[Blogger's Note: I began this sometime last fall before COP15, but lost track before the holidays; despite my time management ineptitude, these topics are still as timely as ever.]
James Murdoch, son and heir-apparent to conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch, argued near the end of 2009 in the Washington Post that conservatives and conservationists make natural allies...or at least they ought to. It's a refreshing read, too, because with both major parties playing Alinsky politics it's easy to forget that, aside from the sum of our available natural resources, our future economic growth and cultural-historical legacy are on the line. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a fisherman since I could hold a rod and reel, I'm a habitual recycler-reuser-reducer, I really appreciate having had the good fortune to visit some reallycoolplaces during my short time thus far on the planet, and I firmly believe that there's an economic opportunity here - involving the free market - that we don't (or shouldn't) want to miss.
Follow me: author David Pink argued in one of his books that right-brained people will rule the world one day. Certainly we can't get along without the analytical types, but it's the creative ones - the technological innovators - that have ushered man through various epochs across time and which policy makers seem to agree are the backbone of the American economy (this, by the way is true; small firms' marginal costs of production are lower than those of larger firms). Pink's argument goes something like this (and I'm paraphrasing here, not directly quoting):
Raise your hand if you own an iPod.
Lots of you? Good. Keep your hands up.
Now, keep your hands up if you knew you wanted one before they ever had been invented.
No more hands? I didn't think so.
How could you possibly know you'd want a thing before it came to be? It's the people thinking about what you want before you know you want it who really transform society - these are the people that reshape and redefine paradigms in a society.
This argument extends to green products, technology, and sustainable services. Glenn Beck may have assassinated Teddy Roosevelt's character on live television at CPAC this year, but like my good friend J.R. Lind (@jrlind on Twitter) at Nashville Post Business once reminded me, sustainability is good business. Something tells me ol' Teddy would be awfully proud of today's Republican Party if they could find a way to get on board with sustainability-as-economic-policy ethos. It's just going to require re-framing the debate to some degree.
Personally, I liked the way President Obama put it in his State of the Union address:
I don’t like the way the President and progressive Democrats are going about shaping and “solving” the problem…but I liked the way the President put it: whether or not the science is settled is not the chief issue here – there’s an economic opportunity to be had, and in the wake of an unemployment around 10%, it’s time for the Congress to act. We on the Right agree that bad science should not inform policy, but it’s equally important to remember that policy activists and elected officials are NOT scientific experts (unless by coincidence), and to paraphrase Dr. Richard A. Muller, PhD (Physics) the falsification of one area of data does not discredit an entire theoryen masse. The Right is terrified that going green will mean capitulation to a radical socialist agenda [sic]; the most devout opponents of anthropogenic warming theory will reject any and all green movements. Of course, new regulatory schemes should be opposed, but it’s possible to look at conservation through our own lens.
The Right needs to go further. Falling back on small government and low tax rhetoric, too, simply won’t fill the bill – the average American doesn’t take our high polemic seriously anymore (beyond sharing our disdain for the sitting Democratic government – we should recognize that this could only be temporary). Republicans have plenty of momentum in their favor, and, like Rep. Paul Ryan, can seize this opportunity before sliding backward into campaign mode this year. Here’s the good news: it’s entirely possible to be green and pro-business all at once.
The government contracting apparatus provides the perfect setting for a pilot program to see the benefits of sustainability, with minimal impacts to the private sector. Last fall, President Obama signed an executive order establishing sustainability goals for greening up facilities and processes across the federal government, including prime and subcontractor goods, facilities, and practices. Contracting and procurement reform in this area – since it has to take place anyway in order for businesses to comply with as-yet undetermined standards and definitions – is our chance to establish a tiered, incentive-based approach to green business. Rather than allowing the federal government to bludgeon businesses everywhere by standing up new regulatory apparatuses with cap-and-trade schemes, the Right should prop up a reformed procurement system which gives preference in the awards process to contractors who meet certain tiered sustainability goals.
This is also a nice way for traditionally pro-Big Business Republicans to throw a nice-sized bone to small businesses, since the marginal costs of pollution abatement are lower for small firms than they are for large firms; the costs of risk-taking in green innovation are also smaller. The conclusion of this policy approach is a set of sustainability practices in the contracting environment (no pun intended) which can be voluntarily extended into commercial markets by companies who see real long-term benefits from sustainability in procurement space – just like John Q. Public who never knew how awesome the iPod would be before it was invented. Small businesses thrive, costs are lowered, small and large businesses collaborate, and the government is largely kept out of interfering with commercial markets – we merely reform a legacy process for the purpose of achieving a policy objective that has several fringe benefits. There are long-term political benefits to this strategy as well, as there is clearly a well-expressed demand for green products and investments/practices.
We – and certainly I – are a long way off from having an exhaustive, comprehensive approach for going green, framed within the context of our own ideological narratives. But it’s not altogether impossible with a little bit of creative thinking. We don’t have to agree on the science of global warming, but we should probably start from the same basic assumption that sustainability is good for business. Finally, we need to remember that we have a real chance to wrestle this issue away from the Left, but we have to act quickly and intelligently, and remember that committing to this policy arena is not capitulation if we come to the table with our own detailed approaches. Here’s hoping we have a champion on to take the reins and lead the Right into a new era.
This Reuters article that I read Wednesday indicates, "Obama has said he would be open to expanding offshore drilling areas as part of a comprehensive legislation to address America's energy problems."
I agree with Republican lawmakers that it is essential to encourage President Obama to OK the offshore drilling plan.
The moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration in the outer continental shelf that expired on September 30, 2008 was put into place during a very different time in our nation’s history. Let’s not turn back the clock by imposing another ban.
Oil and natural gas exploration in the outer continental shelf will create additional U.S. jobs. Individuals who worked in this industry had wages in 2006 that were more than double the national average.
Production of oil and natural gas has brought billions of dollars in revenue to state and federal governments and represents a significant revenue source to the federal government.
For those of you who feel strongly about this issue you can find more information about offshore oil and natural gas exploration at the North Carolina Energy Forum website (http://www.ncenergyforum.com). The North Carolina Energy Forum is a community of concerned citizens who are committed to achieving energy security for our country. You can also join the NC Energy Forum.
The Senate race in Alaska is still alive. Even with Ted Stevens on trial starting this week, he only trails Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich by 3.7% according to the latest RCP average.
Essentially, the race comes down to the outcome of the trial: Stevens acquitted = win, Stevens convicted = loss. In a future post, I will talk about why I, as a conservative and an Alaskan, still support Ted Stevens. I know there are many here who aren't fans of him, but I do intend on making the case for why he's much better than the alternative this November. So let me spend some time on his opponent: Mark Begich.
The story on Begich is simple: he'll say anything to get elected. (I've posted before on how he stretches his record as mayor, but the NRSC and the Alaska Republican Party have set that record straight.) Begich says he supports drilling in ANWR and expanding refining capacity in the following ad ...
But Begich not only keeps on taking money from Hollywood and New York liberals that oppose any sort of drilling. He's taken money from potential Senate colleagues that think the same, including PAC dollars from Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Barbara Boxer. But it doesn't stop there. Alaska Conversation Voters (ACV), a very powerful anti-drilling-in-ANWR extremist environmentalist grassroots organization, has started running ads against Ted Stevens ...
Begich has not called for these ads to be pulled, and didn't call on the DSCC to pull their presumptuous ads about Stevens' trial, even though Alaska broadcast stations removed them because of their innacuracy. One thing to note about Alaska Conservation Voters is the amount of incredible amount power they have with Democratic candidates in Alaska. It seems like an oxymoron that a rabidly anti-drilling-in-ANWR group would have so much influence in Alaska, but they essentially run the ground operation for Democratic candidates, most of whom are on the record in support of more exploration and production in Alaska. Whose side is Begich really on?
One of the things I would have liked to see vulnerable House Republican incumbents do during the #dontGo movement last month is to pressure their Democratic opponents to push Pelosi for an energy vote. If I were a vulnerable GOP incumbent from Alaska, I would sent out a press release inviting my pro-drilling Democratic opponent to work in my office to convince Democrats this session for a vote, since energy is one of the top issues this election.
With an issue like energy production, we have to expose hypocritical Democrats like Mark Begich, and tell them to either stop taking extremist environmental money or admit that they will just cave into the anti-energy production lobby if they get elected.
While I'm still skeptical of any large strategic effect the #dontGo movement had, the energy issue overall, as well as McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin, has spurred new policy messages on a wide range of economic, middle class issues. Two days ago, Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA 7th District) spoke to the Conservative Bloggers' Briefing at the Heritage Foundation, introducing a "Middle Class Bill of Rights." The components are:
Energy: As everybody knows by now, the rational approach is to have an "all of the above" strategy which includes production of non-renewable and renewable resources (including nuclear), as well as initiatives that increase conservation and efficiency. Cantor mentioned that the selection of Palin gives the GOP in the expertise edge of energy solutions.
Health Care: Cantor explained that individuals worry more today than a generation ago about losing their jobs because of the subsequent loss in health care coverage. Consumer-based health care programs and the expansion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are the way to proceed.
Making Paychecks Go Further: Another way of saying "tax cuts." But Cantor also mentioned that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing making overtime wages tax-exempt to fuel more productivity at the micro-level.
Job Creation: Cantor correctly points out that the best stimulus for any economy is job creation. This means Congress has to start being concerned about competitiveness and corporate taxes. Back in January, Cantor introduced the "Middle Class Job Protection Act," which would, among other things, cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. While it is speculative to link corporate taxes to job loss/creation, the ultimate burden of corporate taxes does fall on individuals through lower wages, higher costs at goods and services, etc. (The Tax Foundation has started a campaign called CompeteUSA, showing that corporate taxes in America are increasingly out-of-line with the rest of the world.)
While I like the combination of issues and the focus on the middle class, I'm not so sure I like the branding. Middle Class Bill of Rights? I've never been a fan of economic "rights." But maybe it is this type of messaging that the Right needs for this and future elections cycles in order to successfully court the middle class. And now that McCain and Republicans are making headway on economic and energy issues, as Sean points out, Cantor is definitely headed in the right direction.
"With Obama, there is vast disagreement about just how liberal he is, especially on the economy. My favorite example came in mid-June, shortly after Obama named Jason Furman, a protégé of Robert Rubin, the centrist former Treasury secretary, as his lead economic adviser. Labor leaders recoiled, and John Sweeney, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., worried aloud about “corporate influence on the Democratic Party.” Then, the following week, Kimberley Strassel, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, wrote a column titled, 'Farewell, New Democrats,' concluding that Obama’s economic policies amounted to the end of Clintonian centrism and a reversion to old liberal ways."
"Some of the confusion stems from Obama’s own strategy of presenting himself as a postpartisan figure. A few weeks ago, I joined him on a flight from Orlando to Chicago and began our conversation by asking about his economic approach. He started to answer, but then interrupted himself. 'My core economic theory is pragmatism,' he said, 'figuring out what works.'"
Pragmatism? Figuring out what works? Really? Fantastic! Not only is there a fight between the netroots and grassroots of the Left, there's a fundamental fight within the academic wing of the Left on the principles of free markets vs. the principles of European social democracies. They're obviously trying to merge the two in some sort of coherent fashion, but have failed miserably. So how can McCain take advantage of this and continue his surge in the polls?
The invaluable Michael Silence gets the hat tip this morning! He links to a Knoxville News Sentinel story reporting that, effective October 1st, TVA is increasing rates. Remember this post when you vote this November!
Customers can expect a 20 percent rate increase on their October electric bills — the largest jump in more than 30 years.
TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore announced a fuel adjustment rate increase of 17 percent at the agency’s board of director’s meeting this morning at its Knoxville headquarters. The increase will go into effect Oct. 1. The board also approved an additional 3 percent base rate increase, also to take take effect Oct. 1.
TVA’s quarterly fuel adjustment, a provision approved by the board of directors in 2003, passes along fluctuations in the price of coal, natural gas and other fuels to its customers.
As they say on late-night commercials, "But wait, there's more!" I'd say this fell into the arena of "unintended consequences" for the Democrats and their Energy policy. However, if they are not sharp enough to have seen this sort of thing coming, then they aren't smart enough to trust with taking out the trash. Anyone opposing their strategies has been warning about exactly this sort of thing for years. What thing?
KNS reports there were people at the TVA hearing that spoke in opposition to the increase. Among them was
Bobby Glenn, general manager of a Panasonic electronics facility at Forks of the River Industrial Park in East Knox County, said a recent pattern of increases in electric rates threaten the company’s continued local presence. Three Panasonic facilities employ 300 people. Glenn manages an aluminum foil division that operates a high voltage electroplating operation that supplies process foil for use in capacitors produced in Knoxville and at other plants worldwide.
Previous base rate and fuel-related increases this year have already added $3 million per year to the company’s electricity costs, Glenn said, making the plant less competitive among the Japanese company’s international operations.
“We, as an internationally headquartered company, have to give our top management some view of the future operational costs and profitability at this location, but TVA has not put forth a plan that gives a road map for the future or that gives us any hope that the situation will ever change,” Glen said at the hearing.
The Democrats badly flawed Energy policy now threatens industry and employment in addition to hammering consumer's pocketbooks. A company acknowledges that higher energy costs may force relocation. That means lost jobs, wages, taxes and a host of other consequences that impact "the little guy"; the very people Democrats claim to be defending.
What is it that Democrats expect of the real world? Is TVA supposed to run in the red and lose money when their costs for producing energy skyrocket? They cannot continue to produce power indefinitely if they lose money. Is Business supposed to run in the red and lose money when their costs for consuming energy skyrocket? They cannot continue to produce goods and services indefinitely if they lose money. Are consumers supposed to simply smile and live with choosing between heating their homes and feeding their families as their costs for consuming energy skyrocket?
The media is filled with stories about Consumers, at every level and in every sector, dealing with the problems high energy prices produce. It's time for that same media to add the 'Why' and the "Who' of that debate to the other 3'Ws'. Why does Energy cost so much? Who is preventing common sense, sound Economic principles from being applied to the matter? It's not an effect without an easily identifiable cause. Democrats won't drill. Democrats won't debate. Democrats just shill. They won't even legislate. And you and I are left to pick up the pieces.
Lost in all of this is another question that also needs asking. When some common sense and practical Economics are finally brought to bear on the discussion and Energy prices come back down, will the TVA immediately lower their prices or will they operate under governmental practices which resemble nothing so much as the Ferengi 1st Law of Acquisition, "Once you have their money, you never give it back!"?
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following editorial comments are in reaction to the actions this week by the five Republicans in the “Gang of 10.” Most of us have been to varied team sporting events: e.g., Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey. For the team to win, the members of the team must all remain focused on the goal of winning. During the game, they don't get sidetracked patting opponents on the back and running out on the field with a couple of their team buddies to meet members of the other team, or declaring that they represent their whole and have negotiated the end of game results - so the game is over. We would rightly call these players a "gang; thugs." Obviously, they would at a least be benched or at best, kicked off the team. Razorback fans (other readers substitute your favorite team) go to see their Hogs play - win or lose. They keep coming to see their team play in hopes of defeating the other team. They want to win and they wouldn't like it if a few team members sold out the rest of the team. They understand that the Hogs may lose but they sure don't want the game played with without a full team.
Consider then our form of government; we are a Republic. We, the people, elect our Senators to represent our State and elect our Congressional Representative to represent our individual Congressional District. We expect these men and women to go to Washington D.C. to represent us and not to try to compromise and represent the people of other States or districts. Retuning to the sports analogy, across the country we have in effect elected our all star players to go to Washington to compete both for us - their constituents - and to part of their political "All Star" team. For example, in Arkansas, we know that our Senators, both Democrats, are also playing for the Democrat "All Star" team under the incompetent team coach -- Harry Reid. Others, like Lieberman , an "independent democrat,” play for the Democrat team. Others like Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson are supposed to be playing for the Republican "All Star" team. Unfortunately, while on the Republican Team, they have decided to break out on their own and negotiate with members of Reid’s team.
Most of us dislike small groups of people who meet privately to make agreements, and decisions that affect us. We call such groups "clicks" when being nice and other names when not feeling so nice. The press has rightly labeled these breakaway elected officials as “gangs.” We do not deny them their right to associate, to talk, to caucus, or to debate. We may not like their continued personally associations but heck we have no say if the go to church, go fishing, visit their local D.C. "watering hole,” or even foot tap" together. But we do mind when they are on the playing field and then they opt out of their teams and join together in a "Gang of 10" to speak for the rest of the elected officials and the members or your political party. This arrogance is intolerable as they are trampling on our Republic and over calling or silencing the voices of our other elected official.
And for those five Senators who are Republicans, how dare you compromise an important bargaining position on which we are supported by a majority of the American people. While the five democrats on the “Gang of 10” are clearly representing their party’s agenda and getting republicans to compromise and to “shut –up,” such is not the situation for the five republicans. The five republicans have “fumbled the ball” without even having their full team present. They have ignored one of the “most exciting and motivating” issues of the day on which Republicans are taking a stand. They have abandoned their team, ignored the coach and compromised a fundamental issue on which Republicans are taking a stand. How can they expect their team members to trust or work with them in the future? American voters do not forget and “Elephant” voters have long memories and have been know to turn out RINOs. Losing to the other team in a hard fought game is understood. Having a few players throw the game is unconscionable. While winning covers a multitude of issues, failure to support the team is unforgivable. Ask any die hard Razorback fan. We love our team and despise anyone who sellouts the team or tramples on the Razorback name. The same is true for voters be they democrat or republican. And currently, the actions referenced in the Wall Street Journal editorial are unacceptable to Republicans.
Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal: It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.
Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.
That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.
The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.
Sen. Obama was thrilled. . . . Equally gleeful was Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, the Senate's most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production -- a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with "five Republicans" to "lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home."
Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a "bipartisan" effort on energy, especially one that includes "drilling." His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain's good friend Lindsey Graham considers "helping," somebody might want to ask him to stop.
And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.
In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. . . .
The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him. Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.
A friend emailed me about Bob Corker's involvement in the Gang of 10. He asked, "What is Corker doing?" To quote Bob Corker himself, he is doing "...exactly what I came to the Senate to do." To the host of Tennesseans who bemoaned the choice of Corker over Ed Bryant as our Senate choice in 2006, he's doing exactly what we feared. In fairness, for two years Corker has been a pleasant surprise. However, he couldn't have picked a worse time to begin living down to our expectations.
Just like GOP Senators in the Gang of 14 and judicial nominees, Republicans in Energy's Gang of 10 are undermining GOP leadership and strategy. Mitch McConnell and GOP leaders have worked this issue for months with the backing of Republicans and Democrats; legislators and voters. Pressure was mounting on Democrats to surrender their sellout of Americans. Gas and oil prices were falling. Support for Energy Independence via drilling and R&D for alternative and renewable energy sources was growing. It seemed inevitable the GOP would get their vote and sooner rather than later. Now, thanks to meddling by Corker, instead of continuing to exploit flaws in Democratic policies, Senate GOP leaders might be forced to regroup and decide if they can even continue in the face of the Gang's treachery.
Worse is Corker's betrayal of Tennesseans and Americans in general. The Gang's proposals ask for less concessions than GOP leadership would likely have been able to get from the Senate. The Gang does call for drilling. But they accept serious restrictions on drilling the GOP would likely not have needed to give up; restrictions which make the oil produced more expensive. Drilling 50 miles offshore is more expensive than drilling 15 miles offshore. Unmentioned is most oil we already know about is inside the Gang's 50 mile ban meaning more time and expense for exploration.
The proposal also seeks to provide tax incentives for converting cars to non-oil fuel sources, including $20 billion for research and development, grants to help U.S. automakers develop alternative fuel vehicles and consumer tax credits for purchase of highly efficient cars.
5 Republicans signed on to this? How exactly will this help Americans pay for fuel anytime soon? What widely available, inexpensive, "non-oil fuel source" currently exists for Americans to convert to? Propane? Driven past a commercial propane station lately?
R&D grants to automakers clearly indicate any benefits are expected to be future ones. Even the current existence of increasingly fuel efficient cars to which proposed tax credits might be applied is misleading. They are brand new cars, not used ones; many sporting new technology making them even more expensive. Corker's plan is to give Americans a $2,500 tax credit, for example, to buy a $25,000 car? This is making things more affordable?
Add to this the plan's call for 85% of cars on the road by 2028 to run on non-petroleum fuel and you see how much this will cost American families already unable to afford $4 gas. Considering there are at least 100 million vehicles now on the road, Americans and American business will have to replace or modify 85 million vehicles in the next 20 years. At $2,500 to $25,000 per vehicle that's a $212.5 billion to $2.125 trillion high drag, low speed burden the Gang imposes on Americans and the American economy in the name of saving us from high prices. It sounds like the joke about buying things one doesn't need because they are on sale and justifying the purchases based on "savings"!
Worse, there won't be any real savings. Adding $84 billion to oil companies' cost of production only means the product produced will cost $84 billion more at the pump. Americans are going to pay more thanks to Corker and the Gang. R&D is fantastic. Even if it takes years to bring something to market, the wait is generally worth it. But at issue is what do Americans do in the meantime? Cheap oil now while we transition is better than expensive oil now until we transition.
The final insult is that oil produced under the Gang's plan cannot be sold outside the US. Democrats have whined for years about losing good jobs and weakening the Economy. Here is an opportunity to create jobs and fuel the Economy and Corker and the Gang won't allow it. Brazil has enjoyed record economic growth and job creation as it has changed from a net oil importer to a net exporter over the last 5 years or so. But for Corker and the Gang, oil production beyond that necessary to eliminate US oil imports cannot be sold on world markets. The jobs, economic growth and general prosperity oil exporting nations enjoy is denied to America and her citizens, corporate and individual.
Thus the next command from government beyond where we drill and where we sell will be how much we produce. Only produce here; only sell there - as if government owned the oil. Couple these restrictions with government requirements that Big Oil finance R&D which makes their product less marketable and you complete the picture of the ignorance the Gang wants foisted on the American public as beneficial. And Bob Corker says this is exactly what he wanted to accomplish in DC. Corker and the Gang would be better advised to join up with their GOP House colleagues' #Don't Go Movement. It provides all the benefits they say they want with none of the drawbacks.
To recap, the R&D the Gang proposes won't be helpful for years. They tease you with tax credits for far off R&D results you'll end up paying for later anyway via the same high prices they claim to be fighting. As beneficial as R&D is for tomorrow, today's prosperity requires inexpensive, readily available oil. The immediate burden of surviving lean R&D years falls on Big Oil. But they must work while prevented from drilling in the best places, selling for the best prices or providing the best wages and profits for Americans; all the while dealing with government imposed reductions on the value of their market and product.
Thanks, Bob! Do us a favor and don't Gang up on us anymore. We can't afford it!
What does it take for random people associating with like minded others around an idea they jointly support to coalesce into a group that moves beyond approving of the idea to actively promoting the idea? In short, how does one go from harmless to honed? How does one progress from a mob to a movement? Right of Center activists are getting a crash course in answering that question via the object lesson of a new website, #Don't Go Movement. The brainchild of Eric Odom at Fresh Vision Media, #Don't Go Movement has traveled really far, really fast!
Just 5 days ago, House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, left Washington, DC for a 5 week break. They left mountains of unfinished, important and urgent People's business behind. High on the list was a failure to address, in any way, the energy crisis gripping our nation from decades of flawed Democratic policy. Despite poll numbers showing 74% of Americans favor expanding supply via drilling, Democrats went home after doing nothing. Despite increasing numbers of House Democrats supporting expanded drilling, Pelosi didn't even bother to go home. She left on a book tour promoting herself and her pocketbook; content to support only drilling in the People's pocketbooks.
Democrats voted to adjourn and left. The GOP did not. They stayed in the People's House and began to call for Pelosi and Democrats to return to complete important business before leaving. The Left is branding this as mere political posturing but a look at the adjournment vote says otherwise. It was 213-212 in favor of leaving.
House GOP members who stayed behind began giving impromptu speeches, spectators in the gallery were invited down onto the floor and the few MSM reporters on hand interviewed members. Pelosi responded by having the C-Span cameras turned off, the lights turned off and the microphones turned off leaving the GOP in the dark. The GOP finally left the House chambers late Friday night but promised to return this week to renew their call to the Democrats to come back to DC and do what the People expect of them.
So what does this have to do with a movement? It's just a bunch of middle aged Republicans speechifying in the dark! It only started that way. Less than an hour after the Dems departed and the GOP got going, Eric Odom and Allen Fuller from Flat Creek put up a Twitter site, 'Don't Go!', so GOP members could get their message out along with any citizen or Social Media savvy activist. That site hit the blogs and it was off to the races. They had multiple Tweets per minute beginning mid session Friday evening and it has continued unabated to this very moment!
Some feared the issue would die across the weekend. After all, the news broke late on Friday, the worst possible time for a story to break. Further, there was practically zero MSM coverage of the story. It tends to be difficult to report when there's no lights and no sound available. But Odom and Fuller kept doing what they knew was working, keeping the issue alive in the blogosphere and via online Social Media such as Facebook as they added to their Twitter efforts. They were joined by other well known Right of Center online activists like Patrick Ruffini.
When Monday rolled around, the GOP was true to their word and returned to a darkened House chamber to continue to ask Democrats "Don't Go!". The Twitter tweets continued unabated. But by now the concept was picking up steam. There were a LOT more people involved and a way had been found to conduct interviews with participants so video and audio clips were emerging. The Twitter site alone was not enough to keep up with the information flow. So Odom added a full website that went live Tuesday afternoon. Named '#Don't Go Movement', the site features videos, blog posts from around the country, links to the original Twitter and Facebook sites and more. There's even a petition to sign where you can add your voice to those of the House members to ask the Dems, please, Don't Go!
Why a movement? The Right has not been as excited or mobilized about an issue since Harriet Meiers and the Amnesty Bill. The arrogance and hubris of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership has chafed the GOP for months. The Energy debate was the place where GOP chafing, activist chafing and the People's chafing came together. How dare they simply go off on a tax payer funded vacation without representing the tax payers? What started as a relative handful of Congressmen on Friday night turned into thousands of online activists by Monday morning. By this afternoon, Wednesday, just 5 days after it began, it had crossed over to the MSM with Radio, Print and TV reporters and personalities clamoring for time with Odom and his colleagues. The next up is an interview with Hugh Hewitt this afternoon at 4PST, 6CST and 7EST. Eric is a friend and so I was able to reach him at his office in Chicago and he confirmed the growth. "#Don't Go Movement had 62,000 hits at the site in the very first 24 hours!", he said. I checked the running total for signatures at the petition site. It was over 22,500 for the first 24 hours and climbing several signatures per minute!
That's why a movenent. The question is, can it continue? Pelosi foolishly shows no sign of returning. It may be too late for her. Her best chance to derail the GOP's efforts was Friday night. She hoped it would die, instead. That miscalculation means she can't come back now without being seen to be bowing to GOP pressure and she can't stay away without being seen as unconcerned with the People's plight. It's a lose-lose. In chess, it's called getting "forked" when you are maneuvered into a position where your only option is to lose one of two pieces after you complete your move and your only choice is which loss is the least severe. Pelosi has done this to herself. She's going to pay the price. The GOP and the Right are not going to stop pounding the drum of "Don't Go!" until the Dems come back on Sept. 8 or until Pelosi calls them back early. Even still, they will be plagued with the question, "What took you so long to do the right thing?"
For the GOP to turn this event into a movement that outlives its original purpose will take some doing. With sharp operators like Odom, Fuller and Ruffini at the helm they have an excellent chance to turn the "Don't Go Home for Vacation Without Doing Your Job!" of August into the "Don't Go Back to the Democrat's Failed Leadership of the Last 2 Years!" of November. From there, there'd be no stopping the call to "Don't Go!"
With or without House Democrats in town, the debate over energy policy will continue in Washington tomorrow. Republicans in the chamber won't have it any other way.
The first round of the revolution wasn't televised, but conservatives are planning to make sure the second round is. Good for them.
The taping doesn't have to be limited to the nation's capital, though. Everyone can get involved by taping here and taping now -- wherever here and now is for you. If your lawmaker left town without having the energy debate the nation wants to hear, hold his or her feet to the fire by asking tough questions and filming the response. Spread the news far and wide on the Internet, including through Eyeblast.tv.
The liberal media already has shown itself eager to ignore or ridicule this story as "bizarre," but this is the information age. We don't need the liberal media now. If you can't beat 'em -- and we never will as long as they buy ink by the barrel -- then bypass 'em.
This is a chance for conservatives to stake their claim in the new media frontier in a big way. Seize this moment!
