Running a John Fleming press release as a legitimate and objective news story with no byline and an obviously slanted perspective:


Stated as expository fact, not as a quote and not referenced:

The No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009 would help ensure our economy flourishes and that the laws that have crippled businesses are scaled back to their original intent.

1. Saves or creates more than 2 million long-term, sustainable and well paying jobs.

2. Dramatically increases GDP that could well exceed $10 trillion over the next 30 years.

3. Reduces the cost of energy to manufacturers, all U.S. businesses and low-income families. On top of helping businesses compete internationally it reduces the cost of a key input so that resources may be used on other purchases or employee hiring.

4. Will have a significant positive impact on low-income families, as this is the equivalent of receiving a stimulus check. As the price of energy decreases a family may direct the extra money towards other needs.

5. Achieves these goals while not incurring huge amounts of debt payable to foreign governments and leveraged against our own children’s future.

6. Has a direct and significant impact on reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

So, what’s the plan?

Opening up ANWR!

I love how the same folks who believe it’s better to discard stem cells than to use them for scientific research also believe that the future of our economy is in drilling for oil.

4 thoughts

  1. So, what’s the case against opening ANWR for drilling? Don’t get me wrong here, I have no delusions that drilling ANWR will have any significant effect on energy prices. But it would create more jobs, would it not?

  2. I don’t understand your questions.

    If you don’t believe that drilling in a protected area will result in (sustainably) lower energy prices, then why would we drill?

    We can create jobs in a number of ways.

    Why not seek out solutions that create a net, long-term benefit, while, at the same time, preserving our natural environment?

  3. Fleming’s proposal is not a new idea at all, its a rehash of the old. We need fresh new strategies for reducing the world’s dependence on petroleum. Anyway, this is moot, because there is no way that the bill will pass the House and Senate, and even if it does, Obama is sure to veto it.

    The root of this issue is not petroleum supply, its petroleum demand. Reduce demand (more efficient cars, better mass transit, more bicycling, more efficient planes, more efficient appliances, less appliances, less energy use in general, more use of renewable clean energy production technology, etc.) and watch the price of petroleum plummet. That is what happened in 2008: after a spike in oil prices over the summer, the prices plummeted because the global recession reduced demand. Just a few percent decrease in demand for oil (rather than the annual few percent increase in demand) helped bring the price of oil down over 60% (over $140 a barrel to under $50 a barrel). Therefore, I believe Obama’s strategy to reduce demand is smart and will work.

    After an internet search to find out impartial info on ANWR, it seems that the Wikipedia page is one of the best:

    It says that “In the state of Alaska, residents receive annual dividends from oil-lease revenues. In 2000 the dividend came to $1,964 per resident.” No wonder the majority of Alaskans support drilling (and how come Louisianians don’t get a share of our oil-lease revenues!!!). However, “The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in ANWR.” I’d have to listen to them, as they will actually experience the direct negative effects of opening up ANWR, while the rest of Alaskans will get a higher dividend check.

    Perhaps the most important argument against opening ANWR is from the 2008 US Dept. of Energy (Bush’s DOE) itself: “There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region…. ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices…. Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States.”

    Which is why increasing domestic production won’t decrease the price of oil. OPEC and friends will just reduce their production, keeping the price inflated to protect their profits.

    Thanks to Congressman Fleming and the Town Talk for, unsurprisingly, not doing your homework on this issue.

  4. I know people who work out on the rigs in the gulf and they’ve been telling me that since prices dropped, the oil companies have been capping wells as soon as their drilled and proven viable.

    There is plenty of oil. They just don’t want to drill it because (gasp) they’d have to sell it at a fair price instead of hording it until gas goes back to $4 a gallon again.

Leave a Reply to Lamar White, Jr Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s