Henry Lamb
Meet the D.C. hypocrites
By Henry Lamb
Democrats, and three RINOs, just spent nearly $800 billion to: (1) stimulate the economy; (2) create or save 2.5 million jobs; and (3) reduce dependence on foreign oil, according to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Neither Wall Street nor Main Street believes the massive expenditure will achieve the goals.
These goals could be achieved, however, with no new spending at all. In fact, a very simple policy change could achieve these desired goals and produce $2 trillion in new tax revenue as well.
Democrats could easily repeal the ban on domestic oil production and achieve all their stated goals with no new expenditures. A detailed study shows that by simply allowing access to off-shore resources the economy could realize an $8 trillion shot in the arm. The economic stimulus that would come from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been known. Democrats have blocked every effort to utilize these domestic resources.
The Democratic leadership says we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil, now nearly 70% of our supply. But, at the same time, they prohibit the use of domestic oil resources. Is this hypocrisy, or what?
Congress could vote tomorrow to open domestic oil reserves, and the next day, private dollars would begin to flow into the economy, and continue to flow, producing new tax revenue for governments, and new jobs. In three years, or less, dependence on foreign oil would begin to decline, as would the dollar amount flowing to foreign governments. Even if no new reserves were ever found, the known supply of domestic oil would last for at least 70 more years.
Instead, Democrats, and three RINOs, chose to pile another $800 billion on top of the last $700 billion borrowed to create Roosevelt-type government jobs and to subsidize wind and solar research. Incidentally, not all the borrowed bucks are to stimulate the economy. Depending upon what the meaning of "earmark" is, quite a few of the bucks are being spent to benefit the Democratic leadership. For example, Nancy Pelosi's district will get a bunch of bucks to buy up wetlands. These landowners are happy to get rid of their unusable swampland for a tidy profit, and will remember the source of profit at election time.
Harry Reid's earmark amounts to multiple billions to build a mag-lev rail system between California's Disneyland and Nevada's dizzyland in the center of Las Vegas. A free market could never support such a scheme, but they who proclaim that there is not a single "earmark" in the stimulus bill, have borrowed billions to benefit Harry Reid. Is this hypocrisy, or what?
Economists are in general agreement that Roosevelt's make-work government jobs extended the depression for years. When government money stopped flowing, the government jobs vanished. It was the war that created the need for products that the free market produced.
The make-work jobs created by the Democrats' stimulus bill will end when the money stops. Democrats like to say that "we cannot drill our way out of the energy problem." But they do not seem to understand that we cannot borrow our way out of the economic problem.
The fact is that we can, and we must, drill our way out of both our energy and our economic problems. We can do both by simply removing the ridiculous bans on the use of our domestic resources.
Before anyone hides behind Al Gore's global warming scenario as an excuse for not using domestic oil resources, get a clue. Study these (free) videos. Catch up with the facts. Next week's International Conference on Climate Change will present the latest scientific findings from some of the world's leading climatologists, many of whom have been participants in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
By prohibiting the use of domestic oil, Democrats will not reduce the domestic use of oil. Their unreasonable ban on domestic resource use will just force Americans to continue to use foreign oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemies each year. Democrats say that by prohibiting the use of domestic oil, and subsidizing alternative energy research, Americans will be forced to abandon traditional energy sources and move to much more expensive wind and solar energy sources, and toy cars that get rewound by an overnight plug-in.
This Democratic fantasy is scientific heresy fraught with incredible hypocrisy. Wind and solar power should be pursued as a free market demands it, not by government decree. All potential energy sources should be explored as a free market chooses, not as directed by government. Climate science should inform public policy, not Al Gore's hysterical, self-serving public pronouncements which are negated by his personal choices in private life.
The Democratic majority, including Al Gore — and three RINOs — are making a mockery of leadership. If they really wanted to end the economic downturn and reduce dependence on foreign oil, they would remove the ban on domestic oil resources. Anything less is hypocrisy.
© Henry Lamb
March 1, 2009
Democrats, and three RINOs, just spent nearly $800 billion to: (1) stimulate the economy; (2) create or save 2.5 million jobs; and (3) reduce dependence on foreign oil, according to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Neither Wall Street nor Main Street believes the massive expenditure will achieve the goals.
These goals could be achieved, however, with no new spending at all. In fact, a very simple policy change could achieve these desired goals and produce $2 trillion in new tax revenue as well.
Democrats could easily repeal the ban on domestic oil production and achieve all their stated goals with no new expenditures. A detailed study shows that by simply allowing access to off-shore resources the economy could realize an $8 trillion shot in the arm. The economic stimulus that would come from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been known. Democrats have blocked every effort to utilize these domestic resources.
The Democratic leadership says we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil, now nearly 70% of our supply. But, at the same time, they prohibit the use of domestic oil resources. Is this hypocrisy, or what?
Congress could vote tomorrow to open domestic oil reserves, and the next day, private dollars would begin to flow into the economy, and continue to flow, producing new tax revenue for governments, and new jobs. In three years, or less, dependence on foreign oil would begin to decline, as would the dollar amount flowing to foreign governments. Even if no new reserves were ever found, the known supply of domestic oil would last for at least 70 more years.
Instead, Democrats, and three RINOs, chose to pile another $800 billion on top of the last $700 billion borrowed to create Roosevelt-type government jobs and to subsidize wind and solar research. Incidentally, not all the borrowed bucks are to stimulate the economy. Depending upon what the meaning of "earmark" is, quite a few of the bucks are being spent to benefit the Democratic leadership. For example, Nancy Pelosi's district will get a bunch of bucks to buy up wetlands. These landowners are happy to get rid of their unusable swampland for a tidy profit, and will remember the source of profit at election time.
Harry Reid's earmark amounts to multiple billions to build a mag-lev rail system between California's Disneyland and Nevada's dizzyland in the center of Las Vegas. A free market could never support such a scheme, but they who proclaim that there is not a single "earmark" in the stimulus bill, have borrowed billions to benefit Harry Reid. Is this hypocrisy, or what?
Economists are in general agreement that Roosevelt's make-work government jobs extended the depression for years. When government money stopped flowing, the government jobs vanished. It was the war that created the need for products that the free market produced.
The make-work jobs created by the Democrats' stimulus bill will end when the money stops. Democrats like to say that "we cannot drill our way out of the energy problem." But they do not seem to understand that we cannot borrow our way out of the economic problem.
The fact is that we can, and we must, drill our way out of both our energy and our economic problems. We can do both by simply removing the ridiculous bans on the use of our domestic resources.
Before anyone hides behind Al Gore's global warming scenario as an excuse for not using domestic oil resources, get a clue. Study these (free) videos. Catch up with the facts. Next week's International Conference on Climate Change will present the latest scientific findings from some of the world's leading climatologists, many of whom have been participants in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
By prohibiting the use of domestic oil, Democrats will not reduce the domestic use of oil. Their unreasonable ban on domestic resource use will just force Americans to continue to use foreign oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemies each year. Democrats say that by prohibiting the use of domestic oil, and subsidizing alternative energy research, Americans will be forced to abandon traditional energy sources and move to much more expensive wind and solar energy sources, and toy cars that get rewound by an overnight plug-in.
This Democratic fantasy is scientific heresy fraught with incredible hypocrisy. Wind and solar power should be pursued as a free market demands it, not by government decree. All potential energy sources should be explored as a free market chooses, not as directed by government. Climate science should inform public policy, not Al Gore's hysterical, self-serving public pronouncements which are negated by his personal choices in private life.
The Democratic majority, including Al Gore — and three RINOs — are making a mockery of leadership. If they really wanted to end the economic downturn and reduce dependence on foreign oil, they would remove the ban on domestic oil resources. Anything less is hypocrisy.
© Henry Lamb
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
