Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs

BY TIMOTHY P. CARNEY , Washington examiner  JANUARY 1, 2014 

Say goodbye to the regular light bulb this New Year.  

(Can you say "can't compete with China, so GE and others lined the pockets of Bush and Obama?"

For more than a century, the traditional incandescent bulb was the symbol of American innovation. Starting Jan. 1, the famous bulb is illegal to manufacture in the U.S., and it has become a fitting symbol for the collusion of big business and big government.

The 2007 Energy Bill, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn't produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed.

People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the plant. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn't here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).

This wasn't a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving. As the New York Times reported in 2011, “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.”

Please read more!

McCrory says he backs wind farms off NC coast

Gov. Pat McCrory is telling the Obama administration he supports plans that could one day see wind turbine towers poking out of the Atlantic Ocean miles off the North Carolina coast.


McCrory expressed his support for wind power in a letter this week to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which is gauging commercial interest in wind farms off North Carolina's northern Outer Banks and Cape Fear. The three ocean blocks that may be leased for wind farms were selected because they're gusty spots that don't interfere with military operations, shipping and fishing.

McCrory previously expressed his support for underground hydraulic fracturing to unleash natural gas and offshore drilling to tap gas and oil. He said he also backs wind power because he believes in an "all-of-the-above" energy plan.

"Development of commercial wind farms off the North Carolina coast could stimulate factory development in the state to provide the necessary equipment and bring jobs in that sector," McCrory said in the letter dated Tuesday.

The Republican, who took office earlier this month, cited estimates that North Carolina's offshore winds could stimulate $22 billion in new economic activity and create up to 10,000 jobs. Up to 3,000 North Carolina jobs are already tied to the wind industry as manufacturers produce cables for power transmission, steel plates used in turbine towers and fiberglass for blades, McCrory said.

CONTINUED:  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NC_OFFSHORE_WIND_NCOL-?SITE=NCWIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Recent U.S. House Votes

Energy Efficiency – Suspension - Vote Passed (398-2, 1 Present, 30 Not Voting)
In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on an energy measure, the House came together to pass a bill clarifying federal efficiency standards for a variety of heavy appliances, including air conditioners and commercial refrigerators (excluding walk-in refrigerators). Though the measure appears uncontroversial, its prospects are not clear in the Senate given the crowded calendar.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes YES

Global Internet Governance – Adoption - Vote Passed (397-0, 34 Not Voting)
The House unanimously agreed to Senate language expressing the sense of Congress that the Internet should remain “free from government control.” The concurrent resolution was adopted amid the backdrop of a meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a United Nations body broadly responsible for fostering cooperation among governments and the private sector on international telecommunications governance. Technology companies such as Google have voiced concern that the ITU conference could lead to adoption of restrictive regulations making it easier for national governments to censor content.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes YES

Amending Language in Federal Law – Suspension - Vote Passed (398-1, 32 Not Voting)
In its final action of the week, the House cleared a Senate bill that would remove the pejorative “lunatic” from the United States Code. The lone House dissenter was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, who insisted that lunatic should be retained, pointing to his fellow Members of Congress as living, breathing examples of the term. The bill awaits the president’s signature.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes  YES

UPCOMING VOTE
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 - H.R.4310
The House is scheduled to consider several bills under suspension of the rules, as well as a Motion to go to Conference on the defense authorization bill.

False Sense of (Energy) Security

Superficially, it would seem that the nation is successfully pursuing the Obama Administration’s stated energy goals of “increasing domestic oil production” and “reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” Domestic oil production has increased, but in spite of and not because of Administration policies. And while our overall oil import demand has declined, our imports from the Persian Gulf states, and Saudi Arabia in particular, have actually grown dramatically to make up for shortfalls from Mexico and elsewhere.

There are two separate issues with regard to the supply of petroleum and refined products: Price, and Security of Supply. When the President said, “We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices”, the political pressure of $4.00 per gallon for gasoline was his primary concern. But in an international emergency (say, a protracted shutdown of the Straits of Hormuz), our Strategic Petroleum Reserve might be quickly exhausted. Gasoline at $4.00 per gallon might seem cheap. Security of supply should be our nation’s #1 strategic concern with respect to energy.

A recent article in the New York Times considers our current supply situation and its causes:

U.S. Reliance on Oil From Saudi Arabia Is Growing Again

The increase in Saudi oil exports to the United States began slowly last summer and has picked up pace this year. Until then, the United States had decreased its dependence on foreign oil and from the [Persian] Gulf in particular.

This reversal is driven in part by the battle over Iran’s nuclear program. The United States tightened sanctions that hampered Iran’s ability to sell crude, the lifeline of its troubled economy, and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase production to help guarantee that the price did not skyrocket. While prices have remained relatively stable, and Tehran’s treasury has been squeezed, the United States is left increasingly vulnerable to a region in turmoil. …

“At a time when there is a rising chance of either a nuclear Iran or an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we should be trying to reduce our reliance on oil going through the Strait of Hormuz and not increasing it,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official who worked on Middle East issues in the George W. Bush administration.

CONTINUED:  http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2012/08/18/false-sense-of-energy-security/

The Scandal That Could Sink Obama

Monday, April 16, 2012
CRONYISM SCANDAL

80% OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GREEN LOANS WENT TO "OBAMA-RELATED COMPANIES"

Under the guise of "investing" in so-called green energy, the Obama Administration is perpetrating yet another massive scam on the American people. It has now been documented that Obama is using your hard-earned tax dollars to line the pockets of his biggest campaign donors.

But don't take our word for it...

According to research done by Hoover Institution Fellow Peter Schweitzer, the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans handed to Solyndra - the now bankrupt company that was run by Obama campaign bundler George Kaiser - is just the "tip of the iceberg."

In fact, a staggering 80% of the federal grants and loan guarantees made to green-tech firms by Obama's DOE since 2009 were made to companies whose chief executive or chief investors were major contributors and big money men to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

TELL CONGRESS - STOP THE "GREEN ENERGY" SCAMS - SELECT HERE

Schweitzer's research reveals a devastating picture of corruption in Washington, D.C. Democrats, Republicans, Congressmen, Senators, administration officials and bureaucrats - the corruption is widespread.

Billions upon billions of dollars literally have poured into the coffers of Obama's biggest campaign donors whose quasi-green products, like bankrupt Solyndra's solar panels or the exploding Finnish eco-car, were not only questionable, but very clearly doomed to failure from the beginning.

Given the number of reports warning the Obama Administration against many of the "green" loans and government handouts, it is now obvious that the money transfers were never meant to rescue the American economy or create jobs... Rather, the program from the very beginning was about nothing more than lining the pockets of loyal Obama supporters.

TELL CONGRESS - STOP THE "GREEN ENERGY" SCAMS - SELECT HERE

Even the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has chastised the Obama Administration for the manner in which DOE loans and handouts were granted. According to GAO:

•Many of the loans lacked adequate documentation and performance measures.
•Obama's DOE granted many loans based on favoritism while denying or disadvantaging other equally and often more qualified potential borrowers.

And DOE's own inspector general, Gregory Friedman, has testified that many of the contracts have been steered to "friends and family."

Yet despite all this, Barack Obama wants to double down on the program. In fact, Obama's Department of Energy has announced its intention to issue even more "green energy" loans. How many major Obama 2012 donors do you think will be on the receiving end of those new loans and grants?

Let's not wait to find out. It's time to be proactive and demand that Congress - holder of the purse strings - immediately step in and STOP ALL "GREEN ENERGY" LOANS and HANDOUTS NOW! Furthermore, we must demand a more complete and full investigation into the Obama Administration's green scam.

We must act now, before yet another taxpayer dollar is flushed down the green scam toilet.

TELL CONGRESS - STOP THE "GREEN ENERGY" SCAMS - SELECT HERE

Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella, President
Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-535-5836   Fax: 703-535-5838

LIBERTY EXTRA: The Obama Energy Strangle-Hold on America

By Christopher G. Adamo

While the Obama Administration has worked tirelessly at minimizing the negative political fallout of its “green jobs” debacle (Solyndra being among the few that gained attention), the nation has yet to fully grasp just how devastating the Obama agenda has been to the overall condition of America’s energy resources and reserves. In a perverse sense, the ongoing economic downturn, persisting as it has for three years and with no end in sight, acts as something of a “safety valve” on the cost of gasoline and heating oil. The sole reason that the price at the pumps is not currently in the stratosphere is because the Obama economy has severely suppressed its use. Otherwise any rise in consumption would quickly exceed available supplies.

Thus, for those prices to remain low, the economic prognosis must remain grim. As soon as manufacturing activity heats up and traffic on the nation’s highways increases in response, the demand for fossil fuels will likewise increase, triggering an upswing in their cost. In a sane world, this rise would be shortly offset by an increased supply, thereby balancing out the situation. However, with Obama and his Democrat cohorts stifling every attempt at expanding production, and worse, placing entire regions such as the Gulf of Mexico off limits (at least to Americans), the lack of any new supply of crude oil to compensate for higher demand guarantees that even a tiny spark of resurgent economic life will immediately result in escalating fuel prices, which in turn chokes out the activity.

http://news.libertyextra.com/?v6CHWBkz57T7WTl3FjyNTX16dmqVrf1Lv

Did President Obama Kill Thousands of Jobs?

If Americans needed any further proof that the Obama Administration is one of the most political on record, or that, for all the recent demagoguing, it really cares only about re-election, not about job creation, then you need look no further than its cynical Keystone XL oil pipeline decision last week.

http://www.askheritage.org/did-president-obama-kill-thousands-of-jobs/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-11-18&utm_campaign=2011_Brand

 

Look whose relative just got $135.8 million energy loan

'Green' firm with White House ties lined up to get massive guarantee

The sister-in-law of John Podesta, President Obama's influential White House transition director, served as the lobbyist for a wind power firm that was just awarded a $135.8 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

The company is Brookfield Asset Management. It boasts a board of nine directors, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's long-term girlfriend.  (The same company that owns the NY Park where they are 'Occupying Wall Street')

The Energy Department's promise to Brookfield marks the latest in controversial massive alternative energy loans to companies with strong ties to the Obama White House and to top Democrat lawmakers.

CONTINUEDhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=354433:

Fracking facts: pros, cons and issues

It has long been known that shales contain oil and gas but it is only within the last decade that the development of two technologies has made the extraction of gas from shale an economic proposition:


•The first of these is the ability to drill horizontally from an initial deep vertical bore.
•The second is the development of a process called ‘hydraulic fracturing’ .

Hydraulic fracturing is the use of a fluid made up of around 90% water carrying a load of sands, chemicals and sometimes diesel oil and forcing it into shales under high pressure, causing them to fracture and release the gas they contain.

This is the process from whose name the brute industrial tag of ‘fracking’ has been hacked.

To extract shale gas, you drill one or two miles down into the shale band, and then turn the drill head to bore horizontally for up to the same distance. This obviously increases the exposure of available shale to the well. A series of explosive charges in a perforated pipe are then detonated in the stretch designated for fracking, starting the fissuring of the rock for the hydrofracturing that then follows – directed into the new cracks, forcing them more widely apart and extending them.

Shale is hard and pretty impermeable so breaking it up in this way is the only means of releasing the gas it contains.

The gas then flows along the bore and escapes upwards to the well head.

The chemicals that are part of the water borne material injected into the rock include benzene – a known carcinogen that destroys bacteria that might otherwise clog up the fissures created in the rock.

Areas of gas carrying shales are known in the industry as ‘shale plays’ – as opposed to ‘shale explorations’. The difference between the two is that the risk of ‘shale plays’ not containing extractable gas is lower.

CONTINUED:  http://forargyll.com/2011/09/fracking-facts-pros-cons-and-issues/

Morning Bell: Blame the Washington Bureaucracy for High Gas Prices

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/04/morning-bell-blame-the-washington-bureaucracy-for-high-gas-prices/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%252BBell

NEWSMAX: Americans Ready for Natural Gas Vehicles

Electric cars and hybrids have been capturing the headlines regarding the future of America’s motor vehicles, but the next big thing could well be natural gas cars and trucks.


A recent poll by TechnoMetrica found that 70 percent of Americans are familiar with natural gas as a fuel for motor vehicles, and nearly half of those say they would consider buying a vehicle that runs on natural gas.

One compelling reason: Natural gas costs about $2 a gallon these days, compared to around $4 for gasoline.

Some 150,000 natural gas vehicles are already on the road in the U.S., mostly fleet autos and buses, and worldwide the number of those vehicles is expected to reach nearly 29 million by 2015, according to an editorial by Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, in Investor’s Business Daily.

Mayur observes: “In the past, the industry slighted natural gas vehicles because the U.S. had a low supply of this fuel. Now, with the discovery of vast fields of natural gas deposits, which are estimated to last for the next 100 years, interest has ticked up. The automobile industry is starting to take notice of the merits of natural gas.”

Not only is natural gas abundant in the U.S., but a natural gas vehicle has fewer emissions than a gasoline-powered car, with lower levels of harmful byproducts — an important consideration due to new federal and state regulations that will compel vehicle manufacturers to lower emissions levels.

Natural gas vehicles will also reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

Vehicles running on natural gas cost more than gasoline-powered vehicles, and there are currently few refueling stations.

But natural gas vehicles for personal use are already being sold in New York, California, Utah and Oklahoma. Honda plans to sell its Civic GX natural gas vehicle nationwide by the end of next year, and Chrysler has announced that it will make natural gas vehicles in 2017, according to Mayur, who adds:

“The automotive industry needs to embark on a major educational effort to further educate the public to the advantages of natural gas and natural gas cars.”

http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6O6.sd7uC03Vb4O1aDIVGu7zxbkblUAZ

On Gas Prices, Obama Should Lead or Get Out of the Way

If we'd increased drilling 10 years ago things wouldn't be so bad today


By Jim Adams
Posted: May 13, 2011

Jim Adams is president and CEO of Offshore Marine Service Association, which represents the owners and operators of U.S. flag offshore service vessels and the shipyards and other businesses that support that industry.

Nearly a decade ago, the retail price for regular gasoline rose 26 cents per gallon in eight weeks to an all-time high of $1.75 per gallon. The government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) was tasked with an "Inquiry into August 2003 Gasoline Price Spike." We were waging the War on Terror, labor unions were striking, hurricanes threatened oil rigs while terrorists threatened refineries, demand for energy was creeping to a new high, and international markets drew down their inventories.

Sound familiar?

READ ON:  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/05/13/on-gas-prices-obama-should-lead-or-get-out-of-the-way

Morning Bell: Obama’s Anti-Energy Policies Are Bankrupting America

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.

READ MORE AND SEE THE VIDEO:http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/05/morning-bell-obamas-anti-energy-policies-are-bankrupting-america-2/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE:

Taxes a la mode


Apr 29, 2011


Adding insult to injury, taxpayers recently found out that BP was able to save $13 billion on their taxes by writing off their losses associated with last summer’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Talk about a silver – golden – lining.

So not only were we left with an environmental disaster in the gulf, diminished economies in the neighboring states, and the use of federal resources, but the federal budget sank deeper into the red because BP could write off its losses.

This isn’t to say that BP wanted the spill to happen. Who can forget their then-CEO Tony Hayward famously telling us “There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back.” But it’s hard to believe this was what tax writers had in mind when they decided to allow companies to deduct losses from their tax payments.

So it goes with the tax code. As it increases in complexity with more loopholes, carve outs, and sweeteners added to encourage this or that activity, the law of unintended consequences – and cost – continues to grow.

This isn’t just dodges and abusive tax shelters. The tax code is riddled with provisions picking winners and losers. Provisions that favor one industry or investment over another without any oversight or accounting of the costs, or even whether these preferential tax policies are achieving what politicians claimed they would.

For example, the home mortgage interest deduction has increased the cost of homes and contributed to the housing bubble while countries without similar tax policies -- Canada, England -- have roughly the same or higher rates of home ownership. Or, the deduction for employer provided health care plans which has subsidized so-called Cadillac health care plans, helped render invisible to the insured the true cost of health insurance, and hindered shifts in the workforce because people are tied to their jobs because of health insurance.

Since the last fundamental reform in 1986, tax entropy has occurred, making the code more complex and less ordered. Like a forest never allowed to burn, the underbrush and debris piles up, choking out life and making it impossible to navigate. What we need is a controlled burn in the tax code.

We can start right now with the long list of energy tax breaks. This week the oil and gas companies are releasing their first quarter results and unlike those of us feeling pain at the pump, these corporations are pumping up their bottom lines. ExxonMobil announced that it made more than $10.7 billion in profits, roughly $5 million an hour for the last three months. The industries’ tax breaks are deeply imbedded in the code – some are nearly 100 years old. But they are all over the place – a deduction for exploration, another for depletion of their assets, another for royalties they pay to foreign governments. The list goes on, and some in Congress are trying to add to that list. Talk about wrong-headed.

We should rip all of the energy tax breaks out by their roots. Uncle Sam and well-heeled lobbyists shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in the code whether they be wind and solar or oil and gas. And let’s be clear – the big winner, not surprisingly, is oil and gas, which spent more than $30 million in campaign contributions during the last election and $150 million on lobbying in 2010. A pretty sound investment for their billions in tax breaks.

Last year’s fiscal commission called for tackling tax expenditures, the President went after them in his budget, so did House Budget Chairman Ryan in his budget, and just the other day he said “subsidies for all energy companies need to be reduced or eliminated so that we can get government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the market.” Here, here. Time for Congress to quit yappin’ and get cuttin’.

http://taxpayer.net/sarticle.php?proj_id=4477&t=Taxes%20a%20la%20mode

The silent killer of America’s economy

Currently at least 18 states have legislation proposed or pending—44 bills—relating to the RPS (according to the American Legislative Exchange Council). Despite the various campaigns pulsating throughout the country, no one seems to know what an RPS really is. Fewer are aware of the potentially lethal impact the RPS could have on America.


The RPS—or Renewable Portfolio Standard is the silent killer of the American economy. “Silent” because its presence is nearly unknown. The nightly news is occupied with Middle East and Midwest unrest and the public is fascinated with the unintelligible rants of Muammar Gadhafi and Charlie Sheen. With little media or public attention, 29 states have enacted an RPS and 7 more have agreed to voluntary goals.

The RPS is a legislated mandate requiring a certain percentage of a state’s electricity “portfolio” come from renewable energy (typically referring to wind and solar) by predetermined dates. Most states’ standards are 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. Maine is the most aggressive with a goal of 40% by 2017. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced that he’d like to see 80% clean energy by 2035. Renewable energy is known to be more expensive for the consumer than electricity generated from traditional sources—even with subsidies of about $24 per magawatt hour (based on data from the Energy Information Administration). During a hearing for the New Mexico state-wide cap and trade program, the supporting attorney stated, “The reason for Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) is because renewables are more expensive. No one would choose them if it wasn’t required.”

READ MORE:  http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2172
 

Obama’s Ultimate Betrayal

- Personal Liberty Digest - http://www.personalliberty.com -

 By John Myers On January 12, 2011
Welcome to 2011; another year for President Barack Obama, whose energy policies are dictated not from the White House but from Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.

Obama’s Christmas gift to the nation was the December announcement by the President himself to clamp down further on domestic oil and gas drilling. Welcome to the New Year where pump prices now average more than $3 per gallon.

Despite the worst recession since the Great Depression, we are paying the highest gas prices since 2008. All thanks to Obama’s need to go Green, which is enriching Arab oil producers while putting America’s future at risk.

Obama regulators have been busy slipping in ill-advised energy policies. First came the pre-Thanksgiving announcement that oil exploration and drilling in Alaska would be curtailed. All for a good cause, said the Obamaites, to help save vast expanses of polar bear habitat. Then Obama’s Department of the Interior made a pre-Christmas policy change that would further cut domestic oil supplies by making energy-rich lands untouchable.

It seems that Obama forgot that designating Federal lands as wilderness areas was supposed to require an act of Congress. Yet the day before Christmas Eve, Obama’s Department of the Interior did a coup d’état. As a result, the Obama administration alone is able to judge where oil can or cannot be drilled. In doing this, Obama has thwarted George W. Bush’s policy that restricted unilateral action by the White House.

Then there is the drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico. Nearly three months after the Obama administration lifted its ban, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well in the Gulf. In fact, the petroleum industry expects the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps well into 2012.

This long delay by the Obama administration is costing Big Oil billions of dollars that they have tied up in Gulf projects; projects that are now on hold while petroleum companies pay out thousands of dollars every day on rigs that stand idle.

Last week the Wall Street Journal wrote this indictment of Obama’ energy policy:

“Their impact goes beyond the oil industry. The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling activity, especially because the oil spill also hurt the region’s fishing and tourism industries. The Obama administration in September estimated that 8,000 to 12,000 workers could lose their jobs temporarily as a result of the moratorium; some independent estimates have been much higher.

“The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13 percent this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6 percent in 2011. The difference: A loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.”

All of which leaves America more susceptible to an Arab oil embargo. The last one happened in the 1970s when the U.S. was pumping twice as much oil as it is now.

With the U.S. gulping more foreign crude than ever, Arabs could bring America to its knees. You would think that a President as smart as Obama would understand the risk he is putting the nation in; a nation which he has sworn to protect.

Perhaps the greatest waste of American resources is out West where there is potentially hundreds of millions of barrels in oil reserves and trillions of cubic feet in gas deposits; all of it just waiting to be drilled and pumped to a thirsting nation. Yet our President is obstructing America from meeting its energy needs.

Ben Lieberman of The Washington Times explains:

“Utah is particularly hard hit, with up to 6 million acres in jeopardy of being locked away from development. Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican, told The Salt Lake Tribune, “[This decision will seriously hinder domestic energy development and further contribute to the uncertainty and economic distress that continues to prevent the creation of new jobs in a region that has unduly suffered from this administration’s radical policies.”

But there is more. Two days before Christmas the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a Pearl Harbor-like pre-emptive attack on U.S. refiners with an order that will place severe limits on carbon-dioxide emissions. The EPA, in language Joseph Stalin would have been proud of, said: “The details have yet to be determined.”


The Moroccan Candidate

The bottom-line is that under Obama, Washington is certain to increase the cost of converting oil into gasoline. If you are looking forward to spending $5 per gallon at the pumps, you will love Obama’s bold new move to make America more green.

The $5 per gallon is not just a number I picked out of the air. The former president of Shell Oil says that’s entirely possible as high demand pushes the price of crude oil higher and higher.

Culminating some time by the third quarter of 2012, retail pump prices in places like California and New York will reach roughly $5 per gallon, said former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister.

Former energy secretary Bill Richardson was asked about Hofmeister’s stark prediction: “I hope he’s wrong, but this is a very volatile energy market and we haven’t moved as fast as we should in America towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Hofmeister underscores the urgent need to develop domestic oil production and he even accuses the Obama administration of being anti-oil.

“I have no problem moving beyond oil but not today, not tomorrow, not 2011 or 2012. We can’t. It’s simply impractical and unreal,” Hofmeister said.

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy (DOE) has put out a statement saying it will continue to pursue responsible oil and gas production while focusing on vehicle efficiency standards and investing in electric vehicles, bio-fuels and mass transit.

Obama’s DOE must think America alone can make the Earth green. What the President seems to forget is the fact that China, India and Russia, along with a host of Third World polluters, are using coal and even wood furnaces to drive their industries.

It appears to me that Obama’s Green policies are nothing more than collateral damage to a nation that needs domestic petroleum and the jobs that that industry provides. Instead Obama’s policies seem to be helping Arab oil exporters.

If you think I exaggerate, consider this from the Dec. 29 Economist, not known as a bastion of conservative ideals: “Mr Obama’s team of managing the Middle East is even more inept than Mr Bush’s. The American right and many Israelis think he is too pro-Arab.”

Dubya Billboard: “MISS ME YET?”

People in the petroleum industry don’t believe Obama is pro-North America, at least not when it comes to energy. Canada’s oil sands — which help keep America on the road every day—have been labeled “dirty oil” by Obama Democrats (as if the crude they pump out of the Saudi desert was somehow clean). And given the political realities that exist in many parts of Alaska, Sarah Palin has a greater chance of hitting a gusher with an errant shot from her AR-15 than Big Oil has with a drill-bit.

Despite Bush’s multiple mistakes in the Middle East, he was a patriot who at least wanted to ramp up domestic oil and gas production. That’s not true of Obama, who seems intent on increasing America’s dependency on Arab oil.

As I write to you, oil has topped $90 per barrel. I believe that by summer it will break over $100 per barrel. That makes Big Oil a good investment. But at what cost?

Under Obama’s presidency we are headed for an energy crisis worse than anything President Jimmy Carter could have engineered. Just how high oil prices will go I don’t know. Much depends on what happens in the 2012 election.

Yours in good times and bad,
John Myers
Myer’s Energy and Gold Report
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/obamas-ultimate-betrayal/print/

GE Got $24.9 million in grants

Obama Administration Gave General Electric—Parent Company of NBC--$24.9 Million in ‘Stimulus’ Grants

Note:  GE was a major contributor to the Obama Presidential Campaign!

(CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC--$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion economic “stimulus” law President Barack Obama signed in February 2009, according to records posted by the administration at Recovery.gov.


Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.

According to Standard & Poor's, GE took in $156 billion in revenue in 2009.

GE was the primary recipient of 14 stimulus grants, a spokeswoman for Recovery.gov confirmed to CNSNews.com. These 14 grants provided GE with $24.9 million in tax dollars. On four additional stimulus grants, the primary recipient of the federal money hired GE as a contractor. Recovery.gov is the administration’s website that tracks stimulus expenditures.

At the end of 2008, GE employed 152,000 U.S. workers, according to its 2009 annual report. But at the end of 2009, according to the report, it employed only 134,000 U.S. workers, a decline of 18,000 workers.

The Energy Department provided GE with 9 stimulus grants, the Department of Health and Human Services provided the company with 3, and the Justice Department and the Commerce Department each gave the company 1 stimulus grant.

All of these federal stimulus grants went to GE’s Global Research Center.

The earliest of the stimulus grants went to GE in July 2009 and the latest in April 2010.

CNSNews.com asked a GE spokesperson if the company contested Recovery.gov’s representation that GE had received 14 stimulus grants worth $24.9 million, and also whether the company now employed more or fewer workers as a result of receiving the grants.

In an e-mail response, GE spokeswoman Anne Eisele said, “I’m afraid I must politely decline to comment.”

What did all the money to GE go for? Recovery.gov posts brief explanations of each grant. For example, the Department of Justice gave GE $999,955 in stimulus money. “The goal of this program,” said Recovery.gov, “is to develop a comprehensive reasoning system for event and scenario recognition for an intelligent video system.”

In addition to the $24.9 million it received in stimulus grants, GE was also awarded $5 million in federal contracts under the economic stimulus law. These contracts were payment for services provided by the company.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-gave-general-electr

National Center for Public Policy Research

Obama Rewards Companies Pushing His Energy Policy


Posted on October 8, 2010 by Guest Writer
 
On Thursday, policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research are calling attention to corporate special interest groups receiving stimulus money that also are lobbying for Obama’s energy policy.


“It’s alarming that many of the remaining corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership – a cap-and-trade lobbying group – such as General Electric, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, Exelon, and Honeywell all received economic stimulus funds. It seems pushing Obama’s agenda has financial rewards. The coordinated effort between big government and big business threatens our free enterprise system,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

General Electric seems to be a chief beneficiary of stimulus funds, (and was a major contributor to Obama's campaign) with federal money being given to many of its businesses. As noted in a 2009 Wall Street Journal story, ‘General Electric Pursues Pot of Stimulus Gold,’ GE CEO Jeff Immelt geared up his lobbying army to exploit President Obama’s economic stimulus package.

“Immelt hit the jackpot with Obama’s stimulus funds. According to null, GE is the recipient of over $49 million in grants and contracts from a wide range of government departments including Energy, Defense, Justice, and Health and Human Services. Not only did GE get direct support, the company will likely benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars that went to GE’s utility customers – Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and Exelon. Looting public funds for profit appears to be a primary business strategy adopted by Immelt,” added Tom Borelli.

A renewable energy mandate is the latest energy policy being proposed in Congress. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sam Brownback (R-KS) recently introduced a renewable energy standard bill in the Senate that mandates 15 percent of electricity must be derived from energy sources such as wind and solar power by 2021.

“With cap-and-trade apparently dead in the Senate, Obama and his big business allies may push a renewable energy standard as a fallback position during the lame-duck session in Congress. The renewable electricity mandate would be an incremental step towards Obama’s energy goals,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored African-American leadership group Project 21.

“A renewable electricity requirement will benefit GE since it will force utilities to buy wind and solar power products that the company makes, but it will harm our economy. Electricity prices will increase, leading to a loss of manufacturing jobs,” added Deneen Borelli.

Visit the National Center for Public Policy Research‘s website at: www.NationalCenter.org.

http://floydreports.com/?p=2422

The Heritage Foundation: The Foundry 9/14/10

House and Senate Cloakroom: September 13 – 17, 2010

House Cloakroom: September 13-17, 2010

Analysis:

The House returns from their six week recess with a light schedule this week, heading towards a potential adjournment date of October 1st. House leaders are signaling attempts to get their members home a week earlier than expected in anticipation of Election Day. There are several measures that are expected to be taken up before the recess.
 
The Senate is expected to pass a Small Business Jobs Bill (HR 5297) that will have to come back to the House to accept any changes before it will go to the President’s desk. The House will also consider a bill that would authorize the Agriculture Secretary to enable consumer loans to implement energy-efficiency measures. This week will mainly include a slew of votes under suspension of the rules but much of the inward discussion in the coming weeks will focus on President Obama’s proposed tax hike that would affect jobs across all of the United States during a down economy and what should Congress do.


Major Floor Action

•HR 2039 - Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2009
•HR 5297 – Small Business Tax Bill
•HR 4785 – Rural Energy Savings Act

Major Committee Action

•The House Ways and Means Committee will hold two days of hearings regarding Chinese currency exchange policy including Treasure Secretary Geithner on Thursday. Possible legislation could be coming quickly, but the extent of the yuan’s misalignment is unclear according to Heritage’s Derek Scissors, and so designing real remedies is almost impossible.

•The House Homeland Security Committee will hold a full committee hearing on the evolving nature of terrorism. A number of disturbing incidents at home have underscored the dangers posed by Islamist organizations and their influence on domestic radicalization.

Senate Cloakroom: September 13-17, 2010

Analysis:

The Senate returned from the August recess yesterday with yet another aggressive agenda set out for the October work period.


Today, the Senate will move yet again to the Small Business Bill. An amendment introduced by Senator Johanns of Nebraska will be considered, and a vote on final passage is expected before the end of the week. On Thursday, the Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to consider the New START treaty; it is possible the treaty will be up for consideration in the full Senate during this work period or in a Lame Duck session later this year.

Senator Harry Reid continues to push an extremely aggressive agenda for the remainder of this Congress, with talks of completing DOD Reauthorization and some sort of legislation addressing the upcoming scheduled tax expirations in the next three weeks.

Major Floor Action:

•H.R. 5297: The Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010

Major Committee Action:

•The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a business meeting to consider the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

•The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on nuclear terrorism.
 
SOURCE:  http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/14/house-and-senate-cloakroom-september-13-17-2010/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

by Michelle Malkin on Monday, September 13, 2010

Obama jobs death toll watch: 150,000 more energy jobs in danger

Louisiana State University economist Joseph Mason has a new study on the jobs death toll damage that President Obama’s planned energy tax hikes will cause.

The Autumn of Wreckage is off to a fast start, eh?

Via the NYPost:

Just last week, President Obama explicitly targeted the industry for two massive tax hikes. First, he’d ban oil and gas companies from using the “Section 199″ tax credit, a measure for domestic manufacturers enacted in 2004 to boost US employment. (The Senate is set to vote this week on its version of the ban.) Second, he wants to end “dual capacity” protection for US energy firms.

Without this shield against double taxation on foreign revenues, American companies would be competing on an uneven global playing field. Again, Obama aims directly and specifically at the US oil and gas industry.

Yet, by the federal government’s own economic model, these tax hikes would lead to huge, immediate job losses. I ran the numbers through the Commerce Department’s RIMS II model; it shows, under the proposed changes to Section 199 and dual capacity, Americans would almost immediately lose more than 150,000 stable, private-sector jobs.

Because our energy firms operate as part of an integrated economy, as much as 38 percent of the job losses would come in professional fields, such as education, administration, health care, real estate and the arts. Another 21 percent would hit producers of necessities such as our food and textiles.

In other words, lawmakers would be slamming the very teachers, firemen and factory workers that they claim to want to help. And the fallout wouldn’t end there. Higher energy taxes would cost the US $341 billion in lost economic activity and $68 billion in wages over the next nine years.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/michelle-malkin/obama-jobs-death-toll-watch-150000-more-energy-jobs-in-danger/430375965676