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.

Are we giving up? The proposed Electoral College system has been very controversial. In my view, the
issue comes down to at least three points; it will make PA a neutral state, Central PA may actually count, and it will change the course of Presidential elections.

This plan will make PA a neutral state. We lose our swing state status if we implement this policy. Our district system would lead to the state splitting our 20 votes and because of this, politicians won’t visit our state (which on second thought, may be a good thing). Our battle ground status will be lost and Presidential contenders will consider our state inconsequential. It will be assumed that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh will be blue districts while the rest of PA is red.

However, this may not be a bad thing. If we implement this plan, our votes may actually count. PA will no longer be dominated by Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. We will not be suppressed by the liberals on the fringes of the state. The “T” has been electorally captured and it has seemed almost unfair
that our national political voice be dominated by two cities that are hours away. It seems impossible that a state with an overwhelmingly Republican general assembly, manages to turn blue every four years. As a citizen of the “T,” the district system seems like a chance to be heard and express our true
political identity. However, this works both ways If the states popular vote would go to the GOP then the state would remain neutral and again have little effect either way politically.

This move could have large effects nationally, pushing the election one way or another. But it is admitting that we cannot turn this state red. By submitting to the district system we are stating to the country that we may have given up on a Red Pennsylvania. We cannot win all 20 votes here in PA,
so we will try to squeeze as many votes as possible from the State. This will have huge effects nationally, possibly winning the election but at the cost of Pennsylvania.

The final consequence of the district system is that it takes powers away from the State. It is Republican second nature to prefer the states over the federal government. It is closer to the people and can represent them easier. The states’ right to have a say in the election of the president is the reason the Electoral College system was put in place. Our district has no real government; its elected official is a federal employee, not one of the states. The districts have no real power. Districts are gerrymandered and change every ten years. The states must preserve their position in the electoral process, because districts are too arbitrary to hold that position. There is little pride to be associated with the 19th or 16th district but there is a lot in being a Pennsylvanian. We cannot give up on PA, but we can show our true colors and turn her red. In the end we are the United States of America, not the United Districts.

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.

• Poll: 72% Say Taxpayers Not Getting Their Money’s Worth from Public Schools
  TONY PHYRILLAS
  So much for throwing more money at the problem, which is what Democrats and their Big Labor allies always suggest as way to fix the broken public education system in the United States. The vast majori...
• Pennsylvania prisons are a revolving door
  TONY PHYRILLAS
  The Pew Center on the States says in a recent report that the recidivism rate for prisoners released between 2004 and 2007 was 40 percent in Pennsylvania.Podcast: Pennsylvania prisons are a revolving...
• A Triad Q and A: Kevin Shivers, NFIB
  The Triadvocate
  This week, our TSN interview series continued as Tony May sat down for a chat with Kevin Shivers, the Pennsylvania State Director for the National Federation of Independent Business. Shivers talked ab...
• Understanding Real vs. "Sticker Price" Tuition
  PolicyBlog
  A common misconception in debating higher education funding is that the posted rate of tuition, or "sticker price," is what students actually pay. This is exemplified in a commentary by State Sen. Jak...
• Casey hires Sestak campaign spokeswoman
  Pennsylvania Ave.
  Reporters who covered Joe Sestaks Senate race will remember a late edition to the campaign team -- a veteran in communications who worked as a press secretary in the Clinton White House and before tha...
• Toomey on Trump, defends Club for Growth
  Pennsylvania Ave.
  Sen. Pat Toomey didnt have much to say about Donald Trump but he made it pretty clear whose side hes on in the Club for Growths attack on the real estate mogul turned reality star turned possible GOP...
• Scarnati: Release Funds from Legislative Surplus
  Pawatercooler.com
  via Micek… Senator Scarnati has introduced a bill to release most of the legislative surplus into the general fund. What’s the legislative surplus, you might ask?  Each year the legislature appro...
• Profile In Courage: Mel Gibson
  Pawatercooler.com
  In making The Passion, Gibson faced an onslaught of criticism from a small number of loud-mouthed whiners who wanted to see their names in the papers. So, incredibly, they attacked Mel for not rewrit...
• Getting Tougher on Abortion Clinics
  PA Family Institute Blog
  HB 574 Would Regulate Abortion Clinics like Surgical Centers PFC Applauds Committee Passage For Immediate Release April 11, 2011 Contact: Michael Geer or Thomas Shaheen (717) 545-0600 (Harrisburg, PA)...
• Medical Marijuana in Michigan: “Out of Control”
  PA Family Institute Blog
  “Medical Marijuana” has been proposed in legislation in the PA Senate. This Lansing State Journal story shows that pot use for medical purposes is “out of control,” and that there is a small n...
• May 2011 primary candidates
  Capitol Punmanship
  You can also find a list here. * Note: Addresses for some candidates, mostly those for law enforcement and judicial positions, were not provided by the elections office. They do not appear on the map.
• Scarnati Unveils Drilling Impact Fee Proposal: Says Budget Won't Pass Without It.
  Capitol Ideas with John L. Micek
  State Senate President Joe Scarnati ... ... this morning unveiled a proposed impact fee on Marcellus shale natural gas drillers thats projected to raise $45 million in its first year, rising to $172...
• Plugin by C. Murray Consulting

No related posts.