The fall out of the election victories for the GOP in 2010 continue. Republicans are leading in Washington to cut the out of control spending resulting in unsustainable deficits. Now, thanks to GOP leadership in the budget negotiations, they again show the way to fiscal sanity. President Obama has to play catch-up and shows his weakness as a leader.
President Obama didn't present any spending cuts in his budget plans to finance the rest of 2011 - since there was no budget in place, thanks to the inability of Democrats last year to produce one. Now, Obama has to announce his plans to reform entitlements, thanks to Rep Paul Ryan's plan presented many days ago.
This is a huge win for the taxpayer.
The President has been reduced to following the lead of a Congressman from Wisconsin. On Fox News Sunday, Maura Liasson, a journalist who carries water for this administration, admitted of the Ryan plan - "the absolute essence of leadership". Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" plan reduces the federal deficit by $3 trillion while Obama's budget he will put forth reduces the federal deficit by only $1 trillion.
The President now faces a battle over the vote on increasing the debt ceiling. As a senator from Illinois, Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. Back then it was all about opposing anything put forth by George W. Bush and ramping up for his own run for the presidency. Now his re-election guy Plouffe says that Obama now thinks that vote was a mistake. That was then, this is now.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
You see, the Democrats have assumed the title of the party of no - the party of the status quo. The American public, led by the sought after Independent voter, has said enough of the craziness. It is simply not possible to spend our way out of a recession as deep as this one or else we would be in high cotton by now. It is the Democrats who have been slow to come up with viable answers outside of the box of raising taxes and fees.
The President made a rather strange statement upon the settling of differences on the budget deal Friday night. He spoke about tourists being able to go to the national monuments now without worry that vacations would be hindered due to a government shutdown. It was as though he was a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce. Then, to add to the silliness, he actually trekked over to the Lincoln Monument Saturday and spoke to tourists there.
“Because Congress was able to settle its differences, that’s why this place is open today and everybody’s able to enjoy their visit,” he said. “And that’s the kind of future cooperation I hope we have going forward.”
You can't make this stuff up. It is the re-election season, you know.
So, the President will have a roll out of his budget cutting plans this week. Slow to the table, he is following the lead of Rep Paul Ryan and his brave, common sense Path to Prosperity. While the President campaigned, played golf, enjoyed weekly parties with celebrities at the White House and appeared on television at every chance, Republican leadership was working on reining in a runaway deficit. This President doesn't lead. He follows. Now his handlers are producing talking points that he has always been a deficit cutter. Unbelievable.
"We've had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on "Fox News Sunday." Presidential adviser David Plouffe said Obama has long been committed to finding ways for the nation to spend within its means. He confirmed that the president would unveil more specifics for deficit reduction with a speech Wednesday that would reveal plans to reduce the government's chief health programs for seniors and the poor.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
In Defense of Speaker Boehner
Speaker John Boehner knew that a government shutdown was a no-win situation for everyone involved, but in particular for Republicans.
The social issues that bleed into fiscal issues were deal-breakers until they were not. It is feasible to argue that because Boehner was persistent and steady in his negotiations, by stripping the riders out of the budget agreement, now the GOP will be allowed to voice opposition to them with debate and a vote. This would not have happened if the agreement went forth with the riders. The Senate would not have allowed the vote - Leader Reid is on record as saying as much - and the President would have certainly vetoed it. In short, a shutdown would have happened. Then the predictable would have be put into place - the Democrats would have portrayed the Republicans as voting against poor women and those without health care.
Senator Reid went so far as to imply on the Senate floor that his wife and daughters would be denied health care if Planned Parenthood was de-funded. Does anyone believe that the Reid women seek medical care at Planned Parenthood facilities? Of course not. But that was the talking point and it would remain so until the bitter end.
Though frustration voiced by some in Tea Party wing of the Republican party is understandable, I would urge caution. Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership is not the enemy. The Democrats are the enemy. Speaker Boehner hears the Tea Party loud and clear. He stood firm against the ever increasing Obama budget options and said a strong no to them. He was able to negotiate billions in spending cuts where there was a zero as a starting number from the Democrats. Remember, they intended to increase spending as though there was no deficit crisis looming over us. This is for the remaining year, not the 2011 budget. The Democrats failed to pass a budget for year 2010 and that is why we were in the quagmire to begin with last week.
Now, thanks to strong support of budget cuts, a marker has been placed at the table. No longer will Democrats be allowed to steamroll over anyone in opposition to some sanity injected into spending arguments. The Tea Party will hold the Republican leadership's feet to the fire and that is a good thing. It is not productive, however, to bellyache about cuts that are not exactly at the number that may have been wished for. That is politics and that is life. Harsh but true. It is important to remain engaged and follow the leadership style of Ronald Reagan - that of happy warriors. The GOP has the Democrats on the run and that is fairly amazing, considering that the GOP has a majority in only the House and doesn't control the White House. It is important to remember that deliberate, practical motion will continue on to bring about the change demanded in the mandates of the 2010 elections.
It is crucial to remain united. Most Tea Party politicians have understood this process. What do you think was behind Rep Allen West, a Tea Party favorite, as he clearly and publicly voiced unwavering support for Speaker Boehner? Rep Michele Bachmann is a different story and I would encourage you to look at that vote of no from her. She is seriously contemplating a run for President and she was the first to use the Tea Party to form a conservative caucus as the Tea Party brought her lots of publicity. Not to be cynical, but honest here - it is obvious she intends to use Tea Party support as her base. That's ok, but the Tea Party folks should be aware of it. Rep West, however, chooses to accomplish the conservative agenda instead of sacrificing Republican victories for personal gain. Rep West voted yes.
The very best reward for Speaker Boehner's leadership, besides the fiscal victory, was the fact that even the most Obama-friendly of the press had to admit the Democrats were sorely disappointed and the GOP was victorious.
What followed was a budget compromise deal that irked Democrats for many of the same reasons this most recent compromise with Republicans has muted the joy about an averted shutdown among progressive members in the House.
The tax deal gave Republicans much of what they demanded — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — in exchange for the extension of unemployment benefits for the poor. And this most recent budget deal gives Republicans more in spending cuts than House Speaker John Boehner had asked for. In exchange, funding for Planned Parenthood and women’s health issues were spared.
At least some Democrats now say that those cuts were too deep, and will disproportionately affect the poor.
Got that? They admit that the social issues tacked on as riders will be voted on in the Senate after Reid had to concede that in the negotiations. Had that not be negotiated, the riders would have remained and the bill would have gone no where. And the issues would not have received a vote. The far left was denied their government shutdown. They were gleefully wishing for one to allow themselves an opportunity to throw mud at the GOP. You and I know that the press carries water for Obama and the Democrats - they are all on the same side of the political aisle. Why give them at gift?
Liberals are now described as "disheartened" by their pals in the press. What's not to love about that?
This is the beginning, not the end. The next battle begins as the budget for 2011 is hashed out and the balanced budget amendment comes to the floor. Politics is the art of persuasion. The arguments are tedious and predictable. The key is unity. Without unity, the Democrats win. We can't afford any more of that.
Be of good cheer. Kudos to Speaker Boehner. Happy warriors.
The social issues that bleed into fiscal issues were deal-breakers until they were not. It is feasible to argue that because Boehner was persistent and steady in his negotiations, by stripping the riders out of the budget agreement, now the GOP will be allowed to voice opposition to them with debate and a vote. This would not have happened if the agreement went forth with the riders. The Senate would not have allowed the vote - Leader Reid is on record as saying as much - and the President would have certainly vetoed it. In short, a shutdown would have happened. Then the predictable would have be put into place - the Democrats would have portrayed the Republicans as voting against poor women and those without health care.
Senator Reid went so far as to imply on the Senate floor that his wife and daughters would be denied health care if Planned Parenthood was de-funded. Does anyone believe that the Reid women seek medical care at Planned Parenthood facilities? Of course not. But that was the talking point and it would remain so until the bitter end.
Though frustration voiced by some in Tea Party wing of the Republican party is understandable, I would urge caution. Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership is not the enemy. The Democrats are the enemy. Speaker Boehner hears the Tea Party loud and clear. He stood firm against the ever increasing Obama budget options and said a strong no to them. He was able to negotiate billions in spending cuts where there was a zero as a starting number from the Democrats. Remember, they intended to increase spending as though there was no deficit crisis looming over us. This is for the remaining year, not the 2011 budget. The Democrats failed to pass a budget for year 2010 and that is why we were in the quagmire to begin with last week.
Now, thanks to strong support of budget cuts, a marker has been placed at the table. No longer will Democrats be allowed to steamroll over anyone in opposition to some sanity injected into spending arguments. The Tea Party will hold the Republican leadership's feet to the fire and that is a good thing. It is not productive, however, to bellyache about cuts that are not exactly at the number that may have been wished for. That is politics and that is life. Harsh but true. It is important to remain engaged and follow the leadership style of Ronald Reagan - that of happy warriors. The GOP has the Democrats on the run and that is fairly amazing, considering that the GOP has a majority in only the House and doesn't control the White House. It is important to remember that deliberate, practical motion will continue on to bring about the change demanded in the mandates of the 2010 elections.
It is crucial to remain united. Most Tea Party politicians have understood this process. What do you think was behind Rep Allen West, a Tea Party favorite, as he clearly and publicly voiced unwavering support for Speaker Boehner? Rep Michele Bachmann is a different story and I would encourage you to look at that vote of no from her. She is seriously contemplating a run for President and she was the first to use the Tea Party to form a conservative caucus as the Tea Party brought her lots of publicity. Not to be cynical, but honest here - it is obvious she intends to use Tea Party support as her base. That's ok, but the Tea Party folks should be aware of it. Rep West, however, chooses to accomplish the conservative agenda instead of sacrificing Republican victories for personal gain. Rep West voted yes.
The very best reward for Speaker Boehner's leadership, besides the fiscal victory, was the fact that even the most Obama-friendly of the press had to admit the Democrats were sorely disappointed and the GOP was victorious.
What followed was a budget compromise deal that irked Democrats for many of the same reasons this most recent compromise with Republicans has muted the joy about an averted shutdown among progressive members in the House.
The tax deal gave Republicans much of what they demanded — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — in exchange for the extension of unemployment benefits for the poor. And this most recent budget deal gives Republicans more in spending cuts than House Speaker John Boehner had asked for. In exchange, funding for Planned Parenthood and women’s health issues were spared.
At least some Democrats now say that those cuts were too deep, and will disproportionately affect the poor.
Got that? They admit that the social issues tacked on as riders will be voted on in the Senate after Reid had to concede that in the negotiations. Had that not be negotiated, the riders would have remained and the bill would have gone no where. And the issues would not have received a vote. The far left was denied their government shutdown. They were gleefully wishing for one to allow themselves an opportunity to throw mud at the GOP. You and I know that the press carries water for Obama and the Democrats - they are all on the same side of the political aisle. Why give them at gift?
Liberals are now described as "disheartened" by their pals in the press. What's not to love about that?
This is the beginning, not the end. The next battle begins as the budget for 2011 is hashed out and the balanced budget amendment comes to the floor. Politics is the art of persuasion. The arguments are tedious and predictable. The key is unity. Without unity, the Democrats win. We can't afford any more of that.
Be of good cheer. Kudos to Speaker Boehner. Happy warriors.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Hutchison Protects Military Paychecks
Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is known as a longtime champion of military members and their families. During the recently resolved showdown on the 2011 budget in Washington, she provided leadership once again to ensure that military pay was not sacrificed. Should a shutdown have occurred, the Republican senator looked for support on a plan to keep paychecks going out to our military.
From her website:
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) led a group of 79 Senators urging Congress to continue pay for the military before a possible government shutdown in less than 24 hours. The bipartisan effort, led by Sen. Hutchison would simply make sure that our troops and their families would not see an interruption in their pay if there is a funding gap as a result of the shutdown.
Social Media Campaign With Over 1 Million Supporters
In a matter of hours, over 1 million supporters of the military have rallied together to form a Facebook campaign supporting Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act (S.724).
While the Democrat leadership concerned themselves with the bill riders about funding Planned Parenthood and the like, Hutchison rose above petty political discourse and worked for easing the stress on military families.
"I am not willing to place the well-being of our military personnel and their families in the balance as we await a budget agreement. Our troops are serving our country, and our country must continue to serve them. This legislation would ensure the military gets paid on time, even if Congress cannot pass a budget before the April 8 deadline."
The Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011 would make available the necessary funds to prevent an interruption in pay for members of the military if there is a funding gap resulting from a government shutdown. Additionally, a provision is included to give the Secretary of Defense the discretion to allow those who serve as DOD civilians or contractors in support of our men and women in uniform to continue to be paid as well.
Congress did not pass a single appropriations bill last year, including one to fund the Department of Defense, so any government shutdown would affect our military personnel, many of whom are deployed. There are currently 90,000 troops in Afghanistan and more than 45,000 in Iraq.
The Defense Department has yet to establish concrete guidelines as to how a possible shutdown would affect service members' pay, but a draft planning memo did mention that all military personnel would be required to show up to work, regardless of whether they would be paid during the shutdown.
While cable networks were exploiting the concerns of military families in light of a potential government shutdown, while President Obama could have stepped forward and reassured that military paychecks would remain on schedule, while First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden (who tout their support of military families) remained mute, Senator Hutchison filled the void allowed by Democratic leadership.
That is what political leadership looks like.
From her website:
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) led a group of 79 Senators urging Congress to continue pay for the military before a possible government shutdown in less than 24 hours. The bipartisan effort, led by Sen. Hutchison would simply make sure that our troops and their families would not see an interruption in their pay if there is a funding gap as a result of the shutdown.
Social Media Campaign With Over 1 Million Supporters
In a matter of hours, over 1 million supporters of the military have rallied together to form a Facebook campaign supporting Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act (S.724).
While the Democrat leadership concerned themselves with the bill riders about funding Planned Parenthood and the like, Hutchison rose above petty political discourse and worked for easing the stress on military families.
"I am not willing to place the well-being of our military personnel and their families in the balance as we await a budget agreement. Our troops are serving our country, and our country must continue to serve them. This legislation would ensure the military gets paid on time, even if Congress cannot pass a budget before the April 8 deadline."
The Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011 would make available the necessary funds to prevent an interruption in pay for members of the military if there is a funding gap resulting from a government shutdown. Additionally, a provision is included to give the Secretary of Defense the discretion to allow those who serve as DOD civilians or contractors in support of our men and women in uniform to continue to be paid as well.
Congress did not pass a single appropriations bill last year, including one to fund the Department of Defense, so any government shutdown would affect our military personnel, many of whom are deployed. There are currently 90,000 troops in Afghanistan and more than 45,000 in Iraq.
The Defense Department has yet to establish concrete guidelines as to how a possible shutdown would affect service members' pay, but a draft planning memo did mention that all military personnel would be required to show up to work, regardless of whether they would be paid during the shutdown.
While cable networks were exploiting the concerns of military families in light of a potential government shutdown, while President Obama could have stepped forward and reassured that military paychecks would remain on schedule, while First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden (who tout their support of military families) remained mute, Senator Hutchison filled the void allowed by Democratic leadership.
That is what political leadership looks like.
No Government Shutdown,Last Minute Deal Announced
At 11:04 PM Friday, President Obama walked to the podium in the Blue Room at the White House and announced a deal had been struck. He explained that no government shutdown would occur at midnight. Though he demanded that Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner reach a deal in the morning, he was able to make his announcement before the deadline arrived.
As with any battle, observers immediately began pronouncing winners and losers. The true winner was the American taxpayer, as the government remains open and running without interruption that would have proven disruptive to all sides.
"The Republicans ate the Democrats' lunch", said Doug Schoen, former Clinton advisor back in the days of the 1995 government shutdown. That one lasted five days and Clinton came off looking better to the voters then the GOP did, frankly speaking. This time around, it is not 1995, and the atmosphere is different. Clinton didn't have an angry electorate over Hillarycare, because it didn't go far and there was no Tea Party demanding fiscal responsibility from lawmakers.
The back and forth, the dueling press conferences between the two parties, was good theatre for political junkies. This time around, however, the American public told pollsters that both parties were to blame, not just the GOP, and that put additional pressure on Democrats. This administration polls more than any before and that must have kept them on edge.
Simply put, there was no reason that Congress was in this spot to begin with. The Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate when the deadline for the budget in October 2010 arrived. They punted. For the first time in decades a budget was not submitted. No budget. Many excuses were offered - they would wait for the final product from the President's Deficit Committee, among them. Time lapsed and the Republican landslide victories in November 2010 changed President Obama's world.
The real winner - besides the American taxpayer - in this mess was Speaker of the House Boehner. He proved to be a steady and diligent negotiator. Keep in mind that at the beginning of the process, Democrats offered to make zero spending cuts. Zero.
This is the statement released by Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid:
We have agreed to an historic amount of cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year, as well as a short-term bridge that will give us time to avoid a shutdown while we get that agreement through both houses and to the President. We will cut $78.5 billion below the President's 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders. In the meantime, we will pass a short-term resolution to keep the government running through Thursday. That short-term bridge will cut the first $2 billion of the total savings."
Keep in mind that this is $78.5 billion from the President's own budget. That makes his statement after the agreement was reached all the more odd - that we must learn to live within our means. Yes, he's the same guy who has tripled our national deficit in just two short years of being in the office.
This agreement between Democrats and Republicans on behalf of all Americans is on a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.
Like any worthwhile compromise, both sides had to make tough decisions and give ground on issues that were important to them. And I certainly did that. Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programs people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances. But beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs. Investments in our kid's education and student loans; and clean energy and life-saving medical research. We protected the investments we need to win the future.
Speaker Boehner kept the Republican caucus together, despite the diversity within. From Tea Party to pragmatic moderates,the Republicans supported Boehner's negotiations throughout the process, and by doing so denied Democrats of pulling the party apart. The unity was crucial.
The budget bill is a clean bill. Without the riders attached - sticking points for Democrats who would have not allowed them to go further in the Senate and the President would have never signed on to them- separate debate and votes will occur for them. This is a big concession for Leader Reid. He proclaimed early on that he would not allow debate and votes on repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood. Now conservatives will get that vote in the Senate.
President Obama didn't win much out of this drama. He avoided a shutdown but had little to do with it. His White House conferred with K Street lobbyists, it is reported, to get their approval on the agreement to have the votes in the Senate. That is not something the White House wanted out. Remember, President Obama claimed his administration would not be beholden to lobbyists.
President Obama also has to sign another Continuing Resolution for the next few days to avoid the shutdown, after he said he would not do so at the beginning of the process. He had to agree to strong budget cuts after saying he would not because the cuts would hurt the economy. The Republicans led by Boehner argued the opposite is true and won that argument.
We are on the right path.
As with any battle, observers immediately began pronouncing winners and losers. The true winner was the American taxpayer, as the government remains open and running without interruption that would have proven disruptive to all sides.
"The Republicans ate the Democrats' lunch", said Doug Schoen, former Clinton advisor back in the days of the 1995 government shutdown. That one lasted five days and Clinton came off looking better to the voters then the GOP did, frankly speaking. This time around, it is not 1995, and the atmosphere is different. Clinton didn't have an angry electorate over Hillarycare, because it didn't go far and there was no Tea Party demanding fiscal responsibility from lawmakers.
The back and forth, the dueling press conferences between the two parties, was good theatre for political junkies. This time around, however, the American public told pollsters that both parties were to blame, not just the GOP, and that put additional pressure on Democrats. This administration polls more than any before and that must have kept them on edge.
Simply put, there was no reason that Congress was in this spot to begin with. The Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate when the deadline for the budget in October 2010 arrived. They punted. For the first time in decades a budget was not submitted. No budget. Many excuses were offered - they would wait for the final product from the President's Deficit Committee, among them. Time lapsed and the Republican landslide victories in November 2010 changed President Obama's world.
The real winner - besides the American taxpayer - in this mess was Speaker of the House Boehner. He proved to be a steady and diligent negotiator. Keep in mind that at the beginning of the process, Democrats offered to make zero spending cuts. Zero.
This is the statement released by Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid:
We have agreed to an historic amount of cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year, as well as a short-term bridge that will give us time to avoid a shutdown while we get that agreement through both houses and to the President. We will cut $78.5 billion below the President's 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders. In the meantime, we will pass a short-term resolution to keep the government running through Thursday. That short-term bridge will cut the first $2 billion of the total savings."
Keep in mind that this is $78.5 billion from the President's own budget. That makes his statement after the agreement was reached all the more odd - that we must learn to live within our means. Yes, he's the same guy who has tripled our national deficit in just two short years of being in the office.
This agreement between Democrats and Republicans on behalf of all Americans is on a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.
Like any worthwhile compromise, both sides had to make tough decisions and give ground on issues that were important to them. And I certainly did that. Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programs people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances. But beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs. Investments in our kid's education and student loans; and clean energy and life-saving medical research. We protected the investments we need to win the future.
Speaker Boehner kept the Republican caucus together, despite the diversity within. From Tea Party to pragmatic moderates,the Republicans supported Boehner's negotiations throughout the process, and by doing so denied Democrats of pulling the party apart. The unity was crucial.
The budget bill is a clean bill. Without the riders attached - sticking points for Democrats who would have not allowed them to go further in the Senate and the President would have never signed on to them- separate debate and votes will occur for them. This is a big concession for Leader Reid. He proclaimed early on that he would not allow debate and votes on repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood. Now conservatives will get that vote in the Senate.
President Obama didn't win much out of this drama. He avoided a shutdown but had little to do with it. His White House conferred with K Street lobbyists, it is reported, to get their approval on the agreement to have the votes in the Senate. That is not something the White House wanted out. Remember, President Obama claimed his administration would not be beholden to lobbyists.
President Obama also has to sign another Continuing Resolution for the next few days to avoid the shutdown, after he said he would not do so at the beginning of the process. He had to agree to strong budget cuts after saying he would not because the cuts would hurt the economy. The Republicans led by Boehner argued the opposite is true and won that argument.
We are on the right path.
Friday, April 08, 2011
House Natural Resources Committee Goes to Louisiana
The House Natural Resources Committee is going to Louisiana.
On Tuesday, the Committee announced a mid-April field hearing in Louisiana to hear first-hand from residents on how the President’s de facto moratorium is affecting the offshore energy industry and impacting the local communities.
On Monday, April 18th the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a Full Committee oversight field hearing in Houma, LA entitled “Gulf of Mexico: A Focus on Community Recovery and New Response Technology.”
“This field hearing is an opportunity for Congress to listen to the people, communities and businesses in the Gulf of Mexico that were directly impacted by the tragic rig explosion, oil spill and the Administration’s de facto moratorium,” said Chairman Doc Hastings. “We’ll examine on-going obstacles to getting people back to work, environmental impacts, and new technology to ensure that U.S. offshore drilling moves forward safely and responsibly.”
Chairman Hastings is doing what President Obama and his team will not do. Hastings is taking the entire committee to coastal Louisiana to learn the facts on the ground. The President continues to make questionable statements and tout progress that simply isn't true. In reality, any boost to crude oil production in recent months is due to lagging results from the policy decisions of former President Bush. That is an inconvenient truth for Team Obama so they go around it.
With gas prices rising as we go into summer vacation season, and with crude oil at $109 per barrel, the President has hit the road himself. He is in full re-election mode and doesn't want the voter to understand the folly of his energy (non)policy decisions during his term in office. Of rising gas prices, he recently said:
“I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now…Gas prices? They're going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that's going to take a couple of years to have serious effect.”
Funny. Then Senator Obama certainly thought it was President Bush's fault when prices rose at the gas pump in his second term. I suppose that was then and this is now.
The Obama administration continues to use the tragic Deepwater Horizon explosion as an excuse to shut down oil production domestically. He continues to favor wind energy, which is a component of a common sense energy policy but not the sole answer to our energy needs. We need oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and wind, too. Our dependence on fossil fuel will not be eliminated for decades to come. It's a fact.
Chairman Hastings has introduced several bills to change the course of the direction we are going. They would end the Administration’s de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, restart lease sales that the Administration canceled, and reverse the President’s moratorium on other offshore areas. These bills would cut foreign oil imports by a one-third and according to a leading economist create up to 1.2 million jobs long-term.
It is past time for ideological power grabbing and time for common sense energy policy development.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Democrats Fundraising on Government Shutdown
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is using the potential for a government shutdown as a fundraising tool. Defending 23 Senate seats in the next election, the committee has distributed an e-mail to supporters in hopes of raising $100,000 in the next 36 hours.
The DSCC is looking to raise $100,000 in the next 36 hours “to call out the GOP extremists and preserve our Senate majority,” DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil wrote in the email.
“They won’t budge until health care reform is repealed, Planned Parenthood is defunded, Pell Grants are slashed, and NPR and PBS are off the air,” Cecil wrote. “We can’t allow these extremists to repeal the last 100 years of progress, and you know that’s what they’re truly after. If they get their hands on the Senate, they’ll do just that.”
Meanwhile, the House Republicans have cobbled together a Continuing Resolution for a one week reprieve from a government shutdown and guarantees funding for the Defense Department so that the military members and their families don't feel the financial pinch to add to the already heightened stress of deployed loved ones.
The President has vowed to veto another Continuing Resolution, though.
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Thursday following the President’s threat to veto the bipartisan troop funding bill:
“There is nothing in the bipartisan troop funding bill that the House passed today that has not already been agreed to by Democrats in Congress, or requested by the administration. It funds our troops at a time when our military is engaged in three overseas conflicts, it cuts Washington spending by an amount that Democrat leaders have already said is reasonable, and the policy prescriptions it contains have been previously agreed to by nearly every Democrat in the Senate and signed into law by the President. And let’s not forget, this is the only proposal out there that keeps the government open. I also disagree with the President’s characterization of this bipartisan troop funding bill as a ‘distraction.’ If the President wants to shut down the government over this bipartisan troop funding bill, that is his prerogative. But I would urge him to reconsider his veto threat and join us in preventing a shutdown instead. This is the only bill that would do that. He should sign it.”
It is clear. The playbook is a well-used one from the Democrats. The goal for them is to allow a shutdown and then blame the "extremist" Republicans, in particular the Tea Party conservatives. They think this ploy will serve them well with votes in 2012. It comes at the expense of military families, middle class government workers - especially those living paycheck to paycheck - and those applying for government backed home loans, and so on. The President has the discrepancy to name who is and isn't an essential employee and he seems willing to partner with Senate Democrats to the bitter end.
The difference between the Republican plan and that of the Democrats amounts to about $7 billion, which is less than minuscule in the framework of the big picture. With an additional sticking point of riders to the budget bill - social conservatives demands and fiscal conservatives trying to stop funding for Obamacare implementation and defunding NPR and PBS, so far neither side has blinked.
This is no way to govern.
The DSCC is looking to raise $100,000 in the next 36 hours “to call out the GOP extremists and preserve our Senate majority,” DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil wrote in the email.
“They won’t budge until health care reform is repealed, Planned Parenthood is defunded, Pell Grants are slashed, and NPR and PBS are off the air,” Cecil wrote. “We can’t allow these extremists to repeal the last 100 years of progress, and you know that’s what they’re truly after. If they get their hands on the Senate, they’ll do just that.”
Meanwhile, the House Republicans have cobbled together a Continuing Resolution for a one week reprieve from a government shutdown and guarantees funding for the Defense Department so that the military members and their families don't feel the financial pinch to add to the already heightened stress of deployed loved ones.
The President has vowed to veto another Continuing Resolution, though.
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Thursday following the President’s threat to veto the bipartisan troop funding bill:
“There is nothing in the bipartisan troop funding bill that the House passed today that has not already been agreed to by Democrats in Congress, or requested by the administration. It funds our troops at a time when our military is engaged in three overseas conflicts, it cuts Washington spending by an amount that Democrat leaders have already said is reasonable, and the policy prescriptions it contains have been previously agreed to by nearly every Democrat in the Senate and signed into law by the President. And let’s not forget, this is the only proposal out there that keeps the government open. I also disagree with the President’s characterization of this bipartisan troop funding bill as a ‘distraction.’ If the President wants to shut down the government over this bipartisan troop funding bill, that is his prerogative. But I would urge him to reconsider his veto threat and join us in preventing a shutdown instead. This is the only bill that would do that. He should sign it.”
It is clear. The playbook is a well-used one from the Democrats. The goal for them is to allow a shutdown and then blame the "extremist" Republicans, in particular the Tea Party conservatives. They think this ploy will serve them well with votes in 2012. It comes at the expense of military families, middle class government workers - especially those living paycheck to paycheck - and those applying for government backed home loans, and so on. The President has the discrepancy to name who is and isn't an essential employee and he seems willing to partner with Senate Democrats to the bitter end.
The difference between the Republican plan and that of the Democrats amounts to about $7 billion, which is less than minuscule in the framework of the big picture. With an additional sticking point of riders to the budget bill - social conservatives demands and fiscal conservatives trying to stop funding for Obamacare implementation and defunding NPR and PBS, so far neither side has blinked.
This is no way to govern.
Still No Deal Struck on Budget, Government Shutdown Looms
President Obama spoke to the American people through the White House press corp briefing after the conclusion of an emergency meeting with Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid Wednesday night. At 10:44 PM Eastern Time, the President voiced confidence that a government shutdown could be avoided -"unless we make a decision that politics is more important". He said it was a "productive meeting". He did not, however, say that a deal has been struck. He took no questions from the press.
President Obama has a funny way of always projecting criticism off on others. It is never he who is simply playing politics. He says the other party is grandstanding.
He doesn't say that the GOP passed a spending budget resolution six weeks ago. He doesn't say that it was purely politics that kept the Democratically controlled Congress back in October 2010 from passing a budget - the first time in decades that a budget was not passed by Congress.
Senator Reid told the press, outside the White House, they "narrowed the issues significantly" and that "hope lies eternal".
Speaker Boehner told the press that "some progress" was made but that there is "no agreement on numbers or policy". Both mentioned that staffs would be working through the night.
The House Republicans are preparing a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for one more week and appropriate funds through the rest of the year for the military.
This is no way to run a government.
President Obama has a funny way of always projecting criticism off on others. It is never he who is simply playing politics. He says the other party is grandstanding.
He doesn't say that the GOP passed a spending budget resolution six weeks ago. He doesn't say that it was purely politics that kept the Democratically controlled Congress back in October 2010 from passing a budget - the first time in decades that a budget was not passed by Congress.
Senator Reid told the press, outside the White House, they "narrowed the issues significantly" and that "hope lies eternal".
Speaker Boehner told the press that "some progress" was made but that there is "no agreement on numbers or policy". Both mentioned that staffs would be working through the night.
The House Republicans are preparing a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for one more week and appropriate funds through the rest of the year for the military.
This is no way to run a government.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Rep Markey Blames GOP for Parks Closing and BOEMRE Shutdown
House Republicans passed H.R. 1, a Continuing Resolution to fund National Parks and increase funds for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the agency charged with offshore drilling regulation and permitting. The Democrat controlled Senate has not passed a bill to fund the government.
Further, it was the Democrat controlled House in the 111th Congress that failed to pass a budget or a funding bill to keep National Parks open or oversee offshore oil and natural gas development.
Democrats created this problem and now are shifting the blame and refusing to stand up and help solve it.
Why does this explanation become important today? It is important today because the Democrats and the media outlets that carry water for them and President Obama want you to think that those mean Republicans in the House are going to shut down the government and the National Parks will close and oil rigs will go unmonitored without the red tape of permits and inspections being doled out. Rep Markey - a predictable foe of oil and gas drilling - puts forth this nonsense:
"Due to the potential House Republicans’ forced government shutdown, for the first time since early 1996, America’s national parks and Smithsonian museums may shutter this weekend, canceling plans for countless American families. Hundreds of oil rig inspectors could be sent home, threatening the safety of workers. And any permitting of new resource development would stop, turning a Republican-created moratorium myth into reality."
Here's the problem with Markey's statement: if you live on the Gulf coast and are any way connected with the oil and gas industry, you know this moratorium is no fantasy of Republican spinmeisters. It is very much a reality. There is no end in sight, despite the posturing of Team Obama on how quickly they are moving to end the shutdown. It's re-election campaign time, you know. Why else would the White House be so defensive and aggressively tout their work as gas prices rise and permits haven't been issued for eleven months? The permits being issued now are for existing wells, not for exploring or drilling new wells.
The price of crude oil is today at $108 per barrel. Rep Markey should be ashamed of himself for bringing in the safety of oil and gas workers and the tragic death of the eleven people on the Deepwater Horizon in April, 2010. But, this is how the Democrats use people and circumstances to further their agenda.
Ask any worker - the ones Rep Markey feigns concern for now - how they feel about President Obama's agenda on energy and you will get an earful. What does that tell you?
Do not be fooled. President Obama and the Democrats have no intention of putting together a common sense budget for our struggling economic recovery.
Further, it was the Democrat controlled House in the 111th Congress that failed to pass a budget or a funding bill to keep National Parks open or oversee offshore oil and natural gas development.
Democrats created this problem and now are shifting the blame and refusing to stand up and help solve it.
Why does this explanation become important today? It is important today because the Democrats and the media outlets that carry water for them and President Obama want you to think that those mean Republicans in the House are going to shut down the government and the National Parks will close and oil rigs will go unmonitored without the red tape of permits and inspections being doled out. Rep Markey - a predictable foe of oil and gas drilling - puts forth this nonsense:
"Due to the potential House Republicans’ forced government shutdown, for the first time since early 1996, America’s national parks and Smithsonian museums may shutter this weekend, canceling plans for countless American families. Hundreds of oil rig inspectors could be sent home, threatening the safety of workers. And any permitting of new resource development would stop, turning a Republican-created moratorium myth into reality."
Here's the problem with Markey's statement: if you live on the Gulf coast and are any way connected with the oil and gas industry, you know this moratorium is no fantasy of Republican spinmeisters. It is very much a reality. There is no end in sight, despite the posturing of Team Obama on how quickly they are moving to end the shutdown. It's re-election campaign time, you know. Why else would the White House be so defensive and aggressively tout their work as gas prices rise and permits haven't been issued for eleven months? The permits being issued now are for existing wells, not for exploring or drilling new wells.
The price of crude oil is today at $108 per barrel. Rep Markey should be ashamed of himself for bringing in the safety of oil and gas workers and the tragic death of the eleven people on the Deepwater Horizon in April, 2010. But, this is how the Democrats use people and circumstances to further their agenda.
Ask any worker - the ones Rep Markey feigns concern for now - how they feel about President Obama's agenda on energy and you will get an earful. What does that tell you?
Do not be fooled. President Obama and the Democrats have no intention of putting together a common sense budget for our struggling economic recovery.
Zero-Based Budgeting Finds Savings for Texas State Budget
House Bill 1 passed the Texas State House of Representatives late Sunday night. Before the bill was adopted, Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts said, "Today we take up House Bill 1, the state budget for 2012-2013. This budget does not raise taxes. It does not rely on any spending and any new tax revenue to pay for programs or services. This budget does not spend any federal stimulus money. This budget does not spend any of the Rainy Day Fund on any ongoing programs or services in the next biennium. Finally, this budget does not grow government."
The vote on HB 1 was mostly along party lines. Two Republicans and all of the Democrats voted against adoption. Now the bill goes to the State Senate. For the numbers - the House bill uses a budget of $164.5 billion, which is $23 billion(12.3%),less than the current budget. This was accomplished by implementing the utilization of zero-based budgeting. This is a fundamental reform brought by this legislature. Zero-based budgeting forces each agency to start at zero and not a current appropriation levels. Each agency has to take a hard look at their budget and justify needs. This is where the needed savings were found to balance budget.
We can expect the budget coming out of the state senate to be 5 or 6 billion dollars more,it is estimated. Then the finished product will go to conference and the final budget will be hashed out. The goal for fiscal conservatives is to have the final budget to look more like that which was adopted by the state House of Representatives. Senators expect a vote on April 18th for moving their bill out of committee.
The vote on HB 1 was mostly along party lines. Two Republicans and all of the Democrats voted against adoption. Now the bill goes to the State Senate. For the numbers - the House bill uses a budget of $164.5 billion, which is $23 billion(12.3%),less than the current budget. This was accomplished by implementing the utilization of zero-based budgeting. This is a fundamental reform brought by this legislature. Zero-based budgeting forces each agency to start at zero and not a current appropriation levels. Each agency has to take a hard look at their budget and justify needs. This is where the needed savings were found to balance budget.
We can expect the budget coming out of the state senate to be 5 or 6 billion dollars more,it is estimated. Then the finished product will go to conference and the final budget will be hashed out. The goal for fiscal conservatives is to have the final budget to look more like that which was adopted by the state House of Representatives. Senators expect a vote on April 18th for moving their bill out of committee.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Attorney General Holder Petulent as Announces Military Tribunals at GITMO
The irony is there - President Obama announced his re-election bid the very same day that Attorney General Holder had to admit that the 9/11 terrorists will be tried at GITMO. You may remember that the very first action performed by newly sworn-in President Obama was to sign an Executive Order to close GITMO. It hasn't happened and it won't happen.
Obama is learning a tough lesson - that of the ease in which a candidate can criticize and proclaim a change in policy does not always translate into reality once that candidate is in office. Reality bites.
A very petulant Attorney General Holder held a press conference Monday to state that though he is smarter than anyone in Congress and his opinion is the smartest one, he will admit that the terrorists will not be brought to New York for trial in federal court. Yes, Holder is blaming Congress for his decision.
"Members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the Administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States," he said yesterday, in spinning twist number one. The Justice Department was prepared to make a "powerful case against the 9/11 defendants in federal court," but the politics were causing too many delays on the trial, and it couldn't wait any longer.
For the record, we assume Mr. Holder is referring to the likes of New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and the Democrats who ran the Congress last year and passed a law that blocked the funding for civilian trials for Guantanamo detainees. Mr. Schumer—no slouch at divining public opinion—was an early and vocal opponent of Mr. Holder's brainstorm to try KSM in downtown Manhattan. And yesterday Mr. Schumer called the decision the "final nail in the coffin of that wrong-headed idea."
As strongly as Team Obama has tried, they have failed to rebuke the policies put in place by the Bush administration after the events of 9/11/01. These policies were voted on and approved on a widely bi-partisan basis and now Holder would like to make Congress the villain. The fact is, he tried to re-invent the wheel - close GITMO, trials in federal courts for the masterminds of 9/11/01, send the detainees currently at GITMO to a prison in Illinois, etc. He failed. President Obama failed, too.
If it were all so easy, it would have been done already. Holder likes to blame Congress for the delays in trials. It was Holder himself who perpetuated delays by his actions to re-structure the trials. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against his arguments, he is at the end of the line.
Team Obama failed.
Obama is learning a tough lesson - that of the ease in which a candidate can criticize and proclaim a change in policy does not always translate into reality once that candidate is in office. Reality bites.
A very petulant Attorney General Holder held a press conference Monday to state that though he is smarter than anyone in Congress and his opinion is the smartest one, he will admit that the terrorists will not be brought to New York for trial in federal court. Yes, Holder is blaming Congress for his decision.
"Members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the Administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States," he said yesterday, in spinning twist number one. The Justice Department was prepared to make a "powerful case against the 9/11 defendants in federal court," but the politics were causing too many delays on the trial, and it couldn't wait any longer.
For the record, we assume Mr. Holder is referring to the likes of New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and the Democrats who ran the Congress last year and passed a law that blocked the funding for civilian trials for Guantanamo detainees. Mr. Schumer—no slouch at divining public opinion—was an early and vocal opponent of Mr. Holder's brainstorm to try KSM in downtown Manhattan. And yesterday Mr. Schumer called the decision the "final nail in the coffin of that wrong-headed idea."
As strongly as Team Obama has tried, they have failed to rebuke the policies put in place by the Bush administration after the events of 9/11/01. These policies were voted on and approved on a widely bi-partisan basis and now Holder would like to make Congress the villain. The fact is, he tried to re-invent the wheel - close GITMO, trials in federal courts for the masterminds of 9/11/01, send the detainees currently at GITMO to a prison in Illinois, etc. He failed. President Obama failed, too.
If it were all so easy, it would have been done already. Holder likes to blame Congress for the delays in trials. It was Holder himself who perpetuated delays by his actions to re-structure the trials. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against his arguments, he is at the end of the line.
Team Obama failed.
Conservatives Respond to Special Interest Rally in Austin
Wednesday, April 6 is an important rally day in Austin. With the legislature in session and tackling budget issues, it is important for conservatives to counter a rally with an anticipated large turnout sponsored by unions and liberal leaning special interests.
They are holding a rally to call on legislators to spend the rainy day fund and raise revenue with new taxes and fees. They will rally after being bussed in by unions across the state.
So, there is a counter rally with a press conference held by conservative voices. Following the press conference, conservatives are encouraged to visit the offices of legislators and encourage them to remain strong in finding budget cuts without taxing Texans. Conservatives want a balanced budget with existing revenue while safeguarding the rainy day fund.
Texans for a Conservative Budget Day features a joint press conference at 11 a.m. on the North Steps of the Capitol. Those involved are: The Texas Public Policy Foundation, Americans for Prosperity-Texas, Americans for Tax Reform, Empower Texans, the Liberty Institute, and the National Federation for Independent Business-Texas. Legislators will be encouraged to cut non-essential programs, not raise taxes or fees, and not go back into the rainy day fund.
Can't travel to the capitol? Ok. Make some phone calls. It is very important to deliver the message to legislators that they stay the course and continue to work on cutting non-essential budget expenditures and not go deeper into the rainy day funds.
Conservative Texans, let your voices be heard. Now is the time.
They are holding a rally to call on legislators to spend the rainy day fund and raise revenue with new taxes and fees. They will rally after being bussed in by unions across the state.
So, there is a counter rally with a press conference held by conservative voices. Following the press conference, conservatives are encouraged to visit the offices of legislators and encourage them to remain strong in finding budget cuts without taxing Texans. Conservatives want a balanced budget with existing revenue while safeguarding the rainy day fund.
Texans for a Conservative Budget Day features a joint press conference at 11 a.m. on the North Steps of the Capitol. Those involved are: The Texas Public Policy Foundation, Americans for Prosperity-Texas, Americans for Tax Reform, Empower Texans, the Liberty Institute, and the National Federation for Independent Business-Texas. Legislators will be encouraged to cut non-essential programs, not raise taxes or fees, and not go back into the rainy day fund.
Can't travel to the capitol? Ok. Make some phone calls. It is very important to deliver the message to legislators that they stay the course and continue to work on cutting non-essential budget expenditures and not go deeper into the rainy day funds.
Conservative Texans, let your voices be heard. Now is the time.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Obama Announces Re-Election Bid via Video
Here is how very, very confident Team Obama is about the upcoming re-election race for their guy. John Heilemann from New York Magazine, suggested about people within the Obama administration: “They look at the Republican field and they say, ‘you’ve got to be kidding. Our guy has so much, he has more talent in his little finger than any of these Republicans, and they are going to have to put someone on the field eventually, and our guy will run them straight over.’ That’s what they think.”
Fairly stunning given how far out we are still from November 2012. It is just another crass reminder of just how brazenly arrogant this administration is, and the leader of the pack is Barack Obama. No one has a higher opinion of Barack Obama than Barack Obama.
And, on schedule, the information appeared in the e-mail inbox during the early morning hours Monday. This, from Mike Allen's newsletter, Politico Playbook:
PRESIDENT OBAMA launches his reelection campaign with a video, 'It Begins With Us,' featuring snippets of interviews with grassroots reporters around the country, talking about why they have to get involved and not leave it up to chance. --Alice from Michigan: 'Unfortunately, President Obama is one person ... plus he's got a job. ... We're paying him to do a job, so we can't just say, 'Hey, could you just take some time and come and get us all energized?' So we better figure it out.' --The logo is '2012,' with the rainbow/rising sun in the '0.' YouTube http://bit.ly/fx2Qir
Got that? The President is busy doing his job so he can't really be out there justifying re-election. That's fine with me but this is the man who is breaking records with the amount of gold he plays, the weekly soirees at the White House with the cool Hollywood people and musicians from around the country, and lots of weekly travel that shows the man never left campaigning mode anyway. It's all a bit much, this faux humility, this ruse of being a man of the regular guy. The campaigning never ended but now it is official.
Fairly stunning given how far out we are still from November 2012. It is just another crass reminder of just how brazenly arrogant this administration is, and the leader of the pack is Barack Obama. No one has a higher opinion of Barack Obama than Barack Obama.
And, on schedule, the information appeared in the e-mail inbox during the early morning hours Monday. This, from Mike Allen's newsletter, Politico Playbook:
PRESIDENT OBAMA launches his reelection campaign with a video, 'It Begins With Us,' featuring snippets of interviews with grassroots reporters around the country, talking about why they have to get involved and not leave it up to chance. --Alice from Michigan: 'Unfortunately, President Obama is one person ... plus he's got a job. ... We're paying him to do a job, so we can't just say, 'Hey, could you just take some time and come and get us all energized?' So we better figure it out.' --The logo is '2012,' with the rainbow/rising sun in the '0.' YouTube http://bit.ly/fx2Qir
Got that? The President is busy doing his job so he can't really be out there justifying re-election. That's fine with me but this is the man who is breaking records with the amount of gold he plays, the weekly soirees at the White House with the cool Hollywood people and musicians from around the country, and lots of weekly travel that shows the man never left campaigning mode anyway. It's all a bit much, this faux humility, this ruse of being a man of the regular guy. The campaigning never ended but now it is official.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Paul Ryan Steps Up For Budget Debate Sanity
This week brings crucial talks about the fiscal budget balancing cuts necessary to keep our nation's economy sustainable. This is the week President Obama announces his bid for re-election. To Team Obama I say - tone deaf, much?
Obama gave a speech touting his green energy initiatives and spoke to an alleged appearance of an agreement cobbled together between the House and Senate leadership on the budget. Then there was this immediate response from Boehner:
"Let me be clear, there is no agreement", said Speaker of the House Boehner.
Leadership is sorely needed in common sense development of a national budget. Fortunately for the country, Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) is stepping up and offering a real spending cutting budget. And, he acknowledges the political risk of making real, grown-up decisions:
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan said Sunday that the fiscal 2012 budget proposal he will release this week would cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, make sweeping changes to Medicare and Medicaid, cap federal spending, and reduce tax rates.
While the Wisconsin Republican made the case that the elements of his proposal are needed to put the nation’s soaring debt on a “downward trajectory,” he acknowledged that the package, which he plans to release Tuesday, could provide fodder for Democrats in the 2012 election cycle.
“We are giving them a political weapon to go against us, but they will have to lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon,” Ryan said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They are going to demagogue us, but it’s that demagoguery that has always prevented political leaders in the past from trying to fix the problem. ... Yes, we will be giving political adversaries things to use against us in the next election, and shame on them if they do that.”
The money quote from Ryan today on the lack of Presidential leadership: "We don't need a good politician, we need a strong leader."
President has been missing in action. Only over the weekend did he made separate phone calls to Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid, in hopes of convincing them of the need for timely work on an agreement towards cuts in spending to put together the deal. There is much speculation that the Democrats and President Obama are truly hoping that the agreement won't be made in time to stop the government deadline at the end of the week and the government will "shut down". The Democrats think this will reflect poorly on the Republicans and the Tea Party coalition that are holding out for the strongest cuts. They may be right but it will soon occur to the general public that it is still very much a Democratically controlled government. The GOP is in the majority of the House, true, but that is all. The Senate and the President can stop any bill brought forth from the House.
Will President Obama take time from his busy re-election campaign to begin to act like a leader?
Obama gave a speech touting his green energy initiatives and spoke to an alleged appearance of an agreement cobbled together between the House and Senate leadership on the budget. Then there was this immediate response from Boehner:
"Let me be clear, there is no agreement", said Speaker of the House Boehner.
Leadership is sorely needed in common sense development of a national budget. Fortunately for the country, Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) is stepping up and offering a real spending cutting budget. And, he acknowledges the political risk of making real, grown-up decisions:
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan said Sunday that the fiscal 2012 budget proposal he will release this week would cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, make sweeping changes to Medicare and Medicaid, cap federal spending, and reduce tax rates.
While the Wisconsin Republican made the case that the elements of his proposal are needed to put the nation’s soaring debt on a “downward trajectory,” he acknowledged that the package, which he plans to release Tuesday, could provide fodder for Democrats in the 2012 election cycle.
“We are giving them a political weapon to go against us, but they will have to lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon,” Ryan said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They are going to demagogue us, but it’s that demagoguery that has always prevented political leaders in the past from trying to fix the problem. ... Yes, we will be giving political adversaries things to use against us in the next election, and shame on them if they do that.”
The money quote from Ryan today on the lack of Presidential leadership: "We don't need a good politician, we need a strong leader."
President has been missing in action. Only over the weekend did he made separate phone calls to Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid, in hopes of convincing them of the need for timely work on an agreement towards cuts in spending to put together the deal. There is much speculation that the Democrats and President Obama are truly hoping that the agreement won't be made in time to stop the government deadline at the end of the week and the government will "shut down". The Democrats think this will reflect poorly on the Republicans and the Tea Party coalition that are holding out for the strongest cuts. They may be right but it will soon occur to the general public that it is still very much a Democratically controlled government. The GOP is in the majority of the House, true, but that is all. The Senate and the President can stop any bill brought forth from the House.
Will President Obama take time from his busy re-election campaign to begin to act like a leader?
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Obama Still Tries to Sell Non-Policy on Energy
This week the President chose energy production as his topic for the weekly address. He is under criticism for his lack of a true energy policy, given the rise in gas prices that affect everyone. The speech he delivered at Georgetown University was not illuminating, to say the least. He said nothing other than what every president has for the past 30 years. He continues to make false claims in the hopes that no one is really focused enough to question him.
President Obama has a habit of trying to convince the listener that he is a truly new age, innovative thinker. He tries to convince listeners that he's the best and the brightest man to ever hold the office. He counts on the short attention spans of Americans.
President Obama's deceitful arrogance does us no favors.
The Institute for Energy Research was not impressed with the President's choice of venue - what with filling the young peoples' minds with utter ideological nonsense.
The Administration’s “logic” regarding oil leases is liable to drive one insane. The claim is that oil companies pay billions of dollars to the federal government to obtain the right to drill, and then purposely don’t drill in order to drive up the price of oil. But wouldn’t it be cheaper to not bid on the lands in the first place? And why is the oil industry in favor of expanded access to drill offshore and in ANWR, if their nefarious plot is to keep oil off the market and push up prices?
Obviously the whole thing makes no sense. The reason the oil industry doesn’t extract oil from certain leased land is that oil isn’t distributed evenly across the globe. Companies can’t be sure where it is profitable to set up a major well until they explore the land. The real beneficiaries of stunting U.S. oil production aren’t domestic oil companies, but state-owned oil companies around the world. It’s a good thing Energy Secretary Chu wasn’t in charge of Thomas Edison’s search for a commercially viable light bulb. After the 3,000th failure, Chu would no doubt have accused Edison of purposely driving up the price of incandescents. (Of course that would be construed as a good thing, in light of climate change rhetoric…)
Maybe the kids weren't really paying attention.
President Obama is sticking with the line that oil production is up thanks to his policies. Wrong. Clearly, the production levels are due to the wheels put into motion during the days of the Bush administration.
In the U.S. Energy Information Administration's July Short-term Energy Outlook, the EIA projected that the moratorium would result in lost production of approximately 82,000 bbl/d on average during 2011 or a cumulative 30 million barrels.
The chart above illustrates that after the hurricanes of 2004 & 2005, it took several years to regain production crippled by the storms. The years 2009 and 2010 benefit from projects started in the previous six years that resulted in Gulf of Mexico production exceeding the prior peak set early in the decade.
The President is defensive about his lack of energy policy - the fact that his only policy is to shut down drilling for oil and natural gas - and rightly so. It is not helpful to our slow, slow, slow economic recovery due to the rest of his administration's policies. Consumer confidence is at an all time low level. Now there is the creep of inflation entering the picture. Prices of goods are going up and the past week brought warnings from WalMart and Toyota of rising prices.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Obama Delivers Energy Speech at Georgetown
President Obama went to Georgetown University to deliver a speech on energy.
From the American Petroleum Institute:
2011 may be the first year without a Gulf lease sale since 1963 and the first year with no federal offshore lease sale since 1957. The revenue impacts are significant, considering that offshore lease sales often bring billions into the federal treasury on an annual basis.
This is important because of the lag time involved in energy - specifically oil and gas - production. The "increase" Obama currently claims credit for in production is the result of drilling decisions from several years (and a different administration) ago.
This is a chart that clearly shows a continuing timeline on how this administration has handled the decisions necessary for drilling for oil and gas, both onshore and offshore.
http://www.scribd.com/full/51559377?access_key=key-xdkwgsnzqt431bpe2s8 apiinfographic
From Obama's speech at Georgetown University:
Now, here’s the thing -– we have been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. I remember because I was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Working folks certainly remember because it hit a lot of people pretty hard. And because we were at the height of political season, you had all kinds of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians -- they were waving their three-point plans for $2 a gallon gas. You remember that -- “drill, baby, drill”
-- and we were going through all that. (Laughter.) And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand-wringing, but nothing actually happened. Imagine that in Washington. (Laughter.)
The truth is, none of these gimmicks, none of these slogans made a bit of difference. When gas prices finally did fall, it was mostly because the global recession had led to less demand for oil. Companies were producing less; the demand for petroleum went down; prices went down. Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up. Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising that oil prices are higher. And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
That's the problem - production of oil and natural gas is a political decision for Team Obama, not a national security decision or a supply and demand decision. Remember, Energy Secretary Chu sang the praises of $10 a gallon oil at the gas pump so that his preference - nuclear energy - would be more widespread in America.
And, a bit of irony with the President of all people referring to slogans and calls of "drill, baby, drill" as gimmicks. This was the man who ran on empty slogans. Who doesn't remember "hope and change" and "we are the change we have been waiting for" and so on?
Obama - Mr. Change - delivered the same energy speech that has been delivered for decades by politicians on both sides of the political aisle. Though Obama is still fond of kicking former President Bush, it was George W. Bush who pushed for development for green energy, besides traditional oil and gas production. Obama conveniently ignores the new tech batteries, for instance, that Bush encouraged in big speeches on energy that would work in electric cars. He called for incentives for development of wind and solar energy, too.
Decisions made today reap results in the years to come. With this administration's ban on continuing to develop oil and natural gas production, it does not bode well for our independence from foreign sources in the future. Green energy is fine but it is decades away for any real impact and we still need all methods of production for the near future.
From the American Petroleum Institute:
2011 may be the first year without a Gulf lease sale since 1963 and the first year with no federal offshore lease sale since 1957. The revenue impacts are significant, considering that offshore lease sales often bring billions into the federal treasury on an annual basis.
This is important because of the lag time involved in energy - specifically oil and gas - production. The "increase" Obama currently claims credit for in production is the result of drilling decisions from several years (and a different administration) ago.
This is a chart that clearly shows a continuing timeline on how this administration has handled the decisions necessary for drilling for oil and gas, both onshore and offshore.
http://www.scribd.com/full/51559377?access_key=key-xdkwgsnzqt431bpe2s8 apiinfographic
From Obama's speech at Georgetown University:
Now, here’s the thing -– we have been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. I remember because I was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Working folks certainly remember because it hit a lot of people pretty hard. And because we were at the height of political season, you had all kinds of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians -- they were waving their three-point plans for $2 a gallon gas. You remember that -- “drill, baby, drill”
-- and we were going through all that. (Laughter.) And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand-wringing, but nothing actually happened. Imagine that in Washington. (Laughter.)
The truth is, none of these gimmicks, none of these slogans made a bit of difference. When gas prices finally did fall, it was mostly because the global recession had led to less demand for oil. Companies were producing less; the demand for petroleum went down; prices went down. Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up. Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising that oil prices are higher. And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
That's the problem - production of oil and natural gas is a political decision for Team Obama, not a national security decision or a supply and demand decision. Remember, Energy Secretary Chu sang the praises of $10 a gallon oil at the gas pump so that his preference - nuclear energy - would be more widespread in America.
And, a bit of irony with the President of all people referring to slogans and calls of "drill, baby, drill" as gimmicks. This was the man who ran on empty slogans. Who doesn't remember "hope and change" and "we are the change we have been waiting for" and so on?
Obama - Mr. Change - delivered the same energy speech that has been delivered for decades by politicians on both sides of the political aisle. Though Obama is still fond of kicking former President Bush, it was George W. Bush who pushed for development for green energy, besides traditional oil and gas production. Obama conveniently ignores the new tech batteries, for instance, that Bush encouraged in big speeches on energy that would work in electric cars. He called for incentives for development of wind and solar energy, too.
Decisions made today reap results in the years to come. With this administration's ban on continuing to develop oil and natural gas production, it does not bode well for our independence from foreign sources in the future. Green energy is fine but it is decades away for any real impact and we still need all methods of production for the near future.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Claims of Job Loss From Tx CSHB 1 De-Bunked
Dr. Arthur Laffer is Chairman of Laffer Associates, a supply-side investment research firm, and a Senior Fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of his terms. He has issued a statement on the opinion circulating among liberals and some news outlets that Texas would lose 272,000 jobs next year if the House approves CSHB 1, the proposed 2012-13 state budget.
“The passage of CSHB 1 will not cause less jobs in Texas relative to any other option at hand,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “In fact, I can think of no response to the current Great Recession that the Texas state government could do that would be better for state employment than CSHB 1.”
Last week, the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) issued a dynamic economic impact statement that included a table at the bottom indicating Texas would have 272,000 fewer jobs next year than in a baseline scenario where spending and available revenue remained at the levels contained in the 2010-11 budget. Available revenue for the 2012-13 biennium is currently projected to be $10 billion lower than in the current biennium.
“There has been an impression created in the press and embraced by many that the [Legislative Budget Board] report suggests that adoption of the bill CSHB1 by Texas would cost Texas 272,000 jobs in 2012 and 335,000 jobs in 2013,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “This answer, at least as interpreted by the press, is wrong and not based on sound economics.”
Dr. Laffer, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board for both his terms, challenged the LBB model’s apparent assumption that there is a positive correlation between government spending and job creation.
“This approach is indicative of a mistaken belief that government spending creates jobs and represents a failure to understand that government doesn’t have a single entry accounting system,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “Government can’t bail someone out of trouble without putting someone else into trouble. For every transfer recipient there’s a transfer payer. It’s as simple as that. Neither borrowing nor taxing to overspend helps the economy.”
Dr. Laffer’s report cites time series data showing that states and countries with lower government spending as a percentage of their economies realize stronger economic growth than those states and countries where government spending is the highest.
“Texas has been on the right track and shouldn’t change now,” Dr. Laffer concluded. “Texas is the example others should follow, not the reverse.”
Dr. Laffer endorses the passage of CSHB 1, the proposed 2012-13 state budget it will debate tomorrow, and disputes the claim that Texas would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs if the bill becomes law.
This is a link to Dr. Laffer's report: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-03-31-LafferTexasFiscalFuture.pdf
“The passage of CSHB 1 will not cause less jobs in Texas relative to any other option at hand,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “In fact, I can think of no response to the current Great Recession that the Texas state government could do that would be better for state employment than CSHB 1.”
Last week, the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) issued a dynamic economic impact statement that included a table at the bottom indicating Texas would have 272,000 fewer jobs next year than in a baseline scenario where spending and available revenue remained at the levels contained in the 2010-11 budget. Available revenue for the 2012-13 biennium is currently projected to be $10 billion lower than in the current biennium.
“There has been an impression created in the press and embraced by many that the [Legislative Budget Board] report suggests that adoption of the bill CSHB1 by Texas would cost Texas 272,000 jobs in 2012 and 335,000 jobs in 2013,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “This answer, at least as interpreted by the press, is wrong and not based on sound economics.”
Dr. Laffer, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board for both his terms, challenged the LBB model’s apparent assumption that there is a positive correlation between government spending and job creation.
“This approach is indicative of a mistaken belief that government spending creates jobs and represents a failure to understand that government doesn’t have a single entry accounting system,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “Government can’t bail someone out of trouble without putting someone else into trouble. For every transfer recipient there’s a transfer payer. It’s as simple as that. Neither borrowing nor taxing to overspend helps the economy.”
Dr. Laffer’s report cites time series data showing that states and countries with lower government spending as a percentage of their economies realize stronger economic growth than those states and countries where government spending is the highest.
“Texas has been on the right track and shouldn’t change now,” Dr. Laffer concluded. “Texas is the example others should follow, not the reverse.”
Dr. Laffer endorses the passage of CSHB 1, the proposed 2012-13 state budget it will debate tomorrow, and disputes the claim that Texas would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs if the bill becomes law.
This is a link to Dr. Laffer's report: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-03-31-LafferTexasFiscalFuture.pdf
TX Rep Kolkhorst Moves HB5 Out of Public Health Committee
Texas State Rep Lois Kolkhorst is chairwoman of the Public Health Committee. As the Chair of the House Committee on Public Health, she helps manage the state's multi-billion dollar health care system and works to set priorities for the Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees thousands of state employees at five state agencies.
Rep Kolkhorst sponsored HB5 - Relating to the Interstate Health Care Compact and it has been voted out of committee on a vote of 5-0. By coming together with other states, Texas can manage the state's Medicaid mandates as the costs rise in the coming years.
According to Texas Public Policy Foundation, the coming budget obligations for Medicaid in Texas will be staggering.
As legislators are well aware, Article II has consumed an increasingly larger percentage of the state's budget, with Medicaid demanding the lion's share. It is also the least flexible due to the restraints placed on Medicaid by the federal government. Recent changes in federal law with the passage of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) removed most of the remaining options.
Texas general revenue Medicaid spending, after adjustments for inflation and population, will increase 866 percent between 2009 and 2040. Meaningful opportunities to stem the growth of health care spending are hard to come by because the Legislature has been hamstrung by certain provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and by the acceptance of ARRA funds that restrict lawmakers from making significant changes to Article II, particularly with regard to Medicaid.
Rep Kolkhorst believes that joining in with other states with the Interstate Compact option, it may be the only constitutional shield to be found to fight Obamacare. States can manage their needs better than the federal government. Currently there are 18 states coming together, with the potential for 12 more. After passing in the State Legislature, then the bill would be sent to Congress where it would be voted on. Every state has to work within the same perimeters. Block grants would be distributed.
With the current budget shortfalls facing every state, Interstate Compacts make sense.
Rep Kolkhorst sponsored HB5 - Relating to the Interstate Health Care Compact and it has been voted out of committee on a vote of 5-0. By coming together with other states, Texas can manage the state's Medicaid mandates as the costs rise in the coming years.
According to Texas Public Policy Foundation, the coming budget obligations for Medicaid in Texas will be staggering.
As legislators are well aware, Article II has consumed an increasingly larger percentage of the state's budget, with Medicaid demanding the lion's share. It is also the least flexible due to the restraints placed on Medicaid by the federal government. Recent changes in federal law with the passage of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) removed most of the remaining options.
Texas general revenue Medicaid spending, after adjustments for inflation and population, will increase 866 percent between 2009 and 2040. Meaningful opportunities to stem the growth of health care spending are hard to come by because the Legislature has been hamstrung by certain provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and by the acceptance of ARRA funds that restrict lawmakers from making significant changes to Article II, particularly with regard to Medicaid.
Rep Kolkhorst believes that joining in with other states with the Interstate Compact option, it may be the only constitutional shield to be found to fight Obamacare. States can manage their needs better than the federal government. Currently there are 18 states coming together, with the potential for 12 more. After passing in the State Legislature, then the bill would be sent to Congress where it would be voted on. Every state has to work within the same perimeters. Block grants would be distributed.
With the current budget shortfalls facing every state, Interstate Compacts make sense.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Chairman Hastings Holds Administration Accountable on Oil Drilling
The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee announced three separate bills introduced Tuesday under the American Energy Initiative. Chairman Doc Hastings stressed that these three are but the beginning of bills that will be introduced for action in promoting energy initiatives.
The first is the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act.
This bill will end the Obama Administration’s de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico in a safe, responsible and transparent manner. It saves American jobs by preventing deliberate government inaction and bureaucratic stalling.
The bill reforms the law by requiring that a permit be issued before a well is drilled. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review to ensure that proposed drilling operations “meet all critical safety system requirements.”
The bill sets a 30-day timeline for the Secretary to act on drilling permits – either to approve the permits or not approve the permits.
The Secretary can have two 15-day extension periods. However, he must provide applicants with clear reasons for any delay or rejection. Employers need certainty and clarity, and workers need to get back on the job.
The second Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act.
This bill will expand American energy production and create jobs by requiring the Secretary to conduct three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and one in offshore Virginia.
The four specific sales in this bill were all scheduled. But when the Obama Administration effectively reinstated a ban on new offshore drilling, the sales were cancelled or delayed.
Due to the Obama Administration’s actions, 2011 will be the first year since 1958 that the federal government will not hold an offshore lease sale. The bill requires all four lease sales to take place either before June 1, 2012 or within one year of enactment of the bill.
And, the third is Reversing President Obama’s Moratorium Act
This bill requires the Administration to move forward in the 2012-2017 offshore drilling plan with leasing in areas containing the most oil and natural gas.
Even in the face of rising gasoline prices, it appears President Obama wants to drill nowhere new. This bill says let’s move forward with leasing and drilling in those areas where we know America has real, significant resources.
In contrast to the President’s drill nowhere new plan, this is a drill smart plan.
This bill also requires the Secretary to set specific production goals for five-year plans. For the 2012-2017 plan it sets a goal of 3 million barrels of oil per day, and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2027.
By comparison to today’s levels, this increase in oil equates to a tripling of current American offshore production, and would reduce foreign imports by nearly one-third.
Chairman Hastings is ready to hold the administration accountable on the issuing of permits and leases in the Gulf of Mexico:
On Thursday, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the effect of rising gasoline prices on families and businesses as part of its effort to determine "what has or hasn't been done" since President Barack Obama took office two years ago.
Washington state Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, the panel's chairman and a ninth-term congressman, already has an answer. He says the president "has done nothing" by not moving fast enough to allow more oil drilling in the Gulf Coast and on public land. And he says his hearing "will put a spotlight on the issue."
Tuesday,in a blogger's briefing,Chairman Hastings said, "Actions speak louder than words. His (Obama) actions are 180 degrees from what his words are", when asked about the President's oil and gas drilling agenda. Hastings pointed to the escalating energy prices - "Actions of this administration are driving up costs."
Hastings is serious about issuing a 30 day deadline in issuing permits. He points to the false claims by President Obama that production is higher now than ever. It is not thanks to any policy of Barack Obama, it is lag time results from the George W. Bush administration. Obama had no control over those results.
Hastings finished with this wrap-up sentiment: "We gotta start sometime why don't we start now?"
Indeed.
The first is the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act.
This bill will end the Obama Administration’s de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico in a safe, responsible and transparent manner. It saves American jobs by preventing deliberate government inaction and bureaucratic stalling.
The bill reforms the law by requiring that a permit be issued before a well is drilled. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review to ensure that proposed drilling operations “meet all critical safety system requirements.”
The bill sets a 30-day timeline for the Secretary to act on drilling permits – either to approve the permits or not approve the permits.
The Secretary can have two 15-day extension periods. However, he must provide applicants with clear reasons for any delay or rejection. Employers need certainty and clarity, and workers need to get back on the job.
The second Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act.
This bill will expand American energy production and create jobs by requiring the Secretary to conduct three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and one in offshore Virginia.
The four specific sales in this bill were all scheduled. But when the Obama Administration effectively reinstated a ban on new offshore drilling, the sales were cancelled or delayed.
Due to the Obama Administration’s actions, 2011 will be the first year since 1958 that the federal government will not hold an offshore lease sale. The bill requires all four lease sales to take place either before June 1, 2012 or within one year of enactment of the bill.
And, the third is Reversing President Obama’s Moratorium Act
This bill requires the Administration to move forward in the 2012-2017 offshore drilling plan with leasing in areas containing the most oil and natural gas.
Even in the face of rising gasoline prices, it appears President Obama wants to drill nowhere new. This bill says let’s move forward with leasing and drilling in those areas where we know America has real, significant resources.
In contrast to the President’s drill nowhere new plan, this is a drill smart plan.
This bill also requires the Secretary to set specific production goals for five-year plans. For the 2012-2017 plan it sets a goal of 3 million barrels of oil per day, and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2027.
By comparison to today’s levels, this increase in oil equates to a tripling of current American offshore production, and would reduce foreign imports by nearly one-third.
Chairman Hastings is ready to hold the administration accountable on the issuing of permits and leases in the Gulf of Mexico:
On Thursday, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the effect of rising gasoline prices on families and businesses as part of its effort to determine "what has or hasn't been done" since President Barack Obama took office two years ago.
Washington state Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, the panel's chairman and a ninth-term congressman, already has an answer. He says the president "has done nothing" by not moving fast enough to allow more oil drilling in the Gulf Coast and on public land. And he says his hearing "will put a spotlight on the issue."
Tuesday,in a blogger's briefing,Chairman Hastings said, "Actions speak louder than words. His (Obama) actions are 180 degrees from what his words are", when asked about the President's oil and gas drilling agenda. Hastings pointed to the escalating energy prices - "Actions of this administration are driving up costs."
Hastings is serious about issuing a 30 day deadline in issuing permits. He points to the false claims by President Obama that production is higher now than ever. It is not thanks to any policy of Barack Obama, it is lag time results from the George W. Bush administration. Obama had no control over those results.
Hastings finished with this wrap-up sentiment: "We gotta start sometime why don't we start now?"
Indeed.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
FOIA Requests Go Unanswered by Obama Administration
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) issued the following press release on the subject of the Obama administration and its handling of FOIA requests:
Today, I issued the following statement in response to an AP report that political operatives in the Obama Administration are screening Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests:
Citizens have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing and political operatives should not be interfering with legitimate requests by citizens and journalists under the Freedom of Information Act. I am deeply disturbed that Obama Administration political operatives filtered FOIA requests based on the political or professional affiliation of those requesting the transparency guaranteed to our citizens under federal law. And I commend the House panel for doing its job of oversight of the executive branch, and I hope they get to the bottom of these allegations.
I recently re-introduced the bipartisan Faster FOIA Act with colleague Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). This legislation would establish an advisory panel to examine agency backlogs in processing FOIA requests. The panel, named the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, will be required to provide recommendations to Congress for legislative and administrative action to enhance agency responses to FOIA requests.
If a hyper-partisan politician like Leahy can come forward and note such a heinous way of handling FOIA requests by this administration, then that speaks volumes. Barack Obama ran as the post-partisan candidate and pledged to run the most transparent administration ever.
"Two years ago, the Associated Press filed an FOIA request seeking records related to the freedom of information process in the Homeland Security Department. After several months, the AP received 995 pages of heavily censored emails. The news service wrote several articles about how the emails indicated that requests for information often were subject to reviews by political appointees in the department.
Now uncensored emails newly obtained by the AP show that employees within the Homeland Security Department were warning that senior Obama administration appointees were delaying the release of government files. Department employees' emails described the appointees' behavior as "meddling" and even "crazy." One email from the deputy to the department's chief privacy officer said of the political appointees, "They don't like to abide by the law or be reminded that they are breaking it." That employee has since been replaced, a move that has raised questions of retaliation."
It appears particularly unseemly that a department as important as the Homeland Security Department is fighting transparency requests.
Today, I issued the following statement in response to an AP report that political operatives in the Obama Administration are screening Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests:
Citizens have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing and political operatives should not be interfering with legitimate requests by citizens and journalists under the Freedom of Information Act. I am deeply disturbed that Obama Administration political operatives filtered FOIA requests based on the political or professional affiliation of those requesting the transparency guaranteed to our citizens under federal law. And I commend the House panel for doing its job of oversight of the executive branch, and I hope they get to the bottom of these allegations.
I recently re-introduced the bipartisan Faster FOIA Act with colleague Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). This legislation would establish an advisory panel to examine agency backlogs in processing FOIA requests. The panel, named the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, will be required to provide recommendations to Congress for legislative and administrative action to enhance agency responses to FOIA requests.
If a hyper-partisan politician like Leahy can come forward and note such a heinous way of handling FOIA requests by this administration, then that speaks volumes. Barack Obama ran as the post-partisan candidate and pledged to run the most transparent administration ever.
"Two years ago, the Associated Press filed an FOIA request seeking records related to the freedom of information process in the Homeland Security Department. After several months, the AP received 995 pages of heavily censored emails. The news service wrote several articles about how the emails indicated that requests for information often were subject to reviews by political appointees in the department.
Now uncensored emails newly obtained by the AP show that employees within the Homeland Security Department were warning that senior Obama administration appointees were delaying the release of government files. Department employees' emails described the appointees' behavior as "meddling" and even "crazy." One email from the deputy to the department's chief privacy officer said of the political appointees, "They don't like to abide by the law or be reminded that they are breaking it." That employee has since been replaced, a move that has raised questions of retaliation."
It appears particularly unseemly that a department as important as the Homeland Security Department is fighting transparency requests.
Obama Addresses the Nation on Libya
In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama declared in no uncertain terms that the U.S. President must go to Congress and the people of our nation to make the case for military action - before that action is taken. My, what a difference four years make.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGSUuzIr
For a candidate so intent on showing his self-confidence as the potential Commander-in-Chief with his strong criticism against the former Bush administration, he is rapidly setting new standards. Let it be noted that George W. Bush, as president, went to both Congress and the U.N. before going into Iraq and spoke directly to the American people (and the world) in an Oval Office address.
The hypocrisy is easily noted.
Typically, when a president declares war, polling show that the president's popularity rises. This is due to the rally around our country and our military in the initial days of a conflict. It's who we are as Americans. In this case, however, President Obama's polling numbers have not fared well. The latest Pew Research poll released Monday afternoon shows:
After several days of airstrikes on Libya by the United States and its allies, the public has mixed reactions to the military operation. Nearly half of Americans (47%) say the United States made the right decision in conducting air strikes in Libya while 36% say it was the wrong decision. Fully one-in-six (17%) express no opinion.
On balance, however, the public does not think that the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal in taking military action in Libya. Just 39% say the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal, while 50% say they do not.
Obama, frankly speaking, brought this lack of support on himself. He first was silent, then he dithered until he found his voice, then we were offering humanitarian support for people being massacred in the streets by a madman dictator, and now the position last stated is that Qaddafi must go. Obama went into the coalition with NATO and the African Union and approved the launching of almost two hundred Tomahawk missiles without so much as a phone call to the leaders of Congress. There was a vote taken in the U.N. and the Obama Doctrine seems to be that the U.S. is only to be under international control, not the leader of the free world.
Is that change we can believe in?
Addressing an audience of military experts at the National Defense University, President Obama was tasked with laying out his reasoning for his actions and the plan he has for the mission and then the endgame. Did he succeed? I don't think so. There were zings at George W. Bush with references about Iraq - as what not to do - and there was the standard flowery Obama campaign speak. He was determined to make us think he is deliberate and confident that his decisions are strong. And, regime change is not our objective.
What?
This is how the man sums it all up:
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
Here's a bit of irony from Obama as he was anti-war in Iraq but that was then and this is now:
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Mass graves and images of slaughter ring a bell? Like Saddam and the Iraqis?
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
Obama really wants you to know he is not George W. Bush.
We now know very little more than what we knew before the speech. It was delivered in pre-prime time and no network had to interrupt night programming. Turns out no one really exerted much effort here. The time would have been wasted on the size of a prime time audience.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGSUuzIr
For a candidate so intent on showing his self-confidence as the potential Commander-in-Chief with his strong criticism against the former Bush administration, he is rapidly setting new standards. Let it be noted that George W. Bush, as president, went to both Congress and the U.N. before going into Iraq and spoke directly to the American people (and the world) in an Oval Office address.
The hypocrisy is easily noted.
Typically, when a president declares war, polling show that the president's popularity rises. This is due to the rally around our country and our military in the initial days of a conflict. It's who we are as Americans. In this case, however, President Obama's polling numbers have not fared well. The latest Pew Research poll released Monday afternoon shows:
After several days of airstrikes on Libya by the United States and its allies, the public has mixed reactions to the military operation. Nearly half of Americans (47%) say the United States made the right decision in conducting air strikes in Libya while 36% say it was the wrong decision. Fully one-in-six (17%) express no opinion.
On balance, however, the public does not think that the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal in taking military action in Libya. Just 39% say the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal, while 50% say they do not.
Obama, frankly speaking, brought this lack of support on himself. He first was silent, then he dithered until he found his voice, then we were offering humanitarian support for people being massacred in the streets by a madman dictator, and now the position last stated is that Qaddafi must go. Obama went into the coalition with NATO and the African Union and approved the launching of almost two hundred Tomahawk missiles without so much as a phone call to the leaders of Congress. There was a vote taken in the U.N. and the Obama Doctrine seems to be that the U.S. is only to be under international control, not the leader of the free world.
Is that change we can believe in?
Addressing an audience of military experts at the National Defense University, President Obama was tasked with laying out his reasoning for his actions and the plan he has for the mission and then the endgame. Did he succeed? I don't think so. There were zings at George W. Bush with references about Iraq - as what not to do - and there was the standard flowery Obama campaign speak. He was determined to make us think he is deliberate and confident that his decisions are strong. And, regime change is not our objective.
What?
This is how the man sums it all up:
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
Here's a bit of irony from Obama as he was anti-war in Iraq but that was then and this is now:
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Mass graves and images of slaughter ring a bell? Like Saddam and the Iraqis?
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
Obama really wants you to know he is not George W. Bush.
We now know very little more than what we knew before the speech. It was delivered in pre-prime time and no network had to interrupt night programming. Turns out no one really exerted much effort here. The time would have been wasted on the size of a prime time audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)