Recent Cause Activity
Okay.....calling liberty minded folks...we need someone to step up as Sussex County Chair. I am Vice-Chair, but I am very, very ill. I can't take on the role. Looking for someone with liberty in their heart and fire in their belly!
Updated: The cause has reached 25 members.
Check out www.freedomsphoenix.com
when I tried to link it, it wouldn't work...just another source of folks tired of all of this nonsense
Join G. Edward Griffin In Pittsburgh!
See "Freedom Conference 2009: G20 Alternative" link above.
Tomorrow is a very important day for Delaware. Wendy Jones is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for the 19th Senatorial District seat. The election is tomorrow (Monday, August 3rd). If you live in that district Wendy needs your vote. Wendy has proven to be faithful to the Libertarian principles of smaller government, lower taxes, and more (personal and economic) freedom and is an excellent representative of the Libertarian Party of Delaware. To learn her positions on the issues go to her website: http://www.delawareliberty.com/issues/.
From the Libertarian Party's national site:
What is a Libertarian?
Let's start with Webster's definition:
libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.
Libertarian: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.
Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.
Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.
Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook.
In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.
How large is the Libertarian Party?
In terms of political activity (i.e. number of candidates, access to the ballot, and elected office holders), the Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in America. We’re active in all 50 states and have more than 250,000 registered voters.
What kind of offices do Libertarians run for and hold?
Around the nation there are Libertarian mayors, county executives, county council members and even a Libertarian sheriff! Libertarians also serve on school boards and in hundreds of local offices. In 2008, more than 15 million votes were cast for Libertarian candidates around the nation.
While we are most successful at the local level for now, we run candidates at all levels of government, even President of the United States.
Our elected Libertarians are hard at work saving you money and protecting your civil liberties. In fact, Libertarians saved Americans over $2.2 billion in 2004 alone.
What kind of people join the Libertarian Party?
People like you. People who used to be Republicans, Democrats, and independents – from all walks of life. They joined us because they realize that we’re the only political party working for their best interests.
Those who join us realize that, unlike the two major parties, we place the interests of our nation ABOVE the interests of our political party. While the Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain their own power, we exist to grasp power for the benefit of you and millions of other Americans across our nation.
FYI: Things to think about.
Options
Disable
Get Free Shots
Close
Snap Shares for charity
* Home
* About
*
Resolute Determination
"You can not fail if you resolutely determine that you will not." -Abraham Lincoln
Feeds:
Posts
Comments
Harry Reid is human too…
January 10, 2010 by charliecopeland
Just a quick weigh-in on the Reid controversy when he used the term “negro” during the last campaign (a word which is in this year’s census, I believe). Trent Lott was run out of town by making a poor choice of words. He shouldn’t have been, and it was embarrassing. Harry Reid’s policies are the real problem. If he spoke poorly, join the club and move on.
Many on the Left have a fixation with Politically Correct speech. It is a joke and hypocritical. Speak your mind and take your lumps. Then, move on — not as in Moveon.org — they represent the hypocrites.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
An Insatiable Moloch: California’s ails are a cautionary tale for Delaware
January 10, 2010 by michaelstafford
Moloch- any person or thing which demands or requires costly sacrifices.
What happens when government becomes a Moloch- demanding ever more costly financial sacrifices from the taxpayers and business to feed its insatiable appetite for revenue? What happens when out of control public spending, entrenched and empowered public employees’ unions, and an ever increasing web of government regulation converge? The answer is: a perfect storm. In other words, you get California.
George Will has a column in today’s NJ that is, frankly, a clarion call to action in Delaware coming, as it does, amidst dire predictions over our own state’s fiscal health and budget. In Will’s words:
California, a laboratory of liberalism, is spiraling downward, driven by a huge budget deficit…
It took years for liberalism’s redistributive itch to create an income tax so steeply progressive that it prompts the flight from the state of wealth-creators: “Between 1990 and 2007,” Voegeli writes, “some 3.4 million more Americans moved from California to one of the other 49 states than moved to California from another state.”
And the state’s income tax — liberalism codified — intensifies the effects of business cycles on the state’s revenue stream: During booms, the stream surges and stimulates government spending; during contractions, revenue dwindles, but the new government spending continues….
It took years for liberalism’s mania for micromanaging life with entangling regulations to make California’s once-creative economy resemble Gulliver immobilized by the Lilliputians’ many threads. The state, which between 1990 and 2007 lost 26 percent of its factory jobs and 35 percent of its high-tech manufacturing jobs, ranks behind only New York, another of liberalism’s laboratories, in the number of outward-bound moving vans….
It took years for servile liberalism to turn the state into what Voegeli calls a “unionocracy,” run by and for unionized public employees….
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is one reason California’s government employees — their numbers grew 24 percent between 1997 and 2007 — are the nation’s most highly compensated. And why California’s economy is being suffocated by the weight of government.
In addition, “California’s business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state’s.”
California’s crack up, and similar problems in other bastions of liberal governance- like New York- has serious consequences for the nation. Put simply “[n]ational economic revival is being impeded because one-eighth of the nation’s population lives in a state that is driving itself into permanent stagnation. California’s perennial boast — that it is the incubator of America’s future — now has an increasingly dark urgency.”
California’s experience is a cautionary tale for Delaware. Government has now become our largest industry, and one of our only growth sectors. That is simply an unsustainable situation particularly when coupled with the gutting of our manufacturing sector. Out of control spending in California, and the increased taxation necessary to pay for it, has driven talent, and innovation, right out of the state. What will the consequences of Delaware’s own “bad habit” be?
Liberalism’s laboratory has not produced an egalitarian utopia. Instead, like mad scientists in an old horror movie they have succeeded in transforming their own state government into a monster- an insatiable Moloch- and have pushed California to the very edge of becoming a failed state.
Can we afford to be liberalism’s next laboratory? Let’s learn from the failed experiment, and chart a different course for Delaware.
Posted in Economy, Government Waste, National, Taxes | 5 Comments »
Gov. Markell is risking the Attorney General’s investigation…
January 8, 2010 by charliecopeland
(Updated Jan. 10, 2010)
It is being reported that Governor Markell has announced an investigation into the allegations of child sexual assault by a Sussex County pediatrician. Governor Markell, sounding an awful lot like President Obama on airline terrorism, said that “the system failed”. I agree with the Governor 100% on this issue.
To put this into perspective, Attorney General Biden’s entire 2006 election campaign focused on protecting children from sexual predators. The AG even set up a special child predator unit in the AG’s office. The following is taken directly from the Attorney General’s website:
Attorney General Biden is fighting to keeps kids safe in their homes, on their neighborhood streets, and on the internet. That’s why one of his first acts upon taking office in 2007 was the formation of the Delaware Department of Justice Child Predator Unit, with a staff dedicated full-time to protecting kids from predators.
So, I can only assume that the Governor is not pleased with the job that the Attorney General has done (and on this point, I fully agree with the Governor). As reported by the News Journal (The article can be found here), the Governor said:
“Without jeopardizing the prosecution, we’re going to need to conduct a top-to-bottom review to make sure we have the right safeguards in place to protect our children.”
Evidently, the Governor doesn’t think that the AG’s “[unit] dedicated full-time to protecting kids from predators” is the “right safeguard”. This looks an awful lot like the Governor calling the Attorney General incompetent. In my opinion, the Governor should have simply held a press conference at which he said that he has instructed all of his cabinet secretaries to provide all necessary assistance to the Attorney General’s investigation. After the conclusion of that investigation, then the Administration could take those findings and implement operational improvements so that this can never happen again. Unleashing amateur sleuths into the middle of this could compromise evidence making prosecution or civil cases much more difficult.
Posted in Criminal Justice, Delaware, Jack Markell | 14 Comments »
The Courage of Sen. Lindsey Graham: Immigration reform, demography, and future of the GOP
January 8, 2010 by michaelstafford
As readers of this blog know, for both moral and economic reasons, I support comprehensive immigration reform that includes an earned legalization program for undocumented immigrants. I am also persuaded that, politically, it is critical to the long term health and viability of the GOP that we take a leading role on this issue.
It is important to distinguish earned legalization from a general amnesty. Earned legalization is exactly that- earned. Although proposals differ in some details, in general, earned legalization involves some portion of the undocumented immigrant community attaining legal status upon the satisfaction of various conditions- typically the payment of a fine & back taxes (if any), completion of a criminal background check, and the attainment of some level of English language proficiency.
An earned legalization program coupled with improved border security/ internal enforcement and other measures, such as, for example, provisions designed to address family unification, has much to commend it. In addition, the absence of other viable policy alternatives argues heavily in favor of such an approach. Reduction of the 10 million plus undocumented immigrant population through some sort of attrition or through a massive round-up and deportation simply are not realistic alternatives- indeed, the later course would cause a great deal of human suffering and economic disruption. Nor is simply permitting the status quo to continue acceptable. In the words of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, an “immigration policy that allows people to live here and contribute to society for years but refuses to offer them the opportunity to achieve legal status does not serve the common good.”
Immigration reform is a divisive issue nationally, and within our own Party. However, polling data demonstrates that a broad majority of American’s support restrictions on immigration and enhanced enforcement in conjunction with some type of “earned legalization” program. Polls also show that, when given a choice, a majority of American’s would favor an “earned legalization” program over an enforcement-only approach. Indeed, some polling even shows support for reform among a majority of Republican voters! Support for comprehensive reform has also stayed relatively consistent over time.*
The most compelling objections to earned legalization are rooted in the perception that those who have failed to comply with our immigration laws should not receive a reward for their actions. Agreed. However, an earned legalization program could be structured in a way that does not prejudice those who have complied with the law and maintained legal status, or those who are waiting to enter the country legally. In other words- it need not involve undocumented immigrants jumping to the head of the line, so to speak.
A second argument against reform is that creating a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants merely encourages future illegal immigration fueled by the belief that there will be some type of amnesty program in the future. Given the deep social and economic factors that drive global population migrations, I am not persuaded that this is a primary motivation for individuals entering the country illegally. Be that as it may, the concern can be addressed through enhanced border security and internal enforcement; and through stricter penalties on those who knowingly employ undocumented workers.
A third concern has to do with the perception that undocumented immigrants are drains on a system into which they do not contribute through paying taxes. As I’ve noted before, although the data on this claim is ambiguous, many undocumented immigrants do in fact pay taxes. However, assuming for the sake of argument that the claim is true, doesn’t it actually weight in favor of an earned legalization program? Aren’t we better off by capturing all that “lost” tax revenue?
A fourth concern has to do with timing; “why now?” Given the recession, and domestic unemployment levels, is now the right time to embark on broad reform? The Obama administration, however, has indicated that it will push for reform in this year. Simply put, we (the GOP) are not in the driver’s seat in Washington; the Democrats are driving the agenda.
However, debate over the merits of immigration reform, rather then focusing on these (and other) legitimate objections/concerns, often degenerates into vacuous sloganeering. All too often, fueled by demagoguery, “the immigration debate’s harsh rhetoric makes scapegoats of immigrants” and dehumanizes them in various ways. People of good will have an obligation, whatever their views on the merits of the issue may be, to help shape the tenor of the coming debate in a way that respects the fundamental human dignity of unauthorized immigrants. Though the immigration debate may be a heated one, it need not be dehumanizing.
The push for comprehensive immigration reform should be a bipartisan effort. However, the GOP has much to loose, long-term, by staking out an extreme position in opposition to reform. Far better to have an internal debate that addresses the very legitimate concerns over reform and fashion a Republican proposal that could serve as a counter to reform proposals brought forth by the left and which could inform the effort to craft a bipartisan approach. This is what “a party of ideas” would do.
Make no mistake about it, immigration reform is high-stakes poker for the GOP, particularly in light of demographic changes occurring in the electorate. To put it simply, the demographic groups among which Republicans perform best have been, and will continue to, decline as a percentage of the general electorate.
The face of America is changing. According to one source, 93% of all counties in the United States are less Caucasian now then they were at the time of the 2000 census. By some projections at a point between 2041 and 2050, Caucasians will make up less than 50% of the population in the United States. Ultimately, the specific year this takes places is irrelevant, the crucial fact for present purposes is that the point will be reached. This is an inexorable demographic fact- it is coming, it will happen, and as we move towards this tipping point, the proportion of minority voters- specifically Hispanics and Asian Americans, in the electorate will continue to increase. These demographic changes become even more portentous when one considers our similarly poor performance among younger voters, nationally, in 2008. Needless to say, this has profound implications our future as a political party. We loose sight of these realities at our peril.
In the words of Ronald Brownstein:
To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.
Start by considering the electorate’s six broadest demographic groups — white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.
Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.
That’s because Obama’s best groups are much larger today than in 1992. From 1992 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans jumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. For Hispanics the share soared from 2 percent to 9 percent; for Asians and other minorities combined, from 2 percent to 5 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the vote cast by well-educated whites remained unchanged at 35 percent. The big losers were blue-collar whites — those without college degrees — whose share plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.
That’s a threat to the GOP because those culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters. McCain won 58 percent of them, and Obama just 40 percent. Obama, by contrast, won 95 percent of African-Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of other minorities, 62 percent of Asians, and 47 percent of college-educated whites. Apply those results to the 1992 share of the vote for all six groups, and McCain beats Obama, 50.2 percent to 47.9 percent.
The Census Bureau projects that the white share of the overall population will decline to 60 percent by 2020 and 51 percent by 2040. The black population share will remain largely unchanged; Asian and “other minority” shares of the population will grow steadily (to nearly 11 percent combined by 2040); and the Hispanic presence will explode. By 2020, Hispanics are projected to constitute nearly one-fifth of the population; by 2040, more than one-fourth.
William Frey, a prominent Brookings Institution demographer, says that even as those numbers rise, the gap will steadily narrow between Hispanic representation in the population and in the electorate. “The biggest source of Hispanic population growth is not immigration, but from the children of recent immigrants. And, by definition, they are voting citizens once they turn 18,” he says. Whites may still outvote their population numbers, Frey predicts, but as Hispanic participation increases, the white overrepresentation will diminish. That change promises an increasingly nonwhite electorate…
These trends point toward trouble for the GOP if it cannot attract more minorities, especially Hispanics, and reverse the recent Democratic inroads among well-educated whites.
The best way to illustrate that prospect is to pitch the thought experiment forward 12 years. Imagine that the major demographic groups voted as they did in 2008, but cast a share of the vote equal to their expected share of the population in 2020. (For argument’s sake, let’s divide whites among college and noncollege voters in the same proportions as today.) In that scenario, Obama beats McCain by nearly 14 points — almost twice as much as in 2008. Demography will indeed be destiny if Republicans can’t broaden their reach.
Other authors have noted the same trends and reached similar conclusions.
The dehumanizing rhetoric characteristic of some of the opposition to immigration reform during 2007 is one reason for the decline in support for the GOP among Hispanic voters. In the words of Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida:
“[T]he very divisive rhetoric of the immigration debate [of 2007] set a very bad tone for our brand as Republicans… There were voices within our party, frankly, which if they continue with that kind of rhetoric, anti-Hispanic rhetoric…we’re going to be relegated to minority status.”
Similarly, expressions of ”thinly disguised contempt toward immigrants” help drive away educated voters.
Thus, a stance in vocal opposition to reform imperils our ability to improve our performance with key segments of the electorate.
Nor, ultimately, is opposition to immigration reform consistent with traditional conservative values and principles. After all, it was President Ronald Reagan who signed the largest immigration amnesty we’ve ever had into law in 1986, and President Bush who pushed unsuccessfully for comprehensive reform in 2007. Indeed, President Bush considered the issue of immigration reform so crucial to the future of the GOP that he specifically warned of the perils of a nativist stance in one of the last public statements of his Presidency.
We must not permit the GOP to degenerate into an ethnic/regional party- such an outcome would be disastrous for our democracy.
There are hopeful signs that some Republicans in Congress recognize all of this and will work in support of comprehensive reform- in particular Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. To paraphrase the wise words of a popular character in children’s literature- there are many kinds of courage; it takes one kind to stand up to your enemies, another to stand up to your friends. Thank you Sen. Graham for showing courage, foresight and leadership on this critical issue.
——–
* I didn’t want to clutter the post with links to various polls. For those interested, please refer to the following:
Benson Strategy Group survey of June, 2009- shows broad support for comprehensive reform, including among a majority of Republican voters. Merely 20% of Republican voters favored forcing undocumented immigrants to leave the US.
April, 2009 CBS poll: 44% of respondents favor permitting undocumented immigrants to keep their jobs and, eventually, to apply for citizenship. 21% favor permission to stay in their jobs only as temporary guest workers, but not to apply for U.S. citizenship. 30% think they should be required to leave their jobs and leave the U.S.
April, 2009 ABC poll: 61% of respondents would support “a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.”
2009 & 2007 Pew Research Center polls: In 2009 63% support a “path to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants, up from 58% in 2007.
2006 Lake Research Partners survey showing 80% of Hispanic voters support earned legalization. “Specifically, the survey found support for immigrants passing a criminal background check (87 pct.); having a job (86 pct.); learning English (79 pct.); passing a health screen and paying back taxes (77 pct.); and living in the U.S. for at least five years (71 pct.). Overall, 79 pct. of Latino voters found illegal immigration to be a serious problem. “
2005 Manhatten Institute for Policy Research: “78% of likely Republican voters favor immigration reform that includes increased border security, tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal workers, a policy that allows illegal immigrants to come forward and register for a temporary worker program that eventually placed them on a path to citizenship. Facing a choice between a registration and earned-legalization plan and a plan that includes deportation and enforcement-only, respondents favored the earned legalization plan 58% to 33%.” (emphasis added)
Posted in GOP, National | 14 Comments »
Identity Theft: Be Cautious About Giving Info to Census Workers
January 8, 2010 by charliecopeland
Last year, my company won the Torch Award from the Delaware Better Business Bureau (BBB) for corporate ethics. We have been longtime members of the BBB and respect its mission to ensure fairness, ethics, and integrity in American business (something clearly lacking on much of Wall Street). The BBB has issued the following information about the 2010 census. Seems like pretty good advice… The BBB can be found at http://www.bbb.org:
For years, Better Business Bureau has educated consumers about not giving out personal information over the telephone or to anyone who shows up at their front door. With the U.S. Census process beginning, BBB advises people to be cooperative, but cautious, so as not to become a victim of fraud or identity theft.
The first phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is under way as workers have begun verifying the addresses of households across the country. Eventually, more than 140,000 U.S. Census workers will count every person in the United States and will gather information about every person living at each address including name, age, gender, race and other relevant data.
“Most people are rightfully cautious and won’t give out personal information to unsolicited phone callers or visitors, however the Census is an exception to the rule,” Christine Sauers, BBB of Delaware President. “Unfortunately, scammers know that the public is more willing to share personal data when taking part in the Census and they have an opportunity to ply their trade by posing as a government employee and soliciting sensitive financial information.”
The Census data will be used to allocate more than $300 billion in federal funds every year, as well as determine a State’s number of Congressional representatives. Households are actually required by law to respond to the Census Bureau’s request for information.
During the U.S. Census, households will be contacted by mail, telephone or visited by a U.S. Census worker who will inquire about the number of people living in the house. Unfortunately, people may also be contacted by scammers who are impersonating Census workers in order to gain access to sensitive financial information such as Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers. Law enforcement in several states have issued warnings that scammers are already posing as Census Bureau employees and knocking on doors asking for donations and Social Security numbers.
The big question is – how do you tell the difference between a U.S. Census worker and a con artist? BBB offers the following advice:
* If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag and a confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their badge before answering their questions. However, you should never invite anyone you don’t know into your home.
* Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the U.S. Census. While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information, such as a salary range, it will not ask for Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers nor will employees solicit donations.
* Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail or in person at home. However, they will not contact you by e-mail, so be on the look out for e-mail scams impersonating the Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an e-mail that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.
For more advice on avoiding identity theft and fraud, visit www.bbb.org
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
To Make Headlines, Just Promise Jobs in 2012
January 6, 2010 by charliecopeland
In yesterday’s news (a WDEL video story can be found here) the Governor announced a new recycling proposal. The details?
1. Mandate that all licensed trash haulers offer curbside recycling
2. Reduce the bottle bill cost from 5 cents to 2 cents per bottle (I’m unsure if cans will now be added)
3. Let the government subsidize the startup operations
4. 200 new jobs will result (sometime in late 2011 or 2012)
I hope that this proposal is just the first of the “green” jobs that have been touted by the Administration, because I don’t think that these were the “green” jobs that the voters were expecting. (Oh, and I’ve read candidate Markell’s Book of Ideas, and I don’t see this one in there, anywhere…).
With the serious problems facing the State, is this truly the best that we’ve got???
Posted in Delaware, Jack Markell | 2 Comments »
Bill Oberle and one other House Member are resigning
January 6, 2010 by charliecopeland
It has been reported on Delaware Grapevine and by Dave Burris that long-time State House member, Bill Oberle, will be stepping down at the end of this session. Dave Burris also mentions that another Republican House member is stepping down. I have had this information confirmed by another source as well. That could make 2010 a very interesting election year, locally.
Rep. Oberle has long been a supporter of labor in the State, and the other rumored vacancy also supported numerous collective bargaining and union-wage protection bills. However, with the closing of two auto plants, Valero, and the collapse of construction, can labor mount the necessary campaign to maintain a vice-like grip on the Delaware General Assembly?
Posted in Delaware, General Assembly | 5 Comments »
Even C-Span Thinks The Obama Administration And Congress Are Not Transparent.
January 6, 2010 by charliecopeland
During the Bush Administration, some on the Left howled constantly about Bush/Cheney doing things behind closed doors. There was constant paranoid talk of “shadow” governments. What a difference a year makes. First, President Obama appoints dozens of “Czars” who operate without legislative oversight out of the West Wing. Then his Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) appointment admits to using FBI files to check up on his wife’s lover. Now, even C-SPAN is begging to be allowed to broadcast the healthcare debate (of course, candidate Obama promised that the whole thing would be on C-SPAN).
Look, I believe in Executive Privilege. I also believe in the right of citizens and the Legislative Branch to ask questions early and often. I never criticized folks for wanting more information and openness (I just criticized the blatant paranoia and conspiracy theorizing). However, when C-SPAN is begging, publicly, for access, the hypocrisy of these left-leaning partisans shines through. To those who called for openness on the Bush Administration, I paraphrase New Jersey Governor-elect Chris Christie: “Man up, and call on the Liberals leading our nation to open up our government.”
The C-SPAN letter:
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
When you Spend, Spend Wisely: Investments in Public Transportation Produce More Jobs
January 6, 2010 by michaelstafford
A new study by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Smart Growth America, and U.S. PIRG shows that invetsments in public transportation projects generate more jobs then road projects.
The data compiled by the states shows that every billion dollars spent on public transportation produced 16,419 job-months, compared to 8,781 job-months for every billion spent on highway infrastructure. Public transportation projects create more jobs than road projects because they spend less money on land and more on labor, and because projects are often more complex, whether laying track or manufacturing vehicles.
The report also uses the data from ARRA to refute the idea that public transportation projects are not as “shovel-ready” or able to be launched as quickly as highway projects. Nationally, public transportation and highway infrastructure projects are spending money at about the same rate. But because public transportation projects spend more of those dollars on more labor, equivalent spend rates produce more and faster jobs from public transportation.
“As the Senate prepares to take up a jobs bill, lawmakers should learn the lessons of the Recovery Act,” said Phineas Baxandall, Senior Analyst for U.S. PIRG. “We cannot afford to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. The fact is investments in public transportation will produce more jobs quicker and will address billions of dollars of unmet needs.”
“Public transportation is a lifeline for communities big and small across the country” said Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. “Too many people could not get to their jobs without public transit.”
It’s also worth noting that the elderly tend to make more use of, or are more dependant on, public transportation then other age groups. We have an aging population here in New Castle County- thus, we can reasonably expect demand for public transportation services to rise over time.
Moving forward, Delaware should increase its focus on public transportation projects- both bus and rail. These projects are investments in our infrastructure and in increasing efficiency. They help improve the environment by reducing pollution and make our communities more livable by reducing road congestion and shortening commuting times. They are also, as this report shows, in general better vehicles for job creation then highway projects- and job creation is something Delaware urgently needs at the moment.
Posted in Delaware | Leave a Comment »
Energy Independence: Still a Critical Goal
January 5, 2010 by michaelstafford
Reducing our dependence on imported oil remains a critical goal for the United States even if anthropomorphic global warming is not occurring. “Climate-gate,” the revelation of e-mails taken from British scientists that, viewed as a group, calls into question the objectivity of their research into global warming, does not undermine efforts to secure our own energy independence.
Why? Well, as Jim DiPeso from the group Republicans for Environmental Protection notes, ”[t]here are good reasons to lower our dependence on hydrocarbons, especially oil, even if all of the vetted research documenting links between fossil fuel consumption and climate change were a mirage in the desert.”
Our dependence on imported oil empowers regimes fundamentally hostile to our values, and our national interests. Regimes like, for example, “Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest gas station and a medieval dictatorship that is a cash machine for terrorist bombers” whose “agenda is keeping us hooked on oil and avoiding uppity notions about energy diversification.”
Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia, the various Persian Gulf emirates, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, are the nations that will reap the long-term benefits of increased global demand for oil.
We ignore the unforgiving math of oil dependence at our peril. America uses some 25 percent of global oil production. We hold less than 3 percent of the world’s conventional oil reserves. OPEC members around the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, land of secret A-bomb factories, hold 60 percent…
If we push forward with an energy policy that perpetuates oil dependence, the U.S. would be more vulnerable to OPEC’s manipulators than ever. Our high demand would put upward pressure on oil prices, enriching malefactors that spread violent extremism and seek the spread of nuclear weapons in the world’s most unstable region.
There is also a strong and disturbing link between the flow of oil wealth into the Gulf region and the empowerment, and spread, of the Wahhabi brand of Islam that is at the root of most Sunni Islamic terrorism. To quote Robert Baer: “We buy oil from Saudi Arabia, refine it, and put it in our automobiles, and a certain small percentage of what we pay for it ends up funding terrorist acts against America and American institutions at home and abroad.” Indirectly, the Saudi Kingdom has utilized its newfound oil wealth to export its own extremist brand of Islam through the Muslim world. Oil wealth provides the funding for the schools, foundations, and “charities,” that serve as the primary vehicle for spreading extremist ideas and theology. And of course, individuals in the Gulf provide much of the funding that goes directly to terrorist groups. Thus, through our oil dependency, we have been global jihad’s ultimate financiers.
The world’s dependence on imported Gulf oil is also a major strategic vulnerability for the global economy. Simply put, Saudi Arabia accounts for virtually all of the spare, or excess, oil production capacity in the world. That makes its oil facilities tempting targets for terrorists. The possibility of one, or more, catastrophic terrorist attacks on oil infrastructure targets in the Gulf remains one of our least-discussed strategic vulnerabilities.
The push for the development of alternative energy sources, and stricter fuel efficiency standards, is one that conservatives should support. Distilled to its essence, conservatism is ultimately about the moral obligations owed by the present to the past, and to future- Edmund Burke’s intergenerational contract. Put another way, in this context, we owe future generations a world in which regimes like the House of Saud, Iran’s Mullahs, Putin’s Russia, and Chavez’s Venezuela are not empowered, enriched, and ultimately, entrenched, by our own energy dependency.
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush noted that “we’re addicted to oil.” Like all addictions, our’s is fraught with dangerous consequences. We need an energy policy that serves our vital interests by diversifying our energy supply and improving efficiency. Such measures will cure our dependence on imported oil and that is a key step in securing a more decent future for generations to come.
Posted in Energy, National | 5 Comments »
Older Posts »
*
Recent Posts
o Harry Reid is human too…
o An Insatiable Moloch: California’s ails are a cautionary tale for Delaware
o Gov. Markell is risking the Attorney General’s investigation…
o The Courage of Sen. Lindsey Graham: Immigration reform, demography, and future of the GOP
o Identity Theft: Be Cautious About Giving Info to Census Workers
*
Archives
o January 2010
o December 2009
o November 2009
o October 2009
o September 2009
o August 2009
o July 2009
o June 2009
o May 2009
o April 2009
o March 2009
o February 2009
o January 2009
o December 2008
*
January 2010 M T W T F S S
« Dec
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Mistylook by Sadish.