5
Cruising the same wavelength with Darrell Issa and The Heritage Foundation
It is part of the Economy 4.0 beat to keep an eye on new rules of the road for the economy. And so it was with interest I noted pieces in Politico, the New York Times and the LA Times about Congressman Darrell Issa's letter sent out to businesses across the land.
The incoming head of the Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee in the House of Representatives is asking more than 150 companies, trade groups, and think tanks to identify existing and new Obama Administration regulations that are hurting business. In the letter, Congressman Issa also solicits tips on what to change: "suggestions on reforming identified regulations and the rulemaking process would be appreciated." Critics say this is an example of the new Republican leadership being too cozy to business.
MSNBC was also able to obtain what it labeled as the text of the original form letter. However, in search for a more primary source, I typed a line from the letter...
"The new limits on "effluent" discharges from construction sites will cost $810.8 million annually resulting in the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs."
...into an online search engine, and got an interesting result: an October document from the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation containing this quite similar paragraph:
"Limits on 'effluent' discharges from construction sites imposed by the EPA. Annual cost: $810.8 million. The cost of the requirements will force the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs, according to the EPA. Homebuyers also will bear some of the costs, with an increase in mortgage costs of about $1,953."
The pattern repeats with some other lines from the Congressman's letter. A search on this line:
"In fiscal year 2010, federal agencies promulgated 43 major new regulations."
...yields the same link, The Heritage Foundation's "Red Tape Rising: Obama's Torrent of New Regulation" by James Gattuso, Diane Katz, and Stephen Keen that contains the remarkably similar line:
"...federal agencies promulgated 43 rules during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010."
The Congressman's letter also says of the cost of regulation that it is "often referred to as the hidden tax." The first sentence of The Heritage Foundation report is: "The cost of regulation has often been called a hidden tax."
To be sure, great minds can think alike. I'd be interested to read what you think.
Anyone who reads Jeff Sharlett books knows Issa is part of the Fellowship aka Family. Their purpose is to take over and rule the country because they are smarter and wiser than the rest of us. That he needs Heritage to do his writing for him makes one wonder.......
We are seeing much the same pairings of GOP legislators and these so-called ":think tanks" on the issue of transportation. They have systematically taken on the issue of high speed passenger rail, with the think tanks acting as the attack dogs, calling such projects "boondoggles" and spreading misinformation that no one will ride trains, when all evidence is to the contrary. Sadly, in the case of Ohio and Wisconsin, they have succeeded by backing gubernatorial candidates that said they would refuse ARRA funding for passenger rail projects.
I'd like to see what answers they're going to have for people when gasoline starts hitting $4 and $5 dollars a gallon.
We wouldn't be facing $5 gasoline if Obama hadn't shut down drilling in the coast and if we aggressively pursued all energy we can access from this country, including nuclear, coal, oil drilling off shore and in ANWAR.
Remove the barriers to aggressive pursuit of energy wherever it is in this country and I predict the cost of energy will drop like a rock and we'll no longer have to toady up to the middle east dictators.
Here's a reality check. I have worked in the oil industry and I can tell you one thing, the days of cheap oil are OVER. Even if we drilled all over ANWAR and sucked out every barrel the cost would be much higher than existing Alaska oil simply because it costs much more to explore today than it did 40 years ago(i.e. wages are higher, etc). Another reality is that IF oil were to stay at $60 a barrel ANWAR would not be developed because it would not make economic sense, costs to develop are too high.
From an oilman's perspective the "next" barrel will always be more expensive because we have probably already found and developed all of the cheap oil. Oil supply "could" expand if oil were say $200 a barrel because we would have an incentive to explore in more hostile environments such as the north or in deeper waters around the world. But keep in mind, we need the higher prices to do so because both the costs and the risks are much higher. Oil companies WILL NOT act altruistically to provide more oil for America simply because America wants cheap oil. Oil companies will develop more supply only if it can make more money for its shareholders-end of statement. Just ask any oil company this question - if you found a great and cheaply developed source of oil in America next month would you sell it for less than market because it was easy to find and cheap to develop? We all know what the answer would be-NO!
So forget the notion that if one political party or the other changed "this or that regulation" that there would be an abundance of cheap oil to be had. It's a fairy tale and if any political party tells you any different you are simply a fool to believe them - I know I've been on the other side of the drilling rig.
