Carol Shea-Porter - The Keystone XL Pipeline Fails America

The TransCanada Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline fight has been very political. How many jobs will it create? Will this hurt the environment? Will this dirty tar sand oil stay in the United States and help to make us energy independent?  Is anyone buying influence to create this pipeline to carry Canadian oil across six states to the Gulf Coast? Are the Koch Brothers and their group, Americans for Prosperity, trying to influence the outcome by donating to the Energy and Commerce Committee members?

While the economy is recovering, creating jobs is crucial, so those who support this pipeline have been touting it as a job creator, although they sure seem confused. The NH-01 Congressman wrote that the KXL project, “is expected to immediately create 20,000 American jobs, and an additional 179,000 jobs through at least 2035 once the pipeline is fully operational in 2013.”  Speaker John Boehner, who just happens to have major investments in most of the oil companies that will profit from the KXL and has received money from them, says 100,000 jobs. The American Petroleum Institute claims “more than half a million new jobs” by 2035. The head of the US Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Donohue, says up to 250,000 jobs over the life of the project.

There is always a party pooper, and in this case, it is the Cornell University Global Labor Institute. In September 2011, it reported, "A calculation of the direct jobs that might be created by KXL can begin with an examination of the jobs on-site to build and inspect the pipeline. The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." 

Will it hurt the environment, our farms and water? We can look to the past to make an intelligent prediction. The Keystone 1 project, which runs from Canada to Oklahoma, has leaked 12 times in just one year. Their spokesperson told the press that there was concern that since there were two leaks in just a month, opposing forces might use that to stop the new pipeline. In other words, their miserable record might be held against them.

But the United States does need energy, and this will help make us energy independent, right? If we were going to keep the oil here, supporters could claim some benefit. However, the oil is not promised to us. Congressman Edward Markey, in his essay, “Drill Here, Sell There, Pay More” (The Hill, 2/9/12), wrote, “Last December, I asked the president of TransCanada point-blank if he would agree to keep fuels made from oil shipped through the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. He replied, ‘No.’” But the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which is very different from our local Chambers, which serve Main Street businesses) ignored that, and scolded President Obama in a press release: “Just as troubling, the President’s decision will make us more dependent on oil from foreign nations that don’t share our interests.”

The Los Angeles Times, in their article, “Koch Brothers Now at Heart of GOP Power” (2/6/11) reported that their group, Americans for Prosperity, “began circulating a pledge asking politicians to denounce a Democratic-led effort to compel oil refineries and utilities to clean up emissions of greenhouse gases through a so-called cap-and-trade system… Americans for Prosperity began working to defeat House Democrats who voted for the bill, showing the power of its new activist base.” They ran ugly and false attack ads, defeated the Democrats, and now have many allies in Congress. The article also said, “Wichita-based Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the panel, ahead of giants like Exxon Mobil, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee's 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats.” Did I mention that the Koch Brothers have a facility right there at the beginning of the pipeline and that their website says they are among the “largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters”?

So we are not getting jobs, we are risking our environment, and we don’t get to keep the oil to reduce oil imports from our enemies. Why would the United States accept this pipeline from Canada to our Gulf Coast refineries?  If the American people don’t win on this “deal,” why are we considering it—just to help the oil companies get a better price on the world market than they could get in Canada or the United States?   As the old line says, “Go figure.”

Carol Shea-Porter - Save Our Schools

Newly arrived immigrants and American citizens with deep roots always have the same message for their children—study and get a good education because that is how to succeed. Knowledge is power and education is the key to prosperity, and everyone knows it. That is why Thomas Jefferson and others advocated for a public school system and Jefferson founded one of the best public universities in America. As Jefferson said, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. . . . the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected." Past American leaders understood the role and responsibility of government in education—to make individuals and communities stronger and more successful, businesses competitive and successful, and America safer and able to elevate its citizens' standard of living and quality of life. Do our present leaders share that belief and reflect that vision?

Unfortunately, and rather shockingly, education has become deeply politicized. When I was on the Education and Labor Committee in Congress, some members showed their contempt for public education by saying "government-run” schools, instead of public schools. They worked then, and still do, to discredit educators and dismantle the public school system, or to divert funding to private schools. Schools and teachers have received withering attacks from state legislators across the country who have tried to pass legislation undermining the curriculum, denying science, and trying to force the teaching of creationism.

Some politicians don't take ideological votes against schools; they just find it an easier target when cutting funding, and they don’t fully consider the consequences. Benjamin Franklin's words echo across the ages as a reminder and a warning: "The good Education of Youth has been esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths. Almost all Governments have therefore made it a principal Object of their Attention, to establish and endow with proper Revenues, such Seminaries of Learning, as might supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country."

Cutting school budgets is a short-term solution that will result in an even greater long-term problem. The US was already lagging behind other countries before the tea-party state and national representatives took over state houses and the US House. While NH is still doing well, a 2010 CBS series found that compared to 30 comparable countries, American students were #25 in Math and #21 in Science. Nationally, only 75% of our students graduate from high school. No lofty words can change the meaning here. We are not number one, and as the Vice President's wife, Dr. Jill Biden says, "Any country that out-educates us will out-compete us."

Money alone won’t solve all of our problems. But to cut funding when we’re already in a very precarious state defies logic and reminds me of the old and wise saying, penny-wise, pound-foolish. 

So, how foolish are we being? The Economic Policy Institute prepared a report showing how we under-pay our children's teachers. Almost half of teachers leave within five years, mainly because they cannot get ahead and care for their own families on the low pay. The New York Times highlighted one teacher in a 3/2/11 article. A high-school science teacher in her second year of teaching in a city was only earning $36,000 a year and had $26,000 of school debt, no car, and no house. She had to move home to keep teaching. Sadly, this is not unusual. We are also cutting essential programs that help children catch up or keep up, and we are not preparing students for today’s high-tech and very competitive world.

After high school, it is now even tougher to pay for a technical school or college. The NH legislature cut funding to the university system a staggering 50%.   New Hampshire’s 2010 college graduates were in debt an average of $31,048 (Union Leader 11/8/2011). Deep cuts are being made at public universities around the nation, and the national average debt for the 2010 graduate is $25,250.

It is time to talk to our families, our communities, and our legislators about the value and necessity of education. It is time to defend investments in education because they are investments in our children's future, our business' future, and our nation's future. It is time to save our schools.

######

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

David Holt - Stop Sacrificing Economic Growth for Political Gain

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/01/stop-sacrificing-economic-growth-political-gain/2155016

Hope is not a strategy. Nowhere is that truism more evident than in President Obama's energy policy.

While it may be the most newsworthy, the misguided decision on the Keystone XL pipeline isn't the only example of sacrificing American jobs, economic competitiveness and energy security for quick political gain.

Indeed, we could have easily telegraphed Obama's decision by looking to Alaska where similar decisions have stymied efforts to develop resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

There, Obama sacrificed the ability to produce safely nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil a day to appease special interest groups that have misused the federal administrative process to stop exploration of the Arctic at every turn.

In spite of nearly four years of review confirming the project's safety, Obama imposed an arbitrary, and highly political, stoppage time in Shell's conditional permit.

The"approval" advanced by Obama ignores both science and the safety equipment Shell will bring to the region and amounts to a 40 percent reduction in time allowed for exploration work.

This decision comes after Obama's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement declared it "found no evidence that the proposed action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment."

Even more mystifying is the fact that Shell's comprehensive response, which utilizes resources from that company, local experts and the federal government, and would have allowed for response as late as December if needed is not even mentioned in the report.

This arbitrary timeline may seem like a good political compromise to the president -- an approval with such restrictive terms that it may not be economically viable to execute.

In reality, it greatly sacrifices the ability to harness the full benefits of the project. The project is expected to provide a robust suite of economic benefits over the next 50 years, including 55,000 new jobs per year, $145 billion in new payroll and $193 billion in additional government revenues.

Thedecision also sacrifices the economic security of the entire West Coast, home to the world's fifth largest economy, by forcing continued reliance on foreign sources of oil in an increasingly unstable global market.

Make no mistake, this dependence is severe. Due to declines in production from mature fields, the West Coast has gone from 100 percent domestic supply to almost half now arriving from foreign oil supplies.

Who is making up the difference? The answer is OPEC, which provides 48 percent of the region's supplies, and Russia, which supplies an additional 37 million barrels a year.

With this extensive dependence on foreign sources, and Obama's decision to cut the Beaufort and Chukchi development schedule nearly in half, the West Coast isessentially now captive to the whims of hostile regimes and unstable supplies.

These dangers couldn't be more clear and present than with Iran's threats to block the Straits of Hormuz, and the recent Arab Spring uprisings. Of course, with news like this having dominated headlines the better part of the last year, it seems likely to even the most casual observer that instability is the new normal.

If Shell's efforts are thwarted now, other companies may decide to give up on Alaska development, risking the future of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, billions of barrels of oil, tens of thousands of jobs.

As our nation's energy needs continue to grow, and our economy falters to fully emerge from the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression, Obama should be making bold energy choices based on engineering and sound science, not false compromises designed to appease a small yet vocal minority.

Restricting the supply of safe, secure and reliable supplies of energy from American markets with only the hope that the rest of the world will help America fill in the gaps is naive, dangerous, and puts the global balance of power in the hands of regimes who are only too happy to see America fail.

David Holt is president of the Consumer Energy Alliance.

###

BACKGROUND

·      The U.S. Alaskan oil supplies are running out.  The Trans-Alaska pipeline is experiencing a steady decline in the amount of oil flowing through it from a peak of 744 million barrels of oil in 1988 down to 245 million barrels in 2009.

·      The pipeline is threatened because it cannot handle pumping less than 300,000 barrels per day without incurring expensive repairs and alterations because the oil, which under normal flows is pumped 800 miles over a three day period, is flowing at such a low rate its temperature is chilled to much causing clogs and ruptures to the pipeline. It now takes five times longer to arrive at the Port of Valdez often at temperatures as low as 40F, versus 100F.

·      To increase the flow, the oil companies are trying to drill other oil fields in the area.  But the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and offshore drilling and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) are off limits.

·       Saving the pipeline has become a political issue in Alaska. The pipeline, which employs 2,000 people, still delivers more than 11% of the oil produced in the U.S. Almost all of it ends up in refineries in Washington, California and Hawaii.

·       The end of the pipeline would likely translate into higher gasoline prices, which hit an average of $3.98 a gallon last week, the highest in nearly three years.

·      The only solution to saving the Alaskan pipeline is to add more oil.  Oil companies and many Alaskan officials argue more lands should be opened to drilling so that the pipeline can get the crude it needs to flow fast and safely.

Bill Wilson - A Megaload of Unintended Consequences

http://netrightdaily.com/2012/01/a-megaload-of-unintended-consequences/

 

By Bill Wilson

After an outpouring of opposition by millions of Internet users and tens of thousands of websites against the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) and the "Protect Intellectual Property Act" (PIPA) in the House and Senate, congressional proponents of the bills have delayed votes on Capitol Hill.

That is not stopping the Obama Administration, however, which has been acting as if the proposals have already been passed.  The most recent example is the shutdown of Megaupload.com, a web-based data storage company that boasted over 150 million users, by the Justice Department and New Zealand law enforcement officials. 

According to the indictment, the company was accused of facilitating the distribution of pirated movies, television shows, music, and other copyrighted material.  Allegedly, the company refused to process Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown requests, and falsely told copyright owners materials had been removed when members of the company took steps to keep the pirated material on their servers.

Finally, according to the indictment, the company allegedly "made payments to uploaders who were known to have uploaded infringing copies of copyrighted works" and that members of the company itself were uploading infringing works.

If true, the members of the company would certainly be in a lot of trouble.  However, this case has broader implications that should be considered.

Over 150 million users worldwide — millions of whom were premium subscribers — have lost access to their data files.  By some estimates, there were over 8 billion files stored on Megaupload, just a fraction of which contained infringing material according to the indictment, which only claims that "many millions" of the files are infringing.  Like many alleged criminal enterprises, Megaupload carried on several legitimate business dealings.

So, whether the company is guilty or not, Megaupload had millions of users who were using its servers for legitimate purposes — and they've just had their data seized without cause. 

This, in turn, sets up a series of dangerous precedents.

The future of information technology is in cloud-based applications.  When the feds can seize the entire cloud based on the actions a few or even many participants, it violates the property rights of its legitimate users. 

The Justice Department has responded to media inquiries about the status of the legitimate files that were stored at Megaupload, saying that users had no reasonable expectation of long-term data storage from the company: "the vast majority of Megaupload.com users do not have significant capabilities to store private content long-term since anything that isn't repeatedly downloaded is automatically deleted from the system."

However, premium users had an expectation that their data would be stored for a period lasting at least 90 days or forever if it was regularly accessed.  Now, it looks like everything on the Megaupload servers could be deleted as soon as Feb. 2.

To draw a real world analogy, this would be like a bank being accused of violating some law, and so all of the innocent depositors' assets were also seized.  Or if a mobster owned an apartment building and was arrested, all of the building's blameless occupants were exiled and their property taken into custody, based merely on criminal activity taking place in one of the apartment units.

Even more alarming is the Obama Administration's expansion of executive powers to police the Internet in this manner, based on a reading of existing federal forfeiture laws in a manner that was never necessarily intended.

Already, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has used this basis to seize domains in error, including the cases of mooo.com and dajaz1.com, only to be returned weeks and months later respectively without any compensation for loss of revenues or even a good explanation for the mishaps.

Overall, the Obama Administration's actions to date with Megaupload.com, mooo.com and dajaz1.com raise significant due process, First Amendment, and property rights concerns.  The world has witnessed attempts by governments to shut down political speech using the same rationale and technologies that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have employed already.

Congress needs to act now to tie their hands while the courts move to rein in this aggressive, arrogant overreach by an out-of-control government.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Todd I. Selig - NH Towns, Cities, School Districts, and Counties Must be Responsive to the Economic Realities of their Citizens

The prevailing focus of the upcoming budget season for local governments across New Hampshire will continue to be the economy. Three and a half years have passed since the onset of the financial and economic crisis of 2008, yet despite what politicians campaigning across NH have been saying about the U.S. economy, the New Hampshire economy appears to be headed in a positive direction, albeit very, very slowly. The critical question will be the length of time it will take to regain a solid footing, and whether it will continue to improve or take a turn, and perhaps a significant turn, for the worse.

In this tumultuous economic climate, it is imperative for New Hampshire’s 234 towns and cities, 177 school districts administrated by 87 School Administrative Units, and 10 counties to be economically and prudently operated.  Local, School, and County governments function as purveyors of public services, and more and more of them across the country are implementing sound business practices during uncertain economic times. 

The following list represents strategies New Hampshire local governments may choose to consider if they have not already done so:

Continuing to hold operational expenses flat, to include public employee wages, as an ongoing strategy to limit the impact of the U.S. macroeconomic situation on local taxpayers.  At this time local governments will likely find a broader pool of qualified applicants from which to draw who are willing to accept positions at lower rates of pay.

Rethinking the organizational structure of agencies and departments and the manner in which services are delivered in an effort to improve organizational efficiencies and mitigate cost centers over the long-term.

Engaging with local legislators to prevent the continued downshifting of bona-fide State of N.H. costs to towns, cities, school districts and counties at the expense of local taxpayers.  Areas of specific concern include highway block grant funds, bridge aid, shared revenues, school building aid, public assistance programs, pole exemptions, and costs associated with financial challenges within the New Hampshire Retirement System.

Controlling escalating health care benefit costs by reconsidering benefit and prescription plans offered to public employees, increasing employee co-pays, shopping around for the most competitive pricing, and implementing active employee wellness programs to encourage healthy living thereby reducing long-term cost exposure.

Regionalizing services such as multi-town or county assessing districts, cooperative school districts, regional dispatch, and multi-jurisdiction police/fire precincts.  Regionalization is commonly utilized in other areas of the country and should be given serious consideration where feasible in New Hampshire.

Mitigating future utility/fuel costs by replacing older vehicles with smaller, more fuel efficient alternatives, retrofitting facilities with energy efficient lighting and mechanical systems, the establishment of local energy committees, and utilizing Energy Star and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified new construction within future building projects.  

Maintaining a strong balance sheet and favorable bond rating by sustaining an appropriate undesignated fund balance, utilizing realistic revenue/expenditure projections, and ensuring adequate contingency funds to account for unanticipated events such as floods, wind/ice storms, and extended power outages.

Encouraging Land preservation activities to preserve open space and protect a community’s natural resources during a time when land prices have fallen considerably from pre-2008 highs – a wonderful buying opportunity for taxpayers.

Promoting economic development activities intended to broaden the tax base and create new jobs combined with smart growth initiatives to thoughtfully plan futuredevelopment.   

Implementing risk management strategies to control property/liability/unemployment compensation insurance costs by establishing active Joint Loss Management/Safety Committees to reduce the incidence of employee injury, accidents, property damage, and lost time.

Budgets developed for the 20012/2013 timeframe must continue to be reflective of meaningful efforts on the part of local governments to develop new efficiencies and synergies within departments, agencies, and schools tocontrol spending growth during a time of continued economic uncertainty.  No two communities, no two school districts are alike; local governments will have to tailor solutions to their individual needs and the needs of their citizens. 

Information about Todd I. Selig:

Todd I. Selig has served as Durham Town Administrator since 2001.  After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Syracuse University, Mr. Selig went on to complete a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of New Hampshire.  He has served in a variety of New Hampshire administrative positions within both the municipal and schoolsectors including positions in Raymond, Laconia, New Boston, Hopkinton, and now Durham.  In 2003, Todd Selig was awarded the Caroline Gross Fellowship allowing him to attend the Program for SeniorExecutives in State and Local Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  He was named as one of New Hampshire’s “40 Under Forty” by The Union Leader in 2005.  Mr. Selig has previously served as chairman of the board of directors for the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and as a trustee and vice-chairman of the board of PRIMEX (N.H. Public Risk Management Exchange).  He is a member of the International City/County Management Association, a member of the Municipal Management Association of NH, and a member of the Laconia andDurham Historical Societies.  Originally from Laconia, Mr. Selig resides with his wife and two daughters in Durham, New Hampshire.