Sunoco, Shale shine light on need for new energy policy

Guest Column by Kevin Moody

A range of important issues are making Pennsylvania the center of a challenging debate over energy, starting in the east with last week’s announcement of the closure of the Sunoco refinery in Marcus Hook, and continuing to other regions where coal mining and natural gas drilling are making national and regional headlines. The Marcellus shale has put an even brighter spotlight on the commonwealth, and early production rates show a long-term and huge potential for natural gas from this geologic formation.

All of this positive and negative news points to a broader concern: Our nation’s energy policy sorely needs to move in a new direction. Reliable, affordable energy supplies are essential to a viable economy. New jobs are created when energy resources are explored, developed and made into products such as refined gasoline at facilities such as those in Marcus Hook and Linwood. Other benefits accrue to communities where this occurs, and elsewhere. Given the state of the nation, one would think that lawmakers, regulators and leaders in Washington would get it.

You do not have to look any further than the president’s speech about jobs and the economy in Scranton on Nov. 30 to see how hostile our leaders can be toward the development of our oil and gas reserves. Despite the fact that counties immediately west of Scranton are enjoying some of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation due to the surge in natural gas drilling activity, not a single mention of “oil” or “natural gas” passed the president’s lips during this speech.

In fact, in the past three years, the administration has done its best to block the development of new domestic oil and natural gas supplies. It is seeking to increase federal regulation of – that is, slow down or prevent — natural gas and oil development in domestic shale formations that are heavily laden with these resources.

There are similar issues in the attempts to keep the Marcus Hook refinery open through a buyer: A mature facility faces a moving target of environmental regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that seems determined to regulate these industries out of business, eliminating thousands of jobs in the process.

Now, to make energy matters worse, the president has delayed until after the 2012 elections a decision on allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline between Canada and the U.S., threatening the creation of about 20,000 jobs and preventing the flow of an additional 830,000 barrels of Canadian oil to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Although the president’s anti-oil and natural gas actions might sound well to his political base prior to the 2012 election, they put the nation’s long-term economic and energy health at risk.

These vital considerations, however, are not the focus of today’s energy policy debate. They have been supplanted by fear — a campaign of fear of air pollution, fear of water contamination, fear of health effects, and other often unsubstantiated worries that have been become part and parcel of the energy conversation.

The fears are fed by the scare tactics that have become a staple in political and public interest campaigns. Even the president has used fear as a means to avoid making tough decisions that could improve U.S. energy security.

Similarly, anti-drilling groups use fear mongering as a weapon against hydraulic fracturing here in Pennsylvania. They assert that hydraulic fracturing will poison our drinking water and harm human health. In one recent demonstration, protesters even donned cow costumes and claimed that the fracturing process would poison milk supplies at schools.

As long as unfounded and irrational fears overshadow the facts, elected officials will find it difficult to make sound energy policy decisions. They know that misled and frightened voters aren’t going to focus on the benefits of oil and natural gas production, even when it helps their unemployed neighbors find jobs. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, an estimated 214,000 Marcellus shale-related jobs have been created in the commonwealth since 2008, but even job growth pales in comparison to the irrational fear-of-fracking delirium.

Instead, elected officials will find it politically expedient to throw taxpayer money at so-called green energy companies even if the projects aren’t commercially viable.

There are times when fear is a positive force. It reminds us to buckle our seat belts, blow out candles to prevent fires, and teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street. But it should not be used as the basis for key policy decisions that could frame our economic and energy future.
Kevin J. Moody is vice president and general counsel for the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association.

Humor or Hubris?

Did you hear the one about the leftist Democrat who posed as a Republican senator?

Everyone's favorite RINO (Republican in Name Only), and retired Pennsylvania senator, Arlen Specter, is now a stand-up comic.

That's right: the most unfunny person to ever walk the halls of the United States Congress, is telling jokes at a Philadelphia nightclub. Click here to view the former politician performing his act Tuesday night.

Isn't this a little undignified for a senator, however? The career politician took the stage at Helium Comedy Club, and some his jokes were even R-rated. He also took potshots at current politicians, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and former U.S. President Bill Clinton (D).

"I called Clinton up on his 65th birthday and I said, 'Bill, congratulations on being 65. How do you feel?' He said, 'I feel like a teenager. The problem is, I can't find one,'" he quipped.

Specter, who earned the moniker "Snarlin' Arlen" for his angry disposition while in Congress, would seem an unlikely comedian. But, many comics, including Johnny Carson and Conan O'Brien, have had reputations for acting like jerks in "real life."

And, if Specter is able to make people laugh, why shouldn't he be on stage? At least he's not harming the nation anymore.

Don't get me wrong, It is nice to see Specter make a fool out of himself. But in the end hubris isn't funny.

Santa has misplaced Corbett’s wish list

Guest Column by Nathan Benefield

For Christmas this year, Gov. Tom Corbett hoped the Legislature would gift wrap three things he could tie a bow on: An education reform package that included school vouchers, state liquor store privatization and legislation addressing gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale.

Unfortunately, the Legislature played more Grinch than giver, and the consequences of failure to act remain clear.

Inaction on school choice traps students in violent and failing schools, where they see a violent act every 17 minutes.

Pennsylvania loses jobs and tax revenue because residents spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying liquor in other states.

And more jobs lie in the balance as natural gas companies are hedging their bets for future investment, given the uncertainty of Pennsylvania’s regulation and tax schemes.

Willing to pass the buck to Santa Claus, the General Assembly heads home for the holiday break having delivered no gifts on any of these issues.

Both the Senate and House passed measures regulating gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. But the House version involves an optional local fee, with funds limited to, for the most part, uncompensated impacts of drilling. The Senate passed a statewide tax it euphemistically calls a fee that would fund a variety of programs unrelated to the impact of the natural gas extraction process. The final bill can be only one of these things.

Likewise, the Senate passed a school voucher bill the governor supports, but it isn’t yet clear if the House will rescue poor kids in violent, failing schools.

Meanwhile, bills addressing the fiscal crisis in the city of Harrisburg, flood damage across the state, and tightening child predator laws following the Penn State scandal all reached the governor’s desk.

These unexpected priorities, brought about by crises and national media attention, took time away from other agenda items.

With the census results in, lawmakers had to redraw both congressional and state legislative districts this year, or early January at the latest.

Both the redistricting commission and the legislative process for congressional mapmaking are inherently political, and every lawmaker seeking re-election (or higher office) has something at stake.

The political reality of the redistricting process ended up consuming all the oxygen in Harrisburg this fall and left other good policy opportunities gasping for air.

While 2011 has been declared the “Year of School Choice,” with 18 states creating or expanding school choice programs, Pennsylvania lawmakers punted to next year.

In the middle of the year, lawmakers claimed they had no time to pass school choice legislation with budget concerns, but would take it up in the fall. When nothing happened in the fall, it has become “wait until next year.”

In contrast, most of the victories in other states occurred early in 2011. Why?

Most states have limited legislative sessions, with deadlines for accomplishments.

Pennsylvania’s full-time Legislature and unlimited sessions tend to lead to severe cases of procrastination.

Encouraging the lack of action on issues such as school choice is the political reality that Pennsylvania’s two-party debate is not between Demo-crats and Republicans. It is actually between the Union Party and the Taxpayer Party.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the Union Party enjoys a majority in both the House and Senate on key issues where union financial and political power is threatened.

If you want to know why school choice or other union-related bills have stalled, or why politicians in both parties are demanding new and higher taxes, look no further than lobbying by union bosses.

During the past election cycle, the political action committees of the main government and private sector labor unions gave more than $23 million to both Democrats and Republicans.

These heavy hitters include the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the Service Employees International Union, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which account for nearly 260,000 union members in the commonwealth.

The PSEA alone – after raising mandatory dues on teachers and school employees by

11 percent in early 2011 – spent $4.2 million lobbying over the past year.

The lesson is this: With the labor unions working as the taxpayers’ Grinch, the Legislature will fail to deliver not only this Christmas, but for many to come.

If Corbett really wants to put taxpayers, students and workers first, he must use his bully pulpit to overcome a Legislature that is reluctant to oppose the Union Party.

Only then will his priorities become more than just a wish list.

Nathan Benefield is director of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation

Pa. is reaping riches from gas

Guest Column by Rayola Dougher

Many jobs are created because the natural gas industry is investing a lot. In 2009, it spent $3.77 billion in Pennsylvania, according to a study by Natural Resource Economics.

The increase in tax revenue from shale gas development is also significant. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue says natural gas development generated more than $1 billion in revenue for the state between 2006 and 2010, including corporate taxes, sales taxes and personal income taxes. The Natural Resource Economics study says the state could receive another $3 billion in taxes by 2020. This potentially eases the tax burden for all taxpayers.

How the state and federal government tax and regulate the industry will influence the pace of future development and the extent of benefits Pennsylvanians eventually realize. The state has been a watchful regulator on the environment, and the environmental impacts of natural gas development are being carefully managed.

The industry has upgraded its own standards and is meeting with local officials and the public throughout the state to explain how the exploration and production process works and to address any concerns.

A lot of focus has been on the hydraulic fracturing technology used to free the gas from the shale formations. The process, which has been used safely for more than 60 years in a million wells, involves injecting fluids under high pressure into a development well to release oil and natural gas trapped in shale formations. The fluids are more than 99 percent water and sand with selected additives, which might include a friction reducer similar to canola oil, a chemical such as chlorine to kill bacteria, and a lubricant similar to those found in personal care products. In general, the fracturing process creates cracks or fissures in the rock formations thousands of feet below the surface. The sand helps to “prop open” the fissures to allow the natural gas or oil to move freely to the well.

Before a natural gas well can be drilled, state regulatory authorities approve the engineering design and site plan. The well is surrounded by steel casing and layers of cement, which are mandated by state regulations to protect underground sources of water. Used fracturing fluids are recovered and disposed of according to state and federal laws, and, today, more and more operations are relying on recycling and reuse of water.

Pennsylvania has the good fortune to be sitting on top of massive supplies of a versatile, clean-burning fuel. It has just begun to enjoy the enormous benefits provided by development of this exceptional resource. And, along with the large amounts of shale gas produced in other parts of the country, Pennsylvania’s production is also helping to strengthen our nation’s energy security.

Rayola Dougher is a Senior Economic Advisor at the American Petroleum Institute

Three Percent Cost of Living Raises Simply Outrageous

In case you missed it, last Thursday members of our state legislature, Governor Tom Corbett, and elected officials in the executive branch just milked taxpayers here in Pennsylvania once again by accepting another three percent annual cost of living increase.

In a state currently struggling with a high unemployment rate hovering around 8.1% and more economic uncertainty, it is hard to phantom just how state lawmakers in Harrisburg can justify another increase in their salaries. This latest cost of living increase now outs that base salary of a state lawmaker above 80, 000 dollars a year. A annual salary that is double the average income of working families in Pennsylvania.

Now some legislators point out each year when they receive their annual cost of living raise how they immediately write a check to their favorite charity that equals the amount of the raise. It is really funny to see how proud they are of giving our hard earned money to a charity of their choice like that will gain them some favor in all of this.

Maybe it is time for our elected leaders Harrisburg to do the right thing for a change. They need to repeal the 1995 law that created the automatic cost of living raises in the first place. It is time for average working families in Pennsylvania to demand this reform.

The bottom line here is do our lawmakers deserve a three percent pay raise every year when all we hear about is corruption and scandal in Harrisburg? The answer is a resounding no! The repeal will go a long way of restoring some faith in Harrisburg after all the scandals and corruption that have plagued the legislator over the past six years.

More:

EDITORIAL: Repeal automatic cost-of-living raises for Pa. legislators (The Express-Times Opinion Staff)

The Rise of Newt Gingrich

Guest Column by Lowman S. Henry,

The race for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination has begun to resemble a skeet shooting contest. Skeet is a competitive sport wherein clay disks are flung into the air at various angles and speeds. Contestants armed with rifles shoot them out of the air. GOP presidential candidates this primary season should be easily able to identify with the clay pigeons.

Since its earliest days the narrative of the Republican Presidential race has been that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the establishment front-runner. His support has not risen to more than about 30% in the polls, thus the competition has been among the other candidates to become the "not Mitt," or the clear alternative to Romney.

Over the past few months various candidates have assumed that role, only to find their candidacy shattered into a thousand pieces by the media and opponents armed with rhetorical rifles. Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann took her turn in the spotlight after winning the Ames straw poll in Iowa. She melted under the scrutiny. Texas Governor Rick Perry seemed ready for the role, until he actually started talking. Then it was former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain, who appeared to have staying power until allegations of sexual harassment took the luster off his candidacy.

The reigning "not Mitt" is former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's campaign had been on life supports a couple of months ago after most of his staff resigned, but in recent days he has surged into the lead in both national polls and those in Iowa. As Newt soars through the sky, skeet shooters are taking aim.

But, not all clay pigeons get hit and some survive the game intact. Newt Gingrich may be the one that gets away. Why? Largely because unlike Bachmann, Perry and Cain; Gingrich has been on the political scene for decades. His baggage, especially the personal foibles, is already well known by the media and by the electorate. Details of his complex web of business activities are sure to emerge, but are unlikely to dent his soaring popularity.

Gingrich's policy positions are also well known. He has written and spoken more extensively than all of the other candidates and has been a font of policy ideas, many of them innovative and all well-reasoned. Since the beginning of the race, even when his candidacy was imploding, the former speaker has been generally acknowledged as the smartest man in the field with many viewing him as the candidate likely to make the best president, but not the most electable nominee.

The endless string of presidential debates, the source of mortal blows to Perry's candidacy; have propelled Gingrich to new prominence. While the other candidates engage in petty bickering, sniping at each other, Gingrich has played the role of elder statesman preferring instead to be critical of the Obama Administration's policies. Primary voters tend to be more engaged than the electorate at large and appear to be reacting positively to Gingrich's issue-based approach.

The challenge now for the Gingrich campaign is to become organized enough to take advantage of his surge in the polls. The campaign had lagged in fundraising, although that is picking up as he becomes more established in the top tier of candidates. More than $4 million has flowed into his coffers over the past six weeks. Even some of the staffers who abandoned him when Perry was the flavor of the day have returned.

Given that at any point in time over 70% of Republicans have preferred some else to Romney, it is possible early primary victories by Gingrich could have a wave effect with momentum propelling him forward even while he lacks in money and paid staff. Such a scenario would negate Romney's early advantages and render him an also ran.

For now, Romney remains the clear front-runner in terms of money and organization, but his tightly scripted low-risk campaign has yet to attract in any big numbers the supporters of other candidates who have surged and ebbed. The bulk of GOP primary voters still remains in search of a "not Mitt" and it is quite possible Newt Gingrich may be the last man standing.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Where in the world is PennPatriot?

Dear PennPatriot Blog visitors,

I'm sure if you visit this blog on a regular basis you must be wondering by now, what the heck happened to PennPatriot, one of Pennsylvania's leading conservative bloggers? Yes, I haven't posted on or updated this blog for about a month now, which truly is uncharacteristic of me considering I have been blogging since 2004. For this lack of attention recently, I have to truly apologize to our reader's and explain.

No, I did not take time off from blogging to join the Wall Street protestors ;) That rumor has been going around.

The truth is, I've decided to take a break from blogging on a day to day basis. Sometimes you just need to do this as a blogger. Updating a website isn't as easy as people think. Contrary to popular belief, most bloggers are not lazy bums who live in the basement of there parents house. We have our day jobs, families, and so on just like everyone else. We just choose to participate in the political process in a unique and innovative way. Blogging truly does takes up a lot of your time and energy. Sometimes taking a break and getting away from the "day-to-day" news cycle clears your head and gives you a new perspective.

Also during this past month I have also started a new job. Adjusting to a new schedule and all the stress that comes with a new job has taken up a lot of my focus recently. But, I have to say that I am truly blessed to finally find a job after a year and a half of looking in this economy. Maybe the economy is finally getting moving again.

As for blogging, I just wanted to let everyone know that I am back. Yes, I just can't help myself. Blogging is my addiction. So look forward to a re-energized PennPatriot as we head into the 2012 elections.

Yours truly,

Randy Potter
Editor/Webmaster
PennPatriot Blog

Urban Meyer to replace legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno

The Reading Eagle is reporting that Penn State officials have been in contact with former Florida coach Urban Meyer regarding becoming the next head football coach at Penn State. Rumors about Meyer as Penn State's next coach have been flying around message boards for months now. The article states that a source close to the Meyer's family has confirmed that Penn State actually contacted Meyer to gauge his interest level in the Penn State coaching job at this point.

Jeff Rapp of SportsRappUp, who has covered Ohio State sports for several years, was told by an unnamed source who is a "close friend of Meyer" that Penn State officials contacted Meyer Sept. 25 and "expressed major interest in pursuing him as head coach" should Hall of Famer Joe Paterno decide to retire.

In June at an Altoona Curve game, I discussed this same scenario with some individuals who have interacted with Myer while golfing in Florida. They seem to believe that talks between Penn State officials and Meyer have been going on informally since May. This is quite striking since the Reading Eagle article is confirming that Penn State President Graham Spanier and Athletic Director Tim Curley met with Meyer in the summer after Meyer interviewed Penn State linebacker Michael Mauti for ESPN on July 21st.

As a Penn State fan, this is very exciting news. All indications from the Meyer camp suggest he is definitely interested in accepting the job. I personally think the Penn State job be a perfect fit for Meyer who got tired of the recruiting dramas at Florida. Penn State's focus on honor and tradition would be perfect for Meyer. The bottom line is that at Penn State the program is bigger than the players unlike Florida where Meyer's top 09 recruiting class basically split the team and destroyed Florida's 2010 season.

All of this leads me to believe that Penn State coach Joe Paterno is finally going to retire after this season. Spanier and Curley will not pass up an opportunity to sign Meyer even if JoePA deosn't want to retire at the end of this season. Paterno is friends with Meyer and would understand how important it is for Penn State to land a prominent coach to resurrect the program. Paterno knows that Meyer will continue to run the program with integrity.

Are we seeing the end of the Paterno era here at Penn State? I think so but I am not sad about it. With Meyer as the next coach Nittany Nation can be assured that the program will be in good hands after Joe is gone.

States Can Pick Method of Allocating Electoral Votes

Guest Column by Scott Paterno

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution is the very model of legislative clarity. It reads:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

That is all the direction the constitution provides. And in plainest terms, it leaves the decision of how to select those electors up to the individual states. Most states have a winner-take-all format, meaning the winner of the statewide vote captures every electoral vote while two states apportion them according to the vote winner in each congressional district.

Both formats are constitutional and fair, as BOTH parties must acknowledge. After all, there was no outcry from the GOP when they captured votes in Maine in the past, and the current resident of the White House targeted a single vote in Nebraska — and won it — without complaint.

This context is important to consider when evaluating proposed changes to how Pennsylvania awards its Electoral College votes: the proposed changed method has been in use and accepted by both parties for generations.

This is not to say its uncontroversial, as there are obviously many arguments both for and against the proposal, ranging the whole spectrum of political ideology with varying degrees of political merit.

That said, any and all discussion should start only after we put one silly argument to bed: there is nothing unethical, unconstitutional or sinister in changing from a winner take all state to one that apportions votes based on congressional district. NOTHING.

That is the essential starting point — no matter the reason why you wish to oppose any change, it is INARGUABLE that this is fully within the contemplated and assigned powers delegated to the states by the constitution and by the people of Pennsylvania through their elected officials.

What this is, then, is very simple: a political and policy decision assigned to the individual States by the constitution. The process is fully within the power of the Commonwealth to both change and if the electorate so demands, change back.

That is not unconstitutional -- its democracy.

So, against that backdrop, what exactly will the proposed changes mean? It's actually rather simple.

Using the vote totals from 2008, President Obama would likely win 9 congressional district and be awarded the 2 senate seats due to his overall win for a total of 11 electoral college votes. The GOP would likely win 9 congressional districts as well, making the split 11-9, or 55% to 45%.

In 2008, Obama captured 54% of the vote. Under the new system he would get 55% of the Electoral College votes. It's very hard to see that as inequitable.

On the contrary, there is a very good argument that the proportion is more equitable than the current method. Taken on its face as a policy and ignoring the purely political implications, the proportional assignment of Electoral College votes is fair to all involved — candidates and voters alike.

It is therefore fair to conclude that on a policy basis both the current system and the proposed changes are inarguably constitutional while one is significantly more representative of the will of the electorate.

That means any argument against (and, admittedly, very many for) the change is based on politics. There isn't space or time to raise them all, but a few of the most prevalent merit discussion.

There is first and foremost the argument that the change at this stage in a Presidential contest is being undertaken to effect this election specifically and is ignoring long-term considerations. There is no denying that, as a Republican, I was immediately drawn to the opportunity to effectuate a 20-vote swing in 2012. It is the equivalent of picking up Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island overnight — something either party would love to do.

However, the converse is also true; it is as easy to argue that the continual use of a "winner-take-all" format is just perpetuating a political decision to "disenfranchise" 45-48% of the electorate. EITHER side of this argument is political — and therefore neither supports or defeats either position. Continued discussion of this aspect is counterproductive, as your view will depend on where you "sit" and most views in this regard are settled along presidential camps.

Another extremely prevalent argument, this from Republican opponents to the change, is that it makes purple congressional seats more vulnerable. I understand this argument — Presidential campaigns will spend their money where they can win; if a collar county district is trending hard to the Democrats, there will be no GOP money supporting the down ticket races. On the flip side there will be similar behaviors out of the Democrats in seats trending hard to the GOP in Western PA.

These are legitimate political concerns for the members in those districts (many of whom I consider friends) and for the Parties seeking to elect congressmen — but they are simply not policy objections. Therefore they are not relevant to the discussion whether the current or changed system best reflects the will of the people.

That is, ultimately, the problem with most of the arguments against changing the system: there are political arguments, not policy ones.

And, in the end, shouldn't this be based on policy? On one hand we have a system where 50.1% can send 100% of the states' votes to Washington to vote for President on our behalf; on the other we have a system that in most years will send a proportion that reflects the electorate's mind.

On that basis, the decision to change seems pretty clear — once you filter out the cloud of party politics.

I am Scott Paterno, and that is the Uncomfortable Truth.

Even if we pay more in taxes, will government use money wisely?

Guest Column by Craig Keefauver

There has been plenty of debate lately concerning tax rates and the need for people (especially those deemed wealthy) to pay more in federal taxes. Many times the debate is framed in such a way as the following: Would you agree to pay higher taxes if it meant that we could reduce the federal deficit? Or would you agree to pay higher taxes if it would help make our economy grow stronger and get people back to work? I’m convinced that, given these choices, most taxpayers would answer that they’d be willing to sacrifice.

My problem with the premise is that it is fundamentally flawed. I have seen too much foolish spending, waste, corruption and cronyism to believe that those who represent us would use the taxpayers’ monies so wisely as to reduce the deficit or put people back to work.

But first, let’s get one thing straight: The government takes taxes out of my paycheck without me even getting a whiff of it. In my mind, rather than paying taxes, a more accurate description is that the government forcibly takes what it demands. You can’t pay something to the government that you never received in the first place.

Sometimes I don’t consider myself a taxpayer so much as someone whose earnings are confiscated each month. Once it’s taken, I have no control over it, no matter how hard I worked to earn it. We, the taxpayers, must always remember that, without income-generating citizens, there would be no government.

As a taxpayer, take pride in that and accept your responsibility that we must change the current dynamic. In order for any entity to expect someone to invest more in it, that entity must prove that it’s being wise stewards with what it has received. In my opinion, our government has largely been deficient in this area. I no longer have confidence that extra taxes the government confiscates will be used wisely.

The evidence is staggering. The Obama stimulus included $3.4 million to build a turtle tunnel in Florida and $54 million to fund a NAPA Valley wine train tourist attraction. Starting in the Clinton administration, and continuing through Bush’s and Obama’s terms, our State Department has sent $26 million to rebuild churches, synagogues and mosques worldwide.

I have nothing against churches, synagogues or mosques around the world, but these types of projects should be funded privately, rather than by the taxpayers. These are a just a few examples of our money being wasted. There are many, many more.

If you hired an investment firm and found that it was regularly wasting your money, you’d never give it more. We’d all be fools to entrust one more nickel under the present circumstances. To the government, I say, show that you can be a good steward, then ask for more.

Until our leaders prove good stewardship, let the Warren Buffetts of the world throw more of their own money down the drain. How dare they challenge others to do the same. I guarantee that if any of Mr. Buffett’s employees performed as poorly as our government has, he would not only refuse to pay that person more, he would probably fire them on the spot.

It’s time for reasoned and serious stewards to take control of the purse strings. Our government owes that much to those of us who fund the government. Perhaps a solution is for an independent panel of business professionals be appointed to oversee all spending. There are clearly billions of dollars that are flushed down the tubes, and it must end.

If you’re not confident that the current bunch of lawmakers has our best interests at the core of their being, it’s our duty to elect those who do.

Another President Obama Press Conference. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah

Oh my God! I've woken up to another President Obama press conference on jobs. All I hear is blah, blah, blah, blah. The only other guy in history that likes fame as much as Obama has to be Napoleon.

As for the President's new jobs bill, I thought infrastructure jobs were part of the first failed stimulus wasn't it? I thought they were "shovel ready" Mr. President. President

The American people need to realize that President Obama and his administration have no clue how to turn our economy around. There is no doubt that the American people know that it is time for another change in the White House! When are democrats going to stop defending this guy?

A tribute to Apple's Steve Jobs

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple's CEO and Co-Founder Steve Jobs has died of cancer at 56. The family is reporting that Steve died peacefully today with his family. The CEO of Apple impacted so many lives and his spirit will live on in the technology that he created. Steve you changed the world! America needs more innovators like you. God bless Steve Jobs and his family.