President Barack Obama has shown true leadership cowardliness last week with his threats to veto the payroll tax cut extension since Republicans are adding on to it an approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which promises to employ more than 10,000 workers and decrease gasoline prices in the United States.
“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama announced. Obama accused the Republicans for playing "politics and focusing on extraneous issues" instead of following his every whim.
If we thought Obama was the only one who cared more for his own reelection than the jobs of 10,000 unemployed Americans, think again. Harry Reid, senate Majority Leader and sidekick to Obama has announced last Friday that, “If the House sends us their bill with Keystone on it, they are just wasting valuable time because it will not pass the Senate.”
Approving the Keystone Pipeline will not only create many jobs, but will also lead to lower gas prices and increased national security since the oil originates from our ally, Canada, and will be processed within the U.S.
The only reason the Keystone Pipeline has not yet been approved, is actually the same reason why we aren't drilling in many oil-rich areas throughout the United States and that is none other than the environmentalists who have the Democrats sitting in their palms thanks to the grease they send their way.
Victor Davis Hanson wrote a brilliant column which clarifies the importance and necessity for the country to become energy independent through the extraction of natural resources previously unknown or difficult to extract and cutting our dependence on foreign Arabic oil. New technology has made many oil wells previously thought inaccessible or too expensive, extremely doable – if only environmentalists would take a step back. Additionally, many new oil and gas wells have been discovered, thus greatly increasing our quantities.
With expanded exploration and conservation, the United States could also eventually supply half its own petroleum needs. If we were to eliminate just 5 million barrels of our current daily 9 million barrels of imported petroleum, the annual savings could reach nearly $200 billion per year. Eventually, the new gas and oil could add another 1.6 million new jobs and add up to nearly $1 trillion in federal revenue.
That windfall would cut out about a third of our present annual trade deficit -- well apart from additional income earned by new natural gas exportation. "Investments," "shovel-ready jobs" and "stimulus" would finally become more than empty sloganeering.
Current crises in American foreign policy -- Iran's efforts to obtain the bomb, the protection of an embattled Israel, stopping the funding of radical Islamists -- might be freed from the worries of perennial OPEC threats of cutoffs and price spikes.
Federal subsidies for inefficient corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest also could cease. That would save the Treasury billions of dollars and allow millions of American acres to return to food production to supply an increasingly hungry world.
The Obama administration's efforts to subsidize "green" energy so far have proved both uneconomical and occasionally corrupt -- as we have seen in the Solyndra affair. Yet more gas and oil can offer America critical breathing space until better technology makes wind, solar and electric power more price-competitive -- without massive federal subsidies and a marked reduction in our standard of living.
Of course, there are sizable interests opposed to the new American gas and oil finds -- not all of them foreign governments, but instead reflected in the current Obama administration policy of halting new pipelines, placing moratoriums on offshore drilling, and putting lucrative federal lands off-limits. Yet if the United States does not produce much of the fuel that it uses, will the oil-exporting Gulf sheikdoms, Nigeria or Iran better protect the world's environment than American-based oil companies? Would our oil dollars or theirs be less likely to fuel terrorism, illegal arms sales and rogue regimes?
For the American poor and unemployed, how liberal is it, really, to keep energy prices high while stalling millions of high-paying private-sector jobs that would both lower government costs in entitlements and empower the working classes?
In the current presidential campaign, three issues dominate: national security, fiscal solvency and high unemployment. Development of America's vast new gas and oil finds addresses all three at once.
The idea of vastly expanding American gas and oil production in the 21st century is almost as unbelievable as the present administration's apparent reluctance to capitalize on its windfall.
Prior to the super-committee’s creation when all were still in the midst of heated arguments whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, I, like many others, have argued that the right shouldn’t compromise, for the end result would be that the right will give in without receiving anything in return from the left.
How true that has proven to be.
The Democrats remain steadfast in their desire to constantly increase taxes, seemingly until all are equally impoverished and reliant on government. In order to present an image of reasonability, they’ve adopted a bipartisan attitude and have actively promoted the slashing of spending, though only of one department: the Department of Defense.
Defending and protecting this country is one of the few basic obligations that the federal government has been granted as is clearly outlined in the constitution. Defense spending had amounted to close to fifty percent of the federal budget from 1792-1860 and as recently as the 1950-s and 60’s, forty – fifty percent of all federal expenses were allotted for the defense department. Fast forward to 2010 and only twenty percent of our total budget has gone for defense despite the two wars we are still in the midst of.
Despite the proportionate shift and tremendous increase of spending during the last half a century, which has greatly weakened the dollar, Democrats consider defense as the only federal expense which it could do get by with far less funds. Their indifference towards national safety isn’t quite that surprising when one remembers that the left’s main objective for all federal spending is the purchase of votes. Since soldiers and veterans have always voted and currently still vote in overwhelming percentages for the Republican Party, it only makes sense for them to use federal funds to further grow the food stamps base or welfare bloc which are largely loyal to the hand that feeds them yet stifles their opportunity for individual success.
Several months ago, the left, the establishment, and the majority of Washington have revealed their callous attitude towards wasting American dollars and towards the country’s defense when they’ve thrown fifty billion dollars under the bus through the dumping of Mubarak. Mubarak had been an American ally and a fighter of terrorism, and his military’s main funding stemmed from the U.S. government. With Mubarak overthrown and dead the military has currently taken control of the country until conditions are stable enough for election, to the anger of the Muslim Brotherhood. Stupidly, the U.S. White House has recently called for "the full transfer of power to a civilian government" despite the obvious results which will follow. A speedy election in Egypt at this time is equivalent to handing over the power to the only organized group, the power-hungry Muslim Brotherhood who is drooling with hatred against the U.S. and Israel and will use the U.S. funded military to fight against democracy. But hey, fifty billion is kids talk when dealing with trillions, no?
To all who have been following politics and aware of the ways of Washington, The Super Committee’s failure to do its job has therefore not come as a surprise. The 1.2 trillion dollars of cuts which they’ve been unable to agree upon at the congress-imposed deadline will therefore be split evenly between cuts in the defense department and cuts in domestic programs, to be implemented throughout the next ten years. These 600 billion dollars of automatic cuts from defense spending are on top of the 350 billion dollars Boehner had compromised to Obama during the raising-the-debt-ceiling-talks. Thus, despite the global turbulence and weakened state of our military, defense spending is scheduled to undergo a total cut of 950 billion dollars.
The decision to cut half of the 1.2 trillion dollars from defense and half from domestic programs, if the Super Committee failed –which it had, benefits Democrats from both angles; defense as highlighted above and domestic programs (entitlement programs) because it reinforces their false message that the right wishes to cut Medicare, etc. In truth, conservatives wish to reform these programs since they are doomed to collapse if they are left as is. Reforming them will hopefully result in less money spent, but conservatives aren’t simply seeking to cut care and “throw grandma under the bus” as portrayed by the false picture the left has painted of them.
The total disregard the left has shown for the defense of this country goes hand in hand with their obvious contempt for the constitution. Sadly, this isn’t even news to most. The entire debt-ceiling deal though, has shown that congress lacks basic decency such as creating deadlines which are actual deadlines and not simply a phony front.
What do I mean? As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has explained, although the Super Committee’s deadline has passed thus leading to the automatic cuts, none of those cuts will be effective prior to 2013. Therefore, the Congress still has an entire year to figure out a way to avoid or circumvent the cuts from ever taking place without substituting them with serious substantial cuts. Thus deals can still be worked out, and the deadline was no deadline. It was an outright hoax and game played on the American people solely to have enabled Obama to receive his additional trillions to frivol away. This allowed them to present an image of balance and responsibility despite the ZERO dollars in cuts prior to 2013 and possible Zero cuts after 2013.
Although the news that the deadline wasn’t a real deadline may benefit the defense department if a circular route to avoid the cuts is created, it once again illustrates the false nature of both parties in congress and the game they play with average Americans. They peer down at us ordinary Americans with contempt and derision, ignore the voice of the people, and treat the people as ignorant bumbling fools who aren’t capable of understanding such complex matters, all while high-fiving and back-slapping one another on another job well done.
Even if the current Congress doesn’t pass legislation which will halt the cuts from ever taking place, since the delayed deadline will take place after a new Congress is sworn in and (hopefully) a new president has taken oath. The new congress can thus prevail, twist, and pass legislation which will prevent any of the cuts of actually taking place. Either way, Obama’s trillions of dollars will have been spent to the last drop before a single penny of responsible action to counterbalance the raising of the debt ceiling is implemented, and will likely join the rest of the debt which will fall upon the shoulders of future generations.
The current congress’s actions have spoken louder than words; deadlines are worth less than the ink used to write them up while the defense of this country doesn’t matter that much. The president and John Boehner, the current minority leader, have jointly created these phony spending cuts which will or will not take place, depending on the upcoming congress and they are both guilty of its consequences. The entire super-committee was a cowardly excuse which Boehner created solely to exonerate himself for having handed the left all they wished for on a golden platter. The tough action he claimed to have taken was a pretense created to satisfy the conservative base, and is now visible to all. John Boehner, we are far from stupid, although the left and you believe us to be.
The time has therefore come to “throw them all out” as Peter Schweitzer has so eloquently explained in great detail in his book.
