Frustrated by the contradictory remarks made by the President during last night’s State of the Union address, members of the Congressional Western Caucus issued a letter to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar today highlighting the Department of Interior’s inconsistencies regarding domestic energy production and job creation. These statements follow on the heels of the Department of Interior’s recent decision to impose cumbersome oil and gas regulations that will have a devastating impact on energy-related jobs throughout the country.
“Last night we heard the President state that he is committed to job creation. I am hoping this begins with a reversal of the job-killing policies his Administration implemented last year,” said Western Caucus Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT).
“The Department’s reforms will simply insert additional, costly layers of bureaucracy while making it more difficult and more costly to develop American energy resources and invest in American Jobs,” the letter states.
The oil and gas industry is one of the nation’s largest employers, supporting over 9 million jobs and generating 7.2% of U.S. gross domestic product. The state share from oil and gas revenues for the states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming alone, decreased by over $120 million in the last year, largely due to this Administration’s efforts to curb domestic energy production. The West maintains the highest regional unemployment- 10.7%.
“Your repeated assertion that the previous Administration held an “anywhere, anyhow” policy on oil and gas development is not borne out by the facts. While blaming the previous Administration may earn you applause from environmentalists who oppose any and all domestic energy development, the partisan rhetoric does nothing to create jobs and is actually not supported by the facts,” the letter also states.
Secretary Salazar recently referred to energy producers, many of whom are small-business owners, as “Kings of the World.” In reality, independent producers develop 90% of domestic oil and gas wells. Additionally, these independent producers provide good-paying jobs to many families throughout the West who depend upon the oil and gas industry for long-term employment.
“When it comes to meeting America’s energy needs, we need it all. This principle should also apply to creating jobs and getting our economy back on track,” the letter concludes.
The letter was sent by the following Congressional Western Caucus members and 10 Senators:
HOUSE:
Rep. Rob Bishop
Rep. Wally Herger
Rep. Cynthia Lummis
Rep. Kevin McCarthy
Rep. Don Young
Rep. Dean Heller
Rep. Doug Lamborn
Rep. Mike Coffman
Rep. Jason Chaffetz
Rep. Jeff Flake
Rep. G.T. Thompson
Rep. Tom McClintock
Sen. John Barrasso
Sen. Robert Bennett
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. James Inhofe
Sen. Michael Enzi
Sen. James Risch
Sen. John Thune
Sen. Sam Brownback
Sen. Pat Roberts
Sen. David Vitter
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Western Lawmakers Fight to Bring Water Back to California’s Central Valley
Western Lawmakers Fight to Bring Water Back to California’s Central Valley
What They’re Saying About the Manmade Drought and Future of Agriculture in California…
"It is a question of political will." "Congress can act, when it has the political will." – Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA)
"This is about the process. We want everyone to have an opportunity to speak to members of Congress, to take the message back to Washington." –Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA)
"It is falling on deaf ears. That's why there hasn't been a solution." –Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT)
“During Monday's water forum, eastside farmers spoke up voicing their fear that their land is next to dry up.” — [KMPH- Fresno]
“If the agriculture goes away, there is nothing.” — [Manager of Paramount Farms, Bill Phillimore, the Economist]
"I hate to even say it, but I sold my ranch this year.” “It's frustrating because we're not getting anywhere and nobody's listening." — [Westside farmer Bob Diedrich, KMPH-Fresno]
"People barely survived last season. This season, if there isn't water, it will be a tremendous blow to farmers, to communities, to workers." — [Mario Santoyo, California Latino Water Coalition, KFSN-Fresno]
“A seat was set aside for Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in hopes the Obama–Appointee would attend or send a representative. He did neither.” — [KMPH-Fresno]
What They’re Saying About the Manmade Drought and Future of Agriculture in California…
"It is a question of political will." "Congress can act, when it has the political will." – Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA)
"This is about the process. We want everyone to have an opportunity to speak to members of Congress, to take the message back to Washington." –Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA)
"It is falling on deaf ears. That's why there hasn't been a solution." –Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT)
“During Monday's water forum, eastside farmers spoke up voicing their fear that their land is next to dry up.” — [KMPH- Fresno]
“If the agriculture goes away, there is nothing.” — [Manager of Paramount Farms, Bill Phillimore, the Economist]
"I hate to even say it, but I sold my ranch this year.” “It's frustrating because we're not getting anywhere and nobody's listening." — [Westside farmer Bob Diedrich, KMPH-Fresno]
"People barely survived last season. This season, if there isn't water, it will be a tremendous blow to farmers, to communities, to workers." — [Mario Santoyo, California Latino Water Coalition, KFSN-Fresno]
“A seat was set aside for Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in hopes the Obama–Appointee would attend or send a representative. He did neither.” — [KMPH-Fresno]
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
When it comes to cap-and-trade, give federalism a chance
Supporters of cap-and-trade often make bold claims about climate change legislation. Rapturous-sounding rhetoric such as “this legislation will create jobs by the millions, save money by the billions and unleash investment in clean energy by the trillions,” is common in the cap-and-trade debate. Indeed, proponents typically describe cap-and-trade as the equivalent of a giant magic job Pez dispenser.
I am convinced they are wrong. Cap-and-trade legislation will only cap our economy and trade American jobs overseas. There are many devastating analyses of the costs and effectiveness of cap-and-trade legislation. Let me share just one.
The Danish academic and author, Bjorn Lomborg, has found that even if the entire industrialized world enacted U.S. style cap and trade legislation, world temperatures would drop by only 0.22 degrees by 2100. Meanwhile, Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute calculates the “expected costs” of cap-and-trade to the American people are “at least 10 times the expected benefits.” President Obama himself acknowledged that, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
In other words, cap-and-trade will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, food, and just about everything else, destroy millions of jobs, prolong the recession, and all that for just 0.22 degrees temperature reduction by 2100! If the banker phoned in with this offer, like most Americans, I would respond, “No deal.”
I recognize there are many who do not reach the same policy conclusions I do. In fact, there are a good number of individuals who believe that intentionally increasing energy costs during a recession is necessary. They are genuinely convinced that imposing a complicated web of new federal mandates and “green” regulations will lead to an economic renaissance.
Despite their sincerity, neither I, nor my constituents, desire to partake in their risky theories.
Fortunately, there is a political solution that enables both sides in this debate to get what we want. Instead of imposing a top-down carbon-focused reorganization of our $14 trillion economy on a divided public, I’m willing to let cap-and-traders reap all the “benefits” of climate change legislation–all the jobs and economic prosperity they are so confident it will bring about. States eager to impose carbon caps should be allowed to do so.
All I ask is that proponents not impose cap and trade on states choosing to address climate change in a different fashion.
There are regions of this country where cap-and-trade policies may be popular. Some people residing in the Northeast, urban areas, and certain coastal regions appear to support cap-and-trade policies. At least the Congressional representatives in these areas seem eager to implement strict carbon regimes on their citizens.
Again, I say–let them. Then let’s wait a few years and see what happens.
My proposal invokes one of the most important, and sadly, most forgotten of the political insights of the Founders, the concept of federalism. Federalism is based on the simple premise that not all policy solutions must come from Washington. It empowers states to attempt innovative policy without subjecting unwilling participants to mandates they oppose. It allows the country as a whole to learn from policy experimentation and leaves states free to implement their own policy solutions when a national consensus is lacking.
State policy experimentation is not a new or untested idea. Today there are more than 200 compacts that allow groups of states to cooperate on environmental, economic, transportation and other problems. In fact, there was a time when the states were routinely viewed as “laboratories of democracy.” The Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”
If cap-and-trade is the Shangri-La supporters think it will be, let it be proven and other states will follow. Likewise, if it doesn’t work, other states can learn from its failure and avoid the same mistakes. I was delighted this week to see that California’s Gov. Schwarzenegger has grasped this important insight. As they say, more power to them.
It’s time those of us in Washington realized that the United States is a diverse, vibrant nation with varying demographics, needs, and concerns. Congress does not have to send to the President a one-size-fits-all bill mandating a nationwide cap-and-trade regime. With cap-and-trade legislation, as in many other policy areas, we should give federalism a chance.
I am convinced they are wrong. Cap-and-trade legislation will only cap our economy and trade American jobs overseas. There are many devastating analyses of the costs and effectiveness of cap-and-trade legislation. Let me share just one.
The Danish academic and author, Bjorn Lomborg, has found that even if the entire industrialized world enacted U.S. style cap and trade legislation, world temperatures would drop by only 0.22 degrees by 2100. Meanwhile, Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute calculates the “expected costs” of cap-and-trade to the American people are “at least 10 times the expected benefits.” President Obama himself acknowledged that, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
In other words, cap-and-trade will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, food, and just about everything else, destroy millions of jobs, prolong the recession, and all that for just 0.22 degrees temperature reduction by 2100! If the banker phoned in with this offer, like most Americans, I would respond, “No deal.”
I recognize there are many who do not reach the same policy conclusions I do. In fact, there are a good number of individuals who believe that intentionally increasing energy costs during a recession is necessary. They are genuinely convinced that imposing a complicated web of new federal mandates and “green” regulations will lead to an economic renaissance.
Despite their sincerity, neither I, nor my constituents, desire to partake in their risky theories.
Fortunately, there is a political solution that enables both sides in this debate to get what we want. Instead of imposing a top-down carbon-focused reorganization of our $14 trillion economy on a divided public, I’m willing to let cap-and-traders reap all the “benefits” of climate change legislation–all the jobs and economic prosperity they are so confident it will bring about. States eager to impose carbon caps should be allowed to do so.
All I ask is that proponents not impose cap and trade on states choosing to address climate change in a different fashion.
There are regions of this country where cap-and-trade policies may be popular. Some people residing in the Northeast, urban areas, and certain coastal regions appear to support cap-and-trade policies. At least the Congressional representatives in these areas seem eager to implement strict carbon regimes on their citizens.
Again, I say–let them. Then let’s wait a few years and see what happens.
My proposal invokes one of the most important, and sadly, most forgotten of the political insights of the Founders, the concept of federalism. Federalism is based on the simple premise that not all policy solutions must come from Washington. It empowers states to attempt innovative policy without subjecting unwilling participants to mandates they oppose. It allows the country as a whole to learn from policy experimentation and leaves states free to implement their own policy solutions when a national consensus is lacking.
State policy experimentation is not a new or untested idea. Today there are more than 200 compacts that allow groups of states to cooperate on environmental, economic, transportation and other problems. In fact, there was a time when the states were routinely viewed as “laboratories of democracy.” The Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”
If cap-and-trade is the Shangri-La supporters think it will be, let it be proven and other states will follow. Likewise, if it doesn’t work, other states can learn from its failure and avoid the same mistakes. I was delighted this week to see that California’s Gov. Schwarzenegger has grasped this important insight. As they say, more power to them.
It’s time those of us in Washington realized that the United States is a diverse, vibrant nation with varying demographics, needs, and concerns. Congress does not have to send to the President a one-size-fits-all bill mandating a nationwide cap-and-trade regime. With cap-and-trade legislation, as in many other policy areas, we should give federalism a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
