SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (63384)3/22/2013 8:43:44 AM
From: Peter Dierks3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Democrats War on Jobs
Democrats want taxpayer money for construction jobs, while opposing Keystone . . . construction jobs.
By John Fund
March 22, 2013 4:00 A.M.

Senate Democrats finally released their first budget plan in four years this month: It offers nearly $1 trillion in new taxes, an end to sequester budget savings, and almost no new spending restraint. Despite the failure of the 2009 stimulus package, Democrats also want an extra $100 billion to create jobs on infrastructure projects, few of which would be “shovel-ready” enough to hire workers anytime soon.

President Obama won’t release his own budget till April, but he has a golden opportunity to improve on the Senate budget and create real jobs. All he has to do is end his four-year delay in approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring crude oil produced from Canada’s oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast. It is already “shovel-ready” — portions of it are already under construction. And because it’s being built by private-sector companies, any new pipeline jobs would come at zero cost to the taxpayers and the economic activity created would provide significant tax revenues.

Keystone has been completely scrubbed environmentally. Four government reports have been issued on its impact, all with essentially the same conclusion. The latest came this month, from the U.S. Department of State. It raised no major objections and concluded, as AP notes, “Other options to get the oil from Canada to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are worse for climate change.” Nor will all the piped oil be Canadian: Keystone will provide a safe, reliable method of transporting 250,000 barrels of oil a day from the Bakken fields of North Dakota to refineries.

A key finding of State’s report is that the Canadian oil fields are so big — the world’s third-largest reservoir of oil — that they will almost certainly be developed. The question becomes whether the oil will be sent south to the U.S. by our friendly Canadian neighbor or shipped west to China and other Asian powers. Estimates show that for every dollar of oil that North America imports, we receive only 10 percent of the economic benefit — the economic activity the oil is used for. The rest of the money stays with the Venezuelans, Nigerians, and Saudis who pumped the oil. In contrast, when you add up oil-production costs, sales, and downstream jobs created by oil production, the domestic benefit from oil pumped from North American sources is roughly 80 to 90 cents of every dollar of oil revenue.

Every one of the governors along the Keystone pipeline’s route now backs the project. They predict that the $5.3 billion project would create 16,000 direct jobs and an estimated 163,000 jobs in indirect employment.

So why is the Obama administration resisting the pipeline? Before the election, Obama punted for fear of alienating pipeline opponents, including environmental donors and the Sierra Club. Since the election, bureaucrats in his Environmental Protection Agency have proposed withholding approval of Keystone unless Congress agrees to some kind of a carbon tax in exchange.

A carbon tax is clearly on the drawing boards of the Obama administration. A series of Treasury Department e-mails obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute under the Freedom of Information Act show that Ian Parry of Treasury’s Fiscal Affairs Department has openly advocated a carbon tax for the purposes of “raising revenue and putting it to good use.” He proposes a carbon tax of $25 per metric ton, which is roughly in the range of the tax proposed in Congress by Representative Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.


But Obama faces real pushback from labor unions within his coalition, who covet the many union jobs Keystone would create. Many would be in construction, the sector of the economy that was hardest hit by — and has yet to recover from — the collapse of the housing bubble in 2008.

Last year, a total of 69 House Democrats broke with Obama to support the Keystone project, with the overall bill passing by 293 to 127 — more than enough to override a presidential veto. In 2011, fewer House Democrats — 47 — had voted to defy Obama and back Keystone.

In the Senate last year, Majority Leader Harry Reid used a filibuster to block Keystone. But eleven Democrats broke party ranks to back the pipeline, and other pro-pipeline Democrats, such as Virginia’s Mark Warner, backed the filibuster only after personal pleas from President Obama.

Red-state Democratic senators who will be up for election in 2014 are strongly pressuring Obama to soften his stance on the pipeline. But there is no doubt that Obama’s environmental allies would explode in fury if he retreated. In January, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune announced that his group would, for the first time in its history, participate in acts of civil disobedience to block Keystone. Sierra’s view of the best U.S. energy future is very clear: In a recent debate on Minnesota Public Radio, Brune supported keeping two-thirds of all of the world’s oil, coal, and natural-gas reserves “in the ground.”

In theory, liberals are in favor of creating jobs, but in reality, even jobs that pass strict environmental-impact reviews are too “dirty” for their taste. They also turn up their nose at the tax revenue those new jobs would create. In the end, liberals evidently believe that only government can create, or provide incentives to create, the “clean jobs” of the future. In the non-clean-jobs sector of the economy, and for workers unlucky enough to have jobs in politically incorrect industries, the government restrictions that liberals support will lead to a low-growth, lower-wage future.

Conservatives need to highlight that opposition to Keystone is demonstrably anti-worker. You can’t promise to create jobs while doing your utmost to kill them. The way to divide Democratic voters from their Washington leadership is to reveal this internal contradiction at the heart of the budgets Democrats are finally putting on paper.

John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.

nationalreview.com



To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (63384)3/23/2013 9:46:30 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Where is the outrage about THE MAJOR causative factor in the whole economic debacle???

You mean the evil spirit that most animates the Democrats? The belief they can offer results superior to what would occur to free people employing sane and humble legislation coupled with hard money?
It is interesting that LLCF declined to respond when you pointed out the real problem. Hypocrites don't like to engage in discourse that exposes their hypocrisy.

Obviously a free economy results in more wealth and higher standards of living for everyone. Because it is not equally bad for all leftists cannot stand it.



To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (63384)3/24/2013 9:35:09 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
The Lost Era of Economic Growth
Republicans have neglected their best issue.
By FRED BARNES
Apr 1, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 28

President Obama highlighted the need for strong economic growth in his State of the Union address in February, citing it 11 times. He mentioned it 5 times in a speech in Illinois in mid-March. Last week, when he nominated Tom Perez as his new labor secretary, Obama declared, “As I’ve said before, my top priority as president is doing everything we need to do to make sure we’re growing our economy.”

White House propagandist Jay Carney is even more relentless on the subject. He brought up economic growth 59 times in six press briefings between March 11 and 19. “The proposals [the president has] put forward keep the number one priority in mind, which is economic growth and job creation, not deficit reduction solely for the purpose of reducing the deficit.”

Obama hasn’t a clue about actually generating economic growth—his policies thwart it—but he’s awfully good at messaging. And growth is as good as it gets as a message for public consumption. It’s positive. It’s believable even for Obama because we’ve had strong economic growth routinely in the past, prior to his presidency. Best of all for Obama and Democrats, it steals an issue Republicans had not only owned but also relied on as their most effective talking point.

Republicans have reverted to the pre-Reagan era. In those days, they were the party of spending cuts, though GOP presidents rarely followed through. Before he reached the White House, one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite talking points was the welfare queen, a woman who gamed the welfare system to drive a Cadillac and live lavishly. Republicans were the negative party.

That changed in the late 1970s. Republicans ran on tax cuts and growth in 1978 and made modest gains in the House and Senate. More important, Reagan, prodded by Jack Kemp, adopted that agenda in his 1980 campaign and, as president, pushed through a 25 percent cut of income tax rates as the centerpiece of his economic policy. The economy boomed and growth became the GOP’s economic watchword.

But confronted with towering deficits and a national debt in fiscally dangerous territory, Republicans have become the negative party again. This is partly understandable. Obama’s reckless spending has forced congressional Republicans to be responsible and champion spending cuts, reform of entitlements, and a balanced budget.

So while Obama wants to give things to voters, Republicans want to take them away. Or they’re alarmed about a looming debt crisis that’s an abstraction and thus not a pressing concern of many voters.

Republicans need to escape this box. The media won’t help. They’re genetically inclined to follow the lead of Democrats and treat Republicans as obsessive about cutting spending and committed to protecting the interests of the wealthy. The only way out is economic growth.

A surprising number of Republicans have figured this out. Rep. Paul Ryan, as the author of the House Republican budget, is required to defend its Medicaid cuts, reform of Medicare, and other reductions. Yet he believes growth should be the top priority for Republicans, just as it was for his mentor, Jack Kemp. And his budget would provide the means to spur growth by creating two income tax rates, 10 percent and 25 percent.

Ted Cruz, the ubiquitous new senator from Texas, is also a believer. Cruz told me that “growth and opportunity” should be tattooed on every Republican official’s hand to remind them what to talk about. He was joking, but his point was clear. Cruz hopes to sponsor pro-growth policies that could attract Democratic supporters.

Outside Congress, Jim Gilmore, the former Virginia governor who heads the Free Congress Foundation, is agitating in speeches and media appearances for growth. “There’s got to be an imperative to grow the economy,” he says. “There hasn’t been any discussion of that in the last two years. Republicans are making a mistake by putting so much emphasis on the spending side.” Gilmore favors three tax rates on income—10, 15, and 25 percent—and a tax credit that would keep a family of four earning up to $43,000 from paying any income tax.

Slow growth under Obama “is devastating the fabric of the nation,” Gilmore says. Democrats are “blind to growth. They’re not organically growing the economy. They’re pumping up the economy” with stimulus dollars and the Federal Reserve’s easy money policy.

Jeb Bush, ex-governor of Florida, is another advocate of making growth a top priority for Republicans. “Every speech I give is totally focused on economic growth,” he told me. (His recent speech to CPAC was an exception.) It gives Republicans “a huge opportunity to lay out alternatives [and] challenge the president’s orthodoxy” on economic policy.

Governor Bush believes economic growth can reverse the decline of social mobility, which he says has occurred “over the past 20 years without a big national debate.” Broad-based growth would reduce poverty by allowing everyone to climb the economic ladder, he insists.

Ryan, Cruz, Gilmore, and Bush were joined last week by the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project, whose report was highly critical of the party, especially the congressional wing in Washington. The report touted economic growth as a message to those who feel “Republicans don’t care.” But despite the project’s title, growth was a minor point in the report.

Rather than praise growth on its own terms as the path to a better life, it was presented as the antidote to reliance on government. “Our job as Republicans is to champion private growth so people will not turn to government in the first place,” the report said. That’s fine, but a far better case could be made.

For the moment, economic growth sits in the waiting room of ideas, while the Republicans consider “rebranding.” But what’s needed is for the entire Republican party to make a growing economy central to its message. Once that happens, political life under Obama will change—to the advantage of Republicans.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com