Category: Government

This year’s formidable Sierra snowpack has brought good news and bad news.

FirenzeSage48@gmail.com

About 20,000 jobs were lost because of Obama’s anti-drilling policies. And Obama’s job-killing policies continue. Latest demise is Seahawk Drilling.

The Heritage Foundation:

“Randall Stilley has witnessed firsthand the Obama administration’s job-killing agenda. As the president and chief executive of Seahawk Drilling, he had to lay off 632 employees before filing for bankruptcy — a direct result of President Barack Obama’s anti-energy policies.Stilley’s company owned and operated 20 shallow-water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. The lack of energy production — a consequence of Obama’s drilling moratorium and subsequent “permitorium” — led to Seahawk’s demise. Now he’s speaking out, sharing Seahawk’s story in a new video from Heritage and the Institute for Energy Research. (Click to watch.)

It’s an unfortunate example of how policies in Washington are harming American jobs and also squelching energy production at a time when consumers are paying $4-per-gallon for gasoline.
Fortunately, not everyone in the nation’s capital is content with higher prices and fewer jobs. Today the U.S. House considers the first of several bills that directly addresses energy and jobs. Lawmakers will vote today on legislation that requires the Obama administration to conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and in the waters offshore Virginia.

It’s a welcome change from the anti-drilling policies first imposed by the Obama administration one year ago. On May 6, 2010, the first moratorium on Gulf drilling took effect, followed by a longer ban that lasted until October. But even after it was lifted, few deepwater permits have been issued.

The long-term implications are disastrous for America. That prompted House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) to pursue a remedy through legislation. Today’s vote would ensure that companies continue energy development by requiring lease sales. Two other bills would speed up the permitting process and craft a long-term plan for offshore lease sales.

“What we’re proposing is to lower gas prices, create American jobs, which ironically will help drive up government revenues, and ultimately, in the wake of all the turmoil we’ve seen in the world, create an environment in which we are energy independent or on a path to energy independence,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) explained yesterday.

Even without the president’s signature, the legislation has already had a positive impact. After it passed in committee, the Obama administration promised to hold one lease sale in 2011. (Ever since 1958, there has been at least one lease sale every year.)

But while one lease sale is better than none, Hastings isn’t satisfied. He wants the Obama administration to hold four lease sales before June 2012 – including one off the coast of Virginia.

Aside from creating new jobs and discovering new sources of energy, the lease sales contribute a substantial sum of revenue for the federal treasury. In 2008, the offshore industry paid $9.4 billion for bids on new leases. Last year, that figure dropped to $979 million in lease bids.

The drop in revenue is a reflection of the Obama administration’s anti-energy policies. And lease sales are only part of the equation. According to the government’s own Energy Information Administration, production in the Gulf of Mexico will drop by 190,000 barrels per day. That means less money from royalty payments on offshore rigs as well.

Faced with mounting criticism, the Obama administration has defended its policies as a safety precaution following last year’s oil spill. But one year later, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement is issuing drilling permits at such a slow pace that it’s hard to swallow the explanation.

At the same time, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are seeking new ways to penalize energy businesses. As Curtis Dubay and Nick Loris write on The Foundry, a proposal from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) would significantly increase taxes paid by U.S. oil and gas companies competing abroad — exactly the wrong approach with gas prices on the rise.

Meanwhile, job creators like Leslie Bertucci and Randall Stilley continue to bear the brunt of the Obama administration’s misguided policies. Bertucci, who told us last month about her company’s struggle to survive, has dipped into personal savings to avoid layoffs.

Stilley didn’t have that option at Seahawk. And he’s not optimistic about what the future holds under this administration.

“As an American,” he told us, “you never want to look at your own government and say they’re hurting you personally, they’re hurting your business and they’re doing it in a way that’s irresponsible. I’m not very proud of our government right now and the way they handled this.”

And it was not — as some say — a “gutsy call”. Far from “gutsy” it was a political decision Obama made to help his re-election

Think what would happen if bin Laden were caught alive. The government would have to fly bin Laden to Gitmo and house him at Gitmo. And give bin Laden his Miranda rights. And the right to an attorney. But remember, Obama got rid of water boarding and enhanced interrogation techniques. So, likely bin Laden would gain 20+ pounds as he sat in his cell waiting for his attorney.

What secrets might bin Laden reveal had he been captured alive? Capturing hard drives and other intelligence is terrific but interrogation of the mastermind of 9/11 would be enormously helpful.

America does water board our soldiers so that they know what might happen to them. And water boarding or as they say “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used on the courier who gave up the name that lead to the capture of bin Laden.

So — imagine what bin Laden might say had he been water-boarded?

Perhaps worse than sudden death via a bullet to the brain is experiencing — slowly — what it feels like to die. In my view, “water-boarding” bin Laden might result in information that could save thousands of lives. And remembering all those Americans who died in 9/11, why not give bin Laden a taste of what he did to thousands? And he just might cough up some incredibly valuable information.

Too bad bin Laden was not taken alive. That would have been a “gutsy decision” by Obama. DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

A 14 trillion dollar federal government deficit is so large most people cannot get their arms around how big the deficit is. One way to cut the deficit is to drastically reduce the cost of overall government.

A GOVERNMENT employee typically makes roughly $100,000. In contrast,
a PRIVATE SECTOR employee typically makes roughly $50,000.

It’s not “fair” that a government employee is paid DOUBLE what an employee in the private sector is paid. So, let’s “even the playing field” between the government and private sectors.

EASY SOLUTION: Cut government salaries across the board by 50%. That way, getting a job in the private sector is equally attractive as a job the government sector. Maybe lots of government employees will leave government employment in droves.

Maybe lots of government employees will have more incentive to take their ideas and start new businesses that make money and hire people. This way we grow the private sector and shrink the government sector.

Government taxes pay for services all citizens need: fire and police protection, roads, airports, buses, schools, emergency hospital facilities. And since we are all in the “boat” together, all citizens should and must pay.

Currently, more than half the citizenry (51%) pay ZERO federal taxes. This must change. Everyone must pay some federal taxes. You use it? Then , you pay for it. Yes, some people can afford more and can pay more.

But having 50+ percent “free loading” off a small number of taxpayers — that is not healthy for the “free loader” and not fair to those who do pay.

Just look at the BAD effects of government intervention in the lives of American Indians. The Indians have the most done for them by the government. Yet 2 of 3 babies are born out of wedlock. They have huge unemployment. And huge problems with alcohol and drugs. Yet they have cradle to grave government “protection” Dependency upon government is not the way to go.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
____________________________________________________

Red Ink and Upward Redistribution
By Ralph R. Reiland

After doing nothing during his first two years in office to deal with the debt tsunami that’s clearly visible on the horizon and heading our way, President Obama delivered a 2012 budget plan that, as Investor’s Business Daily accurately editorialized, “proposed spending $252 billion more in 2012 than the feds spent in 2010 — at the height of the stimulus spending spree.”

Longer run, worse than doing nothing, Obama’s projected budgets over the next decade add enough trillions in red ink to double the size of the incoming tsunami.

The federal government’s current $14 trillion debt averages out to approximately $50,000 per American, $200,000 for a family of four. For the half of U.S. households who still pay federal income taxes, that averages out to $400,000 per family for those are getting stuck with the tab.

Add to that the next decade’s proposed red ink and each of those taxpaying household ends up, on average, $800,000 in the hole. That could become an unworkable $80,000 a year in interest payments per taxpaying household, on average, if the U.S. credit rating drops and lenders require 10 percent interest payments.

Unfortunately, even this $800,000 per family scenario is based on some very rough and overly optimistic guesswork. Politicians projecting out a decade and more have every incentive to paint a rosy scenario, plus a clear incentive at every election cycle to buy more votes via additional trillions in red ink.

So what’s the solution? Tax hikes to bring in more money? Tax cuts to expand the economy and bring in more federal revenue? Spending cuts? Or some combination of all three?

“Federal spending is growing faster than federal revenues,” editorializes the New Republic in its April 28 issue. “Absent changes in the law, future generations of Americans will likely have to raise taxes to unprecedented levels; dramatically reduce the reach of government programs, risk the macroeconomic consequences of uncontrolled debt, or some combination of all three. At best, these options are unappealing. At worst, they are a threat to prosperity.”

The editorial quotes Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: “Just like it may pay for a business to borrow (run a deficit) in order to increase long-run profitability, so too for government.”

That’s true, just as it’s true for a college student borrowing to increase long-run earnings. But the borrowing can’t go on forever. A 60-year-old college student owing $600,000 in tuition debt and still jobless isn’t a prime example of economic rationality.

“Balancing the budget is important; but so is creating a fair society in which all Americans have basic economic security,” advises the New Republic. “The fact is that much of the moral purpose of government spending is to redistribute income downward — to provide for the least successful and least fortunate members of society. It’s easy for that general principle to be lost in the detailed debates over which programs will be cut. But liberals shouldn’t run away from talking about this overarching commitment.”

But regarding this “commitment,” this “moral purpose” of government to “redistribute income downward,” doesn’t the federal government itself do the exact opposite when it cuts the checks each month for its own payroll?

“Average wages in the federal civilian workforce — $74,311 in 2010 — far eclipse the $49,977 median wages in private industry,” states a recent House budget report. Add benefit packages and the average compensation per year of federal civilian workers jumps to $101,628.

On top of that, the federal government has added 155,000 new workers to its payroll since President Obama has taken office.

With people earning $49,977 picking up the tab for the added workers and the $101,628 paychecks, isn’t this the opposite of the “moral purpose” to “redistribute income downward”?