Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Your Offensive Obama Oil Policy Infographics of the Day... by Bill S. Feb. 28, 2012


Your Offensive Obama Oil Policy Infographics of the Day


If you’re looking for a single picture that captures the salient points of President Barack Obama’s oil policy, here it is. Courtesy of the Republican Study Committee:
This was timely, given Steve Maley’s excellent posting yesterday on the “10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gas Prices Now“. Now some on the Left, including the President himself, are trying to convince us that there’s nothing he can do to bring gas prices down in the short term. And in fact it is pretty obvious that his administration’s policies are diametrically opposed to the idea of reducing prices in the first place (witness the Steven Chu quote cited in the infographic). But as my colleague Steve posted in his RedHot tweet last night, there is ample evidence that past Presidential actions have resulted in just such immediate relief as Obama and his minions deny are possible…behold, the second best infographic of the day:
(source: energytomorrow.org)
Despite the feeble efforts of the Left to excuse Obama’s offensive energy policy as having little or no impact on gas and oil prices, the evidence speaks for itself. Not only have the policies of the Obama administration had an adverse impact on the price of oil, but theseanti-oil policies are probably hindering the economic recovery that the President supposedly seeks. But hey, Obama’s tree-hugging buddies are pleased as can be at his eco-pandering and continued efforts to use government money to shore up an “alternative energy” industry that is neither profitable nor practical.  While Obama and Chu continue to peddle lies about the oil and gas industry, they stick us with the price tag for follies like Solyndra.  As Marita Noon describes, it’s “Obama’s Fake Fossil Fuel Infatuation“:
While greens describe Section 1603 as a program that “provided grants in lieu of tax credits to small renewable companies,” free market, fiscal conservatives—who don’t like subsidies in the first place—would be outraged if they understood how the program is really used. The PTC gave owners of wind turbines a tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced during the first 10 years of operation. A 50 MW installation operating at an average capacity factor of 30% would generate 131,000,000 kWh per year. The owner would receive a PTC of $2,891,000 per year or $28,910,000 over 10 years. However, Section 1603 allowed the turbine owners to take a “cash grant” equal to 30% of capital costs up front ($100-120 million, 30% = $30-36 million) that came directly from the US Treasury—whether or not the turbine ever produced any electricity. This removes the performance risk for the developer and allows projects with a marginal net capacity factor to get built—even though, like Solyndra, the project doesn’t attract enough private investment. Plus, the cash grant is a “grant,” not a loan. The government doesn’t expect any money back. With the money taken up front, rather than annually based on actual production, turbine owners do not have the incentive to keep up the costly maintenance, and the turbines can eventually be abandoned. Additionally, much of the money is given to foreign companies—not “small renewable companies.”
These brief samples of President Obama’s priorities, as outlined in his proposed budget, highlight the flaws of his ideology. Instead of building on strength, it builds on failure. Renewables have repeatedly proven that they are more expensive than traditional fuels and are unwanted—requiring mandates and government programs to create an artificial market. There are thousands of abandoned wind turbines rusting in the wind. There were no buyers for Solyndra. Their stock of solar tubes were tossed in the trash. Fledgling companies from all segments of the renewable industry have gone bankrupt. They were surviving solely on subsidies and couldn’t compete without the frequent cash infusions. Yet, the budget promises them billions more—good money thrown after bad.
Peter Morici, of the University of Maryland Smith School of Business sums it up well:
Under Mr. Obama’s stewardship, the U.S. economy is not recovering as it should. As per usual, the president distracts public attention from poor policy choices by blaming and ridiculing others.
After three years, the president, who promised Americans millions of clean energy jobs in place of a thriving petroleum industry and much lower unemployment, should own up to his mistakes. Most Americans are needlessly paying too much for gas and foreign oil, while federally subsidized solar and wind projects are filing for bankruptcy.
This November, poor judgment and weakness of character—such as the president’s repeated attacks on the petroleum industry and failure to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions—make the most compelling case for change.
Americans should not expect a perfect president but at least one who bases decisions on facts not whimsy, and learns from mistakes.
Americans are simply not getting fact-based leadership and good judgment from President Obama.
The infographic does tell the story:
  • Inauguration Day, 2009:  $1.92 a gallon.  Today: $3.72 a gallon.  
  • Chu: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe” 
Yay, Obama Energy Policy!

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

President Obama's Plan to Kill Armed Pilot Program by Brian Darling Wed. Feb. 15, 2012


President Obama’s Plan To Kill Armed Pilot Program


The President’s wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program.  If Congress were to follow President Obama’s recommendation contained in his $3.8 trillion FY2013 budget proposal, they would be making a huge mistake.  This anti-terrorism program has been a success and a cost effective means to protect the cockpits of commercial aviation from 9-11 style terrorism.
The President’s budget lists the FFDO program as one of the few “cuts” to federal spending.  They have reduced the program from the $25 million they received this year to $12 million for FY2013.  This massive cut to the program would destroy it.  Consider this evidence that the Obama Administration would be more happy to rely on intrusive screening procedures being applied to toddlers, the elderly, and Senators, rather than pilots with guns to provide a last line of defense to aviation terrorism.
There is a saying in sports that the best referees are the ones you don’t even notice.  Not many Americans understand the breadth and effectiveness of the armed pilots program, because the program has been scandal free.  Our nation has not experienced another 9-11 style terrorist attack thanks in no small part to armed pilots in the cockpits of commercial aircraft to stop terrorists intent on using planes as weapons of mass destruction.
According to the Obama Administration’s budget proposal the goal of security at airports is to ”mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost.”
The voluntary FFDO program was created as a “last defense” layer of security at a time when comprehensive aviation screening and other physical security measures were not fully developed or deployed on a system-wide basis.
This claim is false.  The Obama Administration is arguing that the FFDO program was to be a band aid until the federal government could set up screening to prevent another incident of aviation hijacking and terrorism.  They are wrong, because a rational screening and security regime would include a last line of defense for pilots if other security measures fail. 
Look at the history of the program if you need more evidence of the fallacy of this claim.  On September 5, 2002, Senators Bob Smith (R-NH) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) teamed up on an amendment to the bill that created the Department of Homeland security.  The amendment passed overwhelmingly and created the armed pilots program while increasing anti-terrorism training for flight attendants.  These ideas were supposed to be permanent programs to provide a last line of defense to terrorism for flight attendants and pilots. 
This program is large.  The numbers of pilots in the program is considered secret, yet USA Today reported in 2008 that one in ten pilots were armed and cleared to carry a firearm while flying.
More than one in 10 of the nation’s airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection. The TSA, which has declined to disclose the number of armed pilots, revealed in a recent budget document that 10.8% of airline crewmembers were authorized to carry guns.
The fact that a large number of pilots are in the program today is evidence that it is working quietly to protect passengers and the public.  A bipartisan majority in the House and Senate supported the creation of this program in both 2001 and 2002, yet both the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration have been hostile to this program.  This idea by the Obama Administration will put Americans in harms way and it should be opposed.
According to the Obama Administration in the justification to cut FFDO the following:
Since 2001, however, there have been a number of enhancements to aviation security. TSA now conducts 100 percent screening of all passengers and their carryon items, has overseen installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, and has increased passenger and flight crew awareness to address security risks. Combined, these improvements have greatly lowered the chances of unauthorized cockpit access and represent a comprehensive and redundant risk-mitigation strategy that begins well before passengers board the aircraft.
For a President who proposes $3.8 trillion in spending next year, it is odd that he has targeted the one program in the TSA that is scandal free and providing a quiet deterrent to terrorists planning future attacks.  If President Obama is successful in killing this program and winding it down, he will be to blame if a pilot is attacked in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft.  This is a terrible idea and one hopes that Members of Congress do not follow the Obama Administration’s recommendations on this very important national security issue.

President Obama's 2013 Budget Draws Fire From Agriculture Posted by Cowboy Byte Feb. 15, 2012


Obama budget draws fire from agriculture

Print Friendly
Agriculture funding is not getting a fair shake in the President’s proposed 2013 budget, according to U.S. farm proponents. In the budget released Monday, President Obama proposed slashing agriculture subsidies by $32 billion over the next decade, just as Congress is getting set to create the new U.S. 2012 Farm Bill.
Obama’s plan includes eliminating the $5 billion a year in direct payment to farmers, an idea that has support among U.S. lawmakers, according to Reuters. In negotiations last fall, U.S. Senate and House agriculture committees identified $23 billion in proposed savings over 10 years.
Obama’s proposed 2013 budget is seen by some as unsupportive to agriculture- one of the top performing sectors in a struggling U.S. economy. “The President’s budget demonstrates that neither rural America nor fiscal discipline is a priority for this administration,” said Rep. Frank Lucas, R Okla., Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. “Raising taxes on small businesses and ignoring the real drivers of trillion dollar deficits is a failure of leadership.”

Monday, February 27, 2012

10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices. by Steve Maley, Feb. 25, 2012

Tulsa World headline:

Obama: No magic bullet to lower gas prices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says there is no easy answer to the problem of rising energy prices, dismissing Republican plans to address the problem as little more than gimmicks.
“We know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.  …
Obama said Republicans have one answer to the oil pinch: Drill.
“You know that’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling,” Obama said, echoing his remarks earlier in the week. “It’s a bumper sticker.”
Speaking of bumper stickers, remember “Yes We Can”, Mr. President? No one understands the concept better than the oil and gas industry. The main thing holding domestic energy companies back from making a stronger commitment to future domestic supplies is uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty, avoids it like the plague. Your rhetoric may appease your doctrinaire base, but it makes domestic energy producers hold back, fearful that you will punish their success, or that you will change the rules on them in the middle of the game.
Erasing uncertainty is the #1 thing you can do as a national leader if you truly desire to lower gasoline prices. Not only could it change the psychology of energy investing, there is still time for companies to change their 2012 investment plans.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.
1.  Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.
2.  Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.
3.  Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.
4.  Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.
5.  Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.
6.  Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.
7.  Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace.  Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.
8.  Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.
9.  Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]
10. Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.
Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said“You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.
Energy policy will be a President Obama’s key vulnerability in November. His goal has always been to encourage alternative fuels by raising conventional energy prices. Alternative energy may poll well, but the average voter who fills his tank with $4+ gas on the way to the ballot box will certainly “Hope for Change”.
Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Obama Care Versus Individial Freedom.. By Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) Feb. 22, 2012

ObamaCare Versus Individual Freedom

by Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) on February 22, 2012 · 0 comments     Print This Post Print This Post
President Obama’s new mandate requiring all employers to purchase insurance coverage for their employees that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception is an outrage, of course.
But what kind of outrage is it? Most of the public outcry has understandably centered around the mandate’s assault on religious liberty.
The mandate forces every businessman or non-profit executive with religious objections to these products to buy them anyway, or pay a fine.
The mandate is unconstitutional, for its violation of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause.  It is also illegal, for its violation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Some of the outrage has been rightly directed specifically at the president, as both the mandate and the underlying law, ObamaCare, are his doing.
Indeed, many pro-life citizens and members of Congress only supported ObamaCare’s passage because the president assured them that conscience rights would be protected. Thus the mandate is also a personal betrayal.
And some of the outrage is more practical.  The Obama administration’s mathematically impossible assertion that abortion drugs, sterilization and contraception will somehow now simply be “free,” and thus not paid for by morally opposed insurance customers, suggests the president believes in magic.
All of these affronts to the rights and intelligence of the American people are enough to warrant the criticism the new mandate has invited.
The violation of conscience rights is simultaneously unconstitutional, illegal, and ridiculous – any one of which are sufficient grounds for its immediate rescission.
Yet, it is still not our true cause of concern.  Ultimately, the character and ideology of the president, and the particular constitutional provisions being trampled by this one mandate are incidental, compared to the manifest threat to freedom intrinsic to ObamaCare itself.
The problem is not how the federal government is abusing its new power in this instance, but that the government – indeed, a single person – suddenly wields this power at all.
To many, the anti-religious freedom mandate seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Today, the government forces us to buy abortion pills – tomorrow they may force us to pay for euthanasia, or deny expensive treatments to the very weak or very old.
However, just as frightening as the proverbial slippery slope is the proverbial see-saw. If a pro-choice liberal president can force insurance companies to cover the morning after pill, could a pro-life conservative president force them not to?
Could an anti-smoking president deny coverage for lung disease? Could a president who embraced new age, alternative medicine restrict coverage for traditional medical treatments?
The danger is not that they would, but, under ObamaCare, that theycould. That ObamaCare turns the temporary executive of one branch of a limited government into an emperor with absolute power over one-sixth of our economy, and the most intimate of personal life decisions.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master.”  What he meant was that if we ourselves wish to live free of oppression, we have a responsibility not to oppress others.
In the same way, if you don’t want government to coerce your health care choices, you should take great pains not to let government coerce anyone else’s.  Health insurance choices should be as diverse as we are.
But that kind of freedom and diversity is prohibited under ObamaCare. What this latest Obamacare mandate reveals is that this law is fundamentally inconsistent with liberty.
The question is, which is more important?  Is ObamaCare a threat tofreedom?  Or is freedom a threat to ObamaCare?
The controversy over this particular consequence of Washington’s health care takeover will soon be followed by another, and another, and another– the next mandate, the next rationing, the next restriction, the next loss of liberty.
There will be no rest – ever – from these battles so long as ObamaCare remains on the books. Regardless of their outcomes, these battles by definition cannot be won.
All Americans – liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice, devout or secular – must recognize that these skirmishes are a trap, a distraction.
A truly free people would never have them at all.  They are like arguments over the silverware pattern, while our house is burning down.
The threat to our constitution, our God-given rights, and your privacy is not in the government officials who have power over our health care choices.  The real threat is in the poisonous law that gives them that power in the first place.
This controversy has taught us one thing: The government takeover of health care is not merely imperfect, it is essentially corrosive.  It cannot be tweaked.
It cannot be improved on the margins.  It cannot be fixed.  ObamaCare is a cancer, and every last word of it must be repealed.

Jim DeMint is a conservative Republican Senator representing South Carolina.

Freedom Vs. Socialism... by Kevin "Coach" Collins Feb. 22, 2012

Freedom Vs. Socialism

barack obama96438 300x222 Freedom vs. Socialism
Since Barack Obama has no respect for America or Americans, he will doubtlessly announce that the October 2012 unemployment rate is about 6.5% or some other ridiculous lie. Does it make any difference? Not really, because he and the Charlie McCarthy dummy who is posing as our Vice President won’t be able to survive the reality of what they have done to us since January 2009.
The problems Obama will face are growing, not subsiding.
In just the last month, the pump price of gasoline has risen .20 a gallon.  While this is bad enough, it is still worse because it put the price at a level higher than it has been in February since 1981. The reason for the rise is totally out of Obama’s control; he can’t lie his way out of it. The Iranians want to squeeze the Europeans who are already looking at $8.00 a gallon gas, so they are denying France and England oil.
The Europeans will come here to buy their gasoline because our $3.52 per gallon looks great!  When they do our price will go up whether we car pool, drive less, decide we won’t buy from this company or that company or not.  The price of gas on January 19, 2009 was $1.85.
The percentage of those who are unemployed who have been unemployed for 6 months or more has gone from 16% to 45.1 % . Never since the Great Depression has it been that high.
All of the following measurements of our national misery are presented as “On Obama’s Inauguration Day” compared to today.  These numbers come from The Senate Republican Conference.  
The raw number of unemployed Americans: 12.05 million to 12.76 million. +710,000
Americans living in poverty: 39.8 million to 46.2 million. +6.4 million
American receiving Food Stamps 32 million to 46 million +14million
Misery Index (An index combining the unemployment rate and inflation rate) 7.8 to 11.3 up 45%
Federal debt 10.6 TRILLION DOLLARS to 15.4 TRILLION DOLLARS up 44%
Federal debt assigned to each American $34,731 up to $49,058
Cost of health insurance costs per employed worker $3,354 to $4,129
College tuition $6,591 up to $8,244 an increase of 25%
The total number of available jobs 133.6 million down to 132.4 a loss of 1.2 million jobs
The value of the average American’s home $169,700 down to $147,800
No amount of phony statistics or lies can cover holes this big.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Why Won't Washington Understand that Paying People to Be Unemployed Means More Unemployment? by Dan Mitchell.. On Feb. 20, 2012..

Why Won’t Washington Understand that Paying People to Be Unemployed Means More Unemployment?

I’ve written periodically about the perverse incentives of the unemployment insurance system. Simply stated, there will be fewer jobs if the government subsidizes joblessness, and I even showed that this is a consensus position by citing the academic writings of left-leaning economists such as Larry Summers and Paul Krugman.
The San Francisco Federal Reserve also has produced research measuring the negative impact of unemployment insurance on the job market.
Now we have some additional academic research on the topic, and the results once again show that the unemployment insurance program causes a significant increase in unemployment.
The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program created in the summer of 2008 provided for unprecedented extensions in the duration of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. Combined with persistent high unemployment and historically long durations of unemployment during the 2008 and 2009 recession, this extension of UI has prompted renewed interest in the impact of UI benefits on job search, the duration of unemployment, and the unemployment rate. …This paper uses multiple regression analysis to estimate the impact of extended UI benefits on the unemployment rate after controlling for the severity of the recent recession. The extension of UI is found to have a positive and significant impact on the national unemployment rate… The UI benefit extensions that have occurred between the summer of 2008 and the end of 2010 are estimated to have had a cumulative effect of raising the unemployment rate by .77 to 1.54 percentage points.
If you’re trying to educate a statist friend or colleague about the relationship between unemployment insurance and joblessness, this research should help. But you may also want to share this real-world story. And here’s another powerful anecdote.
Last but not least, this cartoon does a very effective job of showing the consequences of paying people not to work.