Energy and Jobs

As long as energy is expensive and less abundant we will be harming our ability to compete on the world market, and decreasing jobs at most local levels. It’s a steady static downward spiral that we cannot afford to stay in.
One party has blocked new sources of energy steadily for thirty years, and during that time we’ve seen steady offshoring jobs and decreasing expectations in America. It’s time to put a stop to that, it’s time to build America anew. But ignoring reality will not gain us any relief.

There are new technologies for solar, wind, and geothermal that show a great deal of promise, but they are not ready today and cannot do the job. We must continue to use coal over the next thirty years, and we must find ways to make it cleaner while doing so. We must expand our use of nuclear energy as well to fill the gap of burgeoning energy needs.
Remember when energy prices go up, so too do food prices. While that’s a discomfort here in the US, in many countries it’s the difference between having flour or soy protein for a meal, or eating grass or foraging in the woods for food daily in poor countries. We must make energy abundant for our children and grandchildren, as well as relieve this dire pressure for the rest of the world, but we must first immediately increase our energy production capabilities across the board in our own country if we are to maintain the ability to solve the future energy problems. 50-70 Petawatthours of electricity will be needed by 2050, and we are in the 12-15 petwatthour range now. That’s a huge task and challenge, and it will take Americans working together and using an “all of the above” approach to solve.

The other impact to jobs of importing so much energy is that it’s money we send offshore – if we send the money offshore, it’s not here anymore working in our economy, which also leads to fewer jobs. The wealth of the future lies in energy creation, and it’s about time that the US started leading that new wave energy sources as we have all others. Here you see John McCain speaking in Ohio on the extreme import of extending the energy base we have now to create jobs and security while building the path to our energy future.

This topic might seem a bit dry, but it’s actually critically important to our future, especially now in this time of economic downturn. Please give it your attention.

The Housing Bubble Link Round up

First you must read Robert Bidinotto’s synopsis here:

While Barack Obama was getting campaign contributions from Fannie Mae’s Franklin Raines, John McCain was sounding the alarm about the crisis to come and trying to do something about it. On May 25, 2006, McCain spoke on the floor of the Senate on behalf of his proposed Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation

Robert’s done the best collection of pertinent links, after poking through those please read Lee Cary’s piece on the Obama/Daley housing debacle in Chicago at the American Thinker.

Mum

McCain has spoken about the financial crisis at length, in a couple of places I do disagree with him. Much of the fault here does lie with Congress, and John seems unwilling to assign their portion of blame. Perhaps he’s saving that for the debates however, you’ve seen plenty of material here. One thing I do know: Capitalism works best with less regulations. This whole mess is because of a crazy quilt of financial regs including CRA that work at counter purposes and which result in two socialist government backed housing lending agencies both ripe for corruption and abuse.

Big Government Casts a Big Shadow

The latest McCain-Palin advertisements, Is Raines next to go under the bus?:

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

More on this from Ed at Hot Air and at Jammie Wearing Fool

John McCain on the AIG Bailout

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on the situation in the financial markets and AIG:

“Today, the government was forced to commit $85 billion to stop the collapse of AIG, another in a growing series of events that includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These actions stem from failed regulation, reckless management, and a casino culture on Wall Street that has crippled one of the most important companies in America. The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG. We must not bailout the management and speculators who created this mess. They had months of warnings following the Bear Stearns debacle, and they failed to act.

“We should never again allow the United States to be in this position. We need strong and effective regulation, a return to job-creating growth and a restoration of ethics and the social contract between businesses and America. Important questions remain to be answered by Wall Street. Did executives mislead investors and regulators about the severity of the problem? We must investigate whether or not there was misrepresentation on part of the company executives. If there was, there must be penalties. We need to change the way Washington and Wall Street does business, and as President I will.”

Crisis, and how to Overcome it

While the markets tumble Barack Obama is hob-knobbing with Celebrities and High Rollers in Hollywood.:

The polls are one thing, but it sounds like Barack Obama might make progress in other ways during two ultra-rich Beverly Hills fund-raisers Tuesday. According to Politico, the events could raise more than $9 million, which, if it happens, would be a one-day record.

More also at Jammie Wearing Fool.

It is also noteworthy that Obama made a remark about the crisis:

“Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections; have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

If things got “shredded” then the Democrat-controlled senate Anti-trust Competition and Consumer Rights Sub Committee helped, and Barack’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, was a member of that committee.

Why is Whoopi Naive?

In case you didn’t catch it, Senator John McCain was on the view the other day, and in a discussion of Supreme Court justices and the import of appointing strict constitutionalist judges Whoopi took the opportunity to make a wise crack about having to worry about being a slave again. Not like there’s been slavery here since 1865, but more on that in a minute. She put on quite a show of being flustered by that thought, and John McCain graciously ceded the point.

What else can you do without seeming boorish in the face of such blazing ignorance? (or such carefully crafted theater…)

Whoopi seems to think it was the Supreme Court that stopped slavery, however it was not. It was Republicans, and some War Democrats  who put the future of the country ahead of party, you know Whoopi, war Democrats like Joe Lieberman. Together with President Lincoln they ended slavery in the United States.

The first step was issuing the two part Emancipation Proclamation — it was one of those dreaded Executive Orders that the extreme left and right always condemn nowadays; if Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were around back then they probably both would have been calling for impeachment of President Lincoln.

The second part of ending slavery since executive orders are sometimes impermanent was ammending the Constitution of the United States of America, adding the thirteenth ammendment. Doing that ended slavery for all time here. It was followed by the fourteenth ammendment that secured the rights of the ex-slaves, and the fifteenth ammendment that ensured their right to vote. Now since all of the ammendments are part of the constitution, what part of strict constitutionalism is Whoopi in fear of?

I mean doesn’t she want judges who interpret these ammendments strictly? If there weren’t a long history of judges doing just that we could still have shades of slavery today in some states, I guess strict is a good way to interpret the constitution when it comes to individual rights.

What part of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth ammendment doesn’t Whoopi get? Is this really naivete, or is this calculated political posturing and hysterical theater? I guess Whoopi’s the only one who can tell us which it is: just ignorance or just theater.

Thirteenth Ammendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Fourteenth Ammendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Fiftteenth Ammendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A Study in Media Bias – Outlined by Bidinotto

This post is the last in which I will compare Bush and McCain, the differences are many, and that’s direction the left wants the conversation to go. I’d rather look at the future, as the candidates should be.

Robert Bidinotto has been doing the best job of detailing the media and blogosphere agitprop against Sarah Palin, this morning I recommend that you read his two part series on the ABC interview:

Sarah vs. ABC, Round 1 (UPDATE on MSM “spin”)
Sarah vs. ABC, Round 2: A case study in media bias

One other thing: the question on “Bush Doctrine” was obvious setup to declare McCain / Palin as four more years of Bush, which is the main campaign point that Barack’s campaign would have you believe. ABC’s collusion in trying to perpetuate that is ridiculously transparent in the snips I’ve seen. While the left will tell us that Charlie gave Sarah pause on the question, in reality it’s like asking her to futher the talking points of the left. I would have paused at that question too, since the Bush Doctrine means many different things to many different people, and the left boiling it down to “pre-emptive strikes” is foolishness. It really was more than pre emptive strikes, and it has changed over the years since 9/11.

My reply would have been “Which Bush Doctrine Charlie?” By making him specify what he was getting at she helped make the ploy transparent. The only thing she might have done better would be to say that the McCain Doctrine is what saved the Bush Doctrine from defeat in Iraq.

I don’t think the left’s BDS has as much traction or heft as they think it does, as President Bush’s poll numbers continue to rise while Congress’ numbers lie in the sewer. This post is the last in which I will compare Bush and McCain, the differences are many, and that’s direction the left wants the conversation to go. I’d rather look at the future, as the candidates should be.

The conversation needs to turn to energy, the economy, and victory in Iraq, not the crap we’ve been re-hashing for five years as that’s gotten rather circular.

Update: Charles over at Little Green Footballs has the interview up, it’s a must see.