Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS      
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!

Saturday, May 10, 2008
Better Late Than Never ...
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 9:24 PM
A new NY Times editorial says it's time for Congress to "rethink" ethanol ...
"Ending the tax subsidy should be easy. Ending the mandate will be tougher, though some members of Congress are showing buyer’s remorse. One reason is the worldwide spike in food prices. That has been driven largely by a huge increase in demand and rising energy costs. The diversion of American corn from food to fuel — about one-fourth of the crop — has not helped."





Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Democrats Do Nothing on Gas Prices
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 3:27 PM
Freedoms Watch has launched this new web ad, targeting Congress for their "do nothing" attitude toward gas prices. My favorite part of the ad is the Pelosi gaffe ...







Tuesday, May 06, 2008
"Hippy-crites"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:20 AM
London's The Daily Mail provides a list of those who tell us to live green while doing very much the opposite.

The private jets will get you every time.




Saturday, May 03, 2008
Pushing For Polar Bear Protection/Paralysis
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:35 AM
The editorialists at the Houston Chronicle want the polar bear listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Note that the writers present no contrary evidence to the case that ice loss is imperiling the bears.

Even more telling is that the editorial doesn't even hint at the vast impact of the listing in the lower 48.  Do you suspect the writers don't know, or just prefer to keep their readers in the dark?

Polar Bear 101 here.

Polar bear 102 here.

The short version:  If the polar bear is listed, every activity that emits a greenhouse gas of any sort in the lower 48 AND which receives a federal permit or requires federal agency action of any sort --even if that permit or action is unrelated to the emission of the gases-- those activities will be subject to new review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approval may not be forthcoming, will certainly at least be delayed, and will almost certainly come with massive new costs attached.

Thus coastal building programs that require federal flood insurance or Army Corps of Engineers permits, highway construction that gets FHA funding, or joint NASA-private industry initiatives that result in launchings, all these and hundreds of thousands of additional federal permits and actions get gathered in under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Environmentalist groups have standing to sue to demand the Section 7 process be followed, and they collect attorneys fees when they succeed.  It is the full employment act for environmental activists.

Hat tip to the Houston Chronicle for alerting a city so connected to the oil business that its core business was being threatened by a listing push that many believe is not only an abuse of the ESA's original intent but also unsupported by the facts concerning the ice and the polar bears.

After two decades of practicing ESA law, I am used to clients' being surprised by the sweeping nature of the Act's operation once caught up in it by virtue of proximity to a listed bird, buttterfly, rodent or plant, but wait until the clients in Colorado and Louisiana and Florida have to be told they can't build or proceed because the polar bear's ice is retreating.

Good for my law practice.  Very, very bad for the economy generally and the cost of gas specifically, not to mention construction of all sorts.





Friday, May 02, 2008
Oil Companies' "Obscene" Profits
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:14 PM
With gas prices at record highs, it's tempting to want to inflict on oil companies the same kind of pain we're feeling at the pump.  But  Investors' Business Daily explains why the political demagoguery about the "obscene" profits of the oil companies is so misguided.  Here's a snippet:

Our free-market economy is built on profit. Higher profits mean more jobs, higher incomes, more investment in equipment and people, higher standards of living. Yes, profits are the engine for all of this — and that includes the profits of "Big Oil."

By signaling that supply is scarce, higher profits encourage more production. Except, that is, when Congress through its inept lawmaking stands in the way. And that's the case now with the oil industry.

What's more:

Truth is, oil industry profits are in line with the rest of American industry. In 2007, a record year, they earned 8.3 cents per dollar of sales. Beverage companies and cigarette makers, by contrast, earned 19.1 cents. Drug makers, 18.4 cents. Indeed, all manufacturers, 8.9 cents on average, made more than "Big Oil."

Besides, we've tried windfall profits taxes before, in the early 1980s, and they were an utter failure.  . . .

Remember: Oil companies don't really pay "windfall profit" taxes, anyway. You do.

There's much more.  The whole thing is a must-read.






Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Action Points: Where's Pelosi's "Commonsense" Plan on Gas Prices?
Posted by: Tom DeLay at 5:08 PM

            If Congressional Republicans allow Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats to skirt responsibility for rising gas prices, they will once again earn the time-honored mantle of “The Stupid Party.”  Two years ago this week, Nancy Pelosi – as part of a concerted campaign of opportunistic mendacity – said she and her party had a “commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.”   Their "plan" conveniently came to fruition after Democrats voted against a comprehensive energy plan that would increase fuel production and open up untapped oil reserves.

            Democrats won control of Congress partly because of such promises.  The day she took over as speaker, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $2.33.  Today, it’s $3.60.  This $1.27 “Pelosi Premium” is the single most pernicious factor behind the struggling economy in general and middle class anxiety.  Recent polls demonstrate rising gas prices are the most important economic issue facing Americans today.  And here’s the thing: it’s all their fault.

            The spiraling cost of energy in the United States today is not one of those things that is nobody’s fault, nor is it a matter of shared responsibility.  The fault is absolutely, completely at the doorstep of the Democrat Party.  Their Kool-Aid-cult attachment to environmental extremism, their ideological hostility to free markets and free trade, their barking threats of tax hikes on American energy production, their weak and indecisive foreign policy toward the Middle East, and their limousine-liberal NIMBY hypocrisy are not present on both sides of the aisle. 

            To date, the only thing Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats have tried to do on energy is raise taxes.  The tax hike they passed in the House not only targets American energy companies, it specifically exempts foreign oil companies.  So, foreign energy companies, many of them subsidized by regimes hostile to the United States, would enjoy a reverse subsidy benefit from the Democrat Congress.  Is that really their “commonsense plan”? 

            Nobody knows.  All we know, for sure, is what the plan is not.  The Democrats’ plan to lower gas prices cannot include opening up the billions of gallons of oil underneath the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska because… well, because the Democrats apparently care more about caribou, fish, and even the views from their vacation homes than energy independence.  There is enough accessible oil in the United States to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years, and the Democrats will not allow it to be drilled. 

            This week, truckers rallied in Washington, D.C. to protest the failure of Congress to do anything about gas prices.  They were mad; they should be.  They should be furious at the arrogant refusal of Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats to lift a finger to lower gas prices.  They won’t allow increased production, they won’t allow the creation of new nuclear power plants, they refuse to reform our ethanol subsidy programs, which are not only driving up the cost and driving down the efficiency of our gasoline, but are now helping to starve the third world.

            If we wanted to, we could lower the price of fuel in a month – by opening up our oil reserves to exploration, by encouraging the development of next-generation nuclear power plants, and by removing government mandated manipulation of the energy market.  But Democrats oppose all of these measures for reasons ranging from partisan cynicism to ideological fanaticism.  But they maintain they have a “commonsense plan.”  Well, what is it?

            Voters have a right to know what exactly Mrs. Pelosi’s “commonsense plan” entails.  Her number is 202-225-0100.  Call your Congressman and Senator, ask the Democrats what their plan is to reduce the price of gasoline.  If they don’t give you a straight answer, if they don’t renounce tax hikes, if they don’t support increased domestic production, and if they feed you some nonsense about “biofuels,” you’ll know all you’ll need to.

            Energy prices are bankrupting the middle class, and the Democrats in Congress are doing nothing about it.  The real question now is: will conservatives do something about that?



Tags: delay pelosi prices gas Tom



Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Polar Bear Countdown
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 4:42 PM
A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to issue its decision on whether the polar bear is a threatened species as a result of global warming's impact on polar ice by May 15.

I have written about the effort to back door Kyoto via the polar bear listing push here and here.  The impact of a decision to list the bear would be vast, and the costs to the economy only dimly perceived even by the industries which would be immediately impacted.  The short summary is that any activity that leads to the emission of greenhouse gases and requires a federal permit would immediately be subject to a new level of permitting and feceral review (and demands for "mitigation") under Section 7 of the ESA.

If the petition to list is rejected, the environmental groups that generated more than 600,000 comments in favor of the listing will sue.  If the bear is listed, the environmental groups will start suing to push the most expansive interpretation of the law. 

Ordinarily the chaos that follows a listing is limited to the region a species inhabits.  The polar bear controversy will dwarf all previous ESA smash-ups, whether the snail darter, the delta smelt, the California gnatcatcher or the spotted owl.




Friday, April 25, 2008
Real Deal on Global Warming?
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 2:21 PM
If you have kids, and are upset about such things as Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi’s new ad,  you might be interested to hear about Al Sonja Schmidt’s book for kids – Deb & Seby’s Real Deal on Global Warming.  In it, this veteran Hollywood writer uses her wit to educate kids about the earth’s future, despite what they are seeing in commercials like Pelosi’s and learning at school – where they are being shown An Inconvenient Truth and being educated on the terrors of global warming.




Friday, April 25, 2008
Not So Familiar With the Bible, Eh?
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:18 PM
In what would seem to be an effort to persuade the "bitter" religious people in small towns about the importance of global warming, Nancy Pelosi has been citing a Bible purporting to emphasize the importance of caring for God's creation.

The only problem is that neither her quotation -- nor a paraphrase of it -- can be found in the Good Book.




Friday, April 25, 2008
Newt and Nancy Want to Address Climate Change
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 9:20 AM

2008-04-25_0917.png picture by MattLewis01

If you thought the Al Sharpton/Pat Robertson commercial was disturbing, check out Newt and Pelosi...




Thursday, April 10, 2008
"The Polar Bear Tractor Beam"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 6:20 PM
My new Townhall.com column is up.






Tuesday, April 08, 2008
One for the Greenies
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:58 PM
Even as Iran is announcing its installation of thousands of new nuclear centrifuges, the left finally has a reason to oppose letting Ahmadinejad get his paws on a nuclear bomb.

No, no, not because he's a confirmed enemy of this country, a friend to terrorists the world over, a mortal foe of Israel, or an all-around crazy.

Rather, it's being reported that even a small nuclear war would shred the ozone.  So now, lefties, can we please get serious about making sure that Ahadminejad never has a chance to hold the planet (oh, yeah, and humanity, too, by the way) hostage with a nuclear weapon?




Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Congress and the Muppets Take on 'Big Oil'
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 11:05 AM

Oh noes! The Congress has decided it can command the energy economy again, bringing down oil prices with the sheer force of its ill-informed nagging.
Big Oil is once again being called on the carpet.

Senior executives of the five largest U.S. oil companies were to appear before a congressional committee Tuesday where they were likely to find frustrated lawmakers in no mood for small talk.

Ooooh, watch out.  If you need a preview of the ignorance this questioning will entail, the head of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (thank you, Nancy Pelosi) provides it in this very article:

Markey, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said he wants to know why, with such profits, the oil industry is steadfastly fighting to keep $18 billion in tax breaks, stretched over 10 years.

He said the executives would be asked to explain how they can get energy prices down in the short run and "in the long run what are they going to do to shift the focus to a renewable energy agenda."

"We have to move beyond this oil economy," Markey said Tuesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "We have to move to a renewable energy economy. ... We can never get out of this trap as long as the oil companies want to hold us hostage to this old agenda."

Sigh.

One of the things that might actually encourage a move "beyond the oil economy" are high oil prices, which discourage unnecessary consumption by motorists through perfectly logical self-interest instead of government-imposed conservation mandates or whatever heavy-handed measure it is Markey wishes for. Making gas prices artificially respond to your whims makes the process of buying gas artificially painless, thereby removing all indicators for the consumer that he should have any concern at all about an oil economy.

Second, oil companies pay taxes through the nose, and have done so at a rapidly increasing rate over the last couple of years, thanks to rapidly increasing profis:
According to publicly available data on the top 27 energy companies tracked by the EIA, the total current income taxes paid worldwide by these companies nearly doubled between 2004 and 2006, increasing from $44.8 billion to $81.5 billion.”
Third, unless there are large profits for reinvesting in very expensive alternative energy research, and a financial incentive for being involved in the energy business at all, the best chance at finding a new energy source will be crushed. The oil industry is not obligated to carry Markey and his energy dreams on its shoulders like a whipped Atlas.

I guess the good news is that a potentially more informed critique of the oil industry is on its way, from the Jim Henson Company:
News has leaked out from the folks at Muppet central (The Jim Henson Company) that the next Muppet feature film will sport a story line that attacks oil companies. According to CHUD.com, the story will center around all our favorite Muppets producing a show to raise money to save their old theater. They need the money, of course, because an "evil character" is trying to buy the building so that he might tear it down to "get at the oil underneath."
If you have no stomach for either of these events, I imagine the YouTube below is a perfectly good stand-in for both:





Monday, March 31, 2008
Pat and Al ... Together!
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:22 PM
It's true.  Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton are in a pro-environmental commercial together.  It's hideous.  I'll let you know as soon as I can find the video (which Chris Matthews just showed) ...



« Previous1234Next »

FEATURES FEATURES

TH Exclusive: Interview with Bob Barr

Posted by: Matt Lewis
5/13/2008

Earmark... Defeated

Posted by: John Campbell
5/13/2008

The PAYGO Waive Off

Posted by: John Campbell
5/12/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 6 Minutes 8 Seconds Ago
Last updated 21 Minutes 48 Seconds Ago
Last updated 42 Minutes 52 Seconds Ago
Last updated 46 Minutes 7 Seconds Ago
Last updated 46 Minutes 38 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs