Archive for politics
Obama’s message at Town Hall conflicts with his past statements
Posted by: | CommentsIn a spirited town hall in Grand Junction, Colorado, Zach Lane, a political science and marketing major at the University of Colorado in Boulder, CO. asked President Obama the following question:
How in the world can a private organization, providing insurance, compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes… they are not subject to local regulations. How can a company compete with that?
President Obama, quick to point out that he had previously answered part of the question, jumped right and acknowledged that this situation is a possibility. The President said, “Certainly they can’t compete if the tax payer is standing behind the public option just shoveling more and more money in…right? That’s certainly not fair.” While the President said that he agreed that this would be unfair competition, he failed to mention that ultimately, the public option would be paid for by the taxpayer.
Recent statements by the President back up his current stance. On June 15, 2009, the President addressed the American Medical Association. During his address, the president said, “let me address an ILLEGITIMATE concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” The President’s “facts”, which he has not been able to back up, tend to suggest otherwise.
To put this into perspective, The President’s health care plan includes a health care exchange in which private companies, under the control of the government per provisions in the bill, would be able to offer insurance to all American citizens. However, the public option will be competing in the plan too, operating without the worries of making a profit, or having to pay taxes. As a result, the competition provided by the public option would ultimately force out the competition, leaving only the public option available and creating a single-payer system.
The President has made conflicting statements, not only regarding the public option and a single-payer system, but his stance on the issue as well. In 2003, President Obama stated “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer system”. He went on to spell out his plan to make it happen by taking control of both houses of Congress, as well as the White House. He has achieved that aspect of his agenda.
While addressing SEIU during a Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007, President Obama (then Senator Obama) cemented his stance on a public option and a single-payer system by saying:
my commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President…I would hope that we set up a system that allows those who can’t go thru their employer, to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…but I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Once again, the President’s goal is on its way to becoming reality. The current health care bill being proposed by both the house and the senate, addresses universal health care for all, described as the Health Care Exchange. Both proposals also address a “federal system” for individuals who cannot get health care thru their employer, otherwise known as the Public Option. These two aspects will eventually “eliminate employer coverage” and transition into a single-payer system.
While addressing Mr. Lane at the Colorado Town Hall, the President replied:
I have already said, I would not be in favor of a public option of that sort…I think that we can craft a system in which you’ve got a public option that has to operate, independently, not subsidized by tax payers.
The president continues to say “I think we can” when referring to creating a public option that will not force out the private sector. He has yet to detail a plan that the Congressional Budget Office can validate, as to operate independent of subsidization by tax payers, which by the President’s omission, is “certainly not fair.”
Never Waste a Crisis: How The Obama Administration is Creating an Auto Crisis
Posted by: | Comments
Remember the sentiments expressed by Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel? He warned President Obama to never let a good crisis go to waste. I think it’s fair to say that Obama is a good listener and has taken those words to heart. Not only does he seize every opportunity to label each and every issue as a crisis to conveniently avoid his promise of transparency to the American people, but now he’s well on his way to creating his very own genuine crisis. This is no accidental crisis, ladies and gentlemen. We’re now in the business of creating them on purpose. Almost as if the administration has written a play book after studying exactly what took place in the housing crisis, it has set out to get the ball rolling on the “next big thing.”
My husband, Mr. 1conservativemomma, has done a great job of explaining how the current administration’s “Cash for Clunkers” plan is digging America a deep, dark hole. His words are below:
How did the housing crisis start? To fully understand the nature of this question, and to accurately answer it as well, we have to turn the clock back several years to the start of the sub-prime mortgage frenzy. In short, political pressure, led by ACORN, was put on banks to offer housing options for low income families. Credit standards were lowered, and creative mortgage plans such as the Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) and “interest only” mortgages soon became the under-qualified and even unqualified applicants’ best friend. Unfortunately, these were the ingredients for the recipe for disaster that eventually led to the housing crisis that ballooned near the end of 2008.
People often want what they cannot have, or in this case afford. It’s only human nature to desire bigger and better things. So when something, or someone, comes along and shows the masses an easier or quicker way to obtain that what they desire, all logic seems to go out the window. Millions of people bought homes with mortgages they could not afford, or could afford initially, but had no logical plan or means to keep up with future payments when payments started to rise, as stated in the fine print of their mortgage contracts which they probably did not read. The result was inevitable, but those who pushed for this type of “creative lending” failed to acknowledge this, even though the signs were there for all to see. As people started to fall behind on their mortgages, the banks started taking action. Foreclosures rose, and home values quickly fell. Eventually, this affected the responsible homeowners who only bought homes they could afford and paid their bills on time because the historical foreclosure rate soon caused even their homes to decrease in value too.
You would think that the administration would learn from the housing catastrophe and never again willfully entice people to buy what they cannot afford.
Fast forward less than one year later and the government introduced its “Cash-for-Clunkers” brain-child.
The premise of this plan is that you take your gas-guzzling vehicle to your local dealer and you will get up to a $4500 credit towards the purchase of a new fuel-efficient vehicle, such as a Toyota Camry. This is in addition to the “scrap value price” of your newly traded-in clunker.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? Of course it does. In fact, it is too good of a deal.
Just like all the under-qualified, low-income citizens who bought homes that they could not afford, “Cash-for-Clunkers” is enticing millions of people to purchase new cars that they cannot afford. I am not saying this is the case for all buyers who take advantage of this program, but it is for a rather large portion of them. We have to ask the question: why are they driving these old clunkers in the first place? Probably because they can’t afford a $600 car payment, in which the clunker allowance would only save approximately $90.00 a month on a 5-year finance deal. In addition, I highly doubt that the gas that is saved on a monthly basis will be enough to cover the difference either.
Mark my words, within the next year, you are going to see a large portion of these people falling behind on their payments and auto repossession will again rise. In addition, it will have a negative effect on those who purchased these cars without the Cash-for-Clunkers program, as it will start to decrease the value of their cars as well, just like the decline of home values in the housing crisis. Once again, the auto industry will be in trouble because buyers, those who still have jobs, will be purchasing the one year old cars at bargain prices, instead of buying new cars.
Do these clowns in government ever learn? Where is the common sense? Sure, it looks good on the books in the short term, but we will pay for it down the road. And remember, when you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, Peter will eventually come back to collect…with interest!
America’s Tea Party
Posted by: | Comments
My daughter at her first TEA party!
This Independence Day I had the privilege of celebrating our country’s birthday at Southfork Ranch in Parker, TX, just outside of Dallas. Regardless of where we spend July 4th, looking around and seeing our fellow Americans decked out in red, white, and blue is enough to stir up waves of patriotism. But this Independence day was different. We the people have had enough of increased government interference, out-of-control spending, and seeing our constitution made pliable. We’ve banded together, in the spirit of our forefathers, to stand up and say ENOUGH!
Myself, My husband Chet, My father, and my two youngest children.
My family drove from Texarkana, TX to the event, a little over 3 hours. We arrived promptly at 3PM lugging with us a full ice chest, blankets, chairs, and most importantly a shade tent. We were in for the long haul and felt more than honored to be there. By the time we arrived, there were several hundred already gathered on the grass. As the day, and the heat, wore on, a steady stream of patriotism flowed through the entry gates. At around 5:30PM my husband walked around doing a head count so that we would have a true accounting of attendees, knowing full well that the media would water down the truth. Mind you, this was when the crowd was still “sparse” as it was reported in The Dallas Morning News, and the count at that time was approximately 7,200–not including any who were inside the air-conditioned banquet hall. As the sun faded, family events ended and the temperature dropped the crowd grew exponentially. The final official estimate, from county officials, was 37,000.
Double amputee exercising his right to assemble for our great nation.
Walking through the masses, we could not help but feel the patriotic energy radiating from crowd. There were some familiar signs such as “Taxed Enough Already,” “I’ll keep my freedom, you can keep the change!” and “Next time, read the Constitution, it’s shorter!” The sign that seemed to move my husband the most was held by a stately looking, elderly man, sweating in the 100 degree weather, right up front and as close to the stage as he could get with a sign that read “I fought for my country once, I’ll fight for it again.” My husband can hardly speak about that sign without getting tears in his eyes. Maybe it is because he can identify with that man, who was obviously a veteran as is my husband. Maybe it’s because that simple statement represents the sacrifice made by those who have shed blood in honor, to protect the rights that we cherish today.
Reuters photo of a patriot, who happens to be an amputee, enjoying the show.
The highlight of my evening was hearing Michelle Malkin speak. She is a prominent supporter of Smart Girl Politics and we can’t thank her enough for all that she does to support conservatism. Michelle spoke of the idea that everyday should be Independence day, that we are born free, and that no government entity can grant us our liberty. Mrs. Malkin said, “The reason for the season is Liberty!” She spoke of being the daughter of legal immigrants who were proud to take the oath of allegiance to this great country.
Me with Michelle Malkin! Thank you for the photo Michelle!
I want to take this opportunity to encourage every American to read The Federalist Papers. Take note during this season of Liberty, that in Federalist 10, Publius warned that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” We the people are charged with seeking out leaders who have no greater goal than to uphold and defend our Constitution, as it was written. In this day and age, the new chic is to “build a new foundation,” but I dare say that I am going to stick with the foundation that our forefathers mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to provide.
Me with Katrina Pierson, Dallas Tea Party organizer and a great American!
As our great nation stands at this crossroads, our country is facing some of her darkest hours. The shroud of socialism is threatening to be cast upon us. What started with massive government spending, is leading to massive government expansion, and thus, the birth of the TEA Party movement. As the agenda of this administration continues its power grab and control by way of Cap-N-Tax and a disastrous national healthcare plan, the sleeping giant continues to awaken. The great people of this nation, no longer stifled by party affiliation as the opposition would like it to seem, are gaining true power as well. We the people are uniting and our great collective voice will be heard. History will look back upon us and tell of a time that “We the People” stood strong, that “We the People” stood firm, and that “We the People” did not allow our great nation to be changed or transformed. Rather, it will reflect upon the time that “We the People” SAVED OUR GREAT NATION!
View a slideshow of photos of the event below.
embedded by Embedded Video
The Letter
Posted by: | CommentsOriginally read aloud on Glenn Beck’s show and subsequently posted on his website for the world to see. I think it is such an amazing collection of the thoughts of so many of us, that it must be shared. Glenn will air the letter tonight, June 18th, at 5:00p.m. on FOX.
Please note that these are not my words, although they easily could have been written by any number of us, as many share the same sentiments.
GLENN BECK: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation’s leadership:
I’m a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I’m not a racist. This isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three, Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don’t you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let’s just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I’m busy. I’m busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we’re morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us [who] will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
[Janet Contreras] Author’s name later revealed when Glenn had her on to interview her and find out more about her.
Statistical Proof of Left-Wing Media Bias: The Case of Pvt. Long
Posted by: | CommentsI am the “opinion” girl, and my husband is the “numbers” guy, it always has been and always will be. So I was not surprised when my husband emailed his statistical analysis of the Left-Wing media bias. He has laid out a great case and I find it hard to believe that even those most staunch left-wingers would be able to argue with his findings. His article and data are below:
I am not a blogger, I don’t sit around and write articles about politics and other current events, as I leave that to my wife. I have a family that consist of a wife and four children, I work, I pay my bills, I go to church and I spend as much time with my family as possible, and I AM A UNITED STATES VETERAN! However, I do take the time to pay close attention to the news, on a daily basis, both thru radio and TV. I watch and listen to all the news outlets such as NBC, CNN, Fox and various radio stations. I do my best to keep an open mind about what is being reported, and do my best to form an accurate opinion about what is going on.
For awhile, I have heard a lot about media bias. If you pay attention, you cannot escape hearing about it. However, in the past, it may have been difficult to tell who is being biased and in what regard. It used to be somewhat of a challenge to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is putting their own “spin” on any given situation. In addition, it has been difficult to tell who is just “overlooking” issues that will go against their biased agenda.
Today, we no longer live in a society in which media bias is difficult to detect. The past election was the most telling, and the recent reporting of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad and James Von Brunn will put an end to the debate.
Never heard of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad? Well, that is not surprising. Unless you have been listening to or reading articles from Fox News, then the name is probably foreign to you.
Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad is the Muslin convert who shot and killed Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, Arkansas. He said in a telephone interview that he did not consider killing Pvt. Long murder because “U.S. military action in the Middle East made the killing justified.” As ludicrous as that sounds, keep in mind that Pvt. Long was never in the Middle East.
Enter James Von Brunn who has been described as “the man responsible for the death of an African American…” While this is completely true, I have yet to find a source in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that states Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad as anything related to “a man who killed a White American”. To take it further, the MSM has been jumping all over this as being connected to “Right-Wing Extremists”. Have you heard anyone at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or ABC connecting Abdul Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad to “Left-Wing Extremists”, or any group for that matter? Probably not. It is blatantly obvious that if they cannot tie despicable acts, as both of these are, to right-wingers, they pretty much let them fly under the radar.
Depending on your views, you might be thinking that this is just one person’s opinion, no hard statistical data to prove this. Fine, if statistical data is what you want, then that is what you will get.
Today, June 11, 2009, around 12:00 pm, I decided to put my theory to test. I decided to conduct an experiment using Google, to see if I could validate my suspicions. I did an individual search with each man’s name, and each time I tied in a different news outlet in the search engine to see the number of hits it would generate. For example, I conducted a Google search for “James Von Brunn CNN”, then I did one for “Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad CNN”. I did the same for MSNBC, NBC, NBC News, ABC, ABC News, CBS, and CBS News. The results were shocking. When you look at this, keep in mind that the Arkansas shooting has been running for about 9 days more than the National Holocaust Museum shooting has.
The numbers do not lie. These were taken directly from the results section when conducting a search in Google’s search engine. This was completed on the same day, within a 2 minute time span.
To break it down, on a daily basis, the MSM (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) generated 203,970 hits for James Von Brunn and only 42,270 hits for Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, despite having a 9 day lead. As a result, James Von Brunn had an average hit per day of 101,985 while Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad had an average hit per day of 3842. It boils down to an average daily hit ratio of 27 to 1, based on the number of days since the incidents had occurred. On a daily basis, James Von Brunn received 27 more times the coverage that Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad. While CNN was the least biased of the four, NBC lead the pack by covering James Von Brunn 35 more times on a daily average than Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad. INSANE!!!!!!!!!!
The question you must be asking yourself is…WHY? Why has James Von Brunn had so much more coverage than Abdul Muhammad? They both committed despicable acts, they both acted on their own accord, they both had a history of violence (by the way, Abdul Muhammad had already been investigated by the FBI, but you won’t find the MSM reporting that). The differences are, one is white and one is black, one is a converted Muslim and one a white-supremacist, one hated Jews and one hated American servicemen.
The reason is simple. James Von Brunn’s motives SEEM to push the left-wing agenda. The MSM have over and over claimed him to be a right-wing extremist. They see his actions as ammo to use against the right and in particular conservative talk show radio. But they are wrong. As Rush pointed out on June 11, 2009, many of James Von Brunn’s ideology adheres to the left, not the far right ideologies. In addition, it turns out FBI agents found that James Von Brunn was carrying the address of the conservative magazine “Weekly Standard” on him at the time of the shooting. Politico writer Ben Smith wrote that James Von Brunn may have been planning on attacking “The Weekly Standard”, and that “Von Brunn’s published rants included attacks on “neocons,” and the Standard has been at the heart of the neoconservative movement”. If this turns out to be true, this should surely back-fire on the MSM, and it will be interesting to see how they spin it, or bury it in their usual manner.
The logical reason for the lack of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad ‘s coverage by the MSM is because it would severally tarnish the left’s agenda. Democrats, in particular Nancy Pelosi, have been pushing for the release of pictures of Gitmo detainees. The Republicans have overwhelmingly supported NOT publishing the photos as it would fuel violence against American soldiers. Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad ‘s statement regarding his reasoning for killing Pvt. Long, would certainly give credence to the Republican stance. Not to mention, it would go against everything that President Obama’s Middle East tour was based on.
In conclusion, left-wing supporters can try and debunk my reasoning for the reporting bias that is the subject of this article. What they cannot deny is its accuracy. Again, the numbers do not lie and it is hard to justify a 27 to 1 ratio, no matter how they try to spin it.
Chet Nichols
USAF 92-97
House Republicans Unveil American Energy Act
Posted by: | CommentsLast summer, 11 members of American Energy Solutions group traveled to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado and flew up to ANWR to come up with what they termed an “all of the above” strategy to meet our nation’s energy demands. Their ideas have come to fruition and have just been unveiled as the House Republicans’ alternative energy bill.
-
House Republicans recognize that as gas prices and home utility bills rise, American families are dealt an even greater economic hardship.
-
The Democrats’ answer to the worst recession in decades is a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses.
-
Thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is a high price to pay for an energy policy that will do very little to clean up our environment.
-
The American people deserve better. The American Energy Act is an all of the above plan that will provide energy independence, more jobs here at home, and a cleaner environment.
-
The American Energy Act increases our domestic supply of energy by lifting restrictions on ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, and oil shale in the Mountain West.
-
The House Republican plan renews America’s commitment to clean and emissions-free nuclear energy. The Department of Energy has stated the best way for utility companies to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their supply of nuclear energy.
-
Despite the enormous success of nuclear energy, no new nuclear reactor has been ordered since the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The House Republican plan builds on the success of nuclear energy by laying down a national goal of ordering 100 new nuclear reactors over the next twenty years.
-
Revenue generated by the sale of leases will be invested in renewable and alternative sources of energy. The House Republican plan also encourages conservation through proven tax incentives.
-
The American people don’t want a national energy tax; they want energy independence. The House Republican plan is the comprehensive energy solution this country desperately needs.
Wednesday, June 10th, Representatives Robert Latta (R-OH) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) were gracious enough to host a conference call for bloggers and energy reporters.
Rep. Robert "Bob" Latta (R-OH)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Rep. Latta informed bloggers that right now in North Western and North Central Ohio, they are approximately 25 cents above the national gas price average due to the fact that over 80% of all of the gas being brought into the state is currently being trucked in. His constituents are concerned, as is he. Rep. Latta says that this is but one of the reasons why we have such a need for the “all of the above” approach: nuclear energy, clean coal energy, oil, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, wind, sun, biothermal, etc. The last nuclear power plant started in the U.S. was in 1977. Rep. Latta is concerned with the fact that we have so many renewable resources that we essentially are not allowing to be accessed. He states that if we can keep our money at home we will be less dependant on foreign countries and generally be more safe.
Representative Lummis is dissatisfied with the national energy tax, which is the Democratic Energy Policy. She states that we need to rely on solar, wind, and especially nuclear energy, as well as bio-fuels, in addition to oil, natural gas and coal. Wyoming is the #1 producing state of hydrocarbons, a leader in wind energy, and acording to Rep. Lummis it is the #1 producer of uranium. Rep. Lummis attended a meeting in California to learn more about solar energy projects.
Both Representatives stress the importance of relying on new technologies to power our country and lessen our dependence on foreign nations. Representative Latta’s plan will be sensitive to the environment, create jobs, and provide security to our country. President Obama says that Iran can move forward with nuclear power, but here at home he wants us to focus on wind and solar only. The Republican solution strongly supports an “all of the above” approach, which is a stark contrast to that which the Democrats are proposing.
No nuclear reactor has been ordered since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, according to Rep. Lummis. The Republican plan has a goal of ordering 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, in addition to accessing an array of other types of alternative energy.
During the question and answer portion of the call, Representative Lummis was asked whether she would be interested in having a nuclear plant built in her home state of Wyoming. Rep. Lummis stated that it was probably impractical to have a nuclear plant built in Wyoming because of the demands for water and the importance of having the electrical generating capabilities near the user, however because Wyoming is the #1 uranium producing state, there are processes that lead up to nuclear reactors that may be completed in Wyoming. Her follow up question was whether or not Wyoming would have any interest in storing waste from a reactor. Representative Lummis stated that she was interested in recycling spent fuel in the manner which France recycles its spent fuel–a topic she says is covered in the bill presented by Rep. Latta. She says that there are abilities to recycle spent fuel rods that are in use in France, which we do not use simply because of policies that were enacted during the Carter administration. She has a desire to revisit those strategies in an effort to get as much energy out of the rods as possible, and with an end result of rendering the rods much more benign as a finished product.
The next question asked what provisions in the bill would enable the 100 nuclear facilities over the next 20 years. Rep. Latta stated that when writing the bill, those involved had to look at what the future would bring. In doing so, they looked to China, Russia, and others, and noted that the United States is way behind those countries on this front. The bill includes oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 100 nuclear facilities proposed would include sites that are already licensed, being submitted by an operator in good standing, and have demonstrated the financial commitment for the long term. Lots of the components will have to come from overseas until we can catch back up with the rest of the world. Canada can get nuclear reactors built in a much shorter time period than we can, currently. These Representatives aim to change that. Offshore drilling sites would be leased, dollars would flow back from the money the bill would produce. The Democratic option picks winners and losers. The Republican version looks to stop that process because the Representatives feel that it will take everything we’ve got. The Democrats propose the cap and taxes. These taxes affect everyone from the manufacturers right down to the end users who turn on the switch every morning. Americans are taxed enough already and according to Rep. Latta, “just can’t take that hit…The Heritage Foundation has projected that to be about $4800 per family.” Everyone is a winner under this bill, the Republicans are not picking winners and losers, unlike the Democratic plan.
Representative Lummis states that the bill takes a very comprehensive approach, in particular with the trust fund which would cover recovery all the way down to research. She also stated that the 100 nuclear reactors is a proposal, which could include their megawatt equivalent. There is no short-circuiting of the process, applicants would have to comply with all safety precautions in place.
Another questioner wanted to find out the way the Republicans define their policy. Rep. Latta went back to when Speaker Pelosi turned the lights out on the floor and the representatives discussed energy. The Republicans are considering what is a base load capacity, which Latta says the Democrats are not concerned with. The “all of the above” approach, including traditional and alternative energy sources, is what the Republicans are going for. The Democrats are all into everyone having electric cars and are mutually against coal. Representative Latta asked the question, “If you’re going to have all of these electric cars, where are you going to plug them into?” What the Republicans are looking at is a broad-based, across the board, “all of the above” policy.
“There are no caps in this bill, and in their heart of hearts most of the Democrats will tell you that the caps in their bill cannot be met by 2012,” stated Rep. Lummis. The Republicans do not choose to place artificial caps in the bill. With regard to oil shale, this bill requires that the secretary will release shale within 120 days of the bill taking effect, according to Lummis. The bill is very specific and provides the final oil shale management rules.
Representative Latta concluded by providing details about specific types of diagonal drilling which would assist us in recovering the resources from places such as ANWR, while at the same time leaving the areas as pristine as possible. Once again, as the Representatives stated in their presentation, everyone wins with the House Republican Alternative Energy bill.
For more information, including the full text of the bill, please visit www.gop.gov/energy.
For your convenience, I have provided links to the literature that can be found on the GOP’s website regarding this bill. Please educate yourself on the alternative that is being presented and how it contrasts from the Democrat option that is before your Representatives. The media would have you believe that the GOP is “the party of no,” simply because they want to distract you from the alternatives that the GOP provides. Pass this information on to your friends and family members and by all means, contact your elected officials and give them your opinions on the matter.
Full Text of the American Energy Act bill
2 page Summary of the AEA bill
Talking Points (also listed previously in the bulleted section of this article)
