obama campaign is trying their hardest to hide and obfuscate this basic fact.”

Despite President Obama’s actions at the federal level to reduce the amount of oil and natural gas development in the United States, many states have supported the growth of private enterprise. This has resulted in the increase of oil and natural gas production and the creation of jobs in those states and has benefited the nation.

IER: “The reality is that oil production on federal lands is falling, while production on private and state lands is rising. There is a long term trend of decreasing oil production on federal lands. In fact, oil production on federal lands has fallen by 43 percent over the past 9 years according to the Obama administration’s Energy Information Administration. And it has dropped rapidly on President Obama’s watch.

From Congressman Darrell Issa’s committee report: “As a result of horizontal drilling, coupled with fracking, Bakken [oil field] production increased from less than 3,000 bbl/d in 2005 to over 230,000 bbl/d in 2010. The Bakken's share of total North Dakota oil production rose from 3% to 75% over those five years. Thanks in part to fracking, unemployment in North Dakota is now the lowest in the country – just 3.8%.”

The Institute of Energy Research has noted more propaganda from the Obama campaign website: “Obama Claim: The U.S. has become a net energy exporter.

Reality: This claim is 100 percent false. Because the Obama campaign does not provide a single citation or source for their information, it is impossible to know how great its ignorance of energy facts extends. Every year, the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the Obama administration’s Department of Energy, publishes an Annual Energy Review. If the Obama campaign understood energy facts, they would have looked at Table 1.4 of the 2010 Annual Energy Review. They would have found a table titled, ‘Primary Energy Trade by Source, Selected Years, 1949–2010.’ That table shows that in 2010, far from being a net energy exporter, the U.S. had net imports of 21 quadrillion Btus of energy of the 98 quadrillion btus used.”

Facts do not have a place in the Obama administration.

Reality does not have a place in the Obama administration.

Think of it as “Obama in Wonderland.” When his lips are moving, truth and reality are missing. And, his mouth is constantly moving.

Obama and his administration have done their utmost to stop the use of America’s natural resources, resources that would make the United States energy independent.

From the IER: “Obama Claim: The Obama administration has proposed a five-year offshore drilling plan that makes more than 75 percent of undiscovered oil and gas resources off our shores available for development, while putting in place common-sense safety requirements to prevent a disaster like the BP oil spill from happening again.

Reality: When President Obama was inaugurated nearly 100 percent of the offshore areas were available for exploration and development. Since then, the Obama administration has imposed limitations and made it far more difficult to produce energy on offshore areas. For example, even though there is bipartisan support from the Virginia delegation, including the state’s Democratic Senators, the Obama administration refuses to allow energy exploration off Virginia’s coast.

Politicians taking credit for something good happening on their watch is nothing new, but as we have shown, the reduction in oil use is because of economic dislocation visited upon millions of American families by the longest sustained economic downturn since World War II, while the increased domestic production is occurring on state and private lands, while production on government lands over which he has control is going down. In this sense, the president’s claims are simply breathtaking in their apparent assumption that no one will bother to fact-check his numbers.”

What is happening to the “green” cars that Obama is subsidizing with American taxpayer money, money that comes from middle class taxpayers also?

Ford Motor Company sold 2,062,915 vehicles in 2011 in the United States, 2,148,806 vehicles in all. These sales are from a company that did not take bail out funds - hand outs - taxpayer money.

The heavily subsidized “green” Chevy Volt sold 7,671 vehicles in 2011. Obama should thank the middle class for these great sales numbers! (The goal for the Chevy Volt was a dismal 10,000 vehicles for the year).

This kind of travesty is why General Motors is called Government Motors by many Americans. It is a joke but no one is laughing.

As to the three year delay on the Keystone XL pipeline, the Institute for Energy Research summed this travesty up: “The XL Pipeline will be essential to securing the future of oil security in the United States. According to the US State Department, the pipeline will deliver 700,000 barrels of oil daily to consumers. This will generate enormous revenue in local communities and create 20,000 American jobs. With the current price of WTI crude hovering at the $100 mark, the pipeline will deliver $70,000,000 worth of oil every single day, helping the United States grow and prosper.

However, the Obama administration has delayed its decision on the pipeline until after the election. According to Bloomberg, this means that the pipeline will not be completed until at least 2015. Had the pipeline been given the green light this November, thousands of valuable construction jobs would have been immediately created and in 2013 the pipeline would have come on stream. But instead this administration prefers to export jobs and US dollars overseas, squandering $70,000,000 per day.”

President Obama wears the Badge of Stupid ----- proudly!

Unlimited Federal Authority - Article 1, Section 8

2012-01-16T14:29:00.000-08:00

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that “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.”

It would seem to be a simple statement requiring no explanation but not so.

If it was that simple, it would not require constant confirmation.

Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote about judicial activism in a 1942 case when the United States Supreme Court consisted of Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy and Jackson.

Dr. Sowell wrote that, “The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that the federal government can do only what it has been specifically authorized to do by the Constitution. Everything else is left to the states or to the people themselves.

Nevertheless, back in 1942, the Supreme Court said that because the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, the Department of Agriculture could tell a farmer how much wheat he could grow, even if the wheat never left his farm and was consumed there by his family and their farm animals.

That case was a landmark, whose implications reached far beyond farming. If the meaning of ‘interstate commerce’ could be stretched and twisted to cover things that never entered commerce, then ‘interstate commerce’ became just a magic phrase that could make the Tenth Amendment disappear into thin air.”

In 1942, an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was allowed to plant 11.1 acres of wheat by directive of the Department of Agriculture. He planted the 11.1 acres of wheat - plus almost another 12 acres of wheat. The additional acres of wheat were planted for his personal use to feed his family, his poultry and his livestock. From an American viewpoint, nothing seems amiss here. However, the farmer had made a serious and costly faux pas that resulted in a fine and the destruction of his crops.

It did not matter whether this land was his. It did not matter whether he was working to make a good living for himself and his wife. It dd not matter that he was living as a free man in a nation blessed with a Constitution and a Tenth Amendment to that Constitution. It did not matter that he was one man among millions of Americans. And, it did not matter that it was only a crop of less than 12 acres of wheat.

That 12 acres affected the world wide price of wheat.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Jackson wrote in the unanimous opinion for the court that even though Mr. Filburn’s activity was local and not regarded as commerce, “it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’

At the time - during the great depression - the federal government was placing limits on the production of wheat in order to drive up the price of wheat. The federal government, from time to time, has found it necessary to interfere in the free market system and has as a result of political incompetence lengthened economic strife - but that is another story.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution says: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" but, in 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court created the opportunity for the federal legislature to control almost anything it desires - through the use of the commerce clause.

However, a hole appeared in that so-called “reasoning” in 1955.

Wrote Dr. Sowell, “For more than half a century, courts let Congress do whatever it wanted to do, so long as the politicians said that they were regulating interstate commerce.

But there was consternation among politicians and the media in 1995, when the Supreme Court said that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce, so that Congress had no power to regulate it - even though states had that power.

Howls of protest went up from politicians and the media because the Supreme Court voted five to four in favor of an ordinary commonsense reading of the Constitution, instead of the clever word games that had been used for so long to circumvent the Tenth Amendment.”

The U.S. Supreme Court justices in 1995 were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor and Scalia. The court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional and that the federal law exceeded the limited authority of the Congress under the Constitution. Justice Rehnquist wrote that regulating guns in school did not “substantially affect interstate commerce.”

This ruling was a good one.

The overreaching tendencies of federal lawmakers must be restrained and returned to the limited tenets provided by the Constitution as originally agreed upon by the several states.

Dr. Sowell noted that the U.S. Supreme Court should take up the Obamacare law now before President Obama has another opportunity to saddle the American people with another of his less than stellar appointees to the highest court in the land - thus enabling further judicial activism.

He wrote that “Obamacare is another piece of congressional legislation for which there is no federal authority in the Constitution. But when someone asked Nancy Pelosi where in the Constitution there was any authority for passing such a law, she replied, ‘Are you kidding?’”

No, Mrs. Pelosi, the question was not a joke.

The 111th Congress ran all over the rights of American citizens. The Constitution meant absolutely nothing to them. Their oaths of office were mere obstacles to get around - and that they did.

Hopefully, the actions taking place within the “several states” and the future actions of the newly elected Tea Party Republicans will lead to repeal of unconstitutional legislation and lead to legislation that recognizes its constitutional source.

One Less Entitlement - One More Freedom

2011-12-30T15:46:00.001-08:00

With all the information available to the American citizen, there should be an outcry for personal accounts wherein American citizens can save for their retirements. The 7.65 cents per dollar set aside for social security would be best used for personal accounts and would yield much more money for a person’s needs at retirement age.

Perhaps 1 cent out of every dollar would be used to address the “safety net” for those that would have nothing. However, the Congress would only spend this money as they do every cent that they get their hands on.

Ross Kaminsky, writing for the American Spectator, wrote that “If we had a public education system that actually taught American history, people might not be surprised to learn of the few major cases related to the constitutionality of Social Security, particularly the 1937 case of Helvering v. Davis in which the Supreme Court ruled that the program is not a contract, not insurance, and not investment; payroll taxes are general revenue like any other income tax and it is only political realities which make Social Security seem like an ‘entitlement’ in the literal sense of that word.

In theory, government could end Social Security without citizens having a legal leg to stand on to save it. In practice, it's been government's piggy bank, masking what would have been even larger federal deficits.

Therefore, a cut in the payroll tax is no different than the same cut in the income tax rate except for issues of caps on how much income is subject to which parts of the payroll tax.

It may look different on the government books with a cut in the payroll tax reducing the income to the Social Security system and increasing its apparent deficit, but if the choice is reducing the payroll tax or the income tax, then you're just choosing which deficit you want to increase because the government's total revenue and total liabilities are the same. If there were an actual Social Security Trust Fund, the situation might be different. But today what we're dealing with is nothing more than shady accounting practices for which a public company CEO would go to jail.

Republicans should make this point very clear, even though they have culpability as well: There is no trust fund, and government cannot be trusted to maintain one. This is why Social Security must be reformed into personal accounts with property rights.”

Americans should be able to set aside for their retirements with their own personal accounts - free from pilfering by the United States Congress.

If only there were enough Congressmen able to restrain their propensity for spending, maybe this additional income tax could be returned to the American taxpayer’s pocket.

Fools Never Learn

2011-12-27T15:14:00.000-08:00

Those ignorant of history are apt to repeat it.

The Institute for Energy Research provided the most recent example of ignorance of history. Ignorance of history is usually accompanied by lack of common sense.

IER: “Ten years ago, Enron, one of the largest energy companies in the world, imploded and filed for bankruptcy.

Enron’s dissolution should have been a red flag to both business and government that business plans predicated on government handouts, special treatment, and subsidies are inherently unstable and flawed.

But as the recent bankruptcy of Solyndra shows, politicians still haven’t learned and are willing to bet billions upon billions of the taxpayer’s dollars on risky schemes.”

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money.

IER: “[W}e [now] have the sordid tale of bankrupt Solyndra, the California solar company which received a $535 million federal loan from the federal government.

This loan was made despite Solyndra accumulating losses of $558 million in the five prior years.

The company’s recent bankruptcy and layoff of 1,100 apparently caused President Obama to forego mentioning 'green jobs' in his September 8th Jobs for America speech.”

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money.

IER: “There is little excuse for the present situation of the Obama Administration with its solar loan guarantees souring.

Did not DOE Secretary Stephen Chu tell the New York Times that solar technology would have to improve fivefold to be competitive?

Aren’t politically dependant companies, á la Enron, bad risks given that consumers bat last?

Evidently, Obama’s Department of Energy has evidently shown far less prudence than Clinton’s Department of Energy did in solar matters.

Government trying to pick energy winners has instead picked energy losers - and picked the taxpayer’s pocket."

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money.

Is it not time to elect people to public office that actually understand business and actually recognize the value of a dollar earned from true work?

Is it not time to elect people with common sense, integrity and an understanding of true Capitalism?

Is it not time to elect people that recognize the value of a Republic and its Constitution?

Is it not time to elect people that understand the history of America and its role in the world?

The Facts Continue to Get in the Way of the Man-Made Global Warming Hoax

2011-12-24T07:40:00.000-08:00

Once again the facts are coming out about the hoax of man-made global warming. NASA has released a report covering the years 2000 through 2011 with the data recovered by its Terra satellite.

Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama, said that "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

James M. Taylor, of The Heartland Institute, said: "In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.

Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict."

Dr. Spencer said that “At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained.”

It is hard to sell pseudo-science when the facts keep getting in the way.

President Obama’s Plan to Control the Middle Class

2011-12-20T17:14:00.001-08:00

The president believes that it is necessary to increase the price of gasoline in the United States. His lame idea is to kill the ability of the average American to drive a gasoline powered vehicle to work - or anywhere else - for that matter.

With the increases in the cost of gasoline since the beginning of the Obama presidency, everything from groceries to building supplies and the staples of American life have increased in cost.

President Obama is too arrogant to recognize his incompetence.

He is too ignorant of economic necessities to do what is right for the American economy. He has never run a business. He has never met a payroll. He does not have to buy gasoline for company vehicles. His gasoline is furnished by the American taxpayer. And, he does not ride in one of his beloved electric cars because he does not have to comply with the standards that he has set for the American people.

What is the “cerebral” President’s recommendation for Americans?

That’s right. Buy an electric car.

One cannot have a serious, rational, coherent conversation with President Obama.

Thomas Sowell, a professor of economics and a well known author, has written that, “One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.”

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, said that “Historians will someday write that the longer Obama talked, the less the American people believed.

The President of the United States, the most radical President in American history, has now thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. He has said I run a machine, I own Washington, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now that's where we are.”

President Obama not only needs to be handily defeated for a second term but needs to return to his previous obscurity.

Wanted: Common Sense and Good Judgement in the Executive

2011-12-15T09:39:00.001-08:00

The American Petroleum Institute reported that as much as 7.6 billion barrels of oil and 58.5 trillion cubic feet of natural oil could be tapped in the Gulf of Mexico and off the east coast of the United States. There may be enough natural gas in the United States that America's oil needs could be satisfied for the next 90 years.

What would this kind of activity do for unemployment if President Obama allowed the United States to work toward employing Americans?

North Dakota’s unemployment rate is less than four percent. The state has taken advantage of oil production to provide employment for many of its citizens.

Jack Gerard, the president and CEO of the A. P. I., said that “The state of American energy must be strong in order for the American economy to thrive."

Mr. Gerard asked, "How...do we strengthen the state of American energy?

For starters, there are vast reserves of domestic resources that are currently off-limits to exploration and production - billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas - onshore and off. And those estimates are most likely conservative given our past experience and new advanced technologies. Accessing these U.S. resources could improve our energy security by making us less reliant on others, generate an additional $1.7 trillion in government revenue over the life of the resources and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.”

Jack Gerard is a man with common sense and experience with energy production.

Unfortunately, it does not matter that there are men like Jack Gerard.

Why?

The President of the United States is too dense to recognize the benefits of utilizing United States’ resources and is unwilling to recognize the desires of the majority of American people.

It will require removing Obama from office in the next election in order to gain a president with good sense and judgment.

According to the A. P. I., “America has vast domestic energy resources – enough oil and natural gas on federal lands alone to power 65,000,000 cars for 60 years and heat 60,000,000 households for 160 years. And, according to a study by Wood Mackenzie, access to America’s natural resources of oil and natural gas could create over half a million jobs by 2025 - provide the national treasury with $150 billion dollars - AND increase domestic oil production by 4,000,000 barrels per day.

Mr. Gerard stated that “We have the opportunity here to create jobs, to increase the revenue of the federal government, and we can do it on American soil, with American workers. We have the ability, in the United States, to create vast amounts of energy. We just need the political will to do it.”

Between 2004 and 2007, the petroleum industry created 2,000,000 jobs in the United States.

With a real leader in the White House, one that can make intelligent decisions, the American economy would begin to soar again. Incompetence must be replaced by good judgment and good decision making skills.

Fools Never Learn

2011-12-07T11:24:00.001-08:00

Those ignorant of history are apt to repeat it.

The Institute for Energy Research provided the most recent example of ignorance of history. Ignorance of history is usually accompanied by lack of common sense.

IER: “Ten years ago, Enron, one of the largest energy companies in the world, imploded and filed for bankruptcy.

Enron’s dissolution should have been a red flag to both business and government that business plans predicated on government handouts, special treatment, and subsidies are inherently unstable and flawed.

But as the recent bankruptcy of Solyndra shows, politicians still haven’t learned and are willing to bet billions upon billions of the taxpayer’s dollars on risky schemes.”

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money.

IER: “Today, we have the sordid tale of bankrupt Solyndra, the California solar company which received a $535 million federal loan from the federal government.

This loan was made despite Solyndra accumulating losses of $558 million in the five prior years.

The company’s recent bankruptcy and layoff of 1,100 apparently caused President Obama to forego mentioning 'green jobs' in his September 8th Jobs for America speech.”

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money.

IER: “There is little excuse for the present situation of the Obama Administration with its solar loan guarantees souring.

Did not DOE Secretary Stephen Chu tell the New York Times that solar technology would have to improve fivefold to be competitive?

Aren’t politically dependant companies, á la Enron, bad risks given that consumers bat last?

Evidently, Obama’s Department of Energy has evidently shown far less prudence than Clinton’s Department of Energy did in solar matters.

Government trying to pick energy winners has instead picked energy losers - and picked the taxpayer’s pocket."

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the worth of the dollar if it is public money.

Is it not time to elect people to public office that actually understand business and actually recognize the value of a dollar earned from true work?

Is it not time to elect people with common sense, integrity and an understanding of true Capitalism?

Is it not time to elect people that recognize the value of a Republic and its Constitution?

Is it not time to elect people that understand the history of America and its role in the world?

Will Ignorance Do To America What Others Could Not Do?

2011-11-30T16:38:00.000-08:00

Thomas Jefferson recognized a flaw in the government that they had created.

Nothing held the Congress responsible for creating an unconscionable debt, a chasm that would leave future generations responsible for the previous generation’s irresponsibility.

Wrote Mr. Jefferson: “No man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am...I would wish the debt paid tomorrow.”

Andrew Cline, of the American Spectator, reminded all Americans of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said that “There does not exist an engine so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us.”

President Jefferson recognized the greed and corruption of some of his fellow men. Said he, “What is to hinder (the government) from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, I answer.”

President Jefferson recognized the low values of some of his fellow politicians in their uncontrolled “eating, drinking and making merry...” And, this was before Speakers of the House desired Air Force aircraft to take them home and provide for their every need at taxpayer expense.

Said Mr. Jefferson, "...the laws of nature impose no obligation on them to pay this debt.”

Andrew Cline wrote: “With no restraint on the accumulation of long-term debt, Jefferson's worst fears have been realized. Our politicians have figured out that they can benefit themselves by borrowing excessively and passing the bill to the next generation, which is exactly what they have done. The current debt is more than $14 trillion, or nearly $47,000 per U.S. citizen. Jefferson would be appalled.”

It is interesting to contemplate the words of Margaret Thatcher regarding the actions of the left: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

Not a problem according to Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, he will print more money.

How much further will China and other nations continue to bail out the United States considering that they now hold 47% of the debt?

Will ignorance finally do to America what others could not do?

The Black Hole Known as Light Rail

2011-11-23T05:54:00.001-08:00

In the movies “if you build it, they will come” was a good idea. In real life, if it is built, it does not mean that people will come.

Building a light rail system, subsidized with taxpayer dollars, does not mean it will be a successful venture - that will be crowded by riders - and therefore will eliminate traffic congestion.

Light rail normally fails for the same reason that carpooling did not work. Very few people are going to the same places at the same time and even fewer people will be returning at the same time to the same places.

Light rail creates a further problem of having to walk to the final destination after leaving the track - or having to catch a cab or bus. Travel is slower by rail and inconvenient in comparison to travel by car.

Municipal governments are run by individuals that consider themselves smarter than those that have elected them - and most often ignore those that elected them - and ignore their referendums.

Due to the fact that most people are busy with their working lives, their families and everyday chores, special interest groups monopolize city council chambers and influence the often misguided whims of the city managers and their councils.

Taxpayer money subsidizes not only the building and operation of light rail but also the advertisement. The costs of light rail are significant and cities have no moral objection to spending other people’s money on their ill-advised plans - and as is usual for such plans the costs are, more often than not, much greater than planned or advertised projections.

When cities run out of money for their pet projects, they will increase the local taxes while threatening to dispense with fire or police personnel - an absurd idea but a threat anyway.

Dr. Walter Williams has written that “You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: ‘Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements, and which sets apart and pledges funds for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense, I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.’

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, ‘The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.’

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for ‘constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses:’ Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?”

Municipal politicians are sometimes many times worse than their federal counterparts in Washington, D.C. Local politicians love the feel and power that comes from spending millions and billions of taxpayer dollars on their pet projects, whether there is any rational reason for doing so - rational in that these projects are a necessity and are favored by the majority of taxpaying citizens residing in the municipalities.

Traffic does not decrease on roadways whether light rail comes to an area or not. Even President Obama’s plans to induce greater increases in the price of oil will not greatly reduce the amount of traffic on the road in favor of light rail or any other mode of transportation. The automobile is freedom and it is a necessity in taking care of one’s family, one’s obligations and one’s responsibilities.

Despite the fact that Americans travel about a hundred times as much by auto than by mass transit, less than four times as much taxpayer money is spent on roadways than on mass transit.

It is obvious from that last statement why many of America’s roadways and bridges need repair. It is the exorbitant waste of money on needless pet projects like light rail that cause greater problems for Americans in the long run.

No more workers use mass transit now than used it twenty years ago. Mass transit is inconvenient unless there is no alternative but to walk. Mass transit has lost market share in Boston, Chicago and New York. This is not due to a lack of funding as mass transit is funded extremely well by taxpayer subsidies - more than $180 billion dollars in the last decade.

Dr. Thomas Sowell has written that “[Y]ou can make almost anything look like a big success just by pouring enough of the taxpayers' money down a bottomless pit...and doing so at a cost of billions of tax dollars...You could air-condition Hell if you spent enough money...After all, it is only the taxpayers' money.”

When light rail is compared to other modes of mass transit in the number of miles traveled by passengers, it is quite noticeable that light rail requires more than twice as much in subsidies as the other modes of mass transit.

Mass transit subsidies per passenger mile cost a hundred times more than highway subsidies and light rail subsidies are almost two hundred and fifty times greater than highway subsidies.

Though statistics show that the number of commuters using mass transit has fallen, the statistics have shown that during the same period urban driving has increased by 420%. Mass transit, less light rail, has been shown to gain in market share and riders in only the fastest growing areas in the west.

Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington are responsible for two-thirds of the mass transit passenger miles in the United States. Why? Because they have such a large number of jobs downtown. All other cities fair insignificantly - and rail transit is irrelevant - especially in areas outside the major cities listed above.

Massive amounts of money have been spent on mass transit.

How much taxpayer money is used to subsidize each ride and passenger mile?

In 2000, it was $2.51 per ride and forty-nine cents per passenger mile.

Imagine if this money was spent on roads and bridge repairs throughout the United States. There might never be another bridge failure during heavy traffic hours causing American lives.

More than twice as much money in taxpayer subsidies has gone to light rail than to buses, yet the buses carry 61% of all mass transit riders over 45% of the passenger miles. Heavy rail beats light rail in the densest areas and buses beat light rail every other place and in every other way.

In fact, three times as many taxpayer dollars were spent on light rail as compared to other modes of rail travel.

New York’s subways are the only mode of rail travel that are as productive as a lane of freeway traffic.

There appears to be a great disconnect in logic here. Trains are nice to look at but in most cities buses get people where they need to go when they need transportation other than by car.

In the United States, cars provide for about 4.3 trillion passenger miles a year on all roadways. Mass transit provides for less than 50 billion passenger miles a year, only about one percent of land travel.

Light rail costs $1.37 per passenger mile whereas highway costs per passenger mile is less than three cents but subsidies for light rail are almost 250 times that for roads. Makes a lot of sense does it not?

The numbers for light rail are very dismal. In fact, they are worse than other modes of mass transit. The cost per passenger mile for mass transit is almost sixty-eight cents - with about forty-nine cents of that money coming from taxpayer subsidies.

Would it not make better sense to finance all of the bus travel necessary instead of pouring infinitely more money into light rail? You bet it would. Buses do not have to follow a railroad track and can easily be replaced when they break down. Buses will not block the traffic behind them and are not required to go only where railroad tracks exist.

The day of the trolley, or light rail, is one from the past. It died for a reason. They cannot always go where a person wants to go and when they want to go. In the 21st century, there are much better options. Americans enjoy their freedom.

Light rail is not a favorite.

Unless and until the Obama administration’s plan to drive the cost of oil above four and five dollars, very few Americans will be leaving their cars for something like light rail. Once the administration accomplishes its goal, the cost of every item in the United States will climb until the cost of everything helps pare down the middle class.

Last October, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie put an end to the multi-million dollar Hudson River commuter train tunnel. This was the largest public work’s project in America.

Governor Christie said "I have made a pledge to the people of New Jersey that on my watch I will not allow taxpayers to fund projects that run over budget with no clear way of how these costs will be paid for...Considering the unprecedented fiscal and economic climate our State is facing, it is completely unthinkable to borrow more money and leave taxpayers responsible for billions in cost overruns.” He said that the costs were “far more than New Jersey taxpayers can afford and the only prudent move is to end this project.”

Governor Christie suggested that the costs of the tunnel might be more than a billion dollars above the projected $8.7 million dollar proposal. He compared this possibility with Boston’s “Big Dig” a tunnel project that cost nearly ten times the original $2.8 billion dollar estimate.

He noted that the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund was nearly bankrupt. The Trust Fund is used to pay for repairs on New Jersey’s roads and bridges and also pays for mass transit services. Governor Christie said that he did not intend to raise gas taxes to increase the Trust Fund as the citizens of New Jersey already paid increased turnpike tolls and excessive taxes.

Congress has earmarked $3 billion dollars for the New York to New Jersey tunnel project. The New York and New Jersey Port Authority would fund another $3 billion dollars.

New Jersey is supposed to commit $2.7 billion dollars but any overruns above the total $8.7 billion dollars is to be covered by the state of New Jersey, a cost that might add up to over $5 billion dollars.

Senator Frank Lautenberg, said that “It’s hard to comprehend what has persuaded the governor to look askance at $6 billion plus, saying that it’s not a good idea for New Jersey. I think he is talking to the wrong people. He should be talking to the people who are out there stuck in their cars in the morning wanting to go to work. Or the families who are worried about the air their kids breathe. Or who are concerned about what the long range implications are for the well-being of New Jersey.”

Senator Lautenberg has yet to get a clue and most likely will never be able to comprehend the reality of such a boondoggle - and probably could care less. Some Senators are better at earmarking tapayers' money for boondoggles than in doing their jobs according to the United States Constitution.

Dr. Sowell wrote that “Years ago, John Kenneth Galbraith argued that there was not enough government spending, compared to private spending, because private businesses advertised and the government does not.

Nobel Prizewinning economist George Stigler pointed out that the government advertises all the time - only it is not called advertising. So-called ‘news’ stories like those in [your local newspaper] repeat the party line of government bureaucrats and serve it up to the public as information, rather than ads.”

Last November, Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, Paul Ryan, and Tom Petri introduced legislation that would allow states to return certain funds used for high speed rail and intercity rail projects to the Treasury for reducing the budget deficit.

The Congressmen released a statement that said: "We share Governor-elect Scott Walker’s commitment to improving Wisconsin's transportation infrastructure and his efforts to bring fiscal responsibility back to our state and the federal government.

Instead of being told by bureaucrats in Washington how to allocate their resources, states need to have the flexibility and authority to prioritize how tax dollars are being spent. However, the Obama Administration’s stimulus package does not allow these stimulus funds to be reprogrammed for other worthwhile transportation projects.

We support Governor-elect Walker's effort to put the brakes on the High Speed Rail budget boondoggle, which is why we introduced legislation, today, that would give states the ability to return federal funds obligated to high-speed rail projects, and instead use this money to reduce our nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit and $13.8 trillion debt.

This high speed rail project is a bad investment for taxpayers and our state simply cannot afford it. We are optimistic that Congress will consider our legislation and empower states to prioritize spending and lead efforts to get our nation’s fiscal house in order.”

John Adams warned that, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Dr. Williams added: “I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.”

Hopefully the Tea Parties across America and the conservative radio and television personalities, and America's “silent majority” continue in their endeavor to replace the Washington elite with Americans that will legislate in the spirit of the United States Constitution.

Americans need a Congress that will work to repeal unconstitutional legislation and make the cuts necessary to get the federal government out of Americans’ daily lives.

Congress should start now to make the necessary cuts in spending. Eliminating taxpayer subsidies for light rail is a boondoggle that would not be missed by 99% of American citizens. It is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Use the money to repair roads and bridges. It only makes sense.

The statistics listed above are from the Thoreau Institute’s “Vanishing Automobile” site. Their source: the National Transit Database, the Highway Statistics 2000 tables, the American Public Transportation Association and Wendell Cox’s website “The Public Purpose.” The Thoreau Institute is inspired by Henry David Thoreau's love of the natural world and his dislike of big government.

The Obama Fantasy

2011-11-19T07:25:00.000-08:00

The Institute for Energy Research has concluded that “whether policies are instituted to limit greenhouse gas emissions or not, the expected range in global energy shares of fuels over the next 20 years is not great. Fossil fuels are expected to dominate with 75 to 80 percent of the energy market. Nuclear’s share is expected to remain in the 6 to 8 percent range of total energy consumption in 2030, with a greater market share for those forecasts that assume new policies. Renewables, including hydroelectric power, are expected to command a 14 to 17 percent share of the market, depending on policies in place to promote them. The question to policy makers should be: “How much effort and money do we want to spend to gain such little change?”

Obama’s administration has halted any effort in sustaining a serious effort toward ensuring America’s energy independence in the future. The conclusion recognizes that American leadership is lacking in its ability to accept that there is a need to develope greater nuclear power capabilities in order to meet future energy needs in the United States.

Arrogance and ignorance in the present administration must be overcome at some point in the very near future or Americans will suffer with unnecessary shortages and steep energy costs.

It may be too late now.

While nations like China are working ceaselessly in developing their fossil fuel resources, the American aristocracy is stuck in the past with its windmills and train tracks.

The IER reports that “Fossil fuels are dominating the world’s energy market - a trend that will last for at least the next 20 to 25 years, the leading energy forecasters contend. According to these forecasters, it does not matter whether policies remain the same or whether anti-fossil fuel policies are enacted - fossil fuels will continue to produce 75 to 80 percent of the world’s energy by 2030.”

But this last fact does not matter. As Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie’s fictional detective, was always so quick to point out, “The little gray cells” must be used. But that seems to be a most challenging feat for this present administration.

Logic is a rare resource with these people.

The I.E.R. noted that “Coal remains the dominant fuel for electricity generation in 2030 for all forecasts, but its share varies widely based on the assumptions with IEA’s current policies’ forecasts giving coal a 43 percent share and EIA’s forecast giving coal a 41 percent share of the electric generation market in 2030. When new policies are considered by IEA, coal’s share shrinks to 34 percent. Natural gas ranks second in the generation market for all the forecasts with its share ranging from 20 percent for EIA to 22 percent for IEA’s New Policies case. EIA and IEA are pessimistic on nuclear power’s growth with its share ranging from 11 to 14 percent in 2030, the higher end of that range equal to its share in 2008.”

The results from the Energy Information Administration and the Institute for Energy Research do little to correct America’s energy problems because America’s leaders have so little understanding of the reality of the present situation.

The fantasy world of President Obama will be the order of the day until his regime is voted out of office.

That time is still so far away.

Facts Are Hard Things to Overcome

2011-11-11T16:14:00.001-08:00

Facts are hard things to argue against unless you are one that relies only on emotion. Then all logic goes out the window. There are a lot of facts listed below. Common sense logic will lead to an incontrovertible conclusion.

What percentage of the energy in the world’s nations came from nuclear power in 2009? Where do you think the country that first harnessed the atom ranks in the world’s nations?

How about 19th in the world?

An energy source as powerful as nuclear power is the most efficient form of energy - and it is clean energy. There is no reason why the United States should not be the leader in the use of nuclear power.

It appears that the top 18 countries are located on the European, Asian and South American continents.

1. Lithuania - 76.2%
2. France - 75.2%
3. Slovakia - 53.5%
4. Belgium - 51.7%
5. Ukraine - 48.6%
6. Argentina - 45.0%
7. Hungary - 43.0%
8. Switzerland - 39.5%
9. Slovenia - 37.8%
10. Sweden - 37.4%
11. Bulgaria - 35.9%
12. Korea Rep. - 34.8%
13. Czech RP - 33.8%
14. Finland - 32.9%
15. Japan - 28.9%
16. Germany - 26.1%
17. Taiwan, China - 20.7%
18. Romania - 20.6%
19. U. S. - 20.2%

The United States ranked 19th of 31 countries.

In the United States, what percentage of each state’s energy came from nuclear power in 2009?

There are 104 nuclear energy units in the United States and there are four states that received more than half of their energy from nuclear power; Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and South Carolina.

California ranks 24th despite having the largest population of the 50 states. It received less of its energy from nuclear power than the national average of 20%.

1. Vermont - 72.3%
2. New Jersey - 55.1%
3. Connecticut - 53.4%
4. South Carolina - 52.0%
5. Illinois - 48.7%
6. New Hampshire - 44.1%
7. Virginia - 39.6%
8. Pennsylvania - 35.1%
9. North Carolina - 34.3%
10. Tennessee - 34.1%
11. Maryland - 33%
12. New York - 32.1%
13. Alabama - 27.8%
14. Nebraska - 27.8%
15. Arizona - 27.4%
16. Arkansas - 26.4%
17. Georgia - 24.7%
18. Minnesota - 23.5%
19. Mississippi - 22.6%
20. Michigan - 21.5%
21. Wisconsin - 20.7%
22. Kansas - 19.0%
23. Louisiana - 18.4%
24. California - 15.5%
25. Florida - 13.5%
26. Massachusetts - 13.4%
27. Missouri - 11.6%
28. Ohio - 11.0%
29. Texas - 10.5%
30. Iowa - 9.1%
31. Washington - 6.3%

What states generated more than half of their energy from coal in 2009?

There were 22 of them with West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Wyoming generating over 90% of their energy from coal.

1. West Virginia - 96.3%
2. Kentucky - 94.8%
3. Indiana - 93.1%
4. Wyoming - 91.4%
5. North Dakota - 87.4%
6. Ohio - 84.5%
7. Utah - 82.2%
8. Missouri - 81.1%
9. New Mexico - 73.2%
10. Iowa - 72.6%
11. Kansas - 70.1%
12. Nebraska - 69.0%
13. Michigan - 66.9%
14. Wisconsin - 63.6%
15. Colorado - 62.7%
16. Montana - 60.4%
17. Delaware - 58.1%
18. Minnesota - 57.2%
19. North Carolina - 55.3%
20. Maryland - 55.3%
21. Georgia - 54.5%
22. Tennessee - 52.7%

Thirty-three states received more than half of their energy from nuclear power or coal or the combination of the two sources.

What states generated more than half of their energy from natural gas? Six of them. Rhode Island received most of its power from natural gas.

1. Rhode Island - 97.7%
2. Nevada - 69.0%
3. California - 56.5%
4. Alaska - 54.6%
5. Florida - 54.2%
6. Massachusetts - 52.9%

What states generated more than half of their power from petroleum?

Only one state, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia got more than half their energy from petroleum.

District of Columbia - 100%
Hawaii - 76.9%

What states generated more than half of their power from hydro? There were four.

1. Idaho - 79.6%
2. Washington - 70.7%
3. Oregon - 58.6%
4. South Dakota - 53.5%

The Institute for Energy Research operates on the premise “that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges” and “are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.”

According to the I.E.R., 37% of the energy needs of the United States are met by oil.

To meet the needs of the American economy, 70% of the petroleum products; gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, are directed towards transportation.

To meet the needs of industry and manufacturing, 24% of the petroleum products are directed to those areas.

Finally, 5% goes to commercial and residential needs and 1 to 2% is used to generate electricity.

The E.I.A. has estimated that the United States has proven oil reserves of approximately 21 billion barrels of oil. The state leaders in oil production are, in order of the volume they produce, Texas, Alaska, California, Louisiana and Oklahoma, but the oil production of these states is less than offshore production in the areas controlled by the federal government.

Where is the United States getting its imported oil?

The major sources are Canada, Mexico and OPEC. The Persian Gulf provided 18% of the imported oil.

The Obama administration, including President Obama’s Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, have done a fantastic job of decreasing oil exploration in the United States and off its shores.

According to the I.E.R., there are billions and billions of in-place oil resources in the United States; 2,118 billion barrels of shell oil resources, 293 billion barrels of light oil, 210 billion barrels of reserve growth, 100 billion barrels of residual oil, 81 billion barrels of heavy oil, 80 billion barrels from the oil sands and 360 billion barrels of undiscovered oil resources.

The United States has a potentially massive resource in oil shale, more than any other country in the world. The greatest deposits of this oil resource are in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming.

According to estimates, there is potentially the energy equivalent of more than 2 trillion barrels of oil.

According to the I.E.R, “To put this figure in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859.

As such, the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale is a potentially huge new source of oil, and must be central to any discussion of our continental energy security. Shale and other new sources of oil, like oil sands currently being developed in Canada, offer important new North American energy supply options.”

It is absolutely obvious that America needs it oil, its coal and its nuclear power. Utilizing these great resources will provide the energy needs of Americans for the next century. It will also return millions of Americans to the work force.

If only this nation had leaders with the intellectual depth necessary to turn this information into action.

A question for America: Do you want affordable energy - domestically? Do you want a job for every American that desires employment at a living wage? Do you want a thriving economy second to none?

Of course, the answer is yes.

What do you do to ensure these things happen?

There is only one answer. Call and write your Congressman to enact common sense legislation. Tell them to stop bilking American taxpayers for second and third rate forms of energy. Tell them to stop subsidizing inefficiency.

Tell your congressional representaives to act immediately to stop President Obama’s job killing, energy reduction measures.

When politicians are not listening to the majority of American people, it is only necessary to follow the money trail and identify the beneficiaries.

In 2012, identify the man or woman that will pursue the common sense energy policies that will put Americans back to work and provide cheap, efficient, reliable, abundant energy.

America’s best days can still be awaiting your children and grandchildren. Make your voice be heard now.

And, make your vote count in 2012.

More information can be found at the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Institute for Energy Research.

Returning America to the 19th Century

2011-11-10T00:45:00.000-08:00

Dr. Ronald Utt, writing for The Heritage Foundation, wrote: “President Barack Obama’s high-speed rail program promises to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in federal and state funds to provide mediocre passenger rail service to an extremely small fraction of travelers. In this time of tight budgets, neither the federal government nor the states can afford such extravagance. Instead of creating a heavily subsidized, underutilized passenger rail system, Congress and the Administration should promptly end the program and use the recovered funds to reduce the federal budget deficit.”

In the State of the Union address, President Obama said that “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail...As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.”

Dr. Utt corrected Obama’s statement: “The reality is that the Midwest routes have been cancelled by newly elected governors in Ohio and Wisconsin, who have returned $1.3 billion in federal HSR grants to the U.S. Treasury, and California’s worsening budget crisis will discourage any state investment in its HSR system, which will cost between $42 billion and $80 billion to complete.”

President Obama is incapable of recognizing the obvious. He appears to be totally lacking in the ability to utilize common sense and common logic. He will continue to push headlong against opposition without any consideration as to why there is such opposition to his personal desires.

The president disregards any notion that there is a problem with running up incredible amounts of debt. This would be anathema to his wants and dictates.

Dr. Utt wrote: “[T]he President offers no cost estimate for [his] ambitious [HSR] project which would use immense federal subsidies to undermine the existing private and tax-paying bus and air service to...communities, it would likely be one of the costliest and most underutilized federal programs in American history...California’s HSR plan to connect Los Angeles with San Francisco could cost up to $80 billion...HSR in the Northeast Corridor would cost $117 billion...and the modest Tampa to Orlando plan will come in at $3 billion or more.”

Money is not an obstacle as long as America’s working class continues to pay the taxes imposed upon them by their “betters.”

Despite the fact that buses and airlines provide the greatest services to Americans, President Obama would rather blow taxpayer money on the most inefficient means of mass transportation in existence.

Dr. Utt “In the first month of his Administration, President Obama used the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the ‘stimulus’ package) to create a new federal program to build a comprehensive HSR system. Congress agreed to dedicate $8 billion of the $787 billion in stimulus spending to begin developing HSR in the United States. In addition, Obama requested and Congress approved an additional $5 billion over the next five years beginning in fiscal year 2010. At the same time, then-Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure James Oberstar (D-MN) announced that the next highway reauthorization bill would include an additional $50 billion for HSR.”

Obama was aided and abetted by the worst Congress in Washington in modern times. There was nothing on which the 111th Congress would not appropriate and spend taxpayer dollars.

In President Obama’s dream to return America to the past, he informed Americans that “What we’re talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes...Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.”

X-ray machines that are being used at airports, or the alternative, sexual organ groping, will eventually have to be installed at all rail stations. The x-ray machines will continue to fatten the wallets of the investors whose unconstitutional devices have added to their wealth through the redistribution of taxpayer money.

Of course, HSR will not come anywhere near averaging 100 miles per hour - especially through towns. His imagination fails to take into consideration realities.

In spite of a looming $1.4 trillion dollar federal budget deficit, Vice President Biden announced that the President proposes “to spend $57 billion on HSR over the next six years...Despite the President’s continued enthusiasm for his HSR proposals...most Americans... preferred to live in the 21st century, not the late 19th.”

Imagine Americans wanting to move forward into the future.

Dr. Utt: “The new governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have...canceled their states’ programs...and the Florida program...is under review by the new governor. The California program...will likely not be built because of its exceptionally high cost and California’s long-term, systemic fiscal crisis.”

The president is not one to take a hint when he has any chance of spending the taxpayer’s dollars. As long as President Obama is ruling the federal government, he could care less about an opposing viewpoint from a governor of any of the fifty states that he rules.

Dr. Utt: “Despite Congress’s commitment of significant funding...and the President’s giddy excitement about an America transformed by an inefficient, inconvenient, and wildly expensive mode of travel, the President’s HSR program is in a state of collapse. The new Congress should put an end to what little life remains in this futile and costly exercise and use any recovered funds for deficit reduction.”

Speaker Boehner and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan should be listening to Dr. Utt and the Heritage Foundation. These billions of dollars for HSR should be permanently canceled. The information presented in Dr. Utt’s report are incontrovertible facts.

Dr. Utt: [Since] “slow-speed and high-speed [rail] would require substantial state matching funds and perpetual state operating subsidies (since no passenger rail system in the U.S. and only a handful abroad earn a profit or break even), any state accepting the money would also be accepting a significant, long-term financial liability at a time when most states are hard-pressed to meet the core responsibilities of education, law enforcement, and public health.

Given the growing opposition from the public, Members of Congress, and state and local officials to Obama’s HSR program and the uncertain and disappointing prospects for those systems targeted for federal funding, Congress should consider terminating the program or, at a minimum, placing a temporary hold on any spending for it. Once this is done, Congress should use the time to conduct comprehensive hearings on the benefits of these projects and to consider whether an HSR program makes economic sense in any region of the United States.”

Quite a few governors recognize HSR as a very costly and inefficient form of transportation that saw its best days in the 19th century. As a result, many of them are uninterested in such propositions despite the promises and the offers of greater amounts of taxpayer money in order to subsidize the ventures.

The 112th Congress, led by Speaker Boehner, should terminate this boondoggle before it becomes another permanently subsidized hole in the ground.

Dr. Utt: “Advocates for more spending on passenger rail, including HSR, often point to Europe and Japan as role models and aspirational goals for American policy...President Obama [argued that...‘[A]ll of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It has been happening for decades. The problem is that it’s been happening elsewhere, not here.’ Obama went on to extol HSR systems in France, Spain, China, and Japan and concluded, ‘There’s no reason why we can’t do this. This is America. There’s no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders.’

European and Asian governments have paid staggering sums to subsidize a mode of travel that only a small and shrinking share of their populations uses...Europeans are adopting more American modes of travel, despite massive taxpayer subsidies for rail. They are shifting their travel to unsubsidized, taxpaying airlines...Indeed, by 2008, passenger rail’s share of the transportation market was the lowest of all modes, except travel by sea and motorcycles...One purpose of the review was to address the contention that passenger rail in other countries, especially HSR, operates at a profit (that is, without subsidies).

For 1995-2006, the...the governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, and Austria spent ‘a combined total of $42 billion annually on their national passenger railroads.’ These six countries have a combined population of 269 million, and their expenditure of $42 billion on passenger rail in 2006 is roughly proportional to the $54.8 billion that the government of the United States (population of 309 million) spent on all forms of transportation, including highways, rail, aviation, water transport, and mass transit.”

Facts are strange things. Even liberals sometimes are compelled to pay attention when confronted with facts. Dr. Utt noted that even the left-leaning magazine, The Economist, wrote that “passenger rail subsidies reached $8.9 billion in 2008-2009...It is not clear why the public should be heavily subsidizing a mode of transport that accounts for a tiny minority of all travel: 8% of the total distance travelled in Britain during 2009, compared with 85% by cars and vans. The relatively few who use railways often are disproportionately well-off: three-fifths of the traffic is concentrated in the wealthy commuting counties of the south-east.”

U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, believes that “If you build it they will come.” This sounds like the movie starring Kevin Costner, “Field of Dreams.”

Mr. LaHood also said that “People like to ride trains...[they] could read books, work on their computers, eat and perform other tasks on trains that are difficult or illegal to do while driving.”

Dr. Utt: “This, apparently, is a rationale for spending billions of dollars on a travel mode that few people will ride. Congress and the President could do well by identifying higher priorities that better merit federal attention.”

For a man that receives a six figure salary courtesy of the American taxpayer, one could only wish that Mr. LaHood was more cerebral. He should use what talents he possesses to identify and repair highways and bridges in support of the number one mode of transportation in the United States.

Every American has benefited from John F. Kennedy’s dream to put a man on the moon and from NASA’s scientific endeavors; however, not every man will benefit from returning to 19th century mass transit, a mode of transportation that died when the combustion engine replaced trolley cars and horse-drawn wagons, and riding horseback. If Barack Obama yearns for the past and desires to return America to the past, transportation by horse would be much less costly.

Please read Dr, Utt’s monograph at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/02/Time-to-End-Obamas-Costly-High-Speed-Rail-Program.

Playing Fast and Furious with the Truth

2011-11-06T08:51:00.000-08:00

On April 16, 2009, President Obama said “This war [in Mexico] is being waged with guns purchased not here [Mexico], but in the United States. More than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border."

Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff at the time, defined the machinations of the Obama administration: “Don’t let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Naturally, more gun control legislation was proposed in Congress, everything from requiring all gun owners to get a license for their guns to submitting to a photograph and a thumb print, with laws delineating how firearms would be stored, how they would be handled, how they would be used in the home and the legal responsibilities of firearm owners, reporting requirements and any other requirements deemed to be appropriate as determined by the Attorney General.

Once again, only law abiding citizens would be hampered by the strong arm of the federal government.

The 90% quoted by the nation’s leaders, who swore to defend the Constitution of the United States will continue to do their utmost to dismantle it. Thomas Jefferson said that, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty.”

Not to be outdone by the liberal propaganda in the United States, the Mexican Ambassador to the United States, Auturo Sarukhan, claimed that 730,000 guns per year came from the United States.

The official statistic from the Mexican Attorney General’s office is that Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Of the 29,000 guns, 68% were never submitted to the U.S. for tracing because it was obvious that they were not from the United States.

Six thousand of the 11,000 guns that were submitted could not be traced which means that 83% of the guns could not be traced to the United States.

Results of simple arithmetic indicate that 17% of all of the guns seized at crime scenes in Mexico were from the United States. Common sense would imply that this percentage would be closer to fact than the ridiculous number propagated by the administration.

Gun trafficking into Mexico is a highly profitable business. The predominant source of weapons in Mexico are from Central and South America.

Many of these weapons are smuggled in by drug cartels or can be traced back to the wars in Central America. Many other weapons come from Russia, China, South Africa, South Korea and Spain. Mexican soldiers take their weapons with them when they desert the army. Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo said that 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in the last six years. Many of the soldiers took their Belgium M-16 rifles with them.

Guns are not the only weapons smuggled into Mexico. Grenades, explosives and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) are smuggled into the country - none of which came from the United States. Fully automatic assault rifles, like the AK-47, are smuggled in from all over the world, many of which cannot be bought in the United States. While there are weapons smuggled across the U.S. border into Mexico, Mexico does buy legitimate shipments of guns from the United States for its military.

Chris Cox, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, recognized the 90% fabrication by the administration and the underlying subterfuge to usurp the rights of the American people. He said that, “The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

The proposed law, aimed at vilifying American gun ownership, is another move to eliminate gun ownership rights, the right of each American to protect himself and his family.

This laying of blame for gunrunning on the United States is the usual claptrap issued by President Obama and his administration.

How were a lot of those guns actually getting into Mexico?

Attorney General Eric Holder came under attack last month for his role in “Fast and Furious,” which was a scheme that “allowed hundreds of assault weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the hope that they could be traced. Nearly all the weapons went missing and have been involved in dozens of crimes both in the U.S. and Mexico and have led to the deaths of two U.S. agents,” according to an article by Martin Gould.

Why would Mexico need weapons from American citizens when the Obama administration was allowing guns to travel to Mexico?

According to Mr. Gould’s article, “Holder said that gunrunning schemes are part and parcel of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) work on the southwest border.”

Attorney General Holder wrote: “To be sure, during 2010 I knew generally that ATF was conducting gun trafficking operations along the Southwest Border and elsewhere in the country since that is a core part of its mission given the large number of firearms flowing to Mexico each year from the United States.”

President Obama was right when he said “This war [in Mexico] is being waged with guns purchased not [in Mexico], but in the United States.”

And Attorney General Holder admitted that he knew of some of “those schemes”...”but not Fast and Furious.”

Mr. Holder has stated time and again that he is unaware of what is going on around him, that he is unaware of different events within his purview and that he fails to read paperwork before he makes remarks about the substance of reports. In most businesses, a CEO would be looking for new work if he was that incompetent. Excuses do not cut it, especially when it is coming from the United States Attorney General, a position that should be filled by an experienced, highly competent executive.

Mr. Holder is as adept as his boss in side-stepping and deflecting responsibility for anything that occurs within his realm of responsibility. He wrote: “I hope we can engage in a more responsible dialogue on this subject in the future. There is much we need to do together to stop gun violence on both sides of our border and make our Nation safer.”

Would he be any more knowledgeable on this subject than any other?

Probably not.

One Less Entitlement - One More Freedom

2011-11-02T13:41:00.000-07:00

With all the information available to the American citizen, there should be an outcry for personal accounts wherein American citizens can save for their retirements. The 7.65 cents per dollar set aside for social security would be best used for personal accounts and would yield much more money for a person’s needs at retirement age.

Perhaps 1 cent out of every dollar would be used to address the “safety net” for those that would have nothing. However, the Congress would only spend this money as they do every cent that they get their hands on.

Politicians, even local politicians, have no idea of the value of a dollar if it is public money.

Ross Kaminsky, writing for the American Spectator, wrote that “If we had a public education system that actually taught American history, people might not be surprised to learn of the few major cases related to the constitutionality of Social Security, particularly the 1937 case of Helvering v. Davis in which the Supreme Court ruled that the program is not a contract, not insurance, and not investment; payroll taxes are general revenue like any other income tax and it is only political realities which make Social Security seem like an ‘entitlement’ in the literal sense of that word.

In theory, government could end Social Security without citizens having a legal leg to stand on to save it. In practice, it's been government's piggy bank, masking what would have been even larger federal deficits.

Therefore, a cut in the payroll tax is no different than the same cut in the income tax rate except for issues of caps on how much income is subject to which parts of the payroll tax.

It may look different on the government books with a cut in the payroll tax reducing the income to the Social Security system and increasing its apparent deficit, but if the choice is reducing the payroll tax or the income tax, then you're just choosing which deficit you want to increase because the government's total revenue and total liabilities are the same. If there were an actual Social Security Trust Fund, the situation might be different. But today what we're dealing with is nothing more than shady accounting practices for which a public company CEO would go to jail.

Republicans should make this point very clear, even though they have culpability as well: There is no trust fund, and government cannot be trusted to maintain one. This is why Social Security must be reformed into personal accounts with property rights.”

Americans should be able to set aside for their retirements with their own personal accounts - free from pilfering by the United States Congress.

If only there were enough Congressmen able to restrain their propensity for spending, maybe this additional income tax could be returned to the American taxpayer’s pocket.

Crystal Clear

2011-10-30T10:51:00.000-07:00

The Institute for Energy Research reports that “One way to get revenues without taxation and spending is to allow the U.S. oil industry to do what countries around the globe are doing: drilling for oil, onshore, offshore, in the Arctic and elsewhere.

A recent study by the American Petroleum Institute (API) finds that fewer restrictions on oil drilling could increase government revenues by $800 billion, increase U.S. liquids production by 50%, and generate 1.4 million new jobs by 2030. And, the United States can do that just by allowing the oil industry to develop oil resources here in the United States as other countries are doing in their countries: Canada, Norway, Cuba, Brazil, Russia, Israel, to name just a few.”

You may ask what is going on in Canada, Norway, Cuba, Brazil, Russia and Israel?

IER: “Brazil has some 15 billion barrels of proved oil reserves in its sub-salt offshore fields...estimated to hold up to 50 billion barrels of oil...By 2020, Petrobras, the country’s government-controlled oil company, is expected to produce 4 million barrels per day, double its volume today...and 6.42 million barrels a day by 2020.”

What does President Barrack Obama think about Brazil’s booming oil business?

IER: “[E]arlier this year, he pledged that the United States will be a major customer for Brazilian oil.”

Rather than help the American economy and the energy situation in the United States, Obama’s administration has made offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans off limits to American exploration.

Despite Alaska having “over 50% of the entire coastline of the United States, fewer than 100 exploratory wells have been drilled in federal waters, while over 35,000 wells have been drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. Alaska has tremendous unknown potential for energy discoveries, but...final permits have not been issued to allow exploratory wells.”

While the United States leadership does nothing to benefit American citizens, Russia is moving forward in its exploration efforts off its coasts in the Arctic Ocean.

IER: “Canada is rich in oil sands with 170 billion barrels in reserves.” Environmentalist whackos “are against oil sands because their production emits more greenhouse gas emissions than the production of conventional oil...about 15%...N-Solv, an Alberta Consortium, can extract twice the amount of oil as current methods and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the process by up to 85%.”

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has continued its delay of the Keystone XL pipeline extension to Texas where it would deliver Canadian oil. The delay has now reached three years.

If Obama does not want the oil for America, China will take it.

And, in the interim, Obama benefactors are getting wealthy with green government subsidies, preferences and tax cuts. It is the usual political game wherein money is taken from the private sector and given to benefactors - money redistribution.

IER: “Cuba has 5 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil off its coast, just 70 miles off the Florida Keys.” The Cubans will be working with the Chinese. “This oil find could make Cuba independent of Venezuelan crude, from which Cuba gets 60% of its oil.”

The Chinese government seems to be taking advantage of a vacuum of American leadership.

IER: “Israel has an estimated 250 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale, second only to that of the United States, which has almost a trillion recoverable barrels. The 250 billion barrels compares favorably to the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia whose reserves total 260 billion barrels. It is estimated that the oil can be recovered at $35 to $40 a barrel using a new technique that does not use water.

U.S. oil shale resources are mostly on federal lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and the U.S. federal government is withholding those lease sales.”

Secretary Ken Salazar has done an extremely great job at not doing the job that Americans expect him to do - lease sales. That is precisely why he has not been given a raise in his salary. He has failed to deliver at this job. What’s new? His boss has failed to deliver also.

IER: In Norway, “Statoil ASA has made two offshore finds totaling between 500 million and 1.2 billion barrels, which is among Norway’s top ten discoveries...‘This shows Norway still has the capacity to deliver world-class discoveries,’ Tim Dodson, Statoil’s exploration chief, said. ‘It’s probably the largest offshore oil discovery anywhere in the world this year. It has given the entire oil industry renewed optimism.’”

Maybe Obama will want the U.S. to buy oil from Norway also.

IER: “Russia currently produces more oil than Saudi Arabia.”

Countries around the world are taking advantage of their natural resources. America does not.

That is one sad statement!

IER: “What could the oil industry achieve if restrictions on oil drilling in the United States were lessened?

“[D]omestic production of petroleum liquids would increase from 7.8 million barrels per day in 2010 to 9 million barrels per day in 2030. However, if the industry could meet the assumptions of the [API] study, domestic liquids production could reach 15.4 million barrels per day close to the 19 million barrels a day that we currently consume.”

America deserves to be energy independent.

America deserves a leader that will ensure that America becomes energy independent and fully employed as a result.

The increase of production predicted by the API study “would create 1 million new jobs over the next seven years and 1.4 million by 2030. The industry already supports more than 9 million jobs throughout the economy.”

Only an idiot would overlook the benefits of domestic oil exploration and production in the United States.

IER: “The study indicates that the United States can come close to producing enough new oil and natural gas to displace all non-North American imports within 15 years.

More than $800 billion in cumulative new government revenue could be generated by 2030 and $127 billion by 2020 - equal to about two and a half years’ worth of current federal spending on roads.

Most importantly, no new taxes or increased government spending is needed to accomplish the results of the study.”

America can take advantage of its natural resources or spend eternity subsidizing windmills and solar panels with wasted taxpayer money.

The choice is crystal clear.

To read the entire report from the Institute for Energy Research, go to http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/09/13/new-oil-finds-around-the-globe-will-the-u-s-capitalize-on-its-oil-resources/

Are You a Serf or an American? Read the Words of Your Leaders, Part VI

2011-10-26T03:13:00.000-07:00

“Texas has weathered the recession better than most states, due in no small part to a booming oil and gas production, and the state is fighting to keep EPA from interfering with its success.”

This is the usual interference from Obama and his administration. If the economy is trying to boom and energy resources are utilized, you can expect Obama and his minions to step in and destroy the efforts of the American people.

And, they will not stop until they eliminate any prosperity or effort to gain energy independence.

“Under Obama, EPA put a spotlight on the state, seemingly assuming that a profitable oil and gas industry is an indication of insufficient regulation.

Last June, the EPA decided to strike down the ‘flex permit’ system Texas has used since 1996, rejecting Texas-issued air-quality permits for refiners and other industrial plants. Then, in December, EPA sent Texas regulators a letter saying it had ‘no choice’ but to seize control of permitting in the state.”

What happened to state sovereignty? Must Obama destroy the economy of Texas as well? Texas has produced more jobs in the last decade than the other 49 states combined. If the president would keep his nose out of Governor Perry’s business, Texans could continue to enjoy the benefits of a well run state.

The EPA has continued its reign of incompetence in its ignorant encroachment on Texas operations. “ Texans have no interest in Washington doing for Texas what it did for Louisiana fishermen.”

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is directed by Lisa P. Jackson, an appointee of President Obama.

The executive branch of the United States federal government, under President Barack Obama, will go down as THE MOST INCOMPETENT STEWARDS of the American people for decades to come.

“Despite the fact that more than 80 percent of U.S. energy needs are met with carbon-based fuels that cannot be easily, cheaply or quickly replaced, the Obama Administration has been aggressively suppressing the utilization of these carbon-based fuels.”

“[President Obama and his administration] aims to block carbon-based energy extraction, to tax it, and to otherwise increase its cost of use. The effort is occurring simultaneously with calls to heavily subsidize the development and use of ‘green energy.’”

“While some may argue that there are benefits of having Americans pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, and more for home heating, the surreptitious implementation of such an agenda without public discussion or announcement appears highly inappropriate and contrary to the Administration’s promises of transparency.”

“The ability to utilize our nation’s rich natural resources may, however, be out of reach if the Obama Administration continues efforts to hinder domestic development of carbon based energy sources in an attempt to ignite a green energy revolution...If past statements of key administration officials are indeed reflections of the policies they are pursuing, this strategy is playing a quiet but significant role in the higher energy prices Americans are currently paying.”

This is the sixth and final section of Congressman Issa’s report.

------------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

RISING ENERGY COSTS: AN INTENTIONAL RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
STAFF REPORT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 112TH CONGRESS, May 23, 2011

V. TEXAS

As oil and gas producers grow more and more frustrated with the obstacles to drilling on federal land out West, they look to private land in Texas. Texas leads the nation in the production of oil and natural gas. Texas produced 447,076 thousand barrels of crude oil and 7,403,720 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2008. In comparison, Alaska produced 249,874 thousand barrels of crude oil and 398,442 million cubic feet of natural gas in the same year. Texas also has more proved oil reserves (5,496,000 thousand barrels compared to 4,007,000 thousand in the Gulf, and 3,556,000 thousand in Alaska in 2009) and more wet natural gas proven reserves (85,034 billion cubic feet compared to 12,116 billion cubic feet in the Gulf and 9,183 cubic feet in Alaska) than either the Gulf or Alaska.

Texas has weathered the recession better than most states, due in no small part to a booming oil and gas production, and the state is fighting to keep EPA from interfering with its success. Under Obama, EPA put a spotlight on the state, seemingly assuming that a profitable oil and gas industry is an indication of insufficient regulation.

Last June, the EPA decided to strike down the “flex permit” system Texas has used since 1996, rejecting Texas-issued air-quality permits for refiners and other industrial plants. Then, in December, EPA sent Texas regulators a letter saying it had "no choice" but to seize control of permitting in the state.

EPA Oversteps Texas Regulator

Another high profile example of the EPA overstepping Texas regulators based on false claims of urgency came last December. The issue began when a landowner filed a complaint with the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), the state oil and gas regulator, on August 6, 2010, stating that methane had contaminated water wells. The RRC commenced a full investigation into the source of the methane within days of the complaint. Over the next several months, the RRC – with full cooperation from Range, the company that owned gas production wells nearby – collected samples, performed tests, and conducted interviews. The investigation found that homeowners in the area had reported gas in their water for decades. Chemical fingerprinting of the gas in the well indicated that it did not come from Range’s wells but from a shallow gas formation where wells were drilled in the early 1980s. After finishing its investigation in March 2011, the RRC officially concluded that Range did not cause the water well contamination and that it likely came from the shallow gas formation.

EPA, on the other hand, raced to issue an emergency order in December 2010, assuming the culpability of Range without the benefit of all the facts. EPA did not allow the RRC to finish its investigation, did not discuss the results of independent EPA sampling with the RRC as the organizations had planned, and did not give Range an opportunity to present important objective facts. The Order directed Range to provide drinking water to the residents and to begin taking actions to correct the problem within 48 hours. The Order imposed costly requirements on Range, yet EPA has been unable to provide data indicating Range production activities contributed to the contamination of the wells. In addition to the cost of its voluntary cooperation with the Texas RRC, Range is incurring significant expenses defending itself – between $1.5 million to $1.75 million so far. Such an act was unprecedented in Texas.

The Committee has reviewed documents indicating that this action was coordinated with local environmental activists. EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz wrote in an email to his friends at the Environmental Defense Fund and Public Citizen just before issuing the press release, “We’re about to make a lot of news […] [T]ime to Tivo Channel 8.” 230 He went on, “Thank you both for helping to educate me on the public's perspective of these issues.” “Yee haw! Hats off to the new Sheriff and his deputies!” one activist replied.

After issuing the emergency order, EPA shifted rapidly into spin mode, exaggerating the circumstances and misrepresenting the work already conducted by the RRC. “I believe we’ve got two people whose houses could explode. So we’ve got to move,” the Administrator told the Dallas Morning News, attempting to justify his declaration of an “imminent and substantial endangerment to a public drinking water aquifer through methane contamination” from Range’s “fracked” production well. In reality, the emergency basis was false. As the findings of fact attached to the order stated, the threat to the homes had already been evaluated, and one of the water wells had been disconnected from the home months earlier.

EPA also played into environmental rhetoric by highlighting that Range utilized hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas. The Order did not allege the gas was a consequence of hydraulic fracturing, and EPA technical staff admitted that hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett Shale deep below the well could not be the cause of the gas occurring in the water wells. Despite the well contamination having no connection to hydraulic fracturing, EPA included in their press release announcing the emergency order, “EPA believes that natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource. However, we want to make sure natural gas development is safe.” Possibly not so coincidentally, Range is also a very active driller in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania.

EPA has refused to cooperate with either the Range or the RRC to resolve the dispute. In January, the RRC held an open hearing to receive expert testimony on the issue. Several experts explained flaws in EPA’s methodology, explaining that deep Barnett Shale had very low levels of nitrogen compared to the shallow Strawn formation. Nitrogen, therefore, was the distinguishing fingerprint. If the well had high levels of nitrogen, then the contamination was not coming from the Barnett Shale where Range had drilled. EPA had failed to conduct this analysis, but RRC took the time to do it. EPA declined to participate in the open hearing. Some critics joked that “EPA had better things to do – like asking the Department of Justice to impose a $16,500-a-day fine on the company for failing to comply with an order that EPA itself has neither the interest nor ability to defend or explain in an open forum.”

One Texas Railroad Commissioner called EPA’s action “Washington politics of the worst kind. The EPA’s act is nothing more than grandstanding in an effort to interject the federal government into Texas business. The Railroad Commission has been on top of this issue from Day 1. We will continue to take all necessary action to protect Texas lakes, rivers and aquifers. Texans have no interest in Washington doing for Texas what it did for Louisiana fishermen.”

DOI Threatens Texas with “Endangered” Lizard

The Fish and Wildlife Service (part of the Department of the Interior) has also found the Texas oil and gas industry to be an imminent threat, not to people but to lizards. The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed placing the dunes sagebrush lizard that lives in New Mexico and west Texas on the Endangered Species List. Endangered Species status would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to limit oil and gas production in the Permian Basin of west Texas – which currently produces nearly 20% of the country’s crude oil. Thousands of acres could potentially be taken out of production as a result of the rule, without an economic analysis ever being performed.

How the Fish and Wildlife Service would use the lizard to stop oil and gas production is not a secret. According to the official notice in the Federal Register: “We believe the following actions may jeopardize this species, and therefore [the Fish and Wildlife Service] would seek to conference with [the Bureau for Land Management] and [NRCS] on these actions: The lease of land for oil and gas drilling, Applications to drill, Applications for infrastructure through dunes (including, but not limited to pipelines and power lines), [Off-Highway Vehicle] activities, Seismic exploration, Continued oil and gas operations (release of pollution and routine maintenance)….”

The Fish and Wildlife Service would devastate the local oil and gas industry based on limited data. Locals say the government used a flawed methodology when it estimated the lizard population – it did not spend enough time looking for the lizards and did not know how to find them. Regardless, the Fish and Wildlife Service has alternatives to declaring the lizard endangered. For example, voluntary conservation agreements between the federal government and landowners, like those successfully implemented in New Mexico, would help preserve the lizard’s habitat while allowing production to continue. According to the president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association,“The best way [to protect the lizard] is for land owners and industry actually on the ground where the lizards are, who know how to protect the lizard, to be in charge instead of the feds putting up ‘Do Not Enter’ signs on every gatepost.” The public comment period closed on May 16, accordingly, the rule will most likely be issued by the end of the year.

CONCLUSION

In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama declared: “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy…America must be that nation.” Despite the fact that more than 80 percent of U.S. energy needs are met with carbon-based fuels that cannot be easily, cheaply or quickly replaced, the Obama Administration has been aggressively suppressing the utilization of these carbon-based fuels.

A pattern of evidence, as well as statements from before President Obama and Secretary of Energy Chu took office about the need for Americans to pay higher energy costs, raise alarming concerns about the existence of a campaign, across government agencies. This campaign aims to block carbon-based energy extraction, to tax it, and to otherwise increase its cost of use. The effort is occurring simultaneously with calls to heavily subsidize the development and use of “green energy.”

While some may argue that there are benefits of having Americans pay more for gasoline, more for electricity, and more for home heating, the surreptitious implementation of such an agenda without public discussion or announcement appears highly inappropriate and contrary to the Administration’s promises of transparency.

What President Obama failed to accomplish through the so-called “cap and trade” program, his administration is attempting to accomplish through regulatory roadblocks, energy tax increases, and other targeted efforts to prohibit development of domestic energy resources. This includes actions at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that have raised barriers to limit exploration and development of domestic energy resources. This includes moratoriums on offshore oil drilling, blockage/delay of onshore oil and gas leases, and even efforts to list certain lizard species on the endangered list at the expense of 20 percent of the Texas crude oil market, alone.

Thanks to advances in new technology, the U.S. energy industry has the opportunity to experience a renaissance by extracting resource deposits not even known to exist a generation ago. The opportunity to increase domestic oil production by as much as 40% in the next five years is at hand. Congress and the Obama Administration should herald this development, reducing barriers and streamlining processes so these firms can ramp up activity and production in an effort to achieve energy independence. Doing so would stabilize our sources of energy, create well-paying job opportunities for American workers, and improve our standing in the global marketplace by removing the volatile supply chains that currently impact our energy prices and availability.

The ability to utilize our nation’s rich natural resources may, however, be out of reach if the Obama Administration continues efforts to hinder domestic development of carbon based energy sources in an attempt to ignite a green energy revolution. While there are clearly needs and opportunities for green energy development, premature implementation of such technologies will come at the price of a premium over more affordable sources of energy. An effort to intentionally raise the costs of traditional energy sources is a dangerous strategy that will harm economic recovery and job growth. If past statements of key administration officials are indeed reflections of the policies they are pursuing, this strategy is playing a quiet but significant role in the higher energy prices Americans are currently paying.
-------------

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has authority to investigate the subjects within the Committee’s legislative jurisdiction as well as “any matter” within the jurisdiction of the other standing House Committees. The Committee’s mandate is to investigate and expose waste, fraud and abuse.

-------------

There has been a lot of information presented in this report. The entire report, including footnotes, can be found at: http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/REPORT_-Rising_Energy_Costs_An_Intentional_Result_of_Government_Action.pdf

It remains for all responsible Americans to get this information out to their families and friends. The misinformation constantly released by the mainstream media must be quashed in order that America can regain its footing as an economic power. America should be an energy independent nation. It has the natural resources and it has the people to make it happen.

The November 2012 election must be one in which the American people vote for a leader that will make the nation stronger, and this leader must be supported by a Congress that will aid that president.

Never again should this nation elect a president with absolutely no credentials or experience.

Are You a Serf or an American? Read the Words of Your Leaders, Part V

2011-10-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to eliminate the need for oil to be imported from the United States’ largest foreign suppliers?

“A National Energy Technology Laboratory study estimates that [Alaska] has the potential for the exploration and development of as much as 28 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil and 125 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable gas through 2050. An independent assessment of the potential for development of Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Sea OCS found that sufficient oil could be produced to completely eliminate the need for imports from one of the United States’ largest foreign suppliers. Average production from the OCS for the next 40 years could be 700,000 barrels per day, with a maximum of 1.45 million per day in 2030. In perspective, 700,000 barrels is more than the amount of oil the United States imported from Iraq (506,000 bbl/day) and Russia (137,000 bbl/day) combined in 2010. Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria each exported approximately one million barrels or less to the United States.”

What is stopping oil companies from creating jobs and raising more revenue for the treasury?

“[Shell Oil] company expects to create 54,700 jobs per year, generating $145 billion in payroll income, and $193 billion in government revenue by 2057 – all while reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately for the American people, none of this has come to fruition because after five years, EPA still has not issued several of the 35 permits Shell needs to drill even a single exploratory well.”

What experience does the EPA have in controlling oil exploration?

“EPA has little experience with offshore permitting. That inexperience seems to be amounting to incompetence.”

“Federal land is owned by taxpayers.” It is time for Washington to put this land to work making money for America. It will be necessary to fire Obama, Chu and Salazar in order to make this happen.

“Between 2008 and 2010, revenue from onshore federal royalties, rents, and bonuses has decreased 33%, from $4.2 billion to $2.8 billion. In 2008, there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on BLM land spanning 2.6 million acres. In 2010, the number of new leases issued dropped nearly 50% to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million. Combined with 2009, these acreage numbers are the lowest in over two decades.

Taxpayers would never know about this policy shift based on White House rhetoric. In a blog post at whitehouse.gov, the Administration writes ‘oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.’ The blog post fails to explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20 million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land.”

Despite the laws enacted by Congress, the Interior Department and the EPA do what they want to do.

This is Part V of Congressman Issa’s report.

------------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

RISING ENERGY COSTS: AN INTENTIONAL RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
STAFF REPORT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 112TH CONGRESS, May 23, 2011

III. ALASKA

Alaska holds enormous oil and gas resources for the United States and development of those resources is critical for U.S. energy independence. A National Energy Technology Laboratory study estimates that this region has the potential for the exploration and development of as much as 28 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil and 125 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable gas through 2050.

An independent assessment of the potential for development of Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Sea OCS found that sufficient oil could be produced to completely eliminate the need for imports from one of the United States’ largest foreign suppliers. Average production from the OCS for the next 40 years could be 700,000 barrels per day, with a maximum of 1.45 million per day in 2030. In perspective, 700,000 barrels is more than the amount of oil the United States imported from Iraq (506,000 bbl/day) and Russia (137,000 bbl/day) combined in 2010. Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria each exported approximately one million barrels or less to the United States.

Despite the enormous oil and gas potential, production in Alaska has steeply declined over the past few decades. In 1988, oil and natural gas liquid from Alaska’s North Slope constituted 25 percent of total domestic production, 2.2 million barrels per day. By 2007, production had dropped to 720,000 barrels per day, representing only 14 percent of domestic production. The current Administration is largely to blame for Alaska’s continued stagnation. Alaska Democratic Senator Mark Begich described the situation as “regulatory ‘whack a mole’ for developers in Alaska” as he introduced a bill intended to streamline offshore oil and gas development. “Each time we have one mole beat down, another one pops up and derails the progress. But this isn’t a game. It’s about the future of Alaska and the energy security of our country.”

Moratorium Confusion

The BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico has created great uncertainty for companies seeking to drill thousands of miles away in Alaska. Prior to the spill, the Administration made statements supportive of further exploitation of oil and gas resources in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf as well as elsewhere offshore. After the spill, however, Secretary Salazar announced a 30-day review of offshore safety and put a hold on new permits until the review was completed. Soon after that, Interior announced a six-month moratorium on all deepwater drilling and suspended Shell’s proposed drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, and imposed additional other restrictions on drilling and leasing in other regions. All of these policy changes have created new uncertainties.

The moratorium on deepwater drilling, announced on June 15, 2010, and discussed in the previous section, did not specifically refer to Alaska. Yet this moratorium, and the subsequent moratorium, imposed on July 12, 2010, created significant uncertainty for companies attempting to drill in Alaskan waters. The second moratorium also did not mention Alaska, but a fair reading of the order appeared to prohibit the work Shell had planned for the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The state of Alaska responded by suing Interior for violating the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. In late November 2010, after the July moratorium had been lifted, the Department filed a motion explaining that the original moratorium did not cover Alaska and attributing permitting delays to “cautious” regulators.

$3 billion and Still No Permit

The moratorium confusion following the BP oil spill was only the latest in a long series of delays for Shell’s Alaskan project. Shell has been ready to commence exploring for oil and gas in the Alaskan OCS for four years. The company expects to create 54,700 jobs per year, generating $145 billion in payroll income, and $193 billion in government revenue by 2057 – all while reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately for the American people, none of this has come to fruition because after five years, EPA still has not issued several of the 35 permits Shell needs to drill even a single exploratory well.

Shell has spent more than $3 billion on leases, environmental analyses, and permitting so far with no return on their investment. The company holds 137 leases in the Beaufort Sea and 275 leases in the Chukchi Sea. The federal government received $2.2 billion in bonus bids for Shell’s leases in the Chukchi Sea alone. Initially, Shell planned to begin drilling in 2007 in the Beaufort Sea, just north and east of the North Slope and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and associated infrastructure. Because of regulatory and legal challenges, its schedule slipped to 2010, and then 2011, and now 2012.

One of the principal obstacles to drilling is EPA’s failure to issue an air pollution permit for the project. Since most new offshore drilling has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico under Interior jurisdiction, EPA has little experience with offshore permitting. That inexperience seems to be amounting to incompetence. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “If EPA cannot demonstrate some competency … then EPA should not expect to keep its authority for long.” After years of studying the issue, EPA granted an air permit last summer only to have it remanded by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board in January for not adequately reviewing the potential health effects on people living on shore. The closest village, located 70 miles from the proposed drill site and occupying one square mile, is home to 245 people. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the Senate Energy Committee, “I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here.” Shell continues to wait for the rest of EPA to conclude what its Administrator already has.

National Petroleum Reserve Goes Unused

On May 14, 2011, during his Weekly Address, President Obama announced that he intended to direct Secretary Salazar to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). Given ConocoPhillips’ experience so far trying to utilize a lease it already has in the NPR-A, those new leases may be worthless.

Despite nearly three million acres of the NPR-A already under lease, no one has yet to drill a single commercial well. ConocoPhillips is trying to be the first with a project it says will produce up to 18,000 barrels of oil per day. In February 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers rejected the company’s plan to access the NPR-A by building a bridge over the Colville River, saying that drilling underneath the river and airlifting supplies would cause less environmental harm. The Corps finally decided to reconsider their earlier decision in December 2010, citing “additional evidence” not available at the time of the initial decision and talks with Native Alaskans. Conoco Phillips is still waiting on the Corps to issue a final decision.

A “curious” twist in the quest to develop NPR-A is the related action of other agencies. EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both designated the Colville River Delta as an “Aquatic Resource of National Significance,” a decision they made without notice and comment, but one that potentially has great consequences. Sen. Murkowski’s spokesman called the move “capricious and done only to interfere with development.”

Polar Bears

There may be an even greater obstacle to oil production ahead of Shell and the other companies looking to produce oil and gas in Alaska. What the state and the industry reportedly fear the most is uncertainty related to the protection of the polar bear. In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within Interior, decided to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. That decision could greatly impact the future of oil and gas extraction in Arctic waters because of its broad ramifications.

The first concern is the reason for the polar bear’s inclusion on the list – according to FWS, global climate change was causing a loss of sea ice, the polar bear’s habitat. On this basis, Interior could potentially have restricted any project, anywhere, by arguing that the project contributed to greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, degraded the polar bear’s habitat. Fortunately, Interior did acknowledge this concern and modified regulations to specify that projects’ greenhouse gas emissions could not be linked to endangered species.

To protect the polar bears, in October 2009, FWS instead proposed a critical habitat for the polar bear covering more than 200,000 square miles of land and water. This was later reduced once FWS recognized that Air Force bases and a few other manmade structures and communities would not be an appropriate habitat to protect. The polar bear’s proposed critical habitat overlaps with a substantial part of the federal acreage already under lease in Alaska’s Arctic waters. FWS has yet to determine exactly how they will act to protect the “critical habitat area.”

All of this has provoked numerous lawsuits, from both sides of the issue. Alaska has sued over the critical habitat designation because of the enormous economic impacts to the state, which it estimates to be in the hundreds of millions over just the next 15 years. In its cost analysis, FWS only considered consultation costs and inaccurately concluded that the designation would only cost the state about $669,000 over 29 years. Some members of Congress have also tried to reverse the decision by proposing legislation that would delist the polar bear, but the bill would not prevent Interior from adding other Arctic species to the list.

IV. ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

The Rocky Mountain region has some of the richest resources in the entire country. Domestic production in this region, primarily on federal public lands, accounts for 11 percent of the nation’s natural gas supply and five percent of its oil.

Exploration and production in the Rocky Mountain Region is complicated by the vast federal presence, primarily in the form of land ownership. The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land in the United States – which equates to more than a quarter of the country’s landmass. These lands are primarily located in 12 western states. In the west, the federal government owns more than 50% of the land area. By contrast, in the District of Columbia, established by the Constitution as a federal city, the federal government owns only 25% of the total acreage.

Federal land is owned by taxpayers. Therefore, taxpayers must be compensated for its use. Federal and state treasuries benefit from the development of resources on Western lands. Unfortunately for the American people, the Administration has all but refused this potential revenue stream. Between 2008 and 2010, revenue from onshore federal royalties, rents, and bonuses has decreased 33%, from $4.2 billion to $2.8 billion. In 2008, there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on BLM land spanning 2.6 million acres. In 2010, the number of new leases issued dropped nearly 50% to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million. Combined with 2009, these acreage numbers are the lowest in over two decades.

Taxpayers would never know about this policy shift based on White House rhetoric. In a blog post at whitehouse.gov, the Administration writes “oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.” The blog post fails to explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20 million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land.

A slew of Obama Administration policies are to blame for the decreased production on federal land. The Department of Interior or EPA cause delays at each stage of the process.

Deferred Leases

In order to drill on federal land, the producer must first obtain a lease. Companies make significant investments just to determine which parcels of land they want to lease. The government then considers whether to lease those parcels that are nominated by the companies. Parcels may not be offered for lease for a variety of reasons, but this Administration is using some techniques of questionable legality. One of these techniques is the deferral of lease parcels. Established law dictates that leases be made available if authorized by resource management plans, which are developed with input from the public and the state. If BLM desired to change the policies on which the resource management plans were based, an amendment to the plan is required. Rather than follow the established process, giving the public an opportunity for notice and comment, BLM has unilaterally instituted an additional level of planning and an opportunity to prevent leasing.

The result has been the deferral of lease parcels and the loss of jobs and revenue. Ewing Exploration, a small business with six employees, provides an example of how this policy hurts local communities. Ewing invested a total of $3.5 million to explore the leases it purchased between 2005 and 2010 and nominated the additional ten parcels of federal land it needed to fill out its drilling block. The company planned to develop 24 wells. One day before the sale, those ten parcels were withdrawn from the sale because they had to be “reprocessed in conformance with the new leasing reform process.” Now, those parcels will not be available until February 2012, a sixteen month delay. This delay has real economic consequences. Ewing’s investors are receiving no return on their $3.5 million investment – and may not be as willing to risk their money on public lands in the future. The deferral is also delaying payments of $2.7 million per month in federal royalties and $1.3 million per month in state taxes and royalties once the land is fully developed.

Unissued and Withdrawn Leases

Having the lease actually be put up for sale and winning the bid is just the beginning. The Department of Interior holds hostage millions of dollars in unissued leases. When a company wins a bid, it pays the federal government the amount it bid, which is called the bonus. Yet, the government does not necessarily issue the lease in return for the bonus, as the terms of the Mineral Leasing Act require it to do within sixty days. It is as if a new tenant signed a lease for an apartment, paid the owner a deposit, and was not given a key on the date designated for move-in. A Government Accountability Office report found that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to issue leases within this allotted time over 91% of the time from FY2007 through FY2009.

Successful bidders also risk cancellation of their valid leases. In February 2009, the Interior Secretary withdrew 77 of the leases sold at the 2008 Utah lease sale because BLM had deviated "in important respects" from its normal oil and gas leasing procedures. Secretary Salazar told reporters at the time of the announcement, “The policy positions of the department over the last eight years have really been driven out of the White House, and we're looking at many of those decisions.” Yet the Secretary’s decision to withdraw 77 Utah leases was made without any consultation with the Utah BLM office.

Neither an independent investigation nor the federal courts upheld the Secretary’s claims. The Department’s Inspector General concluded that “no evidence to support the allegation that undue pressure was exerted on BLM personnel to complete the RMPs before the December 2008 sale or to include previously deferred parcels in the lease sale prior to the change in Administration.” While the investigation noted that the BLM “contributed to the perception that the sale was rushed prior to a change in White House administration,” mere perception would not justify terminating contract rights. Over a year and a half later, a federal district judge issued a decision that confirmed that Secretary Salazar was outside of his legal authority to withdraw the parcels. The Department of Interior later prevailed based on a technicality. The judge determined that the plaintiffs filed their complaint too late.

In January 2011, the Department of Interior did it again. The Forest Service decided to withdraw leases it sold and issued, in 2005 and 2006, in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming. Relatively new legislation, the Wyoming Range Legacy Act of 2009, prohibits future lease sales in this region but explicitly protects the rights of those with existing leases. Likely recognizing its actions were on shaky legal ground, the Department of Interior has since decided to reconsider this decision.

Even if the Department of Interior issues the lease, the successful bidder may not receive what it bargained for. In many cases, especially in Wyoming where BLM has actually issued leases, new restrictions are added to the leases that were not specified at the time of sale. The severity of these restrictions, also referred to as stipulations, vary. Some, such as preventing drilling during the breeding season of a certain species, are fairly standard in the industry. Others, such as “No Surface Occupancy” which prohibits any surface disturbance on the lease, are so severe that they may render the lease worthless to the producer. Returning to the apartment analogy, these after-the-fact stipulations are akin to a tenant signing an apartment lease, carefully reading the contract to ensure there are no pet restrictions, paying a deposit, and then being told on move-in day that her dog will not be allowed in the building. The owner would essentially have changed the terms of the contract, just like the Department of Interior does when it adds stipulations.

NEPA Analyses and Project Approval Delays

The Administration claims that oil and gas producers are hoarding leases on federal lands because they are using less than one-third of existing leases. This criticism is grossly misleading because the Administration itself is often preventing the leaseholder from drilling on currently leased land. After a company wins a bid, pays the bonus, and is issued the lease, it must submit a project proposal to the Department of Interior, and an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) must be performed. The government does not bear the burden of performing this analysis; rather, the project proposer pays an agreed upon third party contractor to perform it. Regardless, the NEPA analysis is taking years to complete, with some projects facing indefinite delays. Small Environmental Assessments regularly require four years, while the more involved Environmental Impact Statements easily take seven years. White House Council on Environmental Quality guidance states these analyses should not take more than three months and twelve months, respectively. NEPA analyses often take more time than the guidance directs, but this Administration appears to be abusing the process. Environmental Impact Statements required just over three years to complete between 1994 and 2005; now the average EIS completion time is just under six years. Projects in the West, for a variety of excuses, face even longer delays with no end in sight.

Wild Lands Policy

One of the most controversial techniques to delay project approval is the newly invented “wild lands” designation. Secretary Salazar issued an order last December directing BLM to redo a recently completed inventory of federal lands that took years to complete the first time around, diverting BLM’s already limited resources. Under the Secretary’s new policy, the Department of Interior unilaterally determines that an area should be designated as wild lands and considered for wilderness protection. Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, “wilderness” is a designation that can only be made by Congress. To be considered “wilderness,” the law says the land (1) must be at least 5000 contiguous acres in size unless a smaller area can be practicably preserved and used in an unimpaired condition, (2) have an appearance of naturalness, and (3) have either outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. But under the new policy, BLM treats any land it decides to designate as “wild land” as “de facto wilderness,” preventing productive uses of the land such as grazing, oil and gas extraction, and motorized recreation – and sidestepping Congress. In some cases, environmentalists have attempted to convince Congress to designate certain lands as “wilderness” for decades, but Congress has consistently and repeatedly declined.

Some of the lands already designated as “wild lands” may confuse the novice nature-lover. It is not uncommon to find roads, active and inactive wells, agricultural improvements, and even air strips on proposed wild lands. If lands visibly subject to multiple uses in the past still possess wilderness characteristics, then it must not be necessary to lock those lands away entirely in order to maintain wilderness characteristics. Locking away public lands is also in contradiction to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. FLPMA directs the BLM to manage public lands “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.” The wild lands policy permits neither. BLM Director Robert Abbey told Congress that he “believe[s] in, and [is] dedicated to, the BLM’s multiple-use mission.” He also stated that any claims that the new wild lands policy has put a halt to new projects and is preventing important economic activity in local communities is false. Companies facing indefinite delays after investing millions of dollars likely disagree. Now, with the stroke of a pen, Secretary Salazar has granted “wild land” designations and effectively instituted an end-run around Congress.

EPA’s Contribution to NEPA Delays

EPA is also responsible for delays at the project approval stage. A couple of examples best illustrate the effect of EPA’s pressure on land managers conducting NEPA analyses. In one case, involving a large project of 1,250 wells in Wyoming, EPA inexplicably changed the type of air study it required. The companies involved in the EIS for the large project had already spent $2.5 million based on prior guidance from EPA. In a second case, EPA asked a small business operating in Utah, Gasco Energy, to complete three rounds of air modeling for its 1,500 well project. EPA changed its request three times as to what type of air study it required, which resulted in years of delay and hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary expenses. EPA made these requests despite Gasco Energy agreeing to controls and other mitigation measures above and beyond those the law requires.

Permitting Delays and Complications

The Department of Interior’s next opportunity to delay production on the land is the permitting process. After receiving project approval, the producer may file an Application for Permit to Drill (APD). Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, BLM has thirty days to process an APD. However, by its own conservative estimate, BLM averages 206 days to process a permit. In some BLM field offices, permits can take over two years.

Even after a permit is issued, the company that applied for it may not be able to use it. In some cases there may be stipulation periods after the permit is issued. Some permits may be tied up in lawsuits. For others, the permit process might have taken so long that the land is now subject to new planning restrictions that prohibit development. One example of this occurred in the Powder River Basin. Years after applications were submitted, 2,400 permits were released at one time. By then, many companies had abandoned their plans, in part because of changes in the cost of natural gas and in part because of new restrictions associated with sage grouse and produced water. The uncertainty in the process results in companies taking their business elsewhere.
------------

Senator Jim DeMint has said that "It's pretty clear this President is not going to lead. We've got to replace this President."

Maybe President Obama's lack of leadership can be explained. Kathleen Parker, writing in the Washington Post, said that "If Bill Clinton was our first black president, as Toni Morrison once proclaimed, then Barack Obama may be our first woman president.

No, I'm not calling Obama a girlie president. But...he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed.

It isn't that he isn't ‘cowboy’ enough, as others have suggested. Aren't we done with that? It is that his approach is feminine in a normative sense. That is, we perceive and appraise him according to cultural expectations, and he's not exactly causing anxiety in Alpha-maledom.

Women, inarguably, still are punished for failing to adhere to gender norms by acting ‘too masculine’ or ‘not feminine enough.’ In her fascinating study about ‘Hating Hillary,’ Karlyn Kohrs Campbell details the ways our former first lady was chastised for the sin of talking like a lawyer and, by extension, ‘like a man.’

Could it be that Obama is suffering from the inverse?

If we accept that premise, even if unseriously proffered, then we could say that Obama displays many tropes of femaleness. I say this in the nicest possible way. I don't think that doing things a woman's way is evidence of deficiency but, rather, suggests an evolutionary achievement."

Are You a Serf or an American? Read the Words of Your Leaders, Part IV

2011-10-20T07:44:00.000-07:00

What would happen to the United States if we had a leader that paved the way for energy independence? One only has to look at North Dakota to see what that would mean.

“As a result of horizontal drilling, coupled with fracking, Bakken production increased from less than 3,000 bbl/d in 2005 to over 230,000 bbl/d in 2010. The Bakken's share of total North Dakota oil production rose from 3% to 75% over those five years. Thanks in part to fracking, unemployment in North Dakota is now the lowest in the country – just 3.8%.”

What is President Obama’s answer to moving forward towards energy independence?

“On March 31, 2010, President Obama announced a revised plan for the exploration and development of oil reserves in U.S. waters. While White House officials framed the changes as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and create jobs, in reality, it was a significant retraction from the 2008 decision to lift the moratorium. Under the Obama plan, the majority of the areas open for drilling were once again closed, cutting off access to all of the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay in Alaska, which put 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas back under lock and key.”

Who cares about the states along the Gulf of Mexico? Not President Obama. He could care less - but those that live along the Gulf are looking for good employment - and they would be more than happy to have an opportunity to make a good living while lowering their energy bills.

“In the aftermath of the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon, Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar twice ordered a six month moratorium on deepwater drilling in U.S. waters. The Secretary’s orders effectively banned much of the economic activity that sustains the Gulf states, particularly Louisiana. At that time, many residents of Louisiana expressed their fear that the moratorium had the potential to inflict more pain on the region than the spill itself, and it was imposed over the vehement objections of local leaders and their constituents.”

The following is part IV of Congressman Issa’s committee report.

-------------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

RISING ENERGY COSTS: AN INTENTIONAL RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
STAFF REPORT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 112TH CONGRESS, May 23, 2011

I. APPALACHIAN REGION

The shale gas reserves of Appalachia are a game changer for the future of American energy security. The United States has 2,552 trillion cubic feet (TCf) of potential natural gas resources, enough to last 110 years at current usage rates. Almost one-third of these resources are from shale gas -- considered uneconomical to extract until just a few years ago. Newly recoverable shale reserves, both oil and gas, have revitalized the oil and gas industry in Appalachia and across the United States – from North Dakota to south Texas to California. The Marcellus Shale formation lies below many of the Appalachian states and extends up to New York. In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Marcellus held 1.9 TCF of natural gas. In 2009, the Department of Energy estimated the Marcellus holds 262 TCF of recoverable natural gas.

The key to unlocking these additional reserves is a new application of a proven technology called hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Fracking has the potential to reposition America from a country beholden to the Middle East for energy to a nation that has used ingenuity to utilize domestic resource exhaustion, but the Administration is threatening to kill the technology with unnecessary federal regulation. Advancements in fracking, coupled with the ability to drill horizontally, allow producers to access more gas with fewer wells. After drilling vertically downward to a shale formation, the producer can turn the drill bit and drill horizontally through the formation. After drilling, a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals can be injected into the well to open up small cracks within the shale formation to allow the gas to travel to the well. The Energy Information Administration says that “without horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, shale gas production would not be economically feasible because the natural gas would not flow from the formation at high enough rates to justify the cost of drilling.” Fracking and horizontal drilling also reduce the environmental footprint necessary to tap this natural gas.

The combination of fracking with horizontal drilling is making shale oil recoverable as well, greatly increasing our recoverable oil reserves around the country. The Bakken Shale in North Dakota is a stunning example. As a result of horizontal drilling, coupled with fracking, Bakken production increased from less than 3,000 bbl/d in 2005 to over 230,000 bbl/d in 2010. The Bakken's share of total North Dakota oil production rose from 3% to 75% over those five years. Thanks in part to fracking, unemployment in North Dakota is now the lowest in the country – just 3.8%.

North Dakota is not alone. Companies are investing billions of dollars to tap into oil deposits in Colorado, Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Louisiana as well. By 2015, these fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil per day – more than the Gulf of Mexico produces today -- boosting domestic oil production by 20 to 40%. According to Credit Suisse, development of these fields could reduce oil imports by 60% by 2020.

Despite the success of fracking, federal agencies appear to be in a race to see which one can regulate it first. The Department of Interior announced last November that it will consider regulating fracking on federal lands. The EPA, which concluded seven years ago that fracking "poses little or no threat" to drinking water supplies, is revisiting the issue. Having found no evidence that fracking chemicals reach drinking water, EPA now wants to study the entire lifecycle of the water used. In addition, DOE has convened a study group to review the fracking process. In a written statement, DOE Secretary Steven Chu stated, “I am looking forward to hearing from this diverse, respected group of experts on best practices for safe and responsible natural gas production.” Although the study groups members are certainly highly respected, a survey of their biographies indicates none has recent industry experience with the advancements in the technology.

As Chairman Fred Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee pointed out, the duplicative efforts of DOI, DOE, and EPA run contrary to the Administration’s pledge to eliminate government waste and streamline processes. It mirrors the President’s favorite example of the headache caused by agency jurisdiction, “The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater. I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.” Federal regulation by EPA, DOE, and DOI would cause needless delay and uncertainty along with multiple additional layers of tape. Ultimately, federal intervention will chill investment and decrease energy independence.

Additional regulation of fracking is unnecessary because, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson pointed out, fracking is not an unregulated activity. Quite the opposite - the states, not the federal government, have always regulated the process and have done so with a solid track record. Officials in state after state have gone on the record to say that fracking has not caused any problems and any reports to the contrary are inaccurate. As evidence, consider the following examples:

-- David Neslin, Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “There has been no verified instance of harm to groundwater caused by hydraulic fracturing.”

-- Jennifer Means, Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection: “So far it has not been our experience that the fracking process has caused any water-supply issues.”

– James Welsh, Commissioner of Conservation, Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources: “The Louisiana Office of Conservation is unaware of any instance of harm to groundwater in the State of Louisiana caused by the practice of hydraulic fracturing.”

-- Harold Fitch, Director of the Office of Geological Survey, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: “Hydraulic fracturing has been utilized extensively for many years in Michigan, in both deep formations and in the relatively shallow Antrim Shale formation. There are about 9,900 Antrim wells in Michigan producing natural gas at depths of 500 to 2000 feet. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in virtually every Antrim well. There is no indication that hydraulic fracturing has ever caused damage to ground water or other resources in Michigan.” The Obama Administration itself has even conceded that it has no evidence of fracking ever contaminating groundwater. Nevertheless, fracking has become a political football.

Those opposed to fracking have twisted the results of recent scientific studies to support their argument. The most recent example is a study published by Duke University researchers entitled, “Research and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale-Gas Extraction” which supposedly “shows one downside of fracking.” A close examination of the research, however, reveals that the study does not in any way support the conclusion that fracking is responsible for the contamination of the ground water tested by the researchers. In fact, the author concedes that, “the study found no evidence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids or saline produced waters.” Moreover, in an interview with Bloomberg TV Today on May 10, 2011, Robert Jackson, one of the primary authors of the study, stated clearly that the study “should not be taken as proof that the process [hydraulic fracturing] is dangerous.”

Interestingly, despite the Administration’s concerns about the safety of fracking here in the United States, it promotes the technology abroad. The State Department has a program called the Global Shale Gas Initiative which started “in April 2010 in order to help countries seeking to utilize their unconventional natural gas resources to identify and develop them safely and economically.” While threatening to make production of the resources here at home uneconomical, the Administration hypocritically encourages others to seize the fracking revolution as a path to energy independence.

II. GULF OF MEXICO

Regulations relating to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) drilling are promulgated under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). It is the basis for most federal regulation affecting exploration and drilling in the waters off the U.S. coast. OCSLA establishes broad five-year planning periods for offshore leasing across the OCS, as well as other processes for leasing, development, and production of natural resources. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formerly known as the Minerals Management Service (MMS), administers this Act.

For nearly 30 years, the vast majority of U.S. waters were under a federal moratorium, which prohibited exploration and development of much of the OCS. In the summer of 2008, gas prices rose to over $150 a barrel, and the price at the pump exceeded $4 a gallon, creating immense pressure to open up new domestic sources of oil. In response, President Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress allowed a legislative moratorium to expire on September 30, 2008. This opened 500 million additional acres for new energy production that contain an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, the promise of expanded access to the OCS and the accompanying increase in domestic supplies of energy was short lived.

On March 31, 2010, President Obama announced a revised plan for the exploration and development of oil reserves in U.S. waters. While White House officials framed the changes as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and create jobs, in reality, it was a significant retraction from the 2008 decision to lift the moratorium. Under the Obama plan, the majority of the areas open for drilling were once again closed, cutting off access to all of the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay in Alaska, which put 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas back under lock and key.

Tragedy in the Gulf

Within weeks of the President’s announcement, an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, further changed the course of events for offshore development. A series of human and system failures on the part of BP p.l.c. and their subcontractors made the created a devastating reality for the people on the Gulf Coast. As the post incident investigations revealed, a series of avoidable errors, sometimes as basic as changing the batteries on a back up device, or observing red flags, such as the unsafe escalation of pressure readings, could have prevented the ecologic disaster and the spilling of 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Gulf Moratorium

In the aftermath of the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon, Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar twice ordered a six month moratorium on deepwater drilling in U.S. waters. The Secretary’s orders effectively banned much of the economic activity that sustains the Gulf states, particularly Louisiana. At that time, many residents of Louisiana expressed their fear that the moratorium had the potential to inflict more pain on the region than the spill itself, and it was imposed over the vehement objections of local leaders and their constituents. Moreover, Department of Interior executed this sweeping decision without consulting with safety experts on the wisdom of imposing an outright ban on all drilling activity in the Gulf, and without conducting an economic analysis of the impact his decision would have on the economy and the nation.

First Moratorium

On June 15, 2010, President Obama announced a far reaching six-month moratorium on nearly all drilling in the Gulf. The moratorium applied to new drilling in water depths greater than 500 feet, and suspended drilling on 33 wells currently under construction. The President’s action is based on a recommendation from Secretary Salazar, contained in a May 27, 2010, report on “Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf.” According to a report issued by the Inspector General for the Department of Interior, the Secretary’s recommendation to impose a moratorium was not peer reviewed and was not supported by the scientists and industry experts who had otherwise been cooperating with the Administration.

The moratorium was immediately challenged by providers of support services to offshore oil and gas operations, who argued the decision to impose a moratorium was arbitrary and capricious. On June 22, 2010, a federal court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the suspension. This decision was affirmed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the order blocking the Department of Interior from enforcing the moratorium, Judge Feldman specifically cited his belief that the Department actively sought to distort the opinions and advice of “five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts,” which publically stated that they do not agree with the six month moratorium on drilling, because the moratorium actually increases the risk of an oil spill once drilling is resumed. Moreover, the Judge pointed to the adverse economic impact of a broad based moratorium, stating that:

“It is only a matter of time before more business and jobs and livelihoods will be lost. The defendants trivialize such losses by characterizing them as merely a small percentage of the drilling rigs affected, but it does not follow that this will somehow reduce the convincing harm suffered. The effect on employment, jobs, loss of domestic energy supplies caused by the moratorium as the plaintiffs (and other suppliers, and the rigs themselves) lose business, and the movement of the rigs to other sites around the world will clearly ripple throughout the economy in this region.”

Second Moratorium

Despite the judicial decision to invalidate the original moratorium, Secretary Salazar announced a nearly identical moratorium on July 12, 2010. Billed as “a temporary pause on deepwater drilling to provide time to implement safety reforms,” the second moratorium appears to merely be a post hoc rationalization of the original moratorium. The new moratorium did nothing to address the economic concerns of the community or the safety concerns raised by experts. In fact, a New York Times editorial stated that the second ban is “as strong as the first ban.” According to Dan Juneau, President of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry:

“[The new moratorium] seems to be geared toward rigs with blowout preventers which everyone in the deep waters have and many in the shallow waters do as well. It is a reaffirmation that the Obama administration is going to keep things shut down, in spite of the 5th Circuit’s ruling.”

It appears that the economic impact of the moratorium was never considered by the Administration. A decision memorandum authored by BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich to Secretary Salazar states that “economic effects may be considered in determining the scope of any suspension of drilling activity.” However, according to testimony of Rebecca M. Blank, Under Secretary for U.S. Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce, the Administration never once conducted a study of the economic impact the moratorium would have on the Gulf Coast economy and on oil production. Charlotte Randolph, President of Lafourche Parish in Thibodaux, Louisiana, expressed her concern to Committee staff that “nine out of her top ten” taxpayers are employed in the oil and gas industry, which will be directly impacted by the moratorium. In Louisiana coastal communities such as Houma, Morgan City and Lafayette, one out of every three jobs is related to the oil and gas industry; these jobs are now in jeopardy along with the $12.7 billion in total wages earned by employees working in the Gulf Coast oil and gas industry. Their unemployment would result in decreased tax receipts and additional budget restrictions for a Parish that is already experiencing a very lean year. According to an analysis performed by the Gulf Economic Survival Team, Louisiana and its Parishes stand to lose $150 million to $700 million in state and local sales tax revenue due to the moratorium, thereby negatively impacting all government services, from police and fire protection, to schools and hospitals.

Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham and William K. Reilly, who were appointed to head the President’s Commission to investigate the BP oil spill, have expressed criticism over the nature and duration of the moratorium. After hearing testimony from a variety of local officials, Mr. Reilly stated that, “It’s not clear to me why it should take so long.” Former Senator Graham echoed these concerns, reportedly saying that the moratorium was a burden on the economic life of the Gulf Coast. He said the federal government has had nearly three months to inspect the rigs in the Gulf and wondered why it was taking so long to determine whether they can safely restart operations.

The Permitorium

Secretary Salazar announced the end of the moratorium on October 13, 2010. According to many in the industry, this declaration provided little relief. The moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico was replaced by a “permitorium” – whereby drilling activity remained at a standstill not by operation of law – but because of inaction on the part of BOEMRE. Prior to the disaster, Mineral Management Service (MMS) processed and issued permits to drill in two weeks. However, not a single deepwater permit was issued by BOEMRE until U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ordered the agency to take action on five permits by March 19, 2011, and by March 31, 2011, on two additional permits.

On February 28, 2011, BOEMRE finally issued the first deepwater drilling permit since the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon. The permit was issued to Noble Energy, and allows them to resume drilling which they had started before April 20, 2010. Specifically, the permit allows Noble Energy to drill a by-pass well in Mississippi Canyon Block 519, approximately 70 miles south east of Venice, La. An operator drills a bypass well in order to drill around a mechanical problem in the original hole to the original target from the existing wellbore. In this case, Noble Energy will be drilling around the plugs set in the original well when drilling was suspended in order to complete the long delayed project.

Since February, BOEMRE has approved 13 additional deepwater permits – 11 of which simply allow operations to resume on a previously approved well. Only one permit has been issued for a well that had not been previously approved. On May 10, 2011, Judge Feldman issued an additional order requiring BOEMRE to act on six additional applications within 30 days. In his decision, Judge Feldman determined that, “the government has presented no credible assurances that the permitting process will return to one marked by predictability and certainty.” (emphasis added) He went on to say that “Processing a scant few applications is at best a tactical ploy in a real world setting.” Moreover, it has severe implications for the future productivity of the region. It generally takes five to ten years once a permit is issued to bring the oil to market.

In addition to the immediate impact on the residents of the Gulf Coast, the year long pause in drilling operations will probably mean a decline in domestic output of crude oil according to analysts. Deep-water drilling in the Gulf accounts for about 1.25 million barrels of oil a day – or about one-quarter of America's domestic crude oil production. The Gulf contribution is expected to drop by about 180,000 barrels a day, in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Regulations Following the Spill

As a result of the BP Oil Spill, BOEMRE promulgated a series of regulations that coincided with the entire reorganization of the agency from the former MMS. These reforms are some of the most aggressive changes to offshore oil and gas production in U.S. history and range from new rules covering safety, oversight, and environmental protection for permitting, drilling, and development processes for oil and gas operations. In some cases, these new regulations apply to both offshore operations themselves as well as the businesses that deal directly with offshore rigs – many of which are small businesses. The regulated community, state officials, and even BOEMRE staff have raised concerns about the feasibility and practicality of these new regulations. After Deepwater Horizon, it is clear that a new, safer system is necessary for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; however, the focus of any regulatory changes must be on continuing safe drilling in the Gulf. The latest regulations promulgated by BOEMRE do not appear to promote this goal of drilling and instead create a significant amount of uncertainty and confusion within the offshore oil and gas community.

Archaeological Requirements on Operators

One of the most perplexing regulations promulgated by BOEMRE is the requirement that operators perform an Archaeological Assessment Report as part of National Environmental Policy Act analysis and in conjunction with the National Historic Preservation Act. Under this new rule, any permitting applications that will propose bottom-disturbing activities require analysis of data and information about the potential existence of archaeological resources and the affect that proposed operations will have on these shipwrecks.

The application of this rule requires that operators literally become underwater archaeologists, entering a field where they have little experience. Operators must conduct ocean floor analyses with specialized equipment to determine if anomalies are shipwrecks with the potential to be impacted by exploration or drilling. Furthermore, operators will be required to employ an underwater archaeologist to assist in the analysis of this data and to provide BOEMRE with survey data. When asked about how to implement this new rule, and more specifically if operators would need to hire an underwater archaeologist, BOEMRE representatives responded that they would have to make this hire and that the profession was not uncommon. The archaeological assessment requirements are a prime example of the seemingly absurd and arbitrary nature of the new regulations placed on offshore drilling operations.

“Should-to-Must” Requirements

A new Workplace Safety Rule is another BOEMRE regulation intended to improve safety practices for offshore drilling operations. Unfortunately, its implementation has proven to be challenging in practice. This regulation requires that operators develop and maintain a Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS). A SEMS is a “comprehensive management program for indentifying, addressing and managing operational safety hazards and impacts, with the goal of promoting both human safety and environmental protection.” In addition, the Workplace Safety Rule makes mandatory the practices in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice 75 (API RP 75). The API RP 75 is a collection of best practices created by API as suggestions for operators to implement. BOEMRE issued a direct final rule, without the public’s input, making all aspects of the API guidance mandatory. The recommendations vary depending on the type of operation. They were not designed to be mandatory directives, and certainly not designed to be executed simultaneously. This fact was seemingly lost on BOEMRE, as the agency carelessly changed all “should” instructions to “must.”

After industry and affected states voiced strong objections based on the purpose and feasibility of the regulations, BOEMRE initiated a guidance document entitled “Supplemental Information Regarding Approval Requirements for Activities that Involve the Use of a Subsea Blowout Preventer (BOP) or a Surface BOP on a Floating Facility,” with the goal of displacing fear of the careless “should-to-must” change. In the guidance document, BOEMRE recognized that the incorporation of the API documents required that any “should” would be interpreted as “must” for purposes of the Code of Federal Regulations. BOEMRE has indicated that it recognizes that some degree of flexibility is important for the feasible implementation of the API incorporated documents. To this end, BOEMRE is willing to consider, based on agency approval, other practices that may accomplish similar goals as those contained in the API document. Despite these changes, uncertainty remains regarding the “should” to “must” regulations because the guidance document does not go far enough in relieving the burden of implementing regulations whose original intentions were merely industry-wide best practices. Due to the vague nature of the guidance document, the drilling community’s uncertainty is augmented because of concerns about whether in application BOEMRE will actually back off the “should-to-must” requirement.

A concern of small business involves the implementation of SEMS Workplace Rules. BOEMRE recognizes in its Workplace Safety Rule Fact Sheet that many large operators have already established SEMS programs; however, it does not mention the smaller operators or those businesses who work closely with operators. Small businesses that have contact with operators’ rigs will also be required to establish their own SEMS programs at the request of the large operators. Small businesses are not situated to perform the same level of SEMS analysis that large-multinational corporations can – many of these small businesses that service large operators may be forced out of business if they cannot implement a SEMS program. BOEMRE has not addressed the concerns of small business owners who work closely with large operators on the SEMS issue.

Industry Strives to Make Drilling Safer

The explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon and the confusion in the subsequent days and months clearly demonstrated that MMS and BP had failed to adhere to rigorous safety standards. Moreover, there is agreement that changes needed to be made to the flawed system that allowed the disaster to occur. However, evidence suggests the regulations promulgated by BOEMRE do not promote the revitalization of a safe oil and gas industry in the Gulf; instead, they hinder production even when operators have made significant strides to become safer. For example, the oil industry made a substantial investment in safety by creating a rapid-response system to prevent another disaster like the BP Oil Spill. BOEMRE’s regulations do not appear to take this into account.

In July 2010, in order to quell concerns regarding the safety of deepwater drilling, four of the largest oil companies, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and Conoco Philips, committed $1 billion to create a rapid-response system to deal with future potential oil spills. This rapid response system includes the creation of modular containment equipment that would be available for use and could contain spills as deep as 10,000 feet and capture up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day. A nonprofit organization known as the Marine Well Containment Company operates and maintains the emergency capability mechanism. Industry executives feel that this measure is sufficient to respond to the impact of any future blowout or spill that may affect the Gulf region, and it will restore the government and the citizens’ confidence in the oil industry to operate with the proper safety precautions in place. This unsolicited action demonstrates the industry’s commitment to operate responsibly. However, BOEMRE’s policies do not recognize the necessary and important contributions that industry has made.
------------

The lack of leadership shown by President Obama has destroyed any hope for positive change in the United States. It would appear that the president has the anti-Midas touch. He destroys America everywhere he goes, probably because he does not understand America, the Constitution or the American people.

When Utah Senator Orrin Hatch was asked about Obamacare, the Senator said that "Every state has different demographics. Every state has different problems. It's good to allow them to work out their own problems rather than a one-size-fits-all federal government dumb-a** program. It really is an awful piece of crap."

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that Obama’s administration will continue its lack of an energy policy in the United States by stalling uranium mining in some of America’s richest uranium reserves located in southern Utah and northern Arizona. The current moratorium on one million acres was due to expire in July.

Senator Hatch responded to the uranium moratorium by saying, “Once again we have a Democratic administration using the rim of the Grand Canyon as a backdrop to killing jobs in Southern Utah. If any further proof was required about this Administration’s war on energy development in the West, this should put any lingering doubt to rest. With this decision, the President is putting 4,000 jobs and $30 billion worth of economic activity on hold. He is also breaking faith with southern Utah and northern Arizona by breaching a longstanding bipartisan agreement to allow uranium mining in the area. This is unconscionable.

We have a president who says he wants to create jobs and attack climate change, but then puts our nation’s best source of uranium off-limits, thus killing thousands of high-paying rural jobs. I have never seen a bigger disconnect between a President’s stated goals and his actions. As was the case with the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996, this Administration is killing jobs for Utahans, without input from Congress or from the stakeholders who will be impacted the most.

We were hoping for some certainty for the uranium industry and its stakeholders so that this important work could go forward in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Instead, we now have more uncertainty than ever, and a very confused energy policy coming out of the Obama administration. I was under the impression that the President was for green energy jobs. Well, these projects would have created about 4,000 green energy jobs in southern Utah and led to the reopening of an existing uranium mill in Garfield County. This decision effectively sabotages that. It also increases our near-total reliance on uranium from foreign nations.”

What has Senator Hatch said about Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama regarding Obamacare waivers?

“The Administration’s refusal to make public the names of those companies and entities which have been denied waivers, and the reasons for why those waivers were denied, are prime examples of the lack of transparency which has become a hallmark of this Administration. The absence of full disclosure about both the approved and denied waivers prevents the American people the ability to know how the health care law is being implemented. It should be clear and publicly available which entities have to comply with the burdensome and costly requirements of the new health care law and which are receiving a temporary reprieve because they were aware of and navigated the waiver process.”

What does Senator Hatch have to say about President Obama’s energy policies?

"He [Obama] has got to have these dumbbells down at the White House feeding him this stuff. The president says 'no' to American energy companies wanting to use their own profits to create more jobs and more American oil, but then he gives away taxpayer money to subsidize foreign jobs and create more dependence on foreign oil. [Obama] is bright enough to look through it and see that policy doesn't work. Is it just their supporters that demand it? The Democratic supporters are just demanding this type of harm to our country and our people? The whole farce would be comical if it weren't so incredibly harmful to our nation.”

These things need to be made known to the American public. Americans need to hear that there are politicians in Washington that understand the harm that this president has done and is doing to the United States.

An incompetent president must never come close to being re-elected. America’s Congressmen need to stand up for their constituents, their country and the Constitution.

Americans will dethrone the king in the November 2012 election.

Are You a Serf or an American? Read the Words of Your Leaders, Part III

2011-10-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

At the G-20 Summit in Pittsburg, President Obama promised to “phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy.”

Despite the fact that America runs on oil products, “the oil and gas industry receives [only] $2.8 billion in targeted tax incentives...far less than its smaller rivals in energy production. [T]he renewable energy sector...receives $11.3 billion.”

“Why, when gas prices are climbing, would any elected official call for new taxes on energy? And characterizing legitimate tax credits as “subsidies” or “loopholes” only distracts from substantive treatment of these issues.”

“With unemployment rising to 9% in April 2011, America needs to create more jobs, not eliminate existing jobs by increasing taxes to subsidize clean energy technologies that are not capable of filling the void.”

President Obama lacks the ability to understand why his actions and inactions are so detrimental to putting people back to work and to decreasing the cost of energy. But then, he is not known for being logical.

------------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

RISING ENERGY COSTS: AN INTENTIONAL RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
STAFF REPORT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 112TH CONGRESS, May 23, 2011

The President has asked Congress to eliminate tax breaks to the oil and gas industry and invest that revenue into clean energy to reduce our dependence on Foreign oil.

Punitive Tax Increases

The Obama Administration wants to tax American oil and gas production to subsidize its clean energy agenda. Higher taxes will disproportionately and negatively impact American job creators in the independent oil and gas production market. Over the long run it will decrease domestic production and make the United States more vulnerable to world events.

In its FY2012 budget, the Obama Administration requests over $60 billion in direct tax and fee increases (over ten years) on American energy production. Some of the most substantial energy tax and fee proposals in the President’s FY 2012 budget include:

• Repeal Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction for oil and natural gas ($18.2 billion)
• Repeal expensing for intangible drilling costs ($12.4 billion)
• Repeal percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.2 billion)
• Repeal percentage depletion tax on oil, gas and mineral properties ($4.9 billion for corporations, $890 million for individuals)

The Administration plans to use these tax increases to subsidize and promote the electric vehicle industry and other clean energy projects. Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, describes the Obama Administration’s philosophy behind the tax increases requested in the FY2012 budget:

"To invest in the industries and jobs of tomorrow, we invest $148 billion overall in research and development. And this supports our goal of putting a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, doubling our share of electricity from clean energy by 2035, and reducing energy use in buildings by 20 percent by 2020.

In part, we pay for this by eliminating 12 tax breaks that now go to oil, gas and coal companies, which will raise $46 billion over 10 years." (emphasis added)

The Administration characterizes the deductions and credits slated for elimination as “tax preferences,” or “oil and gas subsidies” that are costly to U.S. taxpayers and do little to either provide incentives for increased production or reduce prices to consumers. The President refers to them as “special” and “unwarranted” “giveaways.” This characterization is inaccurate: the vast majority of these deductions and credits are widely available to all manufacturers. For example, the President’s proposal to eliminate the expensing of intangible drilling costs would single out the oil and gas industry for discriminatory tax treatment. Intangible drilling costs (IDCs) are non-salvageable items that can be expensed in the year that they were incurred. This tax treatment applies equally to shoe salesman as it applies to the oil and gas industry. For example, if a shoe salesman buys a shoe for $10 and sells it for $20, he doesn’t depreciate the shoe over 7 years, he expenses it. Similarly, there are a host of temporary, non-salvageable items called IDCs that some oil and gas companies can expense such as drilling services, mud, cement, testing services, things that are done before a well is completed and producing any oil or gas.

Moreover, the oil and gas industry receives $2.8 billion in targeted tax incentives, less than 3 percent of all incentives, and far less than its smaller rivals in energy production, the renewable energy sector which receives $11.3 billion. The non-profit Tax Foundation questions why the Administration is penalizing the oil and gas industry by attempting to repeal tax deductions that are widely available to many other manufacturing sectors and warns that other manufacturing sectors may soon be penalized as well if they fall out of favor with the Administration:

Why, suddenly, should companies that produce t-shirts, hamburgers, toys, software, or rap music be qualified to receive the tax benefit but oil companies should not be? According to the explanation in Treasury’s Green Book, environmental politics account for this distortion of sound tax and economic policy. The President promised during the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, to “phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that the United States can transition to a 21st century energy economy.” (emphasis added)

Why, when gas prices are climbing, would any elected official call for new taxes on energy? And characterizing legitimate tax credits as “subsidies” or “loopholes” only distracts from substantive treatment of these issues. Lawmakers misrepresent the facts when they call the manufacturing deduction known as Section 199—passed by Congress in 2004 to spur domestic job growth—a “subsidy” for oil and gas firms. The truth is that all U.S. manufacturers, from software producers to filmmakers and coffee roasters, are eligible for this deduction.(emphasis added)

Many of these proposed tax changes, including repealing the expensing of intangible drilling costs, have the effect of removing incentives available only to non-integrated companies (also referred to as “independents”). Independent oil producers—those who get oil and natural gas out of the ground and do not refine, transport, market, or have retail sales of petroleum products—develop 95 percent of domestic oil and gas wells. Independents produce 68 percent of domestic oil and produce 82 percent of domestic natural gas. While integrated companies (i.e. Chevron, Shell, BP) with vastly more capital may survive these tax increases in the short run, the independents will essentially be killed and good jobs will be lost.

For those lucky enough to survive, eliminating tax credits and deductions for independents will certainly decrease capital investment and thus domestic exploration and production. Independents currently invest 150% of their domestic cash flow back into development. In 2010, upstream independents are estimated to have spent $62.6 billion on capital expenditures (capex). This translates to the creation of six direct and 33 total upstream jobs for every $1 million dollars of capex. In value added terms, every $1 million dollars of capital expenditure results in $2.4 million of direct and $5.1 million of overall contribution to GDP.50 In terms of taxes, every $1 million dollars of capex results in $1.1 million of total tax revenue generated in the upstream sector. According to Rock Zierman of California Independent Petroleum Producers, “only independent producers can fully expense IDC on American production. Therefore, if you eliminate IDC expensing, there would be less capital available in the current year to reinvest in new drilling operations. This equals less production, period.” Even though the entire domestic natural gas and oil sector claimed only $2 billion in deductions in 2010, independent producers could lose as much as $12 billion in the first year after this deduction was repealed. Devon Energy, an independent producer in Oklahoma, estimates that eliminating IDC expensing could cost it $1 billion in the first year. “That would equate to our complete drilling program in the Barnett Shale. . . . That looks to us like it's a totally wrongheaded policy that would penalize companies that are most efficient at producing resources that power the nation.” Higher taxes equal less investment and more dependence on foreign sources of oil. Less capital investment will lead to more dependence on foreign oil.

Repealing these tax credits and deductions will not only decrease capital investment and domestic exploration and production, but it will also eliminate good-paying jobs. The exploration and production portion of the industry employs about 500,000 workers at a wage rate over 50 percent higher than the average of all manufacturing. With unemployment rising to 9% in April 2011, America needs to create more jobs, not eliminate existing jobs by increasing taxes to subsidize clean energy technologies that are not capable of filling the void:

Annually raising taxes on the industry by billions of dollars would reduce investment in American oil and natural gas development, cost thousands of U.S. jobs, and, over time, reduce both energy production and the taxes and royalties generated from it. It would also increase imports. We wouldn’t reduce the deficit, and necessary government investments could be adversely affected. Those advocating tax increases, therefore, would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Those who want more revenue should work to increase access to available U.S. oil and natural gas reserves, which have a long-term government revenue potential approaching $2 trillion. That could reduce the deficit and help finance critical government programs without raising energy costs and reducing supplies.

While removal of these tax credits and deductions may be appropriate in conjunction with broad-based tax reform that reduces net tax rates, eliminates unnecessary burdens on job creators, and simplifies tax compliance, simply removing these provisions without tax relief elsewhere would have the effect of discouraging oil and gas exploration and development even more. Far from seeking tax code simplification, or even additional revenues to reduce our deficits, the Administration is quite openly seeking ways of paying for the subsidies it would like to provide to “green energy” while at the same time making carbon-based energy more expensive.

Unfair tax treatment is just one piece of evidence in a two-year pattern of Administration policies that discriminate against oil and gas development in the United States. This discrimination hurts not only the energy independence of the country but local economies across the nation. The remainder of this report will provide examples of some of those policies in each of five geographic regions most likely to feel the repercussions: Appalachia, the Rocky Mountains, the Gulf, Alaska, and Texas.
------------

Rush Limbaugh summed things up on June 28th for those that drink the Obama Kool-aid. "The way you increase jobs and growth and opportunity and wealth is through capitalism.

We've just been through 29 months of socialism.

It's miserable. It's depressing. It's stifling. It destroys the national mood. We need to contain the government.

As long as Obama's in the Oval Office, or on the golf course, or in some diner eating greasy hamburgers or in charge of the executive branch, as long as his party controls any part of Congress, this nation cannot recover. We do not have a chance.

This country does not have a chance with Barack Obama remaining in the Oval Office.

To agree with Obama and the ruling class you have to ignore the trustees who oversee our entitlement programs. You have to ignore the Congressional Budget Office. You have to ignore major credit rating bureaus. You have to ignore the unemployment, foreclosure, and bankruptcy figures.

If you want to agree with Obama, you have to ignore everything else you're hearing.

You have to assume that everybody else is lying and that only Obama is telling the truth.

You have to ignore all the measurements and trends rational people look at to determine policies. You have to ignore all of that to agree with Obama.

And you have to embrace the platitudes and the constant lines of a president who five years ago was considered a joke by his colleagues in the Illinois state Senate.

He was considered a joke, Mr. 'Vote Present.'

A few years before that he was a community organizer in Chicago. He was a nothing. He is the least qualified man in any room he enters."

Are You a Serf or an American? Read the Words of Your Leaders, Part II

2011-10-15T18:19:00.000-07:00

In January of 2008, Obama said “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...”

In December of 2008, Obama’s future Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, said “[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

If President Obama and his administration do not get their way, they will try to covertly circumvent the wishes of the American people. He did it with Obamacare and is doing it with cap-and-trade.

A top White House economic official warned Congress that, “if you don’t pass this [cap-and-trade] legislation then…the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate in a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

If Americans do not cooperate with the “visions” of the President, he will find a way to force you to do what he wants. He does not care whether your business makes a profit as long as he can attain his “vision.”

In his 2011 State of the Union speech, President Obama said that “...clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.”

He was not challenging anyone in his speech. He was directing you to do what he wants you to do...or he will make you do it.

In Congressman Issa’a report, he noted that “China has a near-monopoly on rare earths, controlling between 95-100 percent of the elements essential to most clean energy technologies including wind turbines, hybrid cars, solar panels, computers, and batteries. Instead of importing foreign oil from multiple countries, adopting clean energy technologies would require the United States to become reliant on the Chinese to provide these essential elements.”

Is President Obama content building up China while destroying the United States?

“This year, the corn-ethanol sector will produce about 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol, the energy equivalent of about 9.1 billion gallons of gasoline...[T]he entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet only about 15 percent of the demand.”

Is it really necessary to continue paying billions in subsidies for corn-ethanol?

Continuing with Congressman Issa’s report, it is obvious to readers that President Obama’s vision is not one that America wants or desires. His vision is devoid of good judgment.

------------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

RISING ENERGY COSTS: AN INTENTIONAL RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
STAFF REPORT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 112TH CONGRESS, May 23, 2011

INTRODUCTION

In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama declared, “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy...America must be that nation.” Yet today, more than 80% of the United States’ primary energy comes from carbon-based resources that cannot easily, cheaply, or quickly be replaced. Even so, the Administration is aggressively suppressing the use of carbon-based energy sources in the United States. To do so, it is pursuing a broad array of measures to block carbon-based energy extraction, to tax, and to otherwise increase the costs of its use, and to subsidize wherever possible the development and use of so-called “clean energy.” The economic and geopolitical implications of such a policy, if it is successful, are not good for the United States. It will make the United States poorer and more susceptible to the pressures of countries that now control a large share of the world’s oil—countries, which for the most part, do not share America’s goals or ideals.

The Obama Administration has advanced an agenda that discourages development of domestic carbon-based energy resources. Administration actions include the threat of new federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, withdrawal of federal lands, both on and offshore, from energy production, increasingly burdensome requirements for oil shale research and development leases, and a de facto moratorium on drilling permits. This strategy has added to permitting delays, created additional layers of review, and prolonged study periods. In addition, other laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act have been used to further suppress domestic oil and gas production, leading to higher gasoline prices and growing dependence on foreign oil. The Administration has also proposed a series of discriminatory tax increases targeting oil and gas producers in order to subsidize its favorite industry: so-called “clean energy” (primarily wind and solar).

The Administration’s bias against carbon-based fuels should come as no surprise. The President ran on an agenda that anticipated higher energy costs:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. … Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money.” [Obama, January 2008]

Some of his key cabinet officials have expressed similar views. Prior to his confirmation as Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, then director of the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, advocated raising gas taxes--and therefore prices--to encourage the sale of more-efficient cars: “[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." [Secretary Chu, December 12, 2008]

This report will examine specific Obama Administration policies targeting oil and gas production from both a regional and national perspective. Additionally, it will take a close look at the regional and local impacts of the growing web of laws, regulations, policies and tactics aimed at suppressing the development and production of domestic, carbon-based energy reserves that the President has labeled “yesterday’s energy.” [Obama, State of the Union, January 25, 2011]

President Obama’s policy bias against fossil fuels

The Obama Administration is promoting a clean energy agenda at the expense of domestic oil and gas production. Administration officials, including the President, have publicly stated that increasing domestic oil and gas production is important to stabilize gasoline prices. However, a review of their actions reveals a systemic effort to prevent, obstruct, stall, and discourage development of carbon-based resources. This strategy is articulated by Secretary Geithner and is observable in actions by Administrator Jackson and Secretary Salazar. Unfortunately for Americans struggling with higher gas prices, Administration rhetoric will provide no relief. However, the Administration’s actions can inflict more pain.

In March 2009, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explained to Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) that the Obama Administration planned to increase taxes on domestic oil and gas producers even though this policy will decrease domestic oil production and increase America’s dependence on foreign oil and gas:

[Timothy Geithner, March 2009] Senator, as you know, and I think it's clear in the proposal, we don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy that are dramatically going to add to our climate change imperative.

...But as I said, the overall objective is not to be providing ongoing subsidies to forms of energy production that are going to add to this critical long-term imperative of climate change. (emphasis added)

…And I think this is a reasonable policy, given the overall objective of again making sure we're not providing artificial incentives, to produce and use energy that's going to make our broader climate-change imperatives worse. (emphasis added)

Translation: in order to achieve the President’s vision of a carbon free economy, the production and development of fossil fuels would be punished.

Phase One: Cap-and-Trade

Since his first day in office President Obama has worked to advance his “green energy agenda.” This agenda was originally manifested in the Presidents cap-and-trade scheme, which was summarily rejected by Congress. Cap-and-trade legislation, “a combination of energy taxes and carbon controls” failed to garner enough support to pass both houses of Congress. “Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures. “They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence....What is dead is some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs.” Some view the massive failure of cap-and trade as the impetus for the President’s renewed focus on clean energy: “cap and trade by another name.” Failing to pass cap-and-trade, the Administration turned to regulation to do what it couldn’t via Congress. Namely, EPA issued the controversial endangerment finding for CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). This finding put in motion the onerous mechanisms of the Clean Air Act which imposes enormous costs on consumers of carbon-based fuel.

Before EPA issued the Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gasses under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the White House and the agency had been warned by economists, legislators, and their own advisors that the GHG regulations would impose a high cost on the economy via higher energy prices and increased uncertainty. Former Energy and Commerce Chairman Dingell famously stated in April 2008 that regulating GHGs under the CAA would result in a “glorious mess” that would wreak havoc on the economy. In March 2009, then-Ranking Member Issa warned EPA that,...the immediate result of issuing an endangerment finding is that thousands of American small businesses, already struggling in one of the toughest economic [climates] our generation has ever seen, will be thrown into a sea of legal uncertainty, further depressing their ability to stay viable. Bottom line: the Administration knew that the implementation of EPA’s GHG regulations would have a large economic impact. During consideration of cap-and-trade legislation, a top White House economic official warned that, “if you don’t pass this [cap-and-trade] legislation then...the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate in a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Phase Two: Promote “New Energy;” Discourage “Yesterday’s Energy”

The Administration remains steadfast in its efforts to force a shift from oil and gas to so-called “clean energy.” In its recent report on energy policy, the Administration pays lip service to the proposition that America needs to expand domestic oil and gas production, but offers no serious plan to accomplish the expansion. Instead, it promotes “clean energy” policies that would decrease domestic oil and gas production, ignoring the evidence that such policies would contribute to higher gasoline prices and increase America’s dependence on foreign oil, as well as contribute to the further loss of American jobs. In his 2011 State of the Union address, the President stated “none of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from,” yet only a few moments later he predicted that the next big industry will be clean energy: “...clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.”

The President’s push for clean energy tomorrow comes at the expense of affordable energy today. The United States has an abundance of carbon-based fuels; yet, restricted use will artificially and unnecessarily raise the cost of energy for U.S. consumers. America’s combined energy resources are the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined – and that’s without including America’s shale oil deposits. U.S. proven reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. “That’s enough oil to maintain America’s current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.” Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet.

Alternative Energy: Is it Really Green?

Converting from a carbon-based economy towards “greener” energy would be costly in more ways than one. “In its headlong rush to go ‘green,’ the United States may simply be trading reliance on one type of import for reliance on another.” To convert to clean energy the United States “will need rare earth commodities produced by the Chinese as well as lithium mined by a handful of foreign countries.” China has a near-monopoly on rare earths, controlling between 95-100 percent of the elements essential to most clean energy technologies including wind turbines, hybrid cars, solar panels, computers, and batteries. Instead of importing foreign oil from multiple countries, adopting clean energy technologies would require the United States to become reliant on the Chinese to provide these essential elements.

Besides all the other problems with becoming dependent on China for the sole supply of rare earth elements necessary to increase America’s use of so-called clean energy, increasing the demand for these elements would only add to China’s coal and oil consumption. China is the world’s second largest energy consumer. Coal supplied the vast majority (71 percent) of China’s total energy consumption of 85 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2008. Oil is the second-largest source, accounting for 19 percent of the country’s total energy consumption. While China has made an effort to diversify its energy supplies, new sources of renewable energy account for only 4.2 percent of China’s energy consumption. EIA estimates that China’s absolute coal consumption should nearly double to 112 quadrillion Btu by 2020. The logic of using more carbon-based fuels in China to create more clean energy in the United States is flawed. CO2 is highly diffuse in the atmosphere such that emissions in China impact the United States as much as emissions originating in California. It is also a fallacy that a conversion to clean energy would create new jobs in the United States. In addition to the jobs that will be lost in the oil and gas production industry to subsidize the Obama Administration’s conversion to so-called clean energy, “China’s near-monopoly control of the green elements likely means that more of the new manufacturing jobs related to “green” energy products will be created in China, not the United States.”

In addition to solar and wind, biofuels intended to reduce or replace U.S. gasoline consumption are already costing taxpayers and are not a long-term practical solution for replacing carbon-based fuels. Total agriculture-based biofuels production accounted for only about 5% of total U.S. transportation fuel consumption (on a gasoline-equivalent basis) in 2010. Federal biofuels policies have had costs, including unintended market and environmental consequences and large federal outlays (estimated at over $7 billion in 2010). In a 2010 study, the Congressional Budget Office estimated “taxpayers incur a cost of $1.78 for replacing 125,000 Btus of energy supplied by petroleum fuels with 125,000 Btus supplied by ethanol.” This year, the corn-ethanol sector will produce about 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol, the energy equivalent of about 9.1 billion gallons of gasoline...the domestic-drilling sector provides about 36 times as much energy to the U.S. economy. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet only about 15 percent of the demand. Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, says that biofuels don’t make much sense because it “takes a huge amount of land to produce a modest amount of energy.” The key issue, says Searchinger, is scale. He points out that even if we used “every piece of wood on the planet, every piece of grass eaten by livestock, and all food crops, that much biomass could only provide about 30 percent of the world’s total energy needs.”

Regardless, the Obama Administration continues to emphasize unaffordable clean energy policies at the expense of domestic carbon-based resources. A recent post on the White House blog summarizes the President’s position. The post and the accompanying graphic demonstrate that the Obama Administration’s true position with domestic oil and gas production is to increase that industry’s taxes in order to provide subsidies for clean energy including electric cars and public transportation.
------------

President Obama is an open book. He tells you what he is going to do to you and does it by any method that will work.

Are You a Serf or an American? Read the Words of Your Leaders

2011-10-12T08:59:00.000-07:00

California Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a report on the actions of the President and his administration regarding their blatant lack of a common sense approach to America’s energy problems and therefore America’s economic woes. The report places the blame right where it belongs - on number 1.

The facts in the report are incontrovertible.

------------
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman

RISING ENERGY COSTS: AN INTENTIONAL RESULT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
STAFF REPORT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 112TH CONGRESS, May 23, 2011

Findings

1. Key Obama Administration figures have expressed a belief that Americans should pay more for energy – a pattern of actions shows the Administration is, in fact, pursuing an agenda to raise the price Americans pay for energy.

President Obama, Energy Secretary Chu and others have stated that American consumers should pay more for energy, including electricity and gasoline. From a political perspective, increasing the price of energy (by whatever means) helps them make the case for “green” energy. Even beyond the effort to raise energy prices through “cap and trade” legislation that Congress rejected, a pattern of increased enforcement, regulatory delay and new hurdles can be seen across numerous agencies and approval processes. The result of this government action is less production, higher costs for producers, and more expensive energy.

2. While the Administration touts nascent “green” energy technologies, U.S. domestic energy resources are currently the largest on earth — greater than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada combined.

New developments in drilling and extraction technology have dramatically expanded the amount of total recoverable reserves of oil and natural gas. Much of this, however, may be put off-limits by the government.

3. Still trying to capitalize on domestic energy resources, U.S. firms are nevertheless investing billions of dollars to tap newly recoverable resources in California, Texas, Colorado and North Dakota, among others.

By 2015, fields in these areas could yield more daily oil than the Gulf of Mexico produces today, boosting domestic production by 20-40 percent and increasing our energy independence if government action does not severely restrict development and yields.

4. Recent Administration action has already led to significant cost and regulatory barriers that have limited domestic production of oil.

Even before the Gulf oil spill, the Department of the Interior had undertaken significant steps to restrict access to much of the energy resources located in the outer continental shelf: Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

5. Other agencies have stepped up their efforts to indirectly curtail energy production through environmental regulations.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed placing the dunes sagebrush lizard that lives in New Mexico and Texas on the Endangered Species list—designation that would severely restrict production activity in a resource-rich part of Texas.

6. EPA has collaborated with environmental groups to target independent energy producers for environmental concerns not related to their operations.

In an email message reviewed by the Committee, environmental advocates and EPA’s Texas-based regional director exchanged celebratory accolades for efforts that create barriers to energy production. One exchange concluded: “Yee haw! Hats off to the new Sheriff and his deputies!”

7. President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on the energy industry will cost American jobs and hamper economic recovery.

Independent operators are responsible for 95 percent of domestic oil and gas wells and they currently invest 150% of their domestic cash flow back into future projects development. Tax increases proposed by President Obama, some of which would be transferred to “green” energy producers, would cost energy producing firms a combined $12 billion in the first year.

8. Some green energy sources the Administration is promoting at the expense of expanded domestic oil, gas, and coal supplies create unintended environmental, security and economic consequences.

Green energy technology like batteries, turbines, hybrid power systems and similar technologies require “rare earth” commodities. China has a “near monopoly” on this market controlling between 95-100 percent of the market. Further, China derives 71 percent of its own energy needs from coal. Ethanol, for example, also requires large amounts of corn to deliver fuel. “[T]he entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport needs while using 300 million acres of U.S. cropland.”
------------

The findings will do Americans little good unless Americans rise up everywhere and demand that their congressional representatives do something to stop this asinine scheme by the President and his administration.

With the insurmountable problems facing America it is an extremely daunting task to undo the damage done by the President and his administration.

Will the increasing national debt and the spending by this President and his Congress ever be stopped?

Will Obamacare ever be overturned?

Will this administration ever allow America to develop its natural resources in order to make America energy independent, an action that would put millions of Americans to work and decrease the cost of energy?

Americans must stand together and demand it!

At present, Americans are not members of a fiefdom and the politicians in Washington are not feudal lords. President Obama is not yet a king.

The Lords in Washington need to do the right thing and stand up for Americans. If not, the serfs will change the landscape in the November 2012 elections.

Ever Wonder How or Why American Manufacturing Companies Disappear?

2011-10-11T06:23:00.000-07:00

Congressman Fred Upton was absolutely wrong with his legislation that killed the incandescent light bulb in the United States.

Capitalism was not allowed to determine the winner and loser between the incandescent light bulb - that has brightened American homes for over a century - and a CFL, manufactured by the Chinese, that is filled with mercury.

His legislation killed another manufacturing process in the United States - a move that eliminated American jobs and sent them to China.

Hopefully, he will recognize the error of his ways and repeal his un-American law.

Let Americans decide what light they want in their homes and in their businesses.

When Congressmen ask where the manufacturing base is in this country, they are either ignorant or disingenuous. With the corporate tax rates they have imposed on businesses and the regulations they have allowed the regulatory agencies to impose on businesses, there is no doubt why businesses close up or move overseas.

Was there a reason for Congress to outlaw the incandescent bulb?

No, there was not.

But, if you were to follow the money trail, it would soon become obvious why this and anything else happens in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Walter Williams, a great American economist, had this to say recently:

“A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives.

Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.

Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces.

So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs?

They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs.

General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.

The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making.

There's no better influence than money.

The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.”

It appears that President Obama has like-minded Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. With Congressmen like Fred Upton, one must ask if there is actually a difference in the two parties?