Liberal Science: Oil Extraction Could Cause the Globe to Deflate

Lon wrote: Ransom is right, if you look at the official White House pictures of the function, it is clear that the White House was trying to keep this matter secret. It seems obvious that as the stars posed for their publicity photos they were thinking how clever it was that this was going to be kept a secret. – in response to The Alice-in-Wonderland President

OK. Let’s get this straight: The White House didn’t seek to keep this secret, even though they had discussions about keeping it secret. Yet it remained secret until the revelations in Kantor’s book despite the White House not trying to keep it secret. The secrecy happened just by coincidence?

Obama ought to go by the name Mr. Coincidental, because everything that happens on his watch you all defend by acting like it’s just a coincidence.

The worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and Obama’s president: That’s just a coincidence.

Obama puts billion of taxpayer money into loan programs for green companies that just coincidentally are tied to his biggest financial supporters.

Every time a financial crisis happens, Obama pals Buffett or Soros just coincidentally happen to be around to buy preferred stock or some other investment that’s backed up by government credit.

The ATF walks guns to violent Mexican criminals with no follow through, coincidentally when the ATF and the Obama administration are pushing for scrapping the 2^nd Amendment.

I’ll let the readers take it from here and list all the other coincidences that have happened under Obama.

MsAllison wrote: It's adorable the way John Ransom believes this crap of Kantor's. Kantor interviewed the Obamas once, decided that there was tension between them and that might make a juicy book and then spoke to WH staff people to get their opinions and then fabricated a novel in which Mrs. Obama recklessly spends "The Taxpayers' Money" on her personal pleasures. – in response to The Alice-in-Wonderland President

Liberals have called me a lot of things, but never have I been called adorable by them.

On the rest of it, she thinks you’re nuts, in a real, clinical and medically certifiable way.

Kantor’s liberal pedigree is impeccable. Columbia, Hahvahd, Slate, New York Times. She’s been covering Obama and Michelle for quite some time.

But what really tells me she is on the mark- besides the fact that everything we learned from her book is consistent with what we see in Obama’s presidency- is that the Obama folks have been out doing the full court press to rebut her.

I never pick on Michelle Obama because I think generally it’s cheap to drag someone’s family into political slugfests. But I’ll make an exception here because Michelle injected herself into the fight.

In response to Kantor’s book Michelle did a puff interview saying that she was tired of being depicted as an angry black woman. Well here’s an idea for you then Michelle: Stop acting like an angry black woman. And Mr. President, if you are truly concerned with the deficit, then stop spending money the country doesn’t have. Or here’s a novel idea: Present a balanced budget…or a budget that will get one (1) vote.

Because we know already that at least part of the book is true that Obama claims is fabricated. Former press secretary Robert Gibbs says that he apologized to Michelle for an incident that the White House says never happened.

It’s like I wrote in the original story: “It only ‘looks’ bad if you get caught, I guess.”

Truth01 wrote: Ransom said: “Obama’s policies have sought to provide short-term, dependent-creating panaceas for declining employment rather than long-term employment opportunities.” What is being done are stop gap measures they are not intended to be long term. It is an attempt to buy time until the economy gains traction. Unfortunately I have not heard one idea from the Republican side that is any better. – in response to Obama Can’t See Unemployed from Martha’s Vineyard

Stop gap measures don’t work. They just increase dependency. The solution isn’t more unemployment benefits, but more jobs. You do that by getting out of the way and letting the economy do its proper job.

Here’s one GOP solution that had bipartisan support and which the president is ducking for political reasons only: Approve the XL Keystone Pipeline.

The idea that the pipeline is a threat to water in Nebraska is a stalling tactic only. It ignores the fact that in Nebraska alone there are already 20,570 miles of pipeline and XL would add about 400 more miles.

From the US Department of Transportation: “The energy transportation network of the United States consists of over 2.5 million miles of pipelines. That's enough to circle the earth about 100 times. These pipelines are operated by approximately 3,000 companies, large and small.” The number of pipeline incidents is going down, not up, if you don’t count the Obama administration’s disastrous record on pipeline safety.

Note in the graph above the red line with the marker that says “Platte.” That’s the same Sandhills area where the XL Keystone Pipeline is proposed to go through Nebraska.

We’ve been operating pipelines in the country- including the Sandhills- for decades without degrading the environment.

Kathy18 wrote: Love your columns John. The only thing I would add is that I personally don't like being laid off and am not one of those who would vote for him because I get unemployment benefits. I will go out and campaign for whoever gets the Republican nomination. In my long life I have never been without work for so long and Obummer's policies are just keeping the destruction in place. – in response to Obama Can’t See Unemployed from Martha’s Vineyard

Of course you want to work. Conservatives understand that Americans have no animus against work. You won’t find a harder working country than the USA.

In the 1970s when the welfare state dominated our economy, full employment was considered by economists to be around 7 percent. There was no way our economy could provide jobs for that last 7 percent economists told us.

Then Ronald Reagan was elected and we started to roll back regulations on business and started to rein in the welfare state. By 2000, unemployment bottomed out at 3.8 percent, a number that economists had told us two decades previously was impossible.

So, when Democrats talk about income inequality, they shouldn’t forget to add in the 4-5 million people who will be permanently unemployed if they keep running things their way. Don’t forget the $5.5 trillion that the economy won’t produce in GDP over ten years if the Democrats switch us back to a welfare state.

Sharty wrote: For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire. The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks. – in response to Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

Pretty thin circumstantial evidence as admitted by the researchers of an old report

The worst that can be said on the basis of the report you cited is that industry used faulty casings- and even that’s not certain.

And by the way, there are legal remedies in place for homeowners who think their water has been contaminated by drilling. Those remedies will probably suffice to make drillers act responsibly.

But as the British geologists have said, the risks of contamination of ground water aren’t that widespread.

You want to live in a world where there is zero risk. I think there is an acceptable level of risk for most things. You want to cite the exceptions and pretend like they are the standard rule.

There were a dozen train accidents in the US this year with at least 16 fatalities. Over the last 3 years there were only 9 serious incidents involving 175,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines with 7 fatalities, yet you probably still want the government to build high speed trains while damning another 1700 miles of pipeline.

Remember at Love Canal it wasn’t the chemical company, but the local school board that acted irresponsibly by using land that they knew was contaminated by toxic chemicals. The rest of us don’t get off as cheaply as the government does when you cede power to them over our lives based on incomplete, biased and shoddy science.

David4 wrote: Documented goof in the article: Five of six Nobel committees are in Sweden, not Norway. Only the Peace Prize committee is in Norway. The goof doesn't change the effect of the article, but it is still a goof. – in response to Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

You are correct. It should have read “Peer-review for such efforts have widely consisted of 1) Approval by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which is controlled by the Labour and Socialist parties of Norway (really)”

Unrealistic wrote: A new question, are we shrinking the earth by deflating it? We know oil and natural gas are pressurized, if one thinks of the earth as a balloon and relieves said pressure with say a syringe is not the whole reduced by the removal of internal volume? – in response to Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

This is probably a good question for Rep. Hank Johnson who did that bang-up work on the question of whether the island of Guam was going to capsize if too many people rushed to the edge of the island too quickly.

No, I can’t. We’ve already had this discussion many times. The article wasn’t about your goofy theories.

I also got to pick who went to the US House of Representatives and to the US Senate. I admit we have more work to do there, but I take a great deal of pride that we kicked the liberals out of the House, in part because it probably just burns you.

Uncle America wrote: John, you forgot to mention that Bill Daley isn't leaving but is going to be heading the Obama campaign. A senior Obama campaign aide told CNN on Monday that Daley will serve as one of the co-chairs for Obama's re-election campaign. – in response to Wrong Chicago Guy Resigns from White House

Kirk92 wrote: After reading all of these comments I have to ask, am I on the "Daily Kos"? What is all of this class envy doing on TH? Hey, businesses go out of business. Someone got to break them up. Vultures are as necessary in the free market as they are in the desert. I feel like I'm on a board with a bunch of Flea Party trolls. – in response to Mitt: All American Vulture Capitalist

I worked in private equity. I once did a hostile takeover of a bank that was in trouble. I know how companies like Bain work. And I have no problem with it.

But while it doesn’t automatically disqualify Mitt for my vote, it doesn’t particularly qualify him either.

Obama, the coziest of all with Wall Street, is going to run a “The Rest of Us” versus “Wall Street” campaign.

You see, I'm in favor of free market capitalism, which, judging by Mitt's record, he is not. That’s why I think his candidacy is problematic.

You might have noticed that the American people are kind of sick of the cozy relationship that Wall Street has with Washington regardless of who is in power.

Do you really think that after TARP, MF Global, Solyndra, etc. that the country is looking to be saved by an investment banker with Romney’s public policy background? Or that Wall Street needs to be saved by more legislation honchoed by a private equity guy?

Why not just nominate Warren Buffet or George Soros to run the country? Isn’t Mitt the same kind of banking “technocrat” that Europe has running the show now?

You assume that just because Romney was an investment banker that somehow he's a free market guy.

He's not. Mitt Romney is purely and simply what we know him to be: A big government opportunist.

It all goes to electability. And the Bain background combined with Mitt’s lack of respect for free markets in public policy punctures the electability myth surrounding Mitt, I fear.I hope I’m not right about that because it looks like he’s going to be the guy.

You see, I'm in favor of free market capitalism, which, judging by Mitt's record, he is not. That’s why I think his candidacy is problematic.

…

Do you really think that after TARP, MF Global, Solyndra, etc. that the country is looking to be saved by an investment banker with Romney’s public policy background? Or that Wall Street needs to be saved by more legislation honchoed by a private equity guy?

Why not just nominate Warren Buffet or George Soros to run the country? Isn’t Mitt the same kind of banking “technocrat” that Europe has running the show now?

You assume that just because Romney was an investment banker that somehow he's a free market guy.

He's not. Mitt Romney is purely and simply what we know him to be: A big government opportunist.

Does a free market guy craft the first American socialized medicine program?

No. He doesn’t.

It all goes to electability. And the Bain background combined with Mitt’s lack of respect for free markets in public policy punctures the electability myth surrounding Mitt, I fear. I hope I’m not right about that because it looks like he’s going to be the guy.

Be sure to convey this to your boy Rush.

Lots of FReepers here who don't seem to understand any of this either.

Uhhh . . . let's it straight here, "Utmost Certainty, the MSM (that's "the media" to which you refer) agree with you and Newt. They attack Mitt and Bain Capital, just like you and Newt. It is their language that Newt is using in his attacks against Bain and Mitt, not conservative language. In my lexicon, that makes you and Newt "dupes" of the media, not Rush and his listeners.

You just go ahead and keep arguing for Obama's position. Newt is chasing voters and supporters away at a frightening pace. His and Perry's attacks have all but assured that we are going to be stuck with Mr. Mediocrity, the Massachusetts Moderate.

It's sad, all the pundits said that Newt couldn't stand success, that it was inevitable that he would self-destruct. I denied that vigorously and defended him, yet here we are, a week from the SC primary and Mitt is about to beat Newt in his home state . . . all because Newt couldn't help but make this stupid, "populist," left-wing inspired argument. I have never been so disappointed and PO'd or seen such an idiotic move by a candidate.

Newt is finished, he should just drop out and throw his support to Santorum. Maybe we would at least get a conservative challenger who could defeat Mitt.

For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire. The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks.

Peer reviewed? Like most of the AGW "research" papers of the last 20 years? Pure rubbish that is similar to propaganda.

There are many locations in the US that have enough natural gas dissolved in ground water that one can light a match to the kitchen faucet. Surface natural gas is just another natural phenomenon, like oil being pushed out of ocean seeps and appearing as tar balls on the beach.

Don't blame an energy company that just started drilling in an area, and neglected to pay a renter part of the drilling rights money. Blame the property owner for being too stupid to get a clean source of water.

You're being incredibly dense, and owe it to yourself to actually listen to Newt's explanation. Unfortunately, many Republicans don't seem to understand it, and are projecting it as an attack on capitalism.

But this isn't some Left-tard kind of attack at all. Newt's case is simple:

1) Romney's vaunted "private sector experience", is of a particular kind (private equity management, not 'venture capitalism') that's going to represent a huge liability in the general election. Nobody's asserting that Bain Capital's actions were necessarily illegitimate nor unlawful, but it's obvious that Romney was no white knight of heroic, entrepreneurial capitalism.

2) Questions on business ethics are legitimate inquiries that one should have to answer for, especially if they're running for public office—these are not attacks on capitalism, and it's completely goofy that some are construing it that way. Those advocating a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude towards private enterprise activity, aren't doing capitalism any favors—rather, they're ironically validating the Left's destructive sophistry against capitalism.

See Selling out capitalism in the defense of Romney and Bain.

Even ZeroHedge doesn't defend Romney's record as a 'capitalist':

"Lately, Bain founder and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has found himself in a spirited defense of the private equity industry, doing all he can to spin decades of data which confirm, without failure, that PE Leveraged Buy Outs are nothing but "efficiency maximizing" transactions whose only goal is the "maximization" of EBITDA in the pursuit of dividend recap deals, IPOs or outright sales, while loading up the company with untenable amounts of leverage. All this with a 3-5 year investment horizon, which ignores the long-term viability of a company and seeks to streamline (read fire as many as possible) operations as quickly as possible in the goal of maximizing short-term returns. We wish him luck in his endeavor."

Also note that Romney relied on corporate welfare . Go ahead, take a walk down the list here:

A comparison of the 1999 Bain portfolio obtained by the Los Angeles Times to the information in the Subsidy Tracker database my colleagues and I at Good Jobs First created (as well as other sources), yields examples such as the following:
Steel Dynamics Inc. In 1994 this company, among whose financial backers at the time was Bain, got a $77 million subsidy package—including grants, property tax abatements, tax credits and reimbursement for training costs—for its steel mill in DeKalb County, Indiana (Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, June 23, 1994).
GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt.
Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group.
GT Bicycles. In 1997 GT, then owned by Bain and other investors, decided to move its manufacturing operations to an enterprise zone in Santa Ana, California. Being in the zone gave the company, which was later purchased by Schwinn, special tax credits relating to hiring and the purchase of equipment (Orange County Register, July 9, 1999).

You are being incredibly liberal. So Romney wasn't a "white knight." Gee, how horrible. What sort of liberal garbage is that? So now, in order to be a capitalist, you have to be a "white knight?" His job was to make money for his business and he was immensely successful at it. Mostly he did it by turning failing businesses into successful businesses.

"Bain Capital invested in many businesses," Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said in a written statement. "While not every business was successful, the firm had an excellent overall track record and created jobs with well-known companies like Staples, Dominos Pizza and Sports Authority."

Bain showed a remarkable knack for turning a profit. A prospectus from the year 2000 obtained by the Los Angeles Times shows that the buyout firm delivered an average annual return on investment of 88 percent between its founding in 1984 and the end of 1999.

Special report: Romney's steel skeleton in the Bain closet

"Corporate welfare???" Talk about taking the words straight out of Obama's, Pelosi's, MSNBC's mouths. Wow! You call yourself a conservative and you're talking about "corporate welfare?" LOL!!! Go back to DU.

Steel Dynamics: That was a start up of what has become the fifth largest producer of carbon steel products in America (that's called "venture capitalism," by the way). Am I supposed to upset that Bain Capital got tax breaks and advantages from the state? Isn't that what all businesses seek when they decide in what state they will build? This big time success story is supposed to upset conservatives??? Mitt Romney-Led Bain Funded Steel Dynamics' Success

How horrible, Romney and Bain Capital created jobs!!!

GS Industries: Bain decided to invest in a failing business and it failed anyway. Hardly earth-shattering. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Clearly Bain made a bad decision and the business failed. It's called "capitalism" and capitalism includes failures as well as successes.

OMG! He got more state tax breaks to move Sealy's corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (a union state) to North Carolina (a right to work state). Then, horror of horrors, he SOLD THEM.

Yawn. Yeah, and then what? Really? Is that all you have? LOL!

States offer tax breaks to companies all the time to attract businesses to their states so that their residents can have jobs. It's routine and it is good for the economy and the businesses--and their employees. How do you think Texas managed to "create" all those jobs down here? They did it by . . . offering tax advantages and incentives to attract businesses to Texas from other states, like California.

I love it when a so-called conservative calls a tax break a subsidy, it's so . . . intellectually consistent with conservative principles. /sarc

So it's wrong in your world for states to give incentives to businesses in order to attract them and increase their prosperity, tax base, state revenues and the number of jobs. Wow, you sure have a weird definition of capitalism. Investment, buying and selling, taking risks, reaping rewards for those risks, success and failure . . . sure sounds like capitalism to me.

I think your hatred for Mitt has you overwrought. You're losing touch.

I don't think anybody is faulting Romney/Bain Capital for pursuit of profits—that's all fine and good, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's just not pretend he was engaging in genuine free-enteprise. Tax breaks, subsidies, and what not, are absolutely forms of corporate welfare. Decrying corporate welfare is not a Leftist position.

If you think it is, then I want to see you defend Solyndra, TARP, tax breaks for electric cars, etc. Because it is fundamentally no different.

You think it's right that the government gives special tax exemptions and other fiscal privileges to some kinds of businesses under some conditions, and not others? I don't. That's not a free and level, competitive market. That's a rigged system which is distorted by government intervention.

Which is really nothing but backdoor socialism. I don't want the government involved, period.

Fact is, Bain Capital has been ensconced in corporate welfare, under Romney's tenure and beyond. For instance, the whole "success story" that you cite of Steel Dynamics', was really a corporate welfare sham:

Launched as a start-up at a time when many American steel mills were foundering, Steel Dynamics is the fifth-largest producer of carbon steel products in the country, generating $6.3 billion in revenue in 2010.

Government support was a key ingredient to getting it off the ground.

When local officials in DeKalb County learned that three veteran steel mill executives were starting the company in 1993 and looking for a home for their new mini-mill, they pulled out all the stops. "These people don't just drive by and choose accidentally to be your neighbor," said Jack Bercaw, a Butler businessman who was co-chairman of the recruitment drive.

The county promised $23.4 million in property tax abatements and tax increment finance bonds, as well as a new income tax to generate economic development funds. The latter was required by the state, which shelled out another $13.6 million in tax credits, energy grants, workforce training and funds for roads.

A new quarter-percent tax on DeKalb County residents financed infrastructure improvements such as roads and railroad exchanges that benefited Steel Dynamics, Bercaw said. The county also created a new redevelopment commission and redevelopment authority to oversee the activity.

Steel Dynamics executives did not respond to requests for comment. But in a 1994 interview with a trade journal, then-Chief Executive Keith Busse said the $4.4 million the company initially received in state tax credits, in particular, helped persuade Steel Dynamics to locate in Indiana. Busse told a business panel that same year, however, that he was opposed to the new income tax levied by DeKalb County, according to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

David Stickler, an investor and advisor specializing in the steel industry who engineered the original financing package that launched Steel Dynamics, said the $37 million in grants and subsidies was not only a financial boost, but also helped persuade larger lenders to sign on. "What I've found is that the senior lending banks, especially lenders from overseas, take great comfort in the fact that the local and state government entities are showing a willingness to partner on the project," Stickler said.

Here's a video about this for those too lazy to read.

In any event, it's obvious you have a very naive view of what free-market capitalism really constitutes. With people like you, it's no small wonder that the GOP gets slammed as the party of bailouts and cronyism.

Yes, I’m Libertarian inclined. I don’t see anything objectionable about making the government as small and irrelevant as possible in people’s lives

How do you know that ‘corporate welfare’ came from the Left? I’d like to see evidence of that. Though regardless of who championed it first, there’s nothing objectionable about those on the Right being opposed to government picking winners and losers—i.e., backdoor socialism.

Further, whether that government skewing of the markets comes from the Federal, State, or Local levels, is only a difference of scale, not a fundamental difference of kind. That is, whether it’s the state government of CA meddling with and rigging the system, or the federal government in D.C. meddling with and rigging the system—both constitute interference with a free-market economy, and ought to be opposed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.