No matter how loud or how often Obama says: “We can’t wait for Congress to act,” it’s really an act on his part in his melodrama for reelection. He continues to demand his stale $475 billion “jobs” plan.
The fact is: Democrats are blocking real jobs-producing bills that Republicans have passed. They have urged Senate Democrats and President Obama to support the House-passed jobs bills they call the “forgotten 15,” which GOP lawmakers say would mightily boost job growth.
Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid is blocking bipartisan jobs legislation for his usual bumbledom partisan reasons.
Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-IL) in a Republican Saturday radio address said there’s been some bipartisan progress to boost hiring. He praised the bipartisan House passage of legislation to kill the requirement that governments at all levels withhold 3 percent of payments to government contractors, a bill with White House support. But he added that many jobs bills the House has passed are stuck in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which he referred to as the “forgotten 15.”
Schilling portrayed Obama and Democrats as out of touch with the needs of small business as he touted the GOP agenda and the 15 bills in particular. The bills were written after talking with manufacturers, farmers, and small businesspeople across the country. But the Senate won’t let these bills come to a vote. The president hasn’t called for action because he’s too busy painting a profoundly false picture of a stalling GOP.
House Republican leaders want Americans to know they aren’t to blame for the congressional stalemate. Speaker John A. Boehner produced a card listing the “forgotten 15” jobs bills the House has passed but are stuck in the partisan mud of the Senate. He gave the card to members, telling them to hold it up at events at home, and flash the card during interviews to remind Americans that Republicans are doing everything they can to address employment.
The forgotten 15 are as follows:
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act—reduces overlapping and unnecessary regulations on pesticides, thereby reducing costs to both farmers and small business owners. It was described as a government obstacle to job creation. The House passed it 292-130 on March 31, 2011.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act—prohibits the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, preventing a needless increase in energy prices for American households and businesses and fewer jobs. The House passed it 255-172 on April 7, 2011.
A Resolution of Disapproval Regarding FCC’s Regulation (H.J. Resolution 37) prevents the federal government from regulating the Internet and broadband providers. The House passed it 240-179 on April 8, 2011.
I wouldn't buy off on a single one of them. Pollution is a subsidy to polluters, as we are the ones who have to pick up the tab. Deep Horizon should have educated you as to why we should move cautiously with respect to deep-water drilling. Trashing our air and water does not create a singe job — if you ignore the medical costs. Eliminating regulations ensures a repeat of the behavior regulations are intended to stop. Not a single jobs-related provision in the lot.
Deep Horizon was a problem caused by a company that has had a history of attempting to skirt environmental regulations. Friends and acquaintances in the industry said BP's operation was an oil spill waiting to happen. The problem also has been exacerbated by forcing the oil companies to abandon rigs in shallower water. It's lots easier to fix a blow out if it's only a few hundred feet under water.
Further, the EPA has, in the past few years, tightened regulations to the point that we are probably operating in an area well beyond diminshing returns. The regulations are now costing more than is returned in cleaner air and water. But, that's what bureaucracies do to justify their existence.
Take the new ozone standards. We have more data, and can conclude that it is more hazardous to our health than it once was. We have a choice: we can do nothing and pass on the costs to those who have to breathe, or we can spend the money to reduce ozone emissions. The Clean Air Act requires the latter, and the bureaucrats are only doing what the law demands. And the problem is?
Haven't heard about the ozone hole in some time. About the 1980s. That was when scientists learned the greatest depleter of ozone was the earth itself in the form of volcanoes. Despite all the scientific horror stories about CFCs. Shortly after the leading environmentalists were predicting man-caused global cooling.
You haven't heard much because the ozone issue was solved through reduction in use of CFCs. Similar to the climate change issue, the problem isn't that human-cause particulates 'outnumber' those spewed by natural effects, it's that they lead to an excess that isn't being reabsorbed in the same cycle.
http://www.climateliars.com/
Near as I can tell, the new data suggests levels of 66% of the proposed standard could cause problems to susceptible populations. We also know that there is no threshold level at which ozone can be considered harmless. So, do we set standards that are too expensive to implement with current technology or set standards that are realistic and continue to develop technology that may help us improve air quality. Unfortunately, demanding some standard to be met does not mean that it can be.
Do we know of all sources of ozone? Which can we regulate and which can we not? Is it possible that we could somehow magically get all controllable sources to emit zero ozone and still have what the EPA considers dangerous levels?
Consider that we have been working on battery technology for close to forty years and electric cars are still not a practical replacement for IC cars. Same thing with solar cell technology. Perhaps some day we will break out of whatever is causing limits in those technologies but we can safely say it isn't happening over night and most likely will not happen this year or next.
Unfortunately, many regulations aren't intended to stop bad behavior but are created to grow one's empire.
We should get rid of the bad ones, if they really are producing no benefit. But gutting the EPA is insanity, and won't create a single job.
I don't propose completely getting rid of the EPA. After all, the history of the love canal and the cuyahoga river show industrialists should not be given free reign. However, the free reign of the EPA is not much better. Take a look at the fracking scam. No evidence, but still bad. Also consider cap and trade. The US doesn't want it. The EPA is overriding America. Also consider the war on coal as evidenced by pres Obama in San Francisco. How are American's going to charge their electric cars when their is no electricity.
I would add that we need to invest in infrastructure if we are to compete in this global economy. Just fixing what needs to be fixed will cost $2.2 trillion, according to a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
It's a shame there were so many regulations keeping the shovel ready jobs referenced in the first stimu-less from existing.
Possible direct jobs from the pipe-line: thousands of EPA officials and lawyers monitoring and legislating it, construction of the pipeline itself (p.s. the pipe-line is infrastructure), jobs maintaining and monitoring it.
We're going to be using the oil anyway. Doesn't matter if it's piped or railroaded down. Everything we buy or produce is impacted by the price of energy. Cheaper energy helps keep jobs in America and reduces the cost of goods.
Which is why we should bite the bullet and go green. Solar panels are down to a dollar per watt, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/so… , which makes them cost-competitive with even our cheapest forms of carbon-based energy. Switchgrass and wood chips can be converted into gasoline for a $2/gal. equivalent cost, and the process produces hydrogen (which means that it would even be cheaper). http://www.sundropfuels.com/presskit/SUNDROP-PRES… . Why we are even bothering with high-cost fuels like that harvested from the Athabasca tar sands is not clear to me.
If solar panels are now cost competetive, then they won't need the billion dollar subsidies. Same thing with switchgrass and woodchips. Or is the cost benefit include billions in loans and subsidies. Look at ethenol. Its cheap, unless you consider that the government pays part of the price. Who pays the government subsidies? Oh yeah, tax payers. So if you pay a dollar a watt for solar panels and more in taxes per watt to support those solar panels, then it is not a dollar per watt.
Your first quote (written in 2009 says that parity occurs around 65 to 70 cents. Other things it mentions: the majority cost is in installation and the resources to create them are limited and require huge amounts of energy to create.
I have some misgivings about the deep water drilling myself but would however support drilling on dry land wherever it can take place. It seems one of the reasons these companies are looking at deep water drilling is because of the rules that govern drilling on land. I don't know why it is so difficult to figure out that if we are energy independent we are once again on top of the food chain in all other areas as Americans. If, with the technology available today, they can't minimize the impact of drilling on land to a safe level, we're all in trouble. Besides, these economic times calls for some drastic measures and that doesn't include installing new traffic lights or paying Teachers Unions Health Benefits for life.
We should be drilling in ANWR, but the Keystone XL pipeline should not be built. Oil is a fungible commodity, and all we would be doing is subsidizing Canada's exports. No benefits here, and lots of environmental issues.
Um China has offered to build a pipeline to the west coast of Canada
Let them. Ever been in that part of the Rockies? It will take 15-20 years, which is just about right.
Of course it might be cheaper if they only build the pipeline to the Cascades (e.g. the West Coast of Canada). That being said, I've never heard of a pipeline from China to Canada
If the GOP actually cared about crating jobs, they would helped pass the American Jobs Act, which would have created 1-2 millions jobs as opposed to these 5-10,000 job increments these "job creation" bills which are really nothing more than attempts to deregulate certain industries. Of course, the AJA would have been paid for through taxing millionairs instead of taxing the environment, so it had no chance to get through the GOP.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/economics/obama-jobs…