Category Archives: News

Email from Walter Jones – Three Positive Steps for Taxpayers

February 2, 2012

 

Yesterday was a small victory for taxpayers in the House of Representatives.  My Republican colleagues and I voted to pass three bills that will help reduce the wasteful spending that is drowning this nation.  Now it’s time for Majority Leader Harry Reid and the U.S. Senate to act on these important measures.

 

The first bill passed yesterday was H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act.  This bill would repeal the CLASS Act, a major Obamacare provision that ‘in theory’ would provide long term care.  Although the program was totally unworkable it was included in Obamacare for two simple reasons.  First, it fit with the Obama Administration’s desire to get the government as deeply involved in health care as possible.  And secondly, it was included as a budget gimmick.  The program would collect for many years before it began paying out benefits.  This made the cost of the program appear to be a winner in the short term, but any honest assessment made it obvious that this provision would be a major drain over the long term.  The Obama Administration announced last year that this program would not work and would be abandoned, but many of my colleagues and I remain concerned that it could be revived.  That is why the CLASS Act needs to be repealed now.

 

The House also voted on H.R. 3835, a bill that would freeze pay for Members of Congress and bureaucrats.  It’s no secret that America is broke and that the spending spree must stop.  Freezing the pay of Congressmen and bureaucrats is a great place to start.

 

The final bill approved last night would add a common sense reform to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare block grant program.  H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now (WIN) Act would restrict welfare funds from being used at strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.  It is outrageous to think that hard working Americans’ tax dollars are being spent at these facilities.  This practice is unacceptable and must stop.

 

Taxpayers need their elected representatives to deliver a lot more days on Capitol Hill like yesterday.  I’m doing what I can to make that goal a reality.  A little help from the Senate would be appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Walter

Email from Walter Jones – America Then and Now

January 30, 2012

 

In 1980, President Ronald Reagan asked the American people if they were better off after nearly four years of President Jimmy Carter.  The answer was an obvious NO! If you listen to President Obama you might think all is well in America.  We all know better.  The chart below shows just how bad things are.  I encourage you to review and share with others.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

 

America Then and Now – Obama Policies Have Put America at Risk

 America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

 

Before

Now

Change
Number of Unemployed1

12.0 Million

13.1 Million

+9%
Long-Term Unemployed2

2.7 Million

5.6 Million

+107%
Unemployment Rate3

7.8%

8.5%

+9%
“High Unemployment” States4

22

43

+95%
Misery Index5

7.83

11.46

+46%
Price of Gas6

$1.85

$3.39

+83%
“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7

$974

$1,013

+4%
Median Value of Single-Family Home8

$196,600

$169,100

-14%
Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9

6.62%

10.23%

+55%
U.S. National Debt10

$10.6 Trillion

$15.2 Trillion

+43%

 

1 Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
2 “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
3 Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
4 “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher.  From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html.
5 The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation.  For January 2009 and December 2012.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp.
6 Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W.
7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.
8 U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice.
9 Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm.
10 Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012.  http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np.

Email from Walter Jones re. Straight Talk on America's Fiscal Crisis

January 27, 2012

 
I don’t have to tell you that deficit spending is crippling our nation. American needs its elected leaders to level with them about our fiscal crisis, but this President and many of my colleagues in Congress continue to kick the can down the road. That’s just wrong.

It was very disappointing to watch President Obama fail to use his State of the Union address to come clean about our nation’s dire financial situation. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.

The infographic below was prepared by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It shows the true state of America’s fiscal emergency. I encourage you to check it out and share with your friends.

Thanks,

Walter

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12577/budgetinfographic.png

Email from Walter Jones re. Obama's Contempt for the Constitution

January 13, 1012

 

I thought you might be interested in seeing today’s Wall Street Journal editorial, “Contempt for the Constitution.”  In the piece, the Journal expounds on one of President Obama’s most recent total disregards of the Constitution.  As you will recall, earlier this month the president made a number of recess appointments—a new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) members.

The president’s power to make recess appointments is only valid when the Congress is in recess.  However, these appointments were made during a time in which the Senate was not in recess, which is a clear violation of the Constitution.

Please feel free to share this with your friends and family, because unfortunately this appears to be part of a pattern of disregard for the Constitution that needs to be known and opposed.

Thanks,

Walter

————————————————

Wall Street Journal Editorial

 

Contempt for the Constitution

Justice invents a legal rationale for Obama appointments

 

Where’s John Yoo when President Obama needs him? The famous Bush Administration legal official was much maligned for issuing opinions supporting Presidential power, and he surely would have come up with something better than the junk law issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel yesterday.

The 23-page memorandum (dated January 6) by Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz is meant to justify Mr. Obama’s recess appointments last week of Richard Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members of the National Labor Relations Board—even though the Senate was not in recess but was holding pro forma sessions. The House also did not consent to the Senate’s adjournment, as required by the Constitution’s Article I, section 5, clause 4.

 

Ms. Seitz concedes that “The question is a novel one, and the substantial arguments on each side create some litigation risk for such appointments,” and little wonder. Most of the opinion is an off-point digression on the constitutionality of recess appointments between Senate sessions, which no one disputes. But on that “novel” question, Ms. Seitz’s legal reasoning is remarkably weak.

She avers that the pro forma sessions aren’t technically sessions. As “a practical matter,” she writes, in those sessions the Senate isn’t capable of receiving and acting on nominations to the executive branch and therefore cannot exercise its advice and consent duties. Ms. Seitz points in particular to a Senate “standing order”—the rules of order it adopts to govern its procedures—that no business would be transacted during the pro forma sessions. If the Senate itself says it can’t conduct business, she says, then the President can conclude it isn’t really in session.

The problem is that the Senate does most of its work by unanimous consent—meaning without objection from present Members and without a vote or quorum. Even a single Senator alone on the floor (or “as a practical matter” one from each party) can use this process to modify the standing order in a heartbeat and conduct business.

The Senate did exactly that to pass Mr. Obama’s payroll tax holiday in December, changing a standing order by unanimous consent to conduct business during an ostensibly pro forma session. Mr. Obama signed that bill. Either that was a real session and therefore his recess appointments are unconstitutional or the bill was invalidly enacted and therefore unconstitutional. Both can’t be true.

The practical effect of Ms. Seitz’s legal logic is that the President could make a recess appointment when the Senate adjourns for the day, or for lunch. He could also decide that the Senate isn’t functioning to his liking—for instance, by dragging its feet on his nominations—and recess appoint nominees even when the Senate is conducting other business.

Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed Mr. Obama relied on the advice of White House counsel and didn’t mention that the Office of Legal Counsel had been consulted beforehand. Now we know why: The Administration’s position is a made-to-order legal invention.

Email from Walter Jones – Stop a US Bailout of Europe

December 12, 2011

 

Today I joined Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and 21 other colleagues in urging House and Senate appropriators to save U.S. taxpayers’ money by rescinding $108 billion in U.S. contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that is being used to bail out wealthy European nations.  In 2009, Congress approved the $108 billion increase in IMF contributions at the request of President Obama and over the objection of myself and nearly all House Republicans who voted against it.  Americans for Prosperity and 19 other conservative organizations recently sent their own letter to Congress also calling for the IMF European bailout money to be rescinded (letter here).

 

It’s absolutely unacceptable to force U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab to bail out foreign nations, particularly wealthy ones like those in Europe.  With almost $15 trillion in federal debt and an annual deficit of over $1 trillion, Uncle Sam can’t afford to bail itself out, much less other countries.

 

The full text of the letter sent to House and Senate appropriators is below.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

 

——————————–

 

Dear Conferees:

 

As you consider the funding issues for FY2012, we are writing to ensure that provisions of H.R. 2313, a bill that rescinds the $108 billion in increased quota contributions and borrowing authority to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are included in your final appropriations package.

 

As the European financial crisis continues to unfold, the IMF continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out members of the European Union.  As the largest contributor to the IMF, the United States and the American taxpayer are condoning the practice of profligate spending undertaken by members of the European Union with bailout packages.  Bailout packages have been made available to European Union members that don’t even meet their own economic requirements for membership, such as Greece that maintains a reported debt to GDP ratio of 140 percent and Italy with a reported debt to GDP ratio of 120 percent, and have provided little to no guarantee that any fiscal reform will be enforced.  What’s more disturbing is that over the last several days, the Administration has made clear its intent to continue supporting these bailout efforts.

 

Earlier this summer, the House State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Subcommittee issued a draft report for its FY 2012 State, Foreign Operation, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which included language “requiring all funds provided to the International Monetary Fund in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32) be de-obligated, withdrawn, and rescinded.”  H.R. 2313 continues these efforts rescinding the $108 billion in increased quota and new borrowing authority.

 

The time for wasteful spending is over – both here and abroad.  The United States cannot continue this wasteful practice.   We urge you to rescind the $108 billion in enhanced quota contributions and borrowing authority that were requested by the Administration in 2009.

Email from Walter Jones re. Balanced Budget Amendment

On Friday I voted for H. J. Res. 2, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring the federal government to have a balanced budget.  Unfortunately, the measure failed to pass the House with a vote ­of 261-165, roughly two dozen votes short of the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment.  236 Republicans voted for H.J. Res. 2, while 161 Democrats voted against it.

 

I am a long-time supporter of the Balanced Budget Amendment.  I voted for the Amendment the last time it passed the House in 1995.  I’ve also cosponsored Balanced Budget Amendment legislation in every term I have served in Congress, and am a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 2.

 

The last time a Balanced Budget Amendment passed the House was in 1995, when a measure which contained language almost identical to H.J. Res. 2 was approved by a vote of 300-132.  The amendment then failed to pass the Senate with the necessary two-thirds majority, falling just one vote short.

 

I am very disappointed that the House failed to advance this crucial legislation. Years of out-of-control spending have put our country at great risk.  With a national debt of roughly $15 trillion, this measure was backed by a strong majority of the American people.  It is unfortunate that members of the House can’t come together to solve the major problems of this country and get America back on the right fiscal track.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

JONES [Press Release] VOTES TO PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Washington, Dec 15, 2011 –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) voted against H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, because it included language that would significantly weaken the constitutional rights and protections of all Americans.  Specifically, H.R. 1540 included Senate-backed provisions that authorize the federal government, including the Administration of President Barack Obama, to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.  Although 42 Republicans joined Jones in voting against the bill, it passed the House and now goes to the Senate for a final vote.

“Our founding fathers understood how easily it could be for the government to oppress the people, so they wisely sought to limit the government’s power through the Constitution,” said Congressman Jones.  “Ronald Reagan’s FBI Director, William Sessions, has advised that the provisions in H.R. 1540 represent a dangerous threat to our national security and an erosion of our constitutional rights.  Giving President Obama or any other President the ability to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial is unacceptable. As James Madison once said: ‘The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.’”

Earlier this week, Congressman Jones and a bipartisan group of colleagues joined Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-3) in sending a letter to the House negotiators on the H.R. 1540 expressing  concern regarding the Senate detention provisions.  That letter can be found here.

Also this week, the New York Times published an editorial by retired four-star Marine Corps generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar which criticized the Senate detention provisions.  Their editorial can be found here.

For further commentary on this issue from Mr. William Sessions, who served as FBI director under President Ronald Reagan, a U.S. Attorney and a federal judge, click here.

Email from Walter Jones on Keystone Pipeline

Representative Walter Jones sent the email below with two articles on the Keystone Pipeline:

 

I thought you might be interested in seeing two editorials from today-one from the Wall Street Journal, and even one from the Washington Post-regarding President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.  The editorials do a great job of showing what is at stake with Keystone XL and why President Obama should reconsider.

 

It is incomprehensible for this president to spend so much time talking about jobs, and then to reject a proposal that would create thousands of jobs. Americans are tired of the lip service; we want action. Keystone XL has been studied to death. Even the president’s own State Department has twice determined that the project would have “no significant impacts” on the environment. It’s time for the president to stop the excuses and start creating jobs.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

 

———————————————————

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/sites/twpweb/img/logos/twp_logo_300.gif

Obama’s Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept

By Editorial Board, Published: January 18

ON TUESDAY, President Obama’s Jobs Council reminded the nation that it is still hooked on fossil fuels, and will be for a long time. “Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.”

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.”

Mr. Obama’s Jobs Council could start by calling out . . . the Obama administration.

On Wednesday, the State Department announced that it recommended rejecting the application of TransCanada Corp. to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and Mr. Obama concurred. The project would have transported heavy, oil-like bitumen from Alberta — and, potentially, from unconventional oil deposits in states such as Montana — to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast.

Environmentalists have fought Keystone XL furiously. In November, the State Department tried to put off the politically dangerous issue until after this year’s election, saying that the project, which had undergone several years of vetting, required further study. But Republicans in Congress unwisely upped the political gamesmanship by mandating that State make a decision by Feb. 21. Following Wednesday’s rejection, TransCanada promised to reapply — so the administration has again punted the final decision until after the election.

We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say that the route TransCanada proposed might threaten the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region. But TransCanada has been willing to tweak the route, in consultation with Nebraska officials, even though a government analysis last year concluded that the original one would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” Surely the Obama administration didn’t have to declare the whole project contrary to the national interest — that’s the standard State was supposed to apply — and force the company to start all over again.

Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel U.S. refineries produce from Canada’s bitumen might be exported elsewhere. But even if that’s true, why force those refineries to obtain their crude from farther away? Anti-Keystone activists insist that building the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest. But shouldn’t environmentalists want that? Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.

There are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use in America, the first of which is establishing higher gasoline taxes. Environmentalists should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have the courage to say so.

The Wall Street Journal

The Anti-Jobs President

Obama rejects the Keystone XL pipeline and blames Congress.

The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been between the jobs and growth crisis he inherited and the President’s hell-for-leather pursuit of his larger social-policy ambitions. The tragedy is that the economic recovery has been so lackluster because the second impulse keeps winning.

Yesterday came proof positive with the White House’s repudiation of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada’s $7 billion shovel-ready project that would support tens of thousands of jobs if only it could get the requisite U.S. permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait.

Unless the President objected, December’s payroll tax deal gave TransCanada the go-ahead in February to start building the pipeline, which would travel 1,661 miles from Alberta to interconnections in Oklahoma and then carry Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on the Gulf Coast.

The State Department, which presides over the Keystone XL review because it would cross the 49th parallel, claimed yesterday that the two-month Congressional deadline was too tight “for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest.” The White House also issued a statement denouncing Congress’s “rushed and arbitrary deadline,” which merely passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

This is, to put it politely, a crock.

Keystone XL has been planned for years and only became a political issue after the well-to-do environmental lobby decided to make it a station of the green cross. TransCanada filed its application in 2008, and State determined in 2010 and then again last year that the project would have “no significant impacts” on the environment, following exhaustive studies. The Environmental Protection Agency chose to intervene anyway, and the political left began to issue ultimatums and demonstrate in front of the White House, so President Obama decided to defer a final decision until after the election.

The missed economic opportunity was spelled out Tuesday by Mr. Obama’s own Jobs Council, which released a report that endorsed an “all-in approach” on energy, including the “profound new opportunities in shale gas and unconventional oil.” The 27 members handpicked by the President recommended that he support “policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects,” and they warned that failing to do so “would stall the engine that could become a prime driver of U.S. jobs and growth in the decades ahead.”

Only last week the White House issued a “jobs” report praising domestic energy production, but that now looks like political cover for this anti-jobs policy choice.

State did give TransCanada permission to reapply using an alternate route, timetable indefinite. The construction workers, pipefitters, mechanics, welders and electricians who might otherwise be hired for the project—well, they must be thrilled with this consolation prize. Not to mention all the other Americans who might fill “spin-off” jobs on the pipeline’s supply chain like skilled manufacturers and equipment suppliers, or still others who might work in oil refining and distribution.

Environmentalists seem to think they can prevent the development of Canada’s oil-rich tar sands, and that their rallies against Keystone XL will keep that carbon in the ground. They can’t, and it won’t. America’s largest trading partner will simply build a pipeline to the Pacific coast from Alberta and sell its petroleum products to Asia instead, China in particular.

Such green delusions are sad, and Mr. Obama’s pandering is sadder, though everything the country stands to lose is saddest. If Mitt Romney and the other GOP candidates have any political wit, they’ll vindicate the Keystone’s “national interest” and make Mr. Obama explain why job creation is less important than the people who make a living working for the green anti-industrial complex.

Homeowners Insurance Rates: A Second Offensive

January 18th at 2:00 P.M., Legislative Office Building, Room 421, Raleigh, NC

 

As you know, NC 20 battled valiantly to protect the coastal counties from

outrageous increases in insurance rates back during the negotiations on House

Bill 1305 (HB 1305). We blunted much of the damage, but there’s no doubt that

we ended up experiencing some severe pain with the resultant bill due in large

part to the huge insurance lobby and the power that they wield in Raleigh. With

our recent victory on the Sea Level Rise issue behind us, it’s time to revisit

homeowners insurance. Our coastal legislators, led by Representative Tim Spear,

have arranged for a dialog between NC 20, the Insurance Commissioner, and the

coastal legislators. It will be in Raleigh on the date and time above.

To be effective, we need a big turnout from coastal residents at this meeting to give

the Insurance Commissioner a clear understanding of the dissatisfaction and anger

that we feel over the treatment of coastal residents in the matter of insurance.

Our main goals in this meeting are to ask why huge amounts of Beach Plan

premiums (about $250 million per year) are being spent on reinsurance. One of the

outcomes of HB 1305 was to cap liability for the insurance companies at $1billion

and provide for a surcharge on insurance policyholders throughout the State in the

event of a catastrophic event. Equally important is the matter of base rates

themselves, which affect all of us. Why are they as much as five time the rates in

Charlotte? Really, how much is enough? We’ve never had a Category 5 and only

one Category 4 hurricane. Why do mentions of Katrina keep cropping up?

There are a lot of extremely serious questions that need to be asked and the

Commissioner, who is the representative of the people, needs to hear from us

directly and forcefully.

We are writing this in the hope that you will attend the meeting in Raleigh and bring

people from your county with you to demonstrate forcefully the extent of our

dissatisfaction. To begin the process, we will have a luncheon at the Cardinal Club

in the Wells Fargo Capitol Center building (150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2800) at

12:00 noon to give all of the attendants a pre-briefing on what we hope to

accomplish. We can walk from the Cardinal Club to the Legislative Building for the

meeting and then back to the parking deck. There is a parking deck on Wilmington

Street right across the street from the Wells Fargo Capitol Center. If you bring your

parking ticket with you, the Cardinal Club can validate it for you. The cost of the

meal is $10 per person payable at the door of our private dining area in the Capitol

Room.

Please make every effort to attend and bring some very vocal people with you! Call

the number below to help us with lunch arrangements.

Board Members

Bill Price Bob Slocum Bud Stilley Larry Baldwin Missy Baskervill Rudi Rudolph Willo Kelly John Droz

Tom Thompson Daniel Scanlon Frank Heath Randy Keaton David Peoples Tim Buck Russell Overman

Mazie Smith Randell Woodruff William Cowan Bobby Outten David Burton Fred Bone Kathleen Riely

705 Page Road, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Office: (252)946-3970

Fax: (252)946-0849

Email from Walter Jones re. Border Security

JONES TO OBAMA: DON’T TAKE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS OFF THE MEXICAN BORDER


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) has joined Texas Republican Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) in urging President Barack Obama not to reduce the presence of U.S. National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border this coming year. In a letter to the president, Jones and a bipartisan group of lawmakers cited their deep concerns with recent reports that the Obama Administration plans to withdraw half of the National Guard troops currently in the region.

 

“The violent crimes along our southern border have escalated substantially in recent years,” said Jones. “These crimes are not just taking place on the Mexico side; innocent Americans are in frequent danger. It is of the utmost importance that our National Guard maintains a strong presence along our southern border in order to protect the American people.”

 
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that the U.S. Border Patrol only has operational control of 44 percent of the southern U.S. border. While this number is disappointing, it illustrates the need for the continued presence of the National Guard to help secure the border.

 
The full text of Congressman Jones’ letter to President Obama can be read here.

Email from Walter Jones re. Project Gunrunner

Dear Mr. Kukulinski:

 

Thank you for contacting me about holding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Justice Department accountable for its actions as part of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and concerns on this important issue.  Please see my recent press release below calling for Eric Holder’s resignation.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) joined several of his fellow Republican colleagues in calling for the resignation of US Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious.  Though he was briefed on the issue in 2010, Holder appears to have knowingly given false testimony under oath regarding his knowledge of the plan.  This development is the latest in a troubling string of incidents which have called Mr. Holder’s fitness to serve as America’s chief law enforcement officer into question.  At least 35 members of Congress have now called for Attorney General Holder to resign.  Congressman Jones is the first member from the North Carolina delegation to do so.

In July of 2010, Attorney General Holder filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer over the state’s anti-illegal immigration policy.  In February of this year, Holder and the Obama administration decided to no longer recognize the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.  Holder also dismissed a case against the New Black Panther Party in August of 2009 for one of the most blatant acts of voter intimidation in recent memory.

“Since the Attorney General seems unable to be honest with the American people, it is time for him to go,” said Jones.  “Mr. Holder’s tenure has been marked by troubling decisions, but in the case of ‘Fast and Furious’, it appears that under his watch the lack of judgment at the Justice Department may have cost people their lives.”

 

Again, thank you for contacting me on this issue. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 
Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress

Workshop – "The Truth About Wind Power on the Coasts of North Carolina"

The John Locke Foundation
Cordially invites you to

A wind power workshop

with our presenters

Daren Bakst, Esq., John Droz, Jr, David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D

– Daren Bakst, Esq.– Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies John Locke Foundation

John Droz, Jr.– Fellow American Tradition Institute

David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.– Director of the George Mason Environmental Law Clinic Director of the Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute

“The Truth About Wind Power on the Coasts of North Carolina”

 

Monday, December 05, 2011
7:00 PM

Burney Ballroom A, University of North Carolina, Wilmington Wilmington, NC

Price: The event is free and open to the public

The Truth About Wind Power on the Coasts of North Carolina

Environmental pressure groups, the “Big Wind” industry, and self-interested state bodies are going around the state trying to sell the public on the idea of allowing wind power plants along North Carolina’s coast.

This workshop will present an alternative view of wind power and what it would mean to North Carolina’s coastal communities. Participants will learn about wind power in general, including its intermittency problems, high costs, limited value and its environmental and economic impact. Myths will be countered, including why wind power would not play any meaningful role in energy security.

Presenters:

Mr. Bakst, a licensed attorney, is Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies for the John Locke Foundation. In this position, he analyzes and presents on a wide range of issues, including on energy and the environment. His expertise has been featured in many media outlets, including CNN, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and AOL News. Mr. Bakst serves as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Federalist Society and as a member of the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Mr. Droz serves as a fellow at the American Tradition Institute and recently was selected to serve on the board of NC-20, which advocates on behalf of North Carolina’s 20 coastal counties. He serves as the scientific advisor for NC-20. Mr. Droz is a physicist, having worked for companies such as GE. For over 30 years, Mr. Droz has been an environmental activist and been a participating member of many environmental organizations (e.g. Sierra Club, Committee to Protect the Adirondacks).

Dr. Schnare is Director of the Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute, Director of the George Mason Environmental Law Clinic and Director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. Formerly a senior attorney with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Enforcement, he has served as a trial lawyer with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, on the staff of the Senate Appropriates Committee and as the nation’s Senior Regulatory Economist
with the U.S. Office of Advocacy for Small Business.

Additional information can be found at:

NC20

ATI

Tea Party Group Presents Its Own Debt Commission Report

This article is from the New York Times, so some of the spin and conclusions are tainted. But, it does lay out some details of a budget plan that the Tea Party may be able to buy into. Hopefully, more balanced information will be forthcoming by the end of November 17, 2011. Consider that the so-called Super Committee was never meant to come forth with a plan to cut spending and not raise taxes. It is a ploy by both parties to provide an excuse of “well, it was the best we could do” while they raise taxes. Besides, the Super Committee’s goal is only to address a very small cut in FUTURE SPENDING, not in the spending that has gotten us into this financial problem.

 

By KATE ZERNIKE

As the Congressional committee charged with reining in the deficit nears its deadline for coming up with a way to cut it by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years, the Tea Party — or at least, a small group aiming to represent the Tea Party — is presenting its own ideas.

The group, the Tea Party Debt Commission, has been soliciting ideas from Tea Party supporters over the past several months, and will release its final recommendations on Thursday, at a hearing on Capitol Hill convened for it by conservative senators and House members.

When it was formed, its organizers said that the commission would prove that the Tea Party, which tends to like the idea of cutting deficits rather than actual cuts, could in fact come up with a specific plan – one with far more ambitious goals than the joint Congressional committee that is supposed to release its recommendations next week.

The Tea Party budget, as the group calls it, claims to balance the budget in four years, and reduce federal spending by $9.7 trillion over the next 10 years, all while making permanent the Bush-era tax cuts.

If this sounds too good to be true, many will argue it is. Some nonpartisan voices, such as the Congressional Budget Office, have disputed the cost savings that the report estimates for things like repealing the health care legislation passed in 2010, which the Tea Party refers to as ObamaCare.

Among the group’s recommendations are things that have long been favorites of conservatives and/or libertarians — it’s a little bit Ronald Reagan, a little bit Ron Paul.

It would, for instance, eliminate four cabinet agencies – the two that Rick Perry remembered (Education and Commerce) as well as Energy and Housing and Urban Development. It would get rid of a host of other programs and agencies, including Legal Services, the Small Business Administration, the AmeriCorps volunteer program and the National Endowment for the Arts.

It casts a wary eye at the Federal Reserve, too, suggesting it should be eliminated. The report also endorses the idea of “competing currencies,” where people could opt out of using federal reserve notes and conduct business in gold-backed notes and precious metal coins instead.

Not surprisingly, it would also repeal the health care legislation “in toto.” The commission’s report argues that this would save more than $1 trillion over 10 years. But the Congressional Budget Office has said that repealing the act would increase the deficit by $210 billion in that time.

Another of the commission’s ideas is to “end all foreign aid to countries that don’t support us,” which it acknowledges is subjective. Commissioners began with the assumption of ending all foreign aid, but then decided that countries like Israel might be deserving of it. It also argues to reduce the number of troops deployed for “certain” overseas military operations to 45,000 by 2015, but does not define which military operations it would end.

The commission also sets up a budgeting-by-popularity-contest feature, where taxpayers could earmark 10 percent of their tax payments each year to three federal agencies of their choice. The money would be a bonus for agencies that people like (though none would get more than a 10 percent top up).

But cuts to foreign aid and even eliminating entire departments are just nibbling around the edges of deficit reduction. The fastest-growing share of the budget is in mandatory entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. With those programs, the Tea Party budget would allow all new Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. And it would turn Medicaid into a block grant program – states would get a certain amount of money to spend, forcing them to come up with ways to cut costs.

The commission also argues for allowing workers born after 1981 to invest half of their payroll taxes in a private account, an approach it calls the Galveston or Chilean plan — after a county in Texas and the country in South America, both of which allow similar private accounts.

Rick Perry and Herman Cain have endorsed similar plans on the campaign trail. But the plan in Galveston has actually cost more than Social Security, with the higher cost being borne by the county’s taxpayers. And workers do not rely solely on these plans for retirement income: they are also enrolled in pension and 401(k)-type programs.

Some of the commission’s other recommendations are also subject to debate. Arguing to “scrap the tax code,” it says that “massive over-regulation is killing this economy.” But a survey by the National Federation of Small Business, which has joined Republicans and Tea Party supporters in fighting the health care legislation, says that the “single biggest problem” facing its members is low sales, not government regulation. And Labor Department data shows that government regulation has accounted for less than 1 percent of layoffs in the last three quarters.

The commission was formed and largely run by FreedomWorks, the Tea Party incubator led by Dick Armey, the former Republican leader in the House. FreedomWorks named the commissioners, who are a dozen Tea Party activists from across the country, and organized field hearings across the country to take testimony. It also sponsored a Web site where people could choose between different potential cuts to the budget.

Many of the final recommendations, especially those around energy policy and private savings accounts for health care, are ones that FreedomWorks was pushing even before the advent of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

The hearing to be held Thursday afternoon is being convened by several Tea Party-inclined legislators, including Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Representatives Joe Walsh of Illinois, Steve King of Iowa and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, said that while the commission has no power, it hopes that lawmakers will incorporate its recommendations into legislation.

The Scandal No One is Talking About

By

Published November 11, 2011| FoxNews.com

If you’ve been following the news this week, you’d get the impression that America is a scandal-plagued nation. Scandals to the right of us, scandals to the left of us.

Take your pick. There’s the media assault on GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, the deadly “Fast and Furious” federal gun-running case, the Solyndra solar loan fiasco, the collapse of MF Global, led by former Democratic N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine and, of course, the deeply disturbing allegations of child sexual abuse at Penn State.

But the real scandal isn’t any one of those. It’s how journalists pick and choose which controversies to play up and which to play down. They are so inconsistent, you’d think they studied ethics at Penn State under Joe Paterno.

Heck, maybe he studied under them.

Take the allegations against Cain. We are watching ABC’s George Stephanopoulos attack Herman Cain on how he deals with women. This is the same George Stephanopoulos who worked for Bill Clinton and did his best to undermine attacks against him. Remember, Clinton was charged with a variety of women-unfriendly incidents including rape. Yes, rape. Not that the networks made a big deal of it at the time.

Here’s Stephanopoulos, on page 267 of his autobiography “All Too Human,” “Most important, I wanted to keep reports of Paula [Jones’] press conference off television … It wasn’t a hard sell.” His book goes on to say how he tried to discredit her. Yes, this openly Democratic operative is a “newsman” now.

Don’t believe it for a second. The different between “journalist” and Democratic Party operative is often non-existent.

It shows in everything they do. We aren’t even two weeks into CainFest 2011 and the broadcast networks have done 117 stories on him. One-hundred and seventeen? That’s more than a small war would get.

Actually, it’s 58 times more than a small war has gotten. Obama ordered troops into Uganda in October, before the Cain allegations came out. CBS and NBC have each mentioned it once since then. ABC hasn’t mentioned it at all.

But the networks don’t care about American soldiers at risk. They are more concerned that Obama’s presidency is at risk.

That’s the only explanation for how they’ve covered, or not covered, the “Fast and Furious” scandal. You’ve had to look hard to find consistent coverage of this corrupt government program that cost the life of at least one law enforcement officer. Allegedly the goal was to track U.S. guns to drug cartels and arrest gun runners.

But the program was poorly run and it cost the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. A good leader would take responsibility for that. A moral leader would have called the family to talk to them or meet with them in person. Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t do either. All he did do was lie to Congress about it.

According to Holder, the program was furiously “flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution.” That skips any blame for when he told Congress he had heard of the program only weeks before. Now we know that’s just not true. In any other city than Washington, D.C., what Holder did was a boldfaced lie.

Not that you’d know it from most network news. While CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson has shown her top-flight skills as a journalist, and been abused by the Obama administration for it, her competing networks have abandoned their responsibility to their viewers. Both NBC and ABC skipped the House Republican roasting Holder received on Capitol Hill.

It’s been much the same in the Solyndra scandal. There only ABC has shown any semblance of journalistic skill covering Obama’s failed green program. It’s a $500-million scandal involving an Obama fundraiser, a solar panel company that had a dot.com era idea on how to make a profit (none) and it’s gotten nowhere near the media coverage a Republican scandal might have gotten. (Just ask Herman Cain.)

A recent Media Research Center analysis found “just 15 stories mentioning the Solyndra scandal since its August 31 bankruptcy filing.” For those who find math difficult – like many journalists – that’s about one eighth of the stories the Cain controversy has gotten.

But hey, Solyndra wasn’t run by a former governor considered as a possible Treasury Secretary and hailed by news outlets as an economic expert. That would be a real scandal. Or not, if he had the infamous “D” after his name.

The former governor is Jon Corzine, who has the reverse Midas touch. He’s run Goldman Sachs, New Jersey and, most recently, MF Global, which just collapsed amidst a $2-billion bankruptcy. MF Global fell apart in what CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin called a “mini Ponzi scheme.”

But not one story on ABC, CBS or NBC has mentioned that Corzine is a Democrat, was considered an Obama adviser and possible pick for a top spot in his administration.

Every time there’s a controversial story, media types are making these choices. They love the Occupy Wall Street crowd, so they play up the good from those protests, despite rapes, vandalism, arson, assaults on police and more. But they hate the Tea Parties, so everything they do is somehow nefarious.

It’s time the media covered their own scandals. They have plenty.

Email from Walter Jones Calling for Resignation of Eric Holder

Last week I  joined several of my fellow Republican colleagues in calling for the resignation of US Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious.  Though he was briefed on the issue in 2010, Holder appears to have knowingly given false testimony under oath regarding his knowledge of the plan.  This development is the latest in a troubling string of incidents which have called Mr. Holder’s fitness to serve as America’s chief law enforcement officer into question.  At least 35 members of Congress have now called for Attorney General Holder to resign.  I am the first member from the North Carolina delegation to do so.

 

In July of 2010, Attorney General Holder filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer over the state’s anti-illegal immigration policy.  In February of this year, Holder and the Obama administration decided to no longer recognize the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.  Holder also dismissed a case against the New Black Panther Party in August of 2009 for one of the most blatant acts of voter intimidation in recent memory.

 

Since the Attorney General seems unable to be honest with the American people, it is time for him to go.  Mr. Holder’s tenure has been marked by troubling decisions, but in the case of ‘Fast and Furious’, it appears that under his watch the lack of judgment at the Justice Department may have cost people their lives.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter

Email from Walter Jones re. Communications Blackout

Below is an email I sent to Congressman Walter Jones, and Senators Richard Burr and Kay Hagan. Following my email is the response from Congressman Jones.

Email –

I have been hearing for weeks in blogs that someone in the government will be testing a communication blackout that will shut down all cable, internet, phones, cell phones, television, and radio on November 9, 2-11; however, I have not heard anything about the blackout on the national or cable news. Today, however, I saw an ad by the Federal Communications Commission on Time Warner cable announcing the blackout to take place on November 9th. What is unclear is why such a blackout is needed and whether it will impact emergency services like 911, police, and fire, and for what purpose the government might need to blackout all communications. I would appreciate if you would provide me with what you know about this FCC action, especially under what conditions the Federal Government thinks that shutting down all communications may be necessary. I would also like to know whether Congress has been consulted and approved of this action and the basis of any Congressional approval if any.

Response –

Dear Mr. Lang:

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding today’s nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).  I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and I’m honored to respond.

 

            Today at 2:00 p.m. EST a nationwide test of the EAS was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  The purpose of the event was to test the ability to alert the public to important emergency information.  The government’s ability to conduct this test and all other EAS tests is authorized by the Communications Act of 1934.  Participants must be notified of the test at least two months in advance.

 

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and concerns with me.  If I may be of any further assistance please feel free to contact my office.

Letter to the Editor re. Gov. Perdue's Call to Suspend Elections

Several weeks ago, just before I left town on a vacation, I was the subject of a scathing personal attack by Ms. Sally Haines of Pelitier, in the Opinion Section of the Tideland News. After considerable thought, I decided to respond to Ms. Haines obvious use of the Marxist/Fascist tactic of; Attack the Messenger, Not The Message.  The vicious pit-bull  response to my earlier opinion letter by Ms. Haines is typical of what is often used when no objective intellectual argument is available to the responder. My questioning of the the thinking/motives of our Democrat Governor on the Electoral Process was minor when compared to that of many political commentators asking a similar question in both radio, television and newspapers in our area, our state and nationally, about the same incident. My final decision to respond was based on a reminder from a friend that; if I did not respond to such a personal attack, I would be no less guilty than some of the spineless politically correct politicians in Raleigh and Washington of whom I am often critical. I hope Ms. Haines soon recovers from what ever ails her and does not suffer too much mental pain in the coming election year as Obama and Perdue’s march towards more big government Socialism is halted and relegated to the ash heap of history.
Austin M. “Gus” Wilgus

Letter to the Editor re. Thank You Commissioners

To the Editor:

I want to thank each County Commissioner for conducting an exceptionally informative meeting with the Board of Education on Monday evening, October 16, 2011. What the Board of Commissioners did for the citizens of Carteret County on Monday is what the Board of Education should  be doing for the taxpayers of Carteret County, but unfortunately are not. In my view, the Board of Education should be as well versed in the details of the school  budget as the Superintendent, however,  it was apparent on Monday that some on the BOE do not understand their own budget, and more importantly how to effectively oversee the expenditure of that money. Some of the BOE seemed to struggle throughout the meeting to remember what version of the school  budget was provided to the Board of Commissioners and when. Near the end of the meeting the BOE Chairman claimed to have provided revised budget information to the Board of Commissioners that clearly had not been seen by any of the Commissioners. The Chairman of the BOE then launched into a rather unprofessional tirade on transparency (that currently is non-existent)  bringing the meeting to an end.

I want to be clear, I am not opposed to adequate funding of the Carteret County Schools. I do however want to know that our taxpayer money is being well spent and well managed by the Board of Education. I did not get the feeling Monday night that either the School Board or the Superintendent are fulfilling these expectations. Thankfully, the Board of Commissioners is there to do the job that the Board of Education should be doing for the taxpayers who elected them for that very purpose.

Kenneth Lang

Letter to the Editor re. School Funding

BREAKING NEWS! School System to Seek Funds!!  This is the headline of an article in your October 16 issue of the News-Times and is no big surprise.  Apparently, the $19 million approved by the County Board of Commissioners was just not enough. Nineteen MILLION dollars! Nineteen million one dollar bills laid end to end would stretch 1841 miles; the distance from Morehead City to Boulder, Colorado!!  It is just unbelievable how deep the “sucking black hole” of education is in this state.

 

Kudos to the county commissioners for requiring the school system to provide quarterly reports before turning over the rest of the “booty.”  Old Blackbeard would be proud of the techniques used by our modern day pirates to fill their coffers. I hope the reports are required to include detailed itemized expenditures.

 

Why am I not surprised to see that headline? It could be because it seems to me the primary purpose of the education department in this state, from Raleigh to the county level, is to see just how much “booty” can be taken from public funds.  These folks want to squeeze us dry. Once they get the $500,000, I say they will be back before the end of the school year whining for another couple of million. I mean, what is a million here or a million there when it comes to “educating” our children?

 

I really believe the NC Department of Public Instruction could receive B. Hussein Obama’s entire initial stimulus, and would still cry for another $500,000.  Their thirst for public funds is unquenchable.

I don’t believe the school boards publicize all the sources of their “booty.”  There are several sources other than our tax money.  And I am probably asking for a lot of criticism by not revealing the referenced sources. But, if anyone is interested in knowing of those sources, do a little research.  The Demowhacks and other progressive liberal leftists would not accept my sources anyway, so I suggest they check it out on their own. They might be surprised, I know I was.

 

Just one person’s opinion.

 

Harry Thompson

It Is Time to Decide Which Side You Are On

If you don’t believe that the time has come to make a decision about which side you need to be on, watch the following video.

 

America has the luxury of a little more time than Europe but the amount of time may be short. The sides are being delineated and it is now the time for every man and woman to take a stand for good or evil. In the past, we could get by with shades of gray. Those days are gone as are the time to be silent in the face of evil.

David DeGerolamo

via NC Renegade

Democrats Abound at “Occupy Raleigh”

Brad Miller (D) US House of Representatives — NC District 13 made another appearance at the Occupy Raleigh event at the Capitol. Rep. Miller attended the first meeting at Moore Square two weeks ago. I wonder how many occupiers know that Rep. Miller consistently blocked a committee vote to release legislation out for a floor vote to audit the Federal Reserve in the US House. Rep. Miller’s hypocrisy knows no boundaries as he protects the nation’s largest private bank and then attends rallies whose purpose is completely contrary to his record.

News & Observer Report

U.S. Rep. Brad Miller of Raleigh, who arrived in mid-afternoon, said he was sympathetic to the protestors’ anger. “Protest movements don’t start in the legislature, they start with grievances,” said Miller, a Democrat. “I think they are mad at the right people.”

Miller deflected questions about whether the occupy movement was the left-wing counterpart of the Tea Party movement, and he said he wasn’t sure if the movement would help the Democratic Party. “It appears to be an independent protest, and I don’t know where it will eventually end up,” he said.

Elaine Marshall (D) — North Carolina Secretary of State

 

Elaine asked for the occupiers’ help. Does this include her important investigation of UNC’s football program?

Bill Faison (D) Chapel Hill, NC

 

I hope that the occupiers sitting in jail start to understand who is really the cause of our economic collapse. This is the consequence of putting your trust in a politician who is only pandering for votes. The problem is not the 1%: it is the politicians.

Mr. Faison is currently serving his fourth term in the NC House of Representatives. He is asking the occupiers to help him even though he has been entrenched in the General Assembly and represents what their movement is fighting against.

Although the organizers for Occupy Raleigh assured the crowd that the rally was non-partisan, this was not the case.  The Democrats and labor unions played the occupiers as well as Johnny played the fiddle in “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” (or North Carolina).

David DeGerolamo

via NC Renegade

GOP 2012: The Hold Your Nose Tracker

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 17, 2011 10:14 AM


Photoshop: Reader Jimmy D.

Yes, I’m still struggling. Like many of you, I am still carefully weighing all the costs and benefits of each declared GOP candidate. As the candidates continue highlighting each other’s unsavory left-wing alliances, I thought it might be helpful to compile a Hold Your Nose Tracker of the current top four front-runners. I’m just giving it to you straight. One way or the other, the plugs will come in handy. This is the hand we’ve been dealt, alas. Same as it ever was. (Flashback February 2008: The John McCain Nose Plugs.)

***

Newt Gingrich. This weekend, Gingrich called out Mitt Romney’s liberal Northeast Republican record. All well and good. But let’s not pretend away Newt’s own very recent strayings from mainstream conservatism. He snuggled up to Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore in 2008 (and laughably tried to spin the humiliating lovefest as a “debate”).

He went on tour with Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan and race hustler Al Sharpton in September 2009 and again in November 2009:

He endorsed ACORN-friendly, Big Labor-backing, tax-and-spend abortion radical Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 debacle in October 2009, prompting rank-and-file conservatives to send back his book and GOP solicitations like this one from reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich:

He’s played footsie with Hillary Clinton on health care, backed an individual health care mandate and aspects of Romneycare, and vigorously attacked Paul Ryan’s free-market-based Medicare reform plan.

And a friendly reminder for grass-roots Tea Party activists who were against the government bailouts before it was cool: When push came to shove, Gingrich supported TARP.

***

Herman Cain. His endorsement of pal Alan Greenspan’s Fed tenure shows too much trust for the central banking bureaucrats who helped inflate the housing bubble and who, like Naked Emperor Henry Paulson, engineered the era of endless bailouts.

For all his Tea Party cred and outside-the-Beltway status, Cain fell for the gun-to-our-heads, Chicken Little propaganda and supported TARP — vigorously — when American needed every consistent fiscal conservative voice possible to try and stop the predictable, all-purpose morphing of the bank bailout before it started.

***

Rick Perry. He tried to embarrass rival GOP gubernatorial candidate Kay Bailey Hutchison in September 2009 by painting her as soft on radical community organizing/fraud outfit ACORN — only to watch the attack wither after conservative opponents found him championing the group’s government shakedowns at a pro-ACORN bill-signing in 2005.

He has adopted the illegal alien DREAM Act agenda and echoed their attacks on opponents as “heartless:”

(Texans, by the way, are revolting against Perry’s lax attitude. Texas A&M students are petitioning Perry to call a special session to repeal the DREAM Act. Texas Tea Party leaders want Perry to come home and address illegal alien sanctuary cities now.)

He’s knee-deep in crony Merck lobbying ties and cash, a pair of massive government subsidy slush funds for friends and donors, and his own Solyndra-style penchant for picking taxpayer “investment” winners and losers.

And yes, he was for, then against, the government-knows-best TARP intervention. This weaseling about his position on a core Tea Party issue is typical Beltway behavior:

***

Mitt Romney . He embraced Nanny State Sen. Edward Kennedy and the federal dollars Uncle Teddy brought to the table to help subsidize Romneycare.

He put Romneycare/Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber on the map.

He took environmental advice from global warming zealot, eugenics/population control freak John Holdren, among other eco-command-and-controllers.

He stood by and watched NJ GOP Gov. Chris Christie smear Romneycare critics as “intellectually dishonest.”

Oh, and yeah: He supported TARP, too. And defends it today.

***

Gah.

***

As all of these candidates’ campaigns remind us — endlessly — there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate.

Yep, don’t we all know it? Politics is the Pageant of the Imperfects.

Every single one of these front-runners is a pro-TARP interventionist with a variety of problematic Big Biz/Big Government impulses and alliances.

Which one will do the least worst job against Obama in the debates, on the campaign trail, and ultimately in the White House? Which one will insult the base the least? Which one will actually have the energy, competence, and credibility to directly challenge Obama’s corruption, profligacy, class-warfare demagoguery, progressive pandering, and epidemic failures?

Watching, waiting, hoping, praying. And yes, preparing the nose plugs however this race turns out…

***

GOP debate viewership is nearly double the last presidential cycle’s.

The next one’s on Tuesday in Las Vegas, organized again by CNN.

Would be nice to get more conservatives to Occupy GOP Debates next time around.

I dream.

The tea party’s popularity problem

Posted by at 12:57 PM ET, 10/13/2011
It’s not been an easy month for the tea party. Take the GOP primary: they’re losing it. “The Tea Party movement was fueled by opposition to the Wall Street bailouts, President Obama’s health care reform legislation and out-of-control spending in Washington,” writes Phil Klein at the conservative Washington Examiner. “Yet the current favorite to win the Republican nomination has rejected the Tea Party line on all of these issues.”


(Darren McCollester – GETTY IMAGES) The movement is also losing some big votes. Only 24 percent of tea party members support free trade agreements, and their opposition to the pacts, according to a year-old NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf), is actually much stronger than that of other voters. But three of them passed yesterday even as Speaker John Boehner refuses to give populist legislation to rap China on the knuckles a vote. As Dana Milbank notes, “for all the talk of populist foment – the tea party on the right and the new Occupy Wall Street movement on the left – business interests remain firmly in control.”

And Senate Democrats are taking pretty direct aim at the tea party. In a meeting with reporters yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who runs messaging for the Senate Dems, previewed the coming campaign. “We are going to be labeling tea party economics. Tea party double-dip recession. Tea party gridlock,” he said. “We think that’s going to have a real effect.” Why would it have a real effect? Because, he continued, the tea party is very, very unpopular.

I’m skeptical that saying the words “tea party” a lot will really do the Democrats much good in the polls. But Schumer is right about one thing: The tea party is really, really unpopular. One of the least popular political forces in American life, actually. Dave Weigel notes that the latest Time magazine poll found that only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the tea party, while 54 percent approve of Occupy Wall Street. Ouch. But it’s par for the course. The tea party posts lower favorability numbers than President Obama (44 percent), the Democratic Party (44 percent) or the Republican Party (39 percent).

And I imagine that’s one reason the tea party isn’t proving more effective in the Republican Primary. The Republican Party establishment, which wants to win elections, has made a point of kneecapping tea party candidates like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and to some degree, even Rick Perry. You can see the same process beginning now against Herman Cain. Similarly, if the Republican leadership thought a tea party-populism was a smart political strategy, they would be moving more forcefully to implement it.

Which isn’t to say the tea party is unimportant in American politics. Its leverage has always come from its ability to influence internal Republican Party politics, mostly through a ruthless strategy of primarying insufficiently obedient politicians. But the closer the Republican Party gets to the general election, and the more they’re focused on beating Obama than saving their own skins, the more they’re likely to do to distance themselves from the tea party’s increasingly toxic branding.

Washington Post

GOP Works to Override Governor’s Veto of Energy Jobs Bill

Carolina Journal Exclusives

Measure would allow oil and natural gas production offshore and inland

Oct. 10th, 2011

 

RALEIGH — Republicans believe they will have enough votes when they return to session in November to override Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of legislation both opening North Carolina’s coastal waters to natural gas drilling and authorizing hydraulic fracturing to recover inland shale gas deposits.

“We’ve been working very hard to get the votes and we’re close,” said Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, a primary sponsor of Senate Bill 709, the Energy Jobs Act. “I think it’s within one or two votes,” and House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, are working with Rucho to secure more votes.

“The other day the governor said she’s starting to get her interest piqued in energy jobs,” Rucho said. “I talked with her one time in the last month about the fact we really do need to sit down and talk about what huge benefits there are for the state. I hope that she will recognize that … and move forward with this diversification of our industries.”

Rucho said the bill delivers jobs and economic development. A report by the Southeast Energy Alliance found that offshore gas production would create more than 6,700 new jobs and boost the state’s gross domestic product more than $659 million annually over 30 years. It could create another $10 billion in cost sharing of government revenues, or $484 million per year on average.

Inland shale gas production would add still more revenue and jobs, Rucho said. “Other states that are doing this, Texas and Louisiana and Pennsylvania, are having the least economic pain from the recession,” Rucho said. “Why not North Carolina?”

Opponents of the measure, led by environmentalists, claim that the hydraulic fracturing process that could be used to free inland energy reserves, aka fracking, poses dangers to groundwater. They also argue that oil and gas companies may be engaging in predatory practices as they seek to gain access to landowners’ mineral rights.

“We’re certainly working to sustain the governor’s veto,” said House minority leader Joe Hackney, D-Orange. “I know the speaker is working [the other side], so we’ll see what happens.

“I think the prevailing opinion is go slow, do a thorough study and make sure that our water is not impacted.” That was the approach written into House Bill 242, said Hackney, whose legislative district spans three counties that would be affected by shale gas production. “Most Democrats feel that way.”

Hackney said his constituents have been vocal.

“Mostly emails, lots, most all of them on one side,” he said. “Either they don’t want it at all or they want to go very slowly.”

“We are opposed to that bill. We are working pretty hard with other groups, cities and communities across the state,” said Derb S. Carter Jr., director of the North Carolina/South Carolina office of the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, who urged lawmakers to go slowly.

“The real concern here is the contamination of drinking water supply, both groundwater and surface water,” Carter said. “There are about 2.7 million North Carolinians whose drinking water would be affected if fracking were to occur. There’s nothing to harm a community more than to have their drinking water in jeopardy.”

The largest of the state’s three Triassic basin bands of shale where gas may be found stretches in a southwesterly direction from Granville County near the Virginia border through Durham, Wake, and Orange counties all the way to the South Carolina border. Smaller deposits exist in Rockingham and Davie counties.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process by which large volumes of water, sand, and a small amount of lubricating chemicals are pumped at high pressure into shale, helping to open small fissures in the rock so the gas can escape.

Carter said some chemicals used are known to be toxic, and companies sometimes refuse to disclose what chemicals are injected “because they contend they are proprietary information, trade secrets.”

Aside from the chemicals, the possibility of spills and a dearth of existing treatment plants in North Carolina for the used water, there could be danger to downstream water supplies, to aquatic life and chronic, long-term health and environmental impacts that may take years to surface, Carter said.

Jordan Treakle, mineral rights project coordinator at Rural Advancement Foundation International, a Pittsboro-based nonprofit working with farmers and landowners, said farmland could be taken out of production to accommodate the large volume of acreage needed for frackng. Chemical spills could make farmland unusable, many roads would be cut through fields and forests to set up wells and the volume of truck traffic over local and state roads would be heavy.

“Environmentalists just say no. No nothing. No jobs and no low energy costs,” Rucho said. “We did a lot of due diligence to make sure that we not only are opening up the energy sector but that we are protecting ourselves and protecting the citizens of the state,” Rucho said. That included looking at best practices from other states and studying environmental issues that have arisen.

“If we can’t find a safe way to do that, it isn’t going to be done,” Rucho said. “There were a lot of precautions in that bill,” including a $500 million fund for any emergencies that may arise.

The Senate bill also incorporates H.B. 242, requiring a comprehensive environmental analysis. A report of the findings is due in May. The first preliminary public hearing to gather information will be held tonight at 6:30 at the Lee County Agricultural Extension Center.

Aside from environmental concerns, Treakle said there is evidence some energy-related leasing companies are conducting predatory practices, paying between $1.00 and $25 per acre in up-front bonuses while landowners in Louisiana receive from $2,500 to $25,000.

“Our concern is that these landowners are signing these contracts . . . without the help of an attorney and may not know what they’re signing up for” in terms of liability or fair compensation, Treakle said.

“I know that the (state) Attorney General’s Office has expressed interest in this issue. The North Carolina Department of Justice also has had some concerns. They have spoken to us about the issue and we have given them our concerns,” Treakle said.

“We’ve focused our efforts in Chatham, Lee, and Moore (counties) because that’s where these companies have been most active,” Treakle said. Leases have been signed for “between 9,000 and 9,400 acres” in Lee County, where there are up to 30,000 acres of gas-bearing shale. No leases have been filed yet with government agencies in Moore and Chatham counties.

Ted Feitshans, a mineral rights lawyer and extension specialist at North Carolina State University, said the No. 1 issue for landowners to be concerned about is whether they actually own the mineral rights. Some may have been transferred away during the state’s 1799 gold rush, he said.

“The company that they signed the lease with, at least theoretically, could sue them for damages. If they already started pumping the gas and somebody else owns the gas, it could be a very messy lawsuit,” Feitshans said.

“You could end up with abandoned equipment and partially drilled wells” if the company that signed the lease goes belly up, Feitshans said.

Leases could hold landowners liable for damages, fines and cleanup on their property and neighbors’ land.

Feitshans urges landowners to “Hire an oil and gas attorney who’s had some experience in negotiating gas leases. Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of attorneys with experience with this in North Carolina.”

He’s holding a training session for attorneys for the North Carolina Bar Association Dec. 8 at its center in Cary.

Dan Way is a contributor to Carolina Journal.