Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Energy Bonanza

Walter Russell Mead on America’s revolutionary, energy bonanza

Walter Russell Mead weighs in with some profound insights on America’s huge, game-changing, job-creating, energy bonanza:
“Forget peak oil; forget the Middle East. The energy revolution of the 21st century isn’t about solar energy or wind power and the “scramble for oil” isn’t going to drive global politics. The energy abundance that helped propel the United States to global leadership in the 19th and 2oth centuries is back; if the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad.

By some estimates, the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined, and Canada may have even more than the United States. A GAO report released last May (pdf link can be found here) estimates that up to the equivalent of 3 trillion barrels of shale oil may lie in just one of the major potential US energy production sites. If half of this oil is recoverable, US reserves in this one deposit are roughly equal to the known reserves of the rest of the world combined.

Domestically, the energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream.

The energy revolution is first and foremost a revolution that affects jobs. We are in the very early stages, but since the financial crisis of 2008, fracking alone has created something like 600,000 new jobs in the United States, says the FT. Throw in more jobs in both extracting and refining the new energy wealth, and add the manufacturing and processing industries that will return to US shores to benefit from cheap, secure and abundant energy and feedstock, and it is clear that the energy revolution will be a jobs revolution.
These jobs pay well; for the first time in a generation we are looking at substantial growth of high-income jobs for skilled blue collar workers. Some of these jobs, especially with overtime, will pay in the six figures; most offer wages well above the national blue collar average.

Nature — or perhaps Nature’s God — seems to love mocking pundits. Just when the entire punditocracy, it sometimes seemed, had bought into the “American decline” meme, Europe collapsed and huge energy reserves were discovered underneath the United States. The “special providence” that observers have from time to time discerned in America’s progress through history doesn’t seem to be quite finished with us yet.

Getting the new oil and gas raises complicated technical and environmental issues, and it may take some time before the dust settles and we understand exactly what we are looking at here. And drilling is a notoriously uncertain business. The energy revolution may fall short of the full hopes it stirs up. Yet the rapid progress of extraction technology is making these unconventional reserves look more real and more ‘gettable’ all the time. Rather than coping gracefully with the consequences of inevitable decline, America’s job in the 21st century looks like handling its new set of opportunities wisely and well.”


Energy Revolution 2: A Post Post-American Post

Walter Russell Mead

Forget peak oil; forget the Middle East. The energy revolution of the 21st century isn’t about solar energy or wind power and the “scramble for oil” isn’t going to drive global politics. The energy abundance that helped propel the United States to global leadership in the 19th and 2oth centuries is back; if the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad.
By some estimates, the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined, and Canada may have even more than the United States. A GAO report released last May (pdf link can be found here) estimates that up to the equivalent of 3 trillion barrels of shale oil may lie in just one of the major potential US energy production sites. If half of this oil is recoverable, US reserves in this one deposit are roughly equal to the known reserves of the rest of the world combined.

Edward Luce, an FT writer usually more given to tracing America’s decline than to promoting its prospects, cites estimates that as early as 2020 the US may be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia.
So dramatic are America’s finds, analysts talk of the US turning into the world’s new Saudi Arabia by 2020, with up to 15m barrels a day of liquid energy production (against the desert kingdom’s 11m b/d this year). Most of the credit goes to private sector innovators, who took their cue from the high oil prices in the last decade to devise ways of tapping previously uneconomic underground reserves of “tight oil” and shale gas. And some of it is down to plain luck. Far from reaching its final frontier, America has discovered new ones under the ground.
Additionally, our natural gas reserves are so large that the US is likely to become a major exporter, and US domestic supplies for hydrocarbon fuels of all types appear to be safe and secure for the foreseeable future. North America as a whole has the potential to be a major exporter of fossil fuels for decades and even generations to come.

Since the 1970s, pessimism about America’s energy future has been one of the cornerstones on which the decline theorists erected their castles of doom; we are now entering a time when energy abundance will be an argument for continued American dynamism.
The energy revolution isn’t a magic wand that can make all America’s wishes come true, but it is a powerful wind in the sails of both America’s domestic economy and of its international goals. The United States isn’t the only big winner of the energy revolution — Canada, Israel and China among others will also make gains — but the likely consequences of the energy revolution for America’s global agenda are so large, that the chief effect of the revolution is likely to be its role in shoring up the foundations of the American-led world order.

I will look at the global consequences for geopolitics and the environment in some upcoming posts, but first things come first and I’d like to look at the domestic consequences of the boom before moving on to its impact on the world.

Domestically, the energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream.

The energy revolution is first and foremost a revolution that affects jobs. We are in the very early stages, but since the financial crisis of 2008, fracking alone has created something like 600,000 new jobs in the United States, says the FT. Throw in more jobs in both extracting and refining the new energy wealth, and add the manufacturing and processing industries that will return to US shores to benefit from cheap, secure and abundant energy and feedstock, and it is clear that the energy revolution will be a jobs revolution.

These jobs pay well; for the first time in a generation we are looking at substantial growth of high-income jobs for skilled blue collar workers. Some of these jobs, especially with overtime, will pay in the six figures; most offer wages well above the national blue collar average.

The boom has the potential to change the debate over immigration. The best blue collar jobs in the new oil and gas patches will demand workers with good English language skills and some technical background — good junior colleges and strong vocational high schools will prepare workers for these new jobs. Low skilled, non-English speaking workers will have a hard time competing for these jobs but will work instead in less well paid jobs servicing the energy sector and its workers. They will build houses for the oil workers to live in and staff the restaurants where they eat. As more blue collar native-born Americans see their living standards rise, it is likely that (legal) immigration will lose some of its political salience.

Towards A New Geography of Power?

There’s another advantage: these jobs will mostly be located away from the coasts. The hollowing out of Middle America has been one of the tragedies of the last generation. Looking at the depopulation of the northern Great Plains, planners began to speculate about returning large chunks of whole states to the wild: the “Buffalo Commons” idea that would have taken up to 20 million acres out of private hands. The buffalo will have to move over now for the oil rigs and the people who work them; North Dakota will not be reverting to the wild anytime soon.

But there are large oil and/or gas reserves in other downtrodden areas. Western New York State and much of Pennsylvania and Ohio appear to have commercial quantities of fossil fuel. The revival of the Rustbelt may be getting under way. And Dixie will not lose out: the US share of the Gulf of Mexico is now believed to have the potential to produce 2 to 3 million more barrels per day than the 1.2 million that it currently pumps.

Overall, the new energy geography points toward a revival of the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri river system as the axis of American growth. That’s likely among other things to be good for America’s political climate; the Midwest has traditionally been something of a swing region — less liberal than the coastal northeast and less aggressively conservative than Dixie. Middle Westerners have tended to be pragmatic optimists over time, and it would be interesting to see how a revival of this political tendency would work out in our politics today. In any case, we may be looking at a decline in the power of the northeast and (unless California embraces its inner tycoon and begins to exploit its own energy riches) the Pacific, while Dixie continues current rates of growth and the Middle West booms.
Energy frontiers tend to be individualistic places. Canada, where the oil boom is a few years ahead of the US, has shifted to the right as power and money flow from blue Ontario and Quebec to Alberta. Prosperous blue collar workers and aspiring oil tycoons are not generally the strongest supporters of expensive welfare states, and American greens are already feeling the political consequences of a newly energized hydrocarbon sector. They are also not very interested in subsidizing the fiscal problems of other states; should California’s woes worsen and the state come to Washington for more help, the energy rich states and their representatives are likely to take a hard, skeptical look at its requests.

Even so, the Middle West’s traditional moderation is going to soften the rough edges a bit; much of the oil is coming to places where people historically have valued community ties and concerned themselves about the well being of the less fortunate. This won’t be the second coming of Ayn Rand.

Heartland Economics

There are significant economic benefits in having all this prosperity in the heartland. North Dakota and Wyoming are states where shipping costs from China and Japan are high — but Chicago and St. Louis are much better placed to serve them. Put cheap and secure energy in the Middle West, and build large new cities and centers of economic demand in the neighborhood, and the energy revival in a few states will support general economic growth in many more.

The long term outlook for the dollar and even for the federal government’s accounts will also improve. Even quite recently people assessing the long term health of the United States pointed toward inexorably rising energy imports as an important drain on the balance of trade and on the health of the dollar. But oil imports are going to decline, and exports — especially of natural gas — will help offset them. The federal government is also going to be collecting taxes on the new energy production — and on all the incomes of the individuals and companies involved, directly or indirectly, in the new energy boom.

The United States will be a more attractive place for foreign investment. Building the infrastructure required to get the new energy industry up and running and to transport its products to the market offers some very profitable and secure investment opportunities. And with the US much less dependent on foreign oil (and with the foreign oil it does need coming largely from Canada), the US economy will be much less exposed to the risks associated with turmoil in the Middle East. That is the kind of thing investors look for: high growth in safe places.

Few places are going to look more secure in the 21st century than America between the Rockies and the Appalachians, between the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian frontier. Some of the world’s largest energy reserves will be sited next to the world’s most fertile crop land. Geopolitically, few places on earth are as secure from war; politically few can match its record of stable governance; legally, few offer as much protection for property rights and few have as long a record of offering foreign investors the equal protection of the law.

Avoiding the Pitfalls

Every silver lining has a cloud, and the energy bonanza isn’t all good. We will have to watch out, for example, that the hydrocarbon boost to the dollar doesn’t price American manufacturing goods out of world markets. Here we will need to look at Europe, and see how some countries — like Germany — responded in a more disciplined way through the years when the euro was high to reduce costs and improve quality so that German goods remained internationally competitive.

We will also have to work to keep the political classes from distributing the oil wealth to the rent-seekers. We don’t want to be either the Nigeria or the Russia of the new century, in which corrupt rent-seeking elites hijacked the political process and appropriated the lions’ share of the hydrocarbon wealth to themselves. Cheap, attractive subsidies for the masses, while the real wealth goes into the Swiss bank accounts of the well connected and the unscrupulous: that could very well happen here and there are plenty of people in leading positions in American life — in both parties — who stand willing and ready to sequester the loot.

But the first great wave of oil discoveries did not turn America into a corrupt petrostate when the oil discoveries of the late 19th and early 20th centuries made the US the world’s greatest producer of fossil fuels. One important reason that still holds true today is that the US economy was so diversified and so high tech (by the standards of the day) that the oil tsunami was only one part of a much larger story of innovation and development.

Innovation remains a big part of the American energy picture. The United States has very large reserves of these new fuels, but we are not alone on the planet in having this wealth. But America is getting to the energy revolution early because our oil companies and drillers were ahead of other people in developing the technologies that can bring the new resources on line. We don’t just happen — like the Saudis and others — to be sitting on incredibly large pools of oil which the skills of other people discover and pump out of the ground. We haven’t exactly made our own luck, but we’ve made the discoveries that enabled us to take advantage of it.

That spirit of innovation and the culture that supports it are the true sources of American wealth. That is how we found oil in the first place and built our first energy economy; it is what enables us to benefit from these additional reserves — and it is what will get us on to the next thing when the new energy sources begin to run dry.

Thankfully, the United States is not a Russia or a Nigeria. Our economy and our political system are strong enough and diverse enough to benefit from an energy boom without being overwhelmed by it. The energy boom will stimulate the development of new technologies and new products in the non-energy sectors and will likely to usher in an era of broad prosperity and social advance across many industries and regions rather than just in a few.

Nature — or perhaps Nature’s God — seems to love mocking pundits. Just when the entire punditocracy, it sometimes seemed, had bought into the “American decline” meme, Europe collapsed and huge energy reserves were discovered underneath the United States. The “special providence” that observers have from time to time discerned in America’s progress through history doesn’t seem to be quite finished with us yet.

Getting the new oil and gas raises complicated technical and environmental issues, and it may take some time before the dust settles and we understand exactly what we are looking at here. And drilling is a notoriously uncertain business. The energy revolution may fall short of the full hopes it stirs up. Yet the rapid progress of extraction technology is making these unconventional reserves look more real and more ‘gettable’ all the time. Rather than coping gracefully with the consequences of inevitable decline, America’s job in the 21st century looks like handling its new set of opportunities wisely and well.

Trillions of Barrels of Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah: GAO

May 13, 2012
By


DENVER – Trillions of barrels of potentially recoverable oil lies within the Green River Formation of Colorado and Utah, and perhaps as much or more than the current proven oil reserves for the entire world, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In it’s May 10 report “Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development” that covers testimony provided by Anu K. Mittal, Director of Natural Resources and Environment to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, the GAO updated a 2010 report, confirming that more than a trillion barrels of recoverable oil exist in the world’s largest oil shale deposits on Colorado’s Western Slope.
Mittal’s testimony began with the prospect of centuries of domestic energy production:
Increasing domestic oil production. Being able to tap the vast amounts of oil locked within U.S. oil shale formations could go a long way toward satisfying the nation’s future oil demands. The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves. [emphasis added] The thickest and richest oil shale within the Green River Formation exists in the Piceance Basin of northwest Colorado and the Uintah Basin of northeast Utah. Figure 1 shows where these prospective oil shale resources are located in Colorado and Utah.”
Mittal also concluded that socioeconomic benefits “could also yield important socioeconomic benefits, including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth, and increases in tax and royalty payments to federal and state governments for oil produced on their lands.”
The GAO testimony is careful to note the existing concern over “viable technologies” necessary to extract recoverable oil from the oil shale, as well as environmental concerns over water quantity and quality, impacts on air quality, and disruption to wildlife. Rapid socioeconomic development could falter just as quickly, as it has in the past, with an unpredictable “boom and bust” cycle.
The GAO’s best estimate of oil shale development is projected to occur at least 15-20 years from now, but notes that preparations to account for many of the environmental concerns—a factor, in part, for the longer time frame—should begin as soon as possible.
The GAO included recommendations directed at the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Geological Services, and the Department of Energy to develop baseline measurements and inter-agency collaboration frameworks to ensure that “potential opportunities for commercial development of large unconventional oil and gas resources, such as oil shale” be undertaken in such a way to so as to “be balanced with other potential technological, environmental and socioeconomic challenges.”

 

Paul Ryan Blasts O's" Govt. Does It All"

Pethokoukis
Paul Ryan rips Obama’s comment that ‘if you’ve got a business — you
didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen’
James Pethokoukis | July 16, 2012, 8:26 pm

It was Rep. Paul Ryan’s wife, Janna, who first saw — via Twitter — President Obama’s recent comments about
American entrepreneurs, that “if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
And the Wisconsin Republican — thought to be on Mitt Romney’s running-mate short list — couldn’t believe it. He
thought someone must “have been putting words in the president’s mouth.”

But Obama said it all. And Ryan absolutely tore into the president in a chat I had with him earlier today. Among
the highlights:

– “The idea that these entrepreneurs owe all their success to some government bureaucrat or some centralized
planner just defies reality.”

– “Every now and then, President Obama pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets
the veil slip from time to time.”

– “We believe in free communities and this is a statist attack on free communities.”

– “He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some
dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a
list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.”

– “As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a
statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of
the 20  century.”


– “Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want
government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and
do well and achieve their potential.”

– “He wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution.”

Now here are some longer excerpts:

Every now and then, he pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the
veil slip from time to time. … His straw man argument is this ridiculous caricature where he’s trying
to say if you want any security in life, you stick with me. If you go with these Republicans, they’re
going to feed you to the wolves because they believe in some Hobbesian state of nature, and it’s
one or the other which is complete bunk, absolutely ridiculous. But it seems to be the only way he
thinks he can make his case. He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these
crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is
basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his
failures.

His comments seem to derive from a naive vision of a government-centered society and a
government-directed economy. It stems from an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy
is government not the people. … It is antithetical to the American idea. We believe in free
communities, and this is a statist attack on free communities. … As all of his big government
spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of
government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of
the 20  century.

This is not a Bill Clinton Democrat. He’s got this very government-centric, old 20  century
collectivist philosophy which negates the American experiment which is people living in
communities, supporting one another, having government stick to its limits so it can do its job really
well … Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has
limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and
families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.

How does building roads and bridge justify Obamacare? If you like the GI Bill therefore we must go
along with socialized medicine. It’s a strange leap that he takes. … To me it’s the laziest form of a
debate to affix views to your opponent that they do not have so you can demonize them and defeat
them and win the debate by default

I think he believes America was on the right path until Reagan came along, and Reagan got us
going in the wrong direction. And and he wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the
entire Reagan revolution. … I think he sees himself as bringing about this wave of progressivism,
and the only thing stopping him are these meddling conservatives who believe in these founding
principles so he has to caricature them in the ugliest light possible to win the argument.

Monday, July 16, 2012

O's Assualt on Oil Continues

The Obama administration's loathsome cowboy, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, won't take no for an answer.

He's been smacked down repeatedly by federal courts for imposing a draconian, junk science-based moratorium on the oil and gas industry. Yet, the job-killing zealot and his boss just introduced another ruinous offshore drilling ban two weeks ago.

The White House rationale for the renewed crackdown? Because we said so.

Thomas Pyle of the D.C.-based Institute for Energy Research reports that the Salazar scheme "reinstitutes a 30-year moratorium on offshore energy exploration that will keep our most promising resources locked away until long after President Obama begins plans for his presidential library."

Instead of working to enhance our energy independence and free up abundant natural resources, the Obama administration has worked tirelessly to close off access to nearly 86 billion barrels of oil on America's Outer Continental Shelf alone.

The latest plan involves the interior secretary's authority to auction oil and gas leases and to oversee oil and gas research and exploration on the OCS. Pyle explains that the "2012-17 plan leaves out the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the vast majority of OCS areas off Alaska. It cuts in half the average number of lease sales per year, requires higher minimum bids and shorter lease periods, and dramatically reduces lease terms."

The official Obama for America slogan may be "Forward," but the Salazar-Obama anti-drilling regime leaves America behind. National Ocean Industries Association President Randall B. Luthi told the Oil and Gas Journal (an industry publication):

"This deeply disappointing 'no new access' plan does not reflect the comprehensive, 'all of the above' energy policy touted by the administration, nor does it keep pace with the energy policies of foreign nations that are expanding their offshore access to develop badly needed oil and gas."

No surprise. Salazar is an unrepentant glutton for punishment — of America's energy producers. He's had the unwavering support of President Obama ever since the aftermath of the BP oil spill in 2010, when the administration implemented a radical six-month freeze on America's entire deepwater drilling industry. Republicans must forcefully counter the campaign fables being spun by Team Obama with the truth about these rogue overlords.

When the president's Chicago flacks boast of their noble commitment to transparency, remember: The overbroad drilling ban was stuffed into a technical safety document in the middle of the night by Obama's unaccountable green extremists.

When White House operatives tout their miraculous economics, remind them: The cost of the original Obama-Salazar edict is an estimated 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages. The new ban takes both coasts off the table and throws Alaska oil and gas sales into uncertain delay.

When Democrats tout their adherence to sound science, don't forget: The administration's own expert panel disavowed Salazar and former eco-czar Carol Browner's claims that they had secured a scientific consensus for the drilling ban. In fact, Salazar and Browner completely perverted the experts' consensus against the sweeping offshore drilling ban.

When Vice President Joe Biden takes to the stump to tout the "character of his (boss') convictions," make it known: Louisiana federal judge Martin Feldman rebuked the Obama Interior Department for its "determined disregard" for the law.

And the stench deepens. In May, the House Natural Resources Committee released e-mail quoting a senior whistleblower who directly contradicted Salazar's claim that doctored support for the ban was unintentional. Where is the Interior Department inspector general to look out for taxpayers' best interests? She's knee-deep in ethics problems herself.

A federal panel that oversees government watchdogs took up a conflict-of-interest complaint against Interior Department Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall this week. USA Today first reported in May "that Kendall had attended meetings where top Interior officials discussed drafts of a peer-reviewed report on deepwater drilling." Later, she was enlisted to investigate how White House officials cooked up the scientifically manufactured report that resulted from those very meetings.

Instead of haranguing GOP opponent Mitt Romney with questions about his offshore bank accounts, this search-and-destroy White House should start accounting for its offshore drilling obstructionism. Salazar's reign has been a shady, secretive and rotten deal for America.

O Rewrites Welfare Reform - Byron York

TheBlaze
Business
‘PARTISAN DISGRACE’: OBAMA ADMIN QUIETLY REWRITES WELFARE
REFORM LAW
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 3:36pm by  Becket Adams


In move that went largely “unnoticed” by the mainstream media, the Obama administration on Thursday
released an “official policy directive” that essentially rewrites the landmark welfare reform law of 1996, the
Washington Examiner’s Byron York reports.

“The directive,” York explains, “allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work
requirement at the heart of welfare reform.”

An “Information Memorandum” released by the Department of Health and Human Services’ states:
[The] HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a
state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,
including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification
procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.

The memo, as the Daily Caller’s Caroline May notes, argues that by waiving the so-called “work requirements,”
the feds are encouraging “states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly
helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.”

Of course, the decision is seen by many on the right as a weakening, maybe even a violation, of the 1996
reform law.

The law, “originally vetoed but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most
successful policy initiative in a generation. Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of
people moved from welfare to work,” York writes.

“Despite its success, however, many liberals remain opposed to reform.  For example, in the years immediately
after passage of the law, Barack Obama himself pledged to do all he could to undo it,” he adds.

Well, it looks like he’s done it.
The Obama administration’s decision is “the end of welfare reform as we know it,” said Robert Rector, a welfare
policy expert at the Heritage Foundation.

“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract,” said Republican Study Committee
Chairman Jim Jordan.

“Today’s action is also a blatant violation of the law. After immigration, education, marriage, and religious
conscience protections, we can now add welfare reform to the list of laws President Obama refuses to follow,”
he adds.

House Speaker John Boehner released a statement criticizing the president.

“By gutting the work requirements in President Clinton’s signature welfare reform law, President Obama is
admitting his economic policies have failed,” Boehner wrote.

He continues:


While President Clinton worked with Congress in a bipartisan way on welfare reform
and economic opportunity, President Obama has routinely ignored Republican
proposals, rejected House-passed jobs bills, and imposed an agenda that’s helped
keep the unemployment rate above eight percent for 41 months.

Welfare reform was an historic, bipartisan success — this move by the Obama
administration is a partisan disgrace.

Meanwhile, as the president’s campaign continues to chase after thoroughly debunked Bain Capital narratives,
Mitt Romney has already come out and hit the White House for its welfare rewrite.

“President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare,” Romney said.
“The success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work.
The president’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and
welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life,” he added.


Byron's Wash. Examiner Article

While the Obama campaign goes all out attacking Mitt Romney’s business history, the Romney campaign is
looking carefully at a new Obama administration policy that could become a significant part of Romney’s case
against the president.  In a quiet move Thursday — barely noted beyond the conservative press — the Obama
administration “released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996,” according to
Robert Rector, a welfare policy expert at the Heritage Foundation.

The directive — which some Romney aides found stunning — allows the Department of Health and Human
Services to waive the work requirement at the heart of welfare reform.  That reform, originally vetoed but later
signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most successful policy initiative in a
generation.  Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of people moved from welfare to
work.


Despite its success, however, many liberals remain opposed to reform.  For example, in the years immediately
after passage of the law, Barack Obama himself pledged to do all he could to undo it.  Now, he has.

The administration’s action means “the end of welfare reform as we know it,” in Rector’s words.  In coming
days, look for the Romney campaign to press that case — showcasing what Obama has done in office, even
as the president fixates on an imaginary narrative of what happened at Bain Capital years ago.

Friday morning, with Obama’s action still largely unreported, Romney released a statement calling Obama’s
move “completely misdirected.”

“President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare,” Romney said.  “The
success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work. The
president’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare
is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Who’s most to blame for the coming fiscal collapse of America?

Who’s most to blame for the coming fiscal collapse of America?

posted at 6:01 pm on July 13, 2012 by Dustin Siggins




Note: This op-ed was done in tandem with David Weinberger, who previously worked in communications at The Heritage Foundation and currently blogs near the Twin Cities in Minnesota. All data for the calculations cited below were based off of OMB and CBO public data gathered by the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP) and can be seen at a spreadsheet here. Special thanks go to Patrick Tyrrell and William Beach of Heritage and Richard Kogen and Kathy Ruffing of CBPP for assistance with inflation adjustments and other critical components of the calculations.

With Senate Majority Leader Reid’s (D-NV) decision on Tuesday to not pass a budget for the third straight fiscal year, the Washington game of fiscal chicken–this time over $19 billion–is in full swing once again. To provide perspective, this is less than one-half of one-percent of the 2012 budget and less than 1.5% of this year’s expected deficit. It’s also about one-eighth of one percent of our national debt.

While politicians bicker, Rome burns and the budget grows. While some pundits blame Obama, and others blame Bush, and still others blame everyone in the Beltway, the fact is neither president or party has instituted the wisest fiscal policy. Still, the increase in spending under both has not been driven principally by new spending initiatives. It has instead been driven by the increasing number of retirees and resulting growth of social spending and especially Social Security and Medicare.

Using publicly available data, we found figures on federal spending from 2000 through 2013 (2012 and 2013 spending is estimated, of course). Our inflation-adjusted calculations — using constant 2010 dollars — related to the growth of Social Security and Medicare, based upon that data, can be seen in this chart:

Here are some highlights:

In 2001, the first year of the Bush presidency, Social Security spending amounted to $528 billion. By his final year in office, it had risen to an amazing $692 billion. The increase with Medicare was even more dramatic — from $263 billion to $434 billion during that same period. While most of this was automatic growth from programs created and modified decades earlier, the president does deserve responsibility for passage of Medicare Part D in 2003, which fattened the program and is expected to have added approximately $375 billion to the national debt by 2013.

Under President Obama, the unrestrained automatic spending binge has only continued. While conservatives rightly believe that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will make health care costs worse, the vast majority of the programs, costs, tax increases and other aspects of the law haven’t yet been implemented. We have therefore not included this in our calculations. However, even ignoring the PPACA, costs of the retirement programs have continued to skyrocket.

Social Security spending leaped from $692 billion when Obama took office to a projected $770 billion by 2013. A mere thirteen billion of this increase came from costs attributed to changes in the 2009 stimulus. Meanwhile Medicare spending will have gone up from a ripe $434 billion to an estimated $491 billion during that same time. And this is excluding Medicaid, which has also grown on automatic pilot, on track itself to consume $283 billion of the federal budget by 2013.

All told, Social Security and Medicare have gone from swallowing $791 billion in 2001 to — along with Medicaid — seizing a projected $1.559 trillion by 2013. With Obamacare on top of that, and total federal spending having more than doubled since 2001, we’re looking at a very grave situation. Strong economic growth could perhaps offset the gravity of these costs in the short term, but the bottom line is that structural reform of entitlement programs is paramount to any real fiscal fix.

This makes for a disastrous structural budgetary situation. Yet, to repeat, most of the blame for this growth does not lie with President Obama or President Bush. It in fact belongs to those who created and changed the programs years and decades before either of them took office. President Obama, for example, could have a balanced budget this year – or very close to it – if it wasn’t for the burden of Social Security and Medicare.

Of course, this does not excuse these presidents and their respective Congresses from their responsibilities to make changes to the programs that make them affordable and/or return aspects of them to the states, where they belong. To his credit, President Bush did attempt to do this to Social Security in 2005, and while we believe the PPACA will worsen America’s health care costs, President Obama took on Medicare in 2009 and 2010.

But when it comes to blaming presidents for spending, pundits and politicians alike should be intellectually honest and remember it was Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson who put the federal budget on the path to fiscal unsustainability. Most presidents and Congresses since have merely failed to correct this, and this failure is why the Social Security trust fund is expected to start going bankrupt in 2013.

As most Americans know, we don’t have much time before a fiscal collapse hits the country, nailing the Debt-Paying Generation hardest of all. Yet Reid and many Republicans would rather argue over a rounding error than the 33% of the budget (and growing) taken up by Social Security and Medicare.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

The Invincible Lie

 
Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama.

On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans "believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth."

Let us begin with the word "spend." Is the government "spending" money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.

Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers' unions, is not called
spending but "investment." You can say anything if you have your own private language.

But let's go back to the notion of "spending" money on "the wealthiest Americans." The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest
Americans. Income is not wealth -- and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.

People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their thirties and forties -- but lower incomes. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax "the wealthiest Americans" is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.

The really big lie -- and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in -- is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of the people.

Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.

Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.

Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.

This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations -- both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.

What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will "trickle down."

A Democratic president -- John F. Kennedy -- stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors' "efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the country.

Ironically, the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.

But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.

Nothing produces more of a sense of the futility of facts than seeing someone in the mass media repeating some notion that has been refuted innumerable times over the years.

On July 9th, on CNN's program "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, commentator Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's plan to continue the temporary extension of the tax rates established under the Bush administration -- except for the top brackets, where Obama wanted the tax rates raised.

Ms. Borger said, "if you're going to lower the tax rates, where are you going to get the money from?"
First of all, nobody is talking about lowering the tax rates. They are talking about whether or not to continue the existing tax rates, which are set to expire after a temporary extension. And Obama is talking about raising the tax rate on higher income earners.

But when Ms. Borger asked, "where are you going to get the money from?" if you don't raise tax rates, that assumes an automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues, which is demonstrably false.

As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income tax rate -- from 73 percent to 24 percent -- led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government. Why? Because investors took their money out of tax shelters, where they were earning very modest rates of return, and put their money into the productive economy, where they could earn higher rates of return, now that those returns were not so heavily taxed.

This was the very reason why tax rates were cut in the first place -- to get more revenue for the federal government. The same was true, decades later, during the John F. Kennedy administration. Similar reasons led to tax rate cuts during the Ronald Reagan administration and the George W. Bush administration.

All of these presidents -- Democrat and Republican alike -- made the same argument for tax rate reductions that had been made in the 1920s, and the results were similar as well. Yet the invincible lie continues to this day that those who oppose high tax rates on high incomes are doing so because they want to reduce the taxes paid by high income earners, in hopes that their increased prosperity will "trickle down" to others.

In reality, high income earners paid not only a larger total amount of taxes after the tax rate cuts of the 1920s but also a higher share of all the income taxes collected. It is a matter of record that anyone can check out with official government statistics.

This result was not peculiar to the 1920s. In 2006, the New York Times reported: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."

Expectations are in the eye of the beholder. Tax cut proponents expected precisely the result from the Bush tax cuts that so surprised the New York Times. So did tax cut proponents in the John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan administrations.

If this concept has not yet trickled down to the New York Times or CNN's Gloria Borger, that is a commentary on the media commentators.

Ms. Borger may simply not know any better, but Barack Obama cannot use that excuse. When he was a candidate for president back in 2008, Charles Gibson of ABC News confronted him with the fact that there was no automatic correlation between the raising and lowering of tax rates and whether tax revenues moved up or down.

Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher income earners anyway, in the name of "fairness." How higher tax rates that the government does not actually collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government's bills, is another question. The point here is that Obama knew then that tax rates and tax revenues do not automatically move in the same direction.

In other words, he is lying when he talks as if tax rates and tax revenues move together. Ms. Borger and others in the media may or may not know that. So they are not necessarily lying. But they are failing to inform their audiences about the facts -- and that allows Obama's lies to stand.


Friday, July 13, 2012

O's Risky Campaign Strategy

James Taranto: Obama's Risky Campaign Strategy

The campaign's narrow appeals to particular voting blocs could alienate other Democratic or swing voters.

Barack Obama's election seemed to vindicate the 2002 book "The Emerging Democratic Majority." John Judis and Ruy Teixeira argued that demographic changes made Democratic dominance inexorable, as racial and ethnic minorities and highly educated professionals grew as proportions of the population.


Sure enough, although John McCain outpolled Mr. Obama 55% to 43% among whites, the Democrat won a solid victory thanks to large majorities of blacks (95%), Hispanics (67%), under-30 voters (66%), the unmarried (65%), and holders of advanced degrees (58%).

But the Democratic majority that emerged in 2008 quickly faded. Since Mr. Obama became president, Republicans have enjoyed a string of electoral victories. What happened?

Although Mr. Obama benefited from the demographic trends Messrs. Judis and Teixeira had noted, he also was running against a dismal Republican status quo, as a challenger in a recession. Mr. Obama cultivated an image as a unifier able to transcend partisan, ideological and racial divides.

Four years later, he is a divisive incumbent defending a grim status quo of his own. Having lost the broad appeal he enjoyed in 2008, he is making narrow appeals to particular voting blocs with the apparent aim of shoring up support and turnout. He's counting on Judis-Teixeira demographics to carry him to re-election.

To appeal to single women, he picked a fight with the Catholic Church by refusing a conscience exemption from the ObamaCare birth-control mandate. For Hispanics, there was the promise of lax immigration enforcement against illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. as children. His "evolution" on same-sex marriage seemed designed to appeal not just to gays but also to young voters, whose attitudes on the subject tend to be liberal.

But these calculated overtures carry risks. In appealing to particular demographics, the president may be alienating other Democratic or swing voters. Mr. Obama received 49% of the votes of churchgoing Catholics in 2008. Picking a fight with the church seems a sure way to bring that number down. The immigration move may boost Hispanic support in Colorado and Nevada, but polls suggest it hurts among independents in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Same-sex marriage is especially unpopular among blacks. This is the most reliably Democratic voting bloc, and no one expects that to change this year. But even a modest drop-off in turnout or support could hurt Mr. Obama. According to exit polls, blacks made up 13% of the 2008 electorate, up from 11% in 2004. That's a difference of some 3.5 million votes. Mr. Obama's 95% support does not seem like a dramatic improvement from John Kerry's 88%, but it amounts to roughly another 1.5 million votes. Add it all up, and the improvement in Democratic performance among blacks between 2004 and 2008 accounted for more than half of Mr. Obama's nationwide popular-vote margin of 9.5 million.

To defend the black vote, Obama supporters have frequently appealed to fears of Republican racism. Speaking to the NAACP's annual convention this week, Attorney General Eric Holder portrayed anti-voter-fraud efforts as "political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens." When the same convention booed Mitt Romney's speech, Obama backers like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell suggested that the Romney campaign deliberately provoked the boos because, as Mr. O'Donnell put it, "they want the video of their candidate being booed by the NAACP to play in certain racist precincts."

There's a risk here too—that all the talk about racism will put off whites who voted for Mr. Obama because they thought electing a black president would help the country get beyond race. National Journal noted Thursday that the president is at "historic lows" among working-class white men—just 28% and 29% in two recent surveys, down from 39% in 2008. Whites are a shrinking proportion of the electorate, but that doesn't make their votes expendable.

This points to the shortcoming in the analysis of Messrs. Judis and Teixeira: To them, the Democratic glass is always half full. They were prescient in identifying prospective Democratic gains but complacent about possible losses. "If the downturn in West Virginia's economy continues, the state is almost sure to go back to the Democrats," they wrote. Instead Mr. McCain won by 13 points. They classified Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and even Texas as "competitive." All are now regarded as solidly Republican.

Mr. Obama's effort at coalition rebuilding may be his best possible strategy under the circumstances. But his path to re-election would be far clearer if, as in 2008, he had a broad appeal and didn't have to resort to narrow ones. His election showed that the demographic groups of the "emerging Democratic majority" were necessary for victory. This year we'll find out if they are sufficient.
 
Mr. Taranto, a member of the Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.