Guest OpEd: Obama Regulations are Killing U.S. Jobs by John E. Peterson

President Obama’s hostile attack on oil production and refining is accomplishing its defined goal of making oil more expensive so his green energy allies can compete.  And while it is a cold, hard fact that wind and solar energy will not replace a single barrel of oil in our transportation system, Obama’s policies are leading to skyrocketing prices at the pump and unaffordable heating costs for millions of Americans.  Nowhere is this more evident than here in the Northeast, where nearly eight million Americans still heat their homes with oil.

And by the time we’re ready to put the dark days of winter behind us and move into spring, thousands of workers in Eastern Pennsylvania will be heading into their own dark days as they face an uncertain economic future. Since the end of 2010, three oil refineries in the Philadelphia area have closed or face closure. Union officials have predicted the loss of more than 2,000 direct jobs and up to 20,000 indirect jobs that were supported by these refineries.

Those same union officials have been very active over the past few months lobbying federal officials in Washington to keep the refineries open. I commend them on their attempts – although late – to save the individuals and communities that stand to lose everything.

In addition to union activity, several liberal Members of Congress have expressed concern over the potential for refinery closures. Recently, my former colleagues Representatives Markey (D-MA), Waxman (D-CA) and Brady (D-PA) all derided refining companies for putting “profits over people.” This statement came in response to an Energy Information Administration analysis indicating the recent refinery closures could lead to price spikes and home heating oil shortages in the northeast, some in Congress are starting to get concerned about energy costs to American consumers.

If union members and some liberal Democrats are as concerned about energy supplies as their recent statements indicate, why did they support all-cost, no-benefit EPA regulations that have contributed to the closures in the first place?  Additionally, why did they oppose legislation that would have helped keep refineries open and support bills that make the plight of American refining worse?

According to a Department of Energy report issued in 2011, the compounded burden of federal regulations was a significant factor in the closure of 66 petroleum refineries in the U.S. over the past 20 years. Since 2008, the recession and refinery closures have led to 3,000 lost jobs at American refineries prior to the announcement of the northeast refinery closures. Now the employees of those refineries will be added to those devastating numbers.

Congress has considered legislation this year that would have at least taken a step to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately, neither the unions nor my previously mentioned former colleagues supported these initiatives.  Specifically, these bills include:

The Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would have stopped EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations that the Agency itself has admitted will do absolutely nothing to reduce global GHG concentrations, and that Congressional hearings revealed are already costing refining and manufacturing jobs. Waxman, Markey and Brady all opposed this measure.

The McConnell Amendment, the Senate companion to the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would have taken similar steps toward saving refinery jobs.  For the record here in Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey supported the amendment and Senator Casey opposed it.

The TRAIN Act and the Kinzinger-Gonzalez Tier III Amendment were measures that would have simply required a realistic economic and jobs analysis of the blizzard of regulations facing refineries and other American industrial businesses. The amendment would have applied such analysis on a new EPA gasoline regulation that will have almost no environmental benefit, but which studies indicate could lead to an additional 4 to 7 refinery closures. Once again, Waxman, Markey, and Brady all opposed these measures.

Sadly, the trend of overregulation and congressional hostility to traditional energy sources will inevitably result in more jobs moving overseas to foreign competitors not strangled by our country’s regime of burdensome environmental and business regulations.  And that’s on top of the basic energy cost increase that will continue to hit American consumers who must endure the consequences of refinery closures like those in Pennsylvania.  In fact, the three recent closures account for nearly half of the Northeast’s total refining capacity.

Anyone interested in the best interests of American consumers, the survival of U.S. manufacturers, and the preservation of refinery jobs should oppose today’s overregulation. This would be the most effective action to keep down home heating oil and fuel costs, prevent refinery closures, and to stop our jobs from going overseas.

Related posts:

1. NFIB Requesting Sensible Regulations
2. Prevailing Wage Reform Possible in 2012

A Reason to Endorse

It’s endorsement time again, time for the barrage of emails, phone calls, calling for and against candidates and for and against endorsement. I’d like to step back and look at some of the reasons why I believe endorsement is a good thing.
Since this time around we are discussing this during a senate race I’ll use a senatorial story to share some of my reasons.

In 1913 the 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified. This amendment was the result of a populist push by progressives around the country, specifically by Democrat William Jennings Bryan. The 16th amendment changed the way senators were elected, from an election by the state legislature to direct election by the people of the state.

Fast forward to 2012 where we see a similar populist push led against the Republican party of Pennsylvania to end endorsement by elected state committee representation and to just have a direct vote during the primary.

Is the GOP’s endorsement process a holdover from a bygone era or is it a valuable principle rooted in the very fabric a Republican form of government? I believe that the endorsement process is much more in line with our founding fathers vision for our country than a direct appeal to the populace.

It is the right of individuals and organizations to endorse and support any candidate they choose. It is the duty of the Republican state committee, as elected representatives of registered republicans around the state to endorse and select a standard bearer for their party.

Pennsylvania also enjoys a primary election whereby voters can accept or reject an endorsed candidate as well as a general election whereby they choose, by direct election, the senator for the state. Being for endorsement does not mean you are against a contested primary election. Competition is critical. Competition for endorsements, competition for money, competition for airtime and competition for votes on election day.

• Endorsement is a representative form of selection that is in line with our foundation as a republic.
• Endorsement is a competitive process by which candidates can gauge their support without having to raise a lot of money.
• Endorsement is a process that allows for in depth questioning and analysis that goes beyond the typical 30 second media soundbites.
• Endorsement is an open process that any member of the party can choose to go through.

Parties endorse, people endorse, groups endorse, tea parties endorse, it’s all a part of politics in a free society and I don’t think people should try and restrict that.

No related posts.

And Then There Were Four – Guest post by J. Michael Glick

Suddenly, we have reached the South Carolina primary and the GOP field has drastically dwindled down to four active candidates. Mitt has been the clear front-runner throughout, but Newt has been surging as we approach South Carolina. Rick and Ron are still chugging along at a relatively respectable pace. They both deserve enormous credit given that they still have the support to remain in the race while the rest of the field has evaporated.

This article attempts to take a look at each candidate and to break down what I see as the primary variables for each. Whether you agree with my thoughts or not, your comments are always appreciated.

Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney is a very successful man. He is a successful politician and a successful capitalist. He is an iconic American businessman. He understands what it takes to run a successful company and has a proven track record. I believe that he has the mindset we need to turn America around and get our economic engine thundering. He does have an enormous amount of wealth and he should be respected for the work he did to acquire that wealth. Such an accumulation of wealth is simply American.

However, there is a line that must be drawn for any wealthy politician. A politician must be able to relate to people in order to shrug off accusations of elitism. Mitt has attempted to do this. And he has failed, miserably. I am sure we have all witnessed the clips of Mitt trying to claim middle class status by saying things like, “I have also feared receiving the pink slip.” His attempts at relating to the average American may have been a workable stunt, until he stumbles over his own bank account. For example, he attempted to make a $10,000 with Rick Perry on the national debate stage.

$10,000? Seriously Mitt?! A $10,000 check would be a Godsend to millions of American families. Such a quip is wildly irresponsible and arrogant. Someone needs to remind Mitt that he is speaking to the American people, not his chums at the country club. Unfortunately, this slip seems to be emblematic of the Romney worldview, as he recently referred to more than $300k in speaking fees over a 12-month period as a “small amount.” Mitt needs to lock it up. This kind of language is going to be dynamite for Obama and his friendly super PACs if Mitt claims the GOP nomination.

Newt Gingrich:

Newt was born and raised in Central PA (bonus points). He was a professional academic before he evolved into the political prince of the south. He is a powerful individual with a very respectable political track record and a sharp intellect. He successfully led a Republican Congress on a tremendous charge to a majority in the 1990’s. He knows Washington as well as anyone. In office, he will know what needs to be done to get things done. With such in depth legislative knowledge, he will know what fights are winnable and exactly how to win them. He has the audacity and know-how to accomplish things where a Washington amateur may be more prone to stumble.

Unfortunately, he seems to have the emotional stability of a teenage girl. Most recently, he could not control his anger after his loss in Iowa. And overall his decade’s worth of bouncing around through various wives and mistresses is abhorrent to any person aspiring for Christian character. Newt Gingrich, please don’t pull a Herman Cain and deny the truth of your exploits until all is slowly and painfully revealed. If I have learned anything about a Presidential race, all of your exploits will be revealed. Admit your mistakes and ask for forgiveness, like a man of honor would do.

Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum: one of our own! I am personally proud of Rick for making the run and making such a big impact. I never would have guessed that he would outshine the likes of Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman. But here he is, one of the final four. Rick Santorum is man of principle and a true family man. He has a sharp sense of the real dangers that still threaten our nation’s security. He will not be afraid to take necessary action to protect us. Rick is a winner and does not back down from a fight. It can be said that he even encourages a fight, which may be his fatal flaw.

Rick has what it takes to win the White House. But he just takes it too far. I can respect the social views that Rick has, even if I cannot say I agree with him. His logic is sound and is based on principle. But he is far too abrasive in his language to take a campaign all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue. He has alienated far too much of the population with his rhetoric. No candidate will inflame the left more than the nomination of Rick Santorum. He just has too much rhetorical baggage to be a successful candidate and he has shown no sign of toning it down. So, again, I have so much respect for Rick Santorum, but he does not stand a chance against Obama.

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul? The free world exists today because of American military power. Ron Paul wants to essentially eliminate our global military presence. Such a move would leave a power vacuum, which would naturally be filled by the likes of China and Russia. It would embolden the radical regimes of Iran and North Korea. Ron Paul as president would destabilize the global power structure. There is no way to predict or prepare for how his policies would impact the world order. His economic policies are a whole other beast with just as much volatility as his foreign policy.

I must say that I do respect the man. He has thought provoking positions and his message resonates with many Americans. He is a radical alternative to the establishment, which is attractive to many. He will continue to be a powerful voice on the national stage, which will allow us to see the possibilities of political change through a much wider lens.

No related posts.

Make sure you vote on May 17th and tell all your friends to vote. Use the voters guides below to help you become more informed.

Here are links to several voters guides around the state.

• PA Family Institute Voters Guide
• League of Woman’s Voters, Voters Guide
• Lancaster County Republicans Voters Guide

Visit VotesPA.com to learn where and how to vote.

No related posts.

Irresponsible liberals refuse to confront staggering national debt or reform entitlements. Now our kids owe billions to finance the promises we made to ourselves. How will they pay? From Heritage Action.

YouTube Link

No related posts.