Archive for April 4th, 2012

April 4, 2012

The Obama Election Campaign Strategy on Energy Prices as expressed by Joe Biden.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Jeffers M. Dodge President & Editor of

by Jeffers M. Dodge April 4, 2012

In an interview with WAVY News in Norfolk VA, Vice President Joe Biden discusses Obama’s Election Energy Plan by taking credit for things Obama was not responsible for and by blaming high oil prices on Muslim Brotherhood instability that he is responsible for.

Biden claims that we are importing less foreign oil than ever before. This is because nobody is driving. There are two reasons for this: The Obama economy is so bad nobody can afford the cost of a gallon of Obama Oil that has doubled since he has come into office.

Biden claims we are producing more oil than ever before. There are two reasons for this; the first of which is because of George Bush. There was net increase in oil drilling permits approved under his administration designed to maintain a stable economy with minimal government interference and, secondly, because of new extraction technology that is getting a lot more oil and gas out of private lands Obama cannot control. Obama has had a net decrease in the approval of permits and is responsible for the closure of 1 in 5 coal fired energy plants in America. This is a fulfillment of his campaign promise to increase the price of energy with the objective to increase poverty that will create more dependent voters for his big government administration.

Biden claims we have doubled the mileage of the automobile by making them smaller, lighter and weaker resulting in more deaths from accidents in small cars in history. This is the unintended consequence of an out of control, economically destructive EPA that has become an election tool of the Democrat Party.

Biden claims we have instability in the Arab world. This is due exclusively to Obama’s weak, appeasing foreign policy as it pertains to the rise of his kindred Muslim Brotherhood, his hatred for Israel and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. All designed to drive up the futures markets for oil. Normal Americans would conclude that the best way to off set this would be to encourage domestic oil production including lifting the Obama Moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, Alaska and the Keystone Pipeline.

There is another major reason for the high price of a gallon of Obama Gas. Oil prices are pegged to the value of the dollar, which has been getting considerably weaker due to the incredible amount of inflation as a result of Obama’s printing, taxing and borrowing fiscal policies.

Biden suggest that instead of giving tax incentives to American oil exploration companies that risk their own capital to produce more oil to keep this economy stable and independent from Muslim Brotherhood owned oil, we should allow Obama to learn how to become a venture capitalist and investment banker just like his very successful opponent Mitt Romney. So far, Obama has risked and lost billions of tax payer’s money on alternative energy firms owned by his campaign donors. He has never succeeded on his investments with taxpayer’s money. Question for the Constitutional Scholars; since when did the U.S. Constitution give the President that kind of power? Shouldn’t Obama, who is a Constitutional Scholar, know this?

April 4, 2012

Texas vs. California – Chuck DeVore

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Chuck DeVore

Chuck DeVore Senior Visiting Scholar for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

One in five Americans calls California or Texas home. The two most populous states have a lot in common: a long coast, a sunny climate, a diverse population, plenty of oil in the ground, and Mexico to the south. Where they diverge is in their governance.

For six years ending in 2010, I represented almost 500,000 people in California’s legislature. I was vice chairman of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation and served on the Budget Committee. I was even a lieutenant colonel in the state’s National Guard. Before serving in Sacramento, I worked as an executive in California’s aerospace industry.

I moved to Texas late last year, joining the 2 million Californians who have packed up for greener pastures in the past ten years, with Texas the most common destination.

In his State-of-the-State address this January, California governor Jerry Brown said, “Contrary to those declinists who sing of Texas and bemoan our woes, California is still the land of dreams. . . . It’s the place where Apple . . . and countless other creative companies all began.”

Fast forward to March: Apple announced it was building a $304 million campus in Austin with plans to hire 3,600 people to staff it, more than doubling its Texas workforce.

California may be dreaming, but Texas is working.

California’s elected officials are particularly adept at dreaming up ways to spend other people’s money. While the state struggles with interminable deficits caused by years of reckless spending, the argument in Sacramento isn’t over how to reduce government; rather, it’s over how much to raise taxes and on whom. Governor Brown is pushing for a tax increase of $6.9 billion per year, to appear on this November’s ballot. California’s powerful government-employee unions and Molly Munger, a wealthy civil-rights attorney (wealthy by dint of being the daughter of Warren Buffett’s business partner) are offering two competing tax-hike plans. The silver lining may be that having three tax hikes on the ballot will turn voters off all of them.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Texas are grappling with a fiscal question of an entirely different sort: whether or not to spend some of the $6 billion set aside in the state’s rainy-day fund.

California’s government-employee unions routinely spend tens of millions of dollars at election time to maintain their hold on power. In Texas, the government unions are weak and don’t have collective bargaining, leaving trial attorneys as the main source of funding for Lone Star Democrats.

California’s habit of raising taxes to fund a burgeoning regulatory state isn’t without impact on its economy. Californians fork over about 10.6 percent of their income to state and local governments, above the U.S. average of 9.8 percent. Texans pay 7.9 percent. This affects the bottom line of both consumers and businesses.

With that money, Californians pay for more government. The number of non-education bureaucrats in California is close to the national average, at 252 per 10,000 people. Texas gets by with a bureaucracy 22 percent smaller: 196 per 10,000.

Of course, having more government employees means making more government rules. According to a 2009 study commissioned by the California legislature, state regulations cost almost $500 billion per year, or five times the state’s general-fund budget. These regulations ding the average small business for some $134,122 a year in compliance and opportunity costs.

While California has more bureaucrats, Texas has 17 percent more teachers, with 295 education employees per 10,000 people, compared to California’s 252.

The two states’ educational outcomes reflect this disparity. If we compare national test scores in math, science, and reading for the fourth and eighth grades among four basic ethnic and racial categories — all students, whites, Hispanics, and African-Americans — Texas beats California in every category, and by a substantial margin. In fact, Texas schools perform consistently above the national average across categories of age, race, and subject matter, while California schools perform well below the national average.

Apologists for the Golden State frequently point to Texas’s flourishing oil and gas industry as the reason for its success. Texas does lead the nation in proven oil reserves, but California ranks third. The real difference isn’t in geology but in public policy: Californians have decided to make it difficult to extract the oil under their feet.

Further, contrary to popular opinion, California’s refineries routinely produce a greater value of product than do refineries in Texas, mainly because the special gasoline blends that California requires are more costly.

Another advantage that Texas enjoys over California is in its civil-justice system. In 2002, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Texas’s legal system 46th in the nation, just behind California’s, which was 45th. Texas went to work improving its lawsuit environment, enacting major medical-malpractice reforms in 2003. Texas’s ranking consequently jumped ten places in eight years, while California’s dropped to 46th. In the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark loser-pays provision, which promises to further curtail frivolous lawsuits.

While California seeks more ways to tax success, it excels at subsidizing poverty. The percentage of households receiving public assistance in California was 3.7 percent in 2009, double Texas’s rate of 1.8 percent. Almost one-third of all Americans on welfare reside in California.

With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that only 18 percent of the Democrats who control both houses of California’s full-time legislature worked in business or medicine before being elected. The remainder drew paychecks from government, worked as community organizers, or were attorneys.

In Texas, with its part-time legislature, 75 percent of the Republicans who control both houses earn a living in business, farming, or medicine, with 19 percent being attorneys in private practice. Texas Democrats are more than twice as likely as their California counterparts to claim private-sector experience outside the field of law.

That Texas’s legislature is run by makers and California’s by takers is glaringly obvious from the two states’ respective balance sheets.

— Chuck DeVore served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010 and was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in 2010. He is currently a visiting senior fellow in fiscal policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

via Texas vs. California – Chuck DeVore – National Review Online.

%d bloggers like this: