Harris: “I support an ‘all of the above’ energy approach”
This found its way to my inbox yesterday from the office of our Congressman:
(Yesterday,) as a member of the Natural Resources Committee Rep. Andy Harris participated in a hearing focused on America’s rising energy prices. Oil prices have recently passed $100 per barrel for the first time since 2008. Gasoline prices have increased 77 cents since this time last year. According to an analyst from Cameron Hanover, there is an additional cost to consumers of $4 million dollars per day for every penny increase in fuel costs. Last week, Rep. Andy Harris sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu requesting immediate action on rising fuel costs.
“Too many times during past energy crises we have failed to act definitively,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “I support an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy approach that emphasizes American-produced oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear, and renewable sources such as solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal. This approach will lower prices, create new American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our national security and raise revenue to help tackle the $14 trillion debt.”
A recent Congressional Research report indicated that our combined recoverable coal, oil and natural gas reserves total 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent – the largest in the world. In addition to these resources, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates oil shale reserves could be greater than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. These numbers indicate that we have the resources to produce our own energy and the latest technology to do it safely. We should strengthen our national security by ending our dependence on foreign energy and create American jobs while doing it.
So that’s what he said; here’s what I have to say.
Unfortunately, Andy, you can send a truckload of these letters to Steven Chu’s office and all you’ll get is a forest’s worth of dead trees. He’s truly gulped a large pitcher of the global warming Kool-Aid. For all his talk about embracing nuclear power despite the Japan crisis, for example, we haven’t seen much action toward building new plants in the last two years – or the last fifteen, for that matter (the last new U.S. nuclear power plant came online in 1996.) Instead, the Obama administration is hot and heavy into forcing our nation to adopt solar and wind as renewable energy sources. They only prefer ‘some of the above,’ ignoring the fact that we have a mature market in fossil fuels and supplies, as you point out, are still plentiful. (They’re the government’s own estimates, for gosh sakes!)
Would it be possible to be completely energy independent? Perhaps, but I think the more realistic goal would be to depend only on one or two outside sources. Just cutting out the need to ship oil across the ocean would be a boost, and that may be doable since Canada and Mexico export a large percentage of the oil we use across their borders with us.
But it’s interesting to note that much of the advancement and infrastructure in the oil and natural gas industry is funded by the industry itself as opposed to the government, while the inverse seems to be true for wind and solar power. After all, what market would the offshore wind farms proposed off Ocean City have if it weren’t for government putting a fat finger on the scale?
So Harris is relatively correct in his assessment, although I’d love to have some followup on what he sees as government’s proper role. Certainly he has solid facts and figures, but Andy needs to share what specific solutions he would advocate in each area in order to address this crisis. The more it depends on the private-sector market, the better I’ll probably like it.
Harris opens Salisbury district office
The message was: he won’t be a stranger.
A crowd of perhaps 50 people crammed into (and spilled outside) the new district office, which takes over a space in the Gallery Building vacated by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Eventually the Congressman arrived to greet wellwishers and speak to other media. I happened to be the only blogger there but WMDT-TV came down the street to check things out, as did the Daily Times.
The newly-elected Congressman had a few remarks for those who waited to speak with him, noting that this was a scheduled off week by leadership as they exhorted their charges to “talk to the people more.” As a practice they will have at least one week a month off.
But he was “really excited to get back to Washington next week” and begin discussions on how to tackle the budgetary process for both the remainder of this fiscal year and next year. Andy called the debt and deficit “frightening” and warned that he’s “not sure we can get out of this.”
“The time for talk is way gone,” he continued.
After holding two townhall meetings earlier this week, Harris told those assembled he was surprised by the sentiment. Expecting a backlash on cuts, he was instead told, “how come we didn’t cut more?” and that those attending generally “appreciate finally being told the truth.”
And when people come up to complain about cuts, as they surely will, Andy vowed to ask them two questions: is the program worth borrowing from your grandchildren for, and, where else on the budget should the restored cuts come from?
He then opened it up to questions, and among them I asked how much he’s saving from the new office. I was told $500 per month, which equates to $6,000 per year (or, as I joked, about 1/10 of a job saved or created.) Then again, it could help to hire an extra part-time person to help with constituent service and that’s more important than a physical office.
I also learned through a conversation with a longtime observer that the former office had been a Congressional office for at least 30 years, to the era of former Congressman Roy Dyson. But this office has the advantages of better security and a more convenient location (it’s across the hall from the local IRS office and in the same building as Senator Mikulski – her office is on the other side down the hall.)
Staff, local elected officials, and Central Committee members gathered at the doorway for the formal ribbon cutting. (I took the picture instead.) One other announcement made at the event was there will be a local townhall meeting the week of March 21, with more details announced a few days prior to the event.
The new district office is located at 212 West Main Street, Suite 204B.
The federal land grab
Over the past few weeks there’s been a push to place more of the land below our feet under federal control.
Using the lure of potential tourism dollars, Democratic members of Congress from both Maryland and Delaware have submitted bills to set aside land for a national historical park – Maryland’s would honor Harriet Tubman while Delaware’s would encompass a number of the state’s historical sites. In particular, the Delaware lament is that they are the one state without a national park. (Hey, they’re also one of just five states where their state capital isn’t served by an interstate highway either, but I’m not seeing a clamor for something more important like that.)
Certainly there can be a case made that some historical areas are worth seeing and rank among the nation’s top tourist attractions. But the argument can and should be made that, if an area were worth preserving, it would have already been done by now. And, as fellow bloggers in both states point out, what other restrictions will be placed on those who live in areas surrounding the parks? In particular, Ann Corcoran speaks from experience, and as she notes:
I’m not saying economic development is bad. It’s just that when governments and developers team up to cheat or trick landowners that’s where I object. Our Founding Fathers would, I am positive, agree with me.
By the way, the strategy is always the same—they dupe those true historic preservation-minded citizens with this “preserving our heritage” mumbo jumbo into being shills for the plan. What about our heritage of private property rights and limited government?
And a side note: remember awhile back when there was a development planned for a tiny sliver of the Blackwater area? Well, those 3200 homes and the golf course will be a distant memory now that the state has its clutches of the land, but perhaps the even more onerous taskmaster would be the federal government. They’ll allow the state its $8 million boondoggle that’s already in the works, but that’s about it. Isn’t it nice to have a park suitable for maybe a three-hour day trip but nowhere to stay or play nearby because the natural beauty of farmland must be preserved?
It’s worth pointing out too that the federal government already controls about a third of the land mass in the country, although the vast bulk of the area is west of the Mississippi. Yet they can’t maintain what they have, nor are they eager to allow mineral, coal, or fossil fuel exploration under their land (which could help defray part of their upkeep costs.) Although it’s doubtful we have that particular concern under the Delmarva Peninsula, the counties affected will have to deal with the projected vast increase in tourism without the help of the property taxes they may have collected from the government-owned land.
Sometimes the powers that be just do something because they can. The state already has its mitts on the most important part of the Tubman area and presumably the same situation applies in Delaware for its historical sites. To me, that’s plenty enough protection – we don’t need Fedzilla telling us what to do as well.
If anything, let’s start returning land to taxpaying status and encourage upgrading our infrastructure to accommodate more commercial and industrial development to go along with the bid for more tourism. While it wouldn’t be appropriate to render these historical sites worthless by crowding them with development, we don’t need them to exist in isolation either.
It looks like Maryland CAN
Following up on a story that was so last year…love those New Year’s jokes I can make for a few days!
Today I received good news from my blogging friend (Potomac TEA Party Report) Ann Corcoran. She’s helping to organize the first Maryland CAN (Conservative Action Network) conference in Annapolis next Saturday. Alas, I cannot be there due to a previous commitment but she tells me that they’ll break the 100 mark in registrations this week. When we discussed the event, I surmised that “50 is a success and 100 would be huge” – so color it huge!
Among the speakers will be a galaxy of conservative activists from Maryland and beyond, with perhaps the most nationally famous being ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief. She now heads up an organization called Emerging Corruption. Bios on many of the remaining speakers can be found here.
Considering we had about 250 for the GOP convention (held in the same building) and they were supposed to be there as elected officials, drawing triple-digits for this conference is a good first step. The idea is to work and plan our moves for the next two to four years in the wilderness (as far as state politics is concerned) and manuever ourselves into position for success in 2012 and 2014. For example, it may be a great stop for those who are considering running against Senator Ben Cardin and for Congress against a slew of Maryland incumbents.
Certainly I’m sure Ann and other Maryland conservative bloggers will be taking up my slack in covering this event. I’ll keep my ear to the ground and see what develops.
Working them harder
While the running gag among TEA Parties is the fond wish that Congress would just pack up and stay away from Washington most of the time, a newly elected Congressman who TEA Partiers revere thinks differently.
Lt. Col. Allen West believes the schedule set up by Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia isn’t strenuous enough to address our national problems:
“As we know, Congress needs to work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, strengthen our economy, limit the size of government and contend with a plethora of national security issues,” West said. “How are we to do that when, among other things, we start off being in session only ten days the entire month of January?”
Congressman-Elect West is concerned with the fact that Congress is only in session 123 days, only one-third of the entire year. He points out that Congress will not even meet the mark of 90 days in session until September of 2011, just a matter of days before the end of the Fiscal Year.
“I am sure we both agree that the issues before us today require the members of Congress to go beyond what has been the accepted practice in the past to meet the challenges of the future,” West writes to Cantor.
West is also concerned with the “retreats” in the month following the swearing in – some of them taxpayer funded- for members of Congress. Congressman-Elect West has already decided he will not attend at least two of the retreats.
“We have to show the American people we are going to be different than years past,” West said. “We are there for one reason and one reason only, to work for the constituents of the districts we are so privileged to represent. I hope that if it becomes clear that we are not meeting the promise we made to the American people, leadership will modify the schedule in order for us to accomplish the important task we have before us.”
Obviously being a Congressman requires a little time back home in the district – for West, that would require trips back to southern Florida. But most working folks put in around 250 days a year, so a schedule which essentially shakes out to that of a part-time job may not sit well with them – remember, it’s not the time they put into being in Washington which fazes the average citizen but what they do with it. If they are working to “limiting the size of government” as Lt. Col. West writes, well, that can and should probably be a 24/7 job for the foreseeable future. If expanding government is on the Congressional table then let Congress stay in its districts where they can’t do us any harm.
Perhaps the key criticism by West is that there will be a significant amount of time where the House will be out of session but the Senate will be in session. Since it’s presumed that much of the best legislation passed out of the GOP-controlled House will be swatted down by Harry Reid in the Senate, the House needs to keep the pressure on and perhaps wear out the Democrats in the Senate (many of whom will be up for re-election in 2012) through attrition. (And yes, we will likely see our fair share of vetoes even if the House wears down the Senate’s resistance. But it’s a fight worth having.)
In putting We the People back in charge of the House, it’s time for them to put their nose to the grindstone. When special interests take over again (as they invariably will) only then it will be time for the shorter session.
A question for those in the know
Obviously over the last few days we’ve heard the discussion about whether Obamacare can or should be repealed or at least defunded. You know which camp I sit with, but this is a question for my readers who may have a little more awareness about the budgetary process and how Washington works. However, the question doesn’t involve Obamacare but instead involves something I presume is on the budget someplace.
Over the last two years, our less-than-illustrious President has hired a number of “czars” who didn’t need to be confirmed by Congress. Since they seem to be useless appendages on the federal payroll is it possible to defund them? And what happens to those people if they are?
I would think that their salaries and benefits (along with whatever administrative help they receive) comes out of the allocation for the Executive Branch; probably the same pot of money that is paying for Obama’s Asian trip to the tune of $200 million a day (or whatever the true figure is since there’s some dispute regarding these expenses.) Obviously there’s serious sums of money where the public hasn’t the foggiest idea where it goes, and to an outsider like me it just seems to disappear into the ether. I guess transparency and accountability were the buzzwords in vogue two short years ago but they seem to have faded into obscurity of late.
Perhaps this is a shortcoming of me as a citizen that I don’t have a great understanding of the process, but it occurs to me that we’re playing with sums unthinkable just a couple decades ago. (That “trillion” wasn’t needed until the late Reagan years.)
I also realize that getting rid of the “czars” would rank with eliminating earmarks in terms of budgetary impact. The reforms we truly need won’t come until 2013 at the earliest since it’s going to take a President and Congress with both foresight and cajones to tackle the REAL problem in the budget: entitlements.
But it would feel good to eliminate the “czars” and whether that takes a smaller allocation to the Executive Branch or actual line-item budgeting is beyond my pay grade and scope of knowledge. But that’s why I have readers to help me figure out such matters.
Friday night videos episode 47
I’m going to warn you now – this may be controversial.
The first video I’m going to feature is in “honor” of the 10-10-10 celebration being promoted by the world’s greenies. It’s been called an “environmental snuff film” and I don’t disagree. But you need to know the mindset of these people.
“No pressure” indeed. These people are mentally ill to think this way. I know that 90% of environmentalists just want clean air and water, and so do I. But I want a balance between our economic interests and way of life too. These people just want their way and don’t care.
Speaking of economic interests – well, where are the jobs, Frank?
Certainly I make no assertion that Frank thinks like those people who did the first video, but he agreed with them when he voted for cap-and-trade. I’m sure he’s just in the 90 percent.
On the other hand, it’s sort of unfortunate that we don’t have our own version of a strong conservative woman in this race. But Frank McCaffrey of Americans for Limited Government takes a look at Maryland LG hopeful Mary Kane in this piece.
But some still don’t get it. I’m not a big fan of ‘gotcha’ journalism, but this guy parrots the line that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, when in fact they overpay.
And yes, as I’ve explained over the last week in the Daily Times, I support the Fair Tax.
Anyway, as I promised last week, I’m doing two music videos. This week has some heavy subject matter and I need a break, too.
The first one I’ve featured before but I was in the mood for Southern rock, and this is among my most-viewed music videos I’ve done.
The second one comes from the exact same venue (WinterPlace Park) but several months later. Not My Own won the Unicity Festival and hopefully it will take them to bigger and better things.
Usually I feature something heavier from the boys, but as I recall this is one of the first songs I heard out of them and it has a nice sound with the acoustic guitar.
Until next week, that’s a wrap on another edition of FNV. I’m hoping to have more music from this weekend’s Good Beer Festival and its solid lineup.
Friday night videos – episode 38
Since I missed last week due to personal reasons, it means I have a lot more video to choose from this time.
A little over five years ago, the Supreme Court revealed its Kelo v. New London decision. The Institute for Justice took a look at the impact since in this video.
Hey, it was nice of YouTube to add custom sizing for websites like mine. Saves me some HTML work!
The saving of the work doesn’t just extend to me. Beltway Democrats don’t want to work on a budget.
Maybe they just want to enjoy their summer. In this edition of the Freedom Minute, Renee Giachino talks about Obama’s ‘Recovery Summer.’
Someone who can’t take the summer off is Gen. David Petraeus. But it appears Obama’s advisors blew him off when they promised a July 2011 Afghan withdrawal.
But that’s all right, because Obama staffers are blowing off transparency laws, as Americans for Limited Government reveals.
This one has a wry sense of humor to it, and in good time for Independence Day.
Musically, I think it’s time to dust off Ava Aston once again. Just as a reminder who’s in charge on Independence Day.
Have a great Fourth of July, and Happy 234th Birthday to America!
Number crunching by the NTU
It’s a long report, but according to the National Taxpayers Union this Congress (or at least the Republican side) is beginning to listen to the clamor for less government.
The “BillTally” study done annually by the group shows this Congress may have slowed down a trend insofar as budget cutting bills are concerned, but we’re still nowhere near the small government prowess shown by the 104th Congress. (That was the Newt Gingrich/Contract With America class of 1994.)
Two of their findings were most intriguing given the rise of “Blue Dog” Democrats like Frank Kratovil and the schism between RINO’s and conservatives in the GOP.
- Members of the Republican Study Committee and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, two of the self-identified “fiscally conservative” caucuses in the House, compiled lower net spending agendas than other Members of Congress in their respective parties.
- Although the average House Republican was a net cutter, the typical member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which claims to be composed of “fiscally conservative deficit hawks,” compiled an average net agenda to increase spending by $40.6 billion.
While the first bullet point is reflected in the study, this is all relative: an average Blue Dog is still much more free with other people’s money than the most moderate of Republicans. Just to give readers an idea of the mindset of the Republican Main Street Partnership: Wayne Gilchrest was a member of that group, which is the home of most of the more centrist members of the party. Frank Kratovil and Wayne Gilchrest are fairly similar ideological clones with the exception of who they’d vote for as Speaker of the House (and Gilchrest said recently he would have voted for Obamacare.)
Unfortunately, the study doesn’t specifically break down particular legislators to see just who would cut the most (yes it does – see the comment by the study author in the comments section;) then again, legislation is a complex process anyway and sponsoring a bill may or may not lead to the desired result – many a bill which began as one idea had a number of other unrelated things piggybacked onto it (such as Obamacare dealing with student loans.) But as a whole we can get some better idea of which party is the fiscally conservative one at the moment while reminding ourselves we need to keep a better eye on them should they regain power.
Congress vs. the oil industry
It’s beyond question that the oil industry is down on its luck right now, and the black eye received from the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico is a shiner which will stay on its public face for quite awhile. And while radio host Stephanie Miller claimed the Gulf oil spill as proof that “God is a Democrat,” the Democrats who sit among us mere mortals in Congress are taking direct aim at what they sneeringly call “Big Oil” with two particularly punitive measures.
With Democrats’ first try at cap-and-trade (better known as Waxman-Markey) stalling in the Senate after a contentious House vote, last week Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman brought forth their version of energy legislation. Originally sponsorship crossed party lines when Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, agreed to back the bill, but Graham withdrew his support when Senate leader Harry Reid decided to press for passage of immigration reform rather than this measure.
That’s not to say Graham would be staunchly against the proposal. But the sticking point he sees is that, “problems created by the historic oil spill in the Gulf…have made it extremely difficult for transformational legislation in the area of energy and climate to garner bipartisan support at this time.” Predictably, Democrats representing waterfront states like Florida, New Jersey, and Maryland are already coming out dead set against the additional oil exploration included in Kerry-Lieberman, a tradeoff intended to get Republicans to support a bill which would levy taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and, as studies have concluded, be a net job loser.
Moreover, Kerry-Lieberman gives a rare nod to states’ rights from the liberal side, allowing affected states more liberty to curtail or cease oil exploration off their shores. It’s a complete turnaround in one month’s time – only a few weeks ago the oil industry was cautiously optimistic about the Obama Administration allowing exploration in certain leaseholds to go ahead beginning in 2012. Needless to say, those ambitious plans are on hold after White House adviser David Axelrod warned, “no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what has happened (with the Deepwater Horizon).”
A second Congressional attack on the energy industry in the accident’s aftermath comes from their bid to bolster a little-known federal fund called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). Created by Congress in 1986, the OSTLF lay dormant until 1990, when in the wake of the Exxon Valdez tanker accident a per barrel tax was levied on petroleum produced or imported into the United States. Currently oil companies pay eight cents per barrel toward this fund. In addition, there is a limitation on liability of $75 million per incident for economic damages – companies already have to shoulder the actual cleanup costs.
But a new proposal would devastate small- and mid-size oil companies, forcing them out of business by increasing the prospective liability to $10 billion. Naturally, the OSTLF would be increased as well through the possible fourfold increase of the per-barrel tax to 32 cents, but the additional revenue may not necessarily go to the OSTLF – proceeds could be spent on other projects Congress deems worthy of funding.
These are just two of the more egregious examples of how Congress wants to punish Big Oil for the sin of having a tragic accident occur on an offshore platform. The federal government has done its part to assist British Petroleum in coping with the accident and its aftermath, so there’s no need for Congress to exert another pound of flesh from an apologetic industry.
Michael Swartz used to practice architecture but now is a Maryland-based freelance writer and blogger whose work can be found in a number of outlets, including Liberty Features Syndicate. This piece was made available to LFS clients on May 20.
Will Mikulski vote to keep sex offenders on Viagra?
To those who thought the debate over Obamacare ended when the President signed the bill yesterday, think again. The Senate now takes up “fixes” to the plan demanded by House Democrats, and in the meantime the process was opened up to amendments from Senate Republicans.
Since the bill as a whole will only require a majority vote (as opposed to the sixty votes to maintain a filibuster), the GOP is pinning its hopes on enacting amendments which, if nothing else, would force Democrats to make embarrassing votes against them - if the amendments pass, the House would have to again approve changes to the bill through a conference.
(Continued on my Examiner.com page…)
Ambition or safety for Congress?
While we can never assume the contentious issue of health care reform will be completely solved by this edition of Congress, indications are that it will be off the table by the time they go on spring break later this month. President Obama even held up departure on his Asian trip in expectation of having a health care bill on his desk by then.
Yet when Congress moved with lightning speed in the early months of 2009 it looked like the Democrats’ ambitious agenda would be wrapped up, tied with a bow, and presented to the President as a gift to the American people in time for last Christmas. Truth is, the agonizingly slow debate over Obamacare threw a wrench into the plans Democrats in Congress had for cap-and-trade, which in turn halted progress on the immigration fix promised by President Obama during his campaign.
Last year Democrats had their hopes up for a quick resolution to these issues as the second session of Congress traditionally is a time for members, particularly in the House, to play it a little more safe and avoid controversial issues which could spell trouble for their re-election chances. Instead, the question then becomes whether Congress will try and take the safe route when they return in mid-April.
Because Democratic leadership in Congress is already wildly unpopular thanks to their aggressive tactics of dubious legality in trying to get Obamacare passed, they likely will put the pedal to the metal and attempt to ramrod their agenda through before November. We could even get a Christmas surprise from the lame duck Democrats when they come back to wrap up their affairs after the fall recess, especially if the elections spell the end of their majority in the House.
House Democrats are already frustrated because they’ve done the hard work on some of President Obama’s pet projects like cap-and-trade only to see their efforts fizzle in the Senate. Senators now face a backlog of over 300 bills passed by the House which haven’t cleared the Senate, and the process is always fraught with the potential of requiring a conference committee to hammer out differences between legislation passed by the separate bodies. We already see what damage has been done to Congress’s reputation by not going to a conference on health care reform.
In having large majorities in both the House and Senate allied by party with the President, the last thing one would have expected would be a tag of a “do-nothing Congress.” But perhaps the most memorable thing about the Pelosi-Reid led 111th Congress was just how quickly it lost support among the people because it focused on the wrong things – in an economic situation which cried out for common-sense measures to create more private-sector jobs and stabilize the financial situation, Congress instead focused on changing a health care delivery system looked on favorably by a large percentage of the people.
This antagonistic attitude has spawned the largest protest movement in forty years, with millions taking to the streets demanding a smaller, more fiscally responsible government. But in a time where the best option would be doing more than just providing temporary fixes to the economic situation – such as the one-month unemployment extension which got Senator Jim Bunning up in arms because it wasn’t being paid for – it appears Congress is going to continue with an agenda the American people have soured on.
It’s an agenda which could spell doom for vulnerable Democrats in November, and April may be the last chance to change course.
Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
Link to Maryland Democratic Party
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
