Posted on 11/11/2005 11:41:42 AM PST by Nobel_1
Use the following link to contact Republican House Reps against ANWR drilling and coastal drilling ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520255/posts
Be sure to copy the Energy subcommittee, Speaker of the House and anti-ANWR ring-leader, Charles Bass (N.H.)
Let's go get 'em!
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
Liberal infiltration into the republican party must be stopped at the ballot box!
We should be donating to Club for Growth to get run strong primary opponents against these rino's. A lot of these rino's are in republican districts too. Just get someone strong to run against them.
bookmark
I agree. All of my political donations go through the CfG.
A valid point of view. But, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye if it happens. It's a high price for political coherency.
Gang of 14, anti anwr group, and old media all have one thing in common.
They all get together at the main street partnership retreats and think of how they can backstab conservatives.
BASS SUCCESSFUL IN EFFORT TO STRIP ANWR PROVISION
Washington, D.C. –U.S. Representative Charles Bass’ (R-NH02) effort to remove language from the Deficit Reduction Act that would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling was successful.
BASS: NO DRILLING IN ANWR
Washington, D.C. –U.S. Representative Charles Bass (R-NH02) has authored a letter to the House leadership stating his strong opposition to the inclusion of language in the Deficit Reduction Act that would open up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling.
BASS SECURES ADDITIONAL LIHEAP FUNDS
Washington, D.C. –U.S. Representative Charles Bass (R-NH02) secured $1 billion in emergency funding for the Low Income Heating Emergency Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in legislation that passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night.
BASS SUPPORTS EXTENSION FOR DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Charles Bass (R-NH02) last night supported passing legislation from the House Energy and Commerce Committee to extend the transition date for digital television to allow consumers, broadcasters, and equipment manufacturers more time before requiring that analog signals be terminated.
BASS OFFERS AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT NH AIR QUALITY AND INCREASE NORTHEAST FUEL RESERVES
Washington, D.C.– U.S. Representative Charles Bass offered two amendments yesterday aimed at protecting the air quality of New Hampshire and increasing home heating oil fuel reserves for Northeastern states. Both measures were the subject of debate during a House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act.
BASS ENCOURAGES NH RESIDENTS TO REPORT GAS CONCERNS
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Charles Bass (NH02) commended President Bush for announcing that he will release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as called for by Bass to stem anticipated service disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina.
BASS APPLAUDES PASSAGE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH BILL
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH02) today applauded House passage of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The bill passed by a vote of 238 to 194
Bass and Bradley Introduce Clean Air Bill
Bipartisan CAPA Bill Reduces Emissions and Keeps Electricity Affordable
WASHINGTON, D.C.– U.S. Representatives Charles Bass and Jeb Bradley introduced legislation today in the House that will reduce harmful emissions from our nation’s power plants while preserving the affordable electricity American families count on.
Bass Will Support Amendment Protecting ANWR
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Charles F. Bass (R-NH) said he planned to vote in favor of an amendment that would prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amendment, offered by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT), would strike from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 a provision opening ANWR to exploration.
Bass Secures Comprehensive Renewable Energy Provisions
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Charles F. Bass (NH02) today praised the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s passage of a comprehensive energy bill. The Committee, on which Bass serves, agreed to report the Energy Policy Act of 2005 late last night.
"There will be no drilling in ANWR," said Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, one of the Republican centrists who led the effort to strip drilling in the Alaska preserve from the budget-cut bill that contained the provision.
The ANWR provision was strongly opposed by a group of 25 members, including many centrists, who wrote a letter this week demanding it be dropped. Mr. Bass spearheaded the letter and said a similar number would probably vote against the bill if the provision remained.
Many of Mr. Bass' fellow centrists in the Republican Main Street Partnership (funded, in part, by George Soros) want to reduce the overall amount of savings in the bill so that it more closely matches the Senate's bill, which finds about $35 billion in savings from entitlement programs.
"It's the package in its totality. The number is far too high," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, New York Republican, who complained that leaders, by forcing this vote, are trying to "clone" everyone in the party into one mold.
That one billion emergency heating that bass got for the northeastern rino districts should have been put in the budget.
No anwr, no money for heating in your district. More Blunt follies. These rino's get what they want then they backstab you.
Remember the stem cell bill. That was only given a vote in the house because this anti anwr group said they would vote for the budget. Then after they got the vote they backtracked.
The ANWR group is notable because it includes a trio of committee chairmen: Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., and Government Reform Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va. Of the 24 signers, nine voted against the budget resolution. In addition to Bradley, Boehlert, Davis and Sensenbrenner, the signers are: Nancy L. Johnson and Christopher Shays of Connecticut; H. James Saxton, Mike Ferguson and Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, Michael N. Castle of Delaware, Timothy Johnson and Mark Kirk of Illinois, Jim Leach of Iowa, Wayne T. Gilchrest and Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland, Michael Fitzpatrick and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, Sue W. Kelly of New York, Charles Bass of New Hampshire, Dave Reichert of Washington, Bob Inglis of South Carolina, Mark Kennedy and Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, and Joe Schwarz of Michigan.
The letter, however, did not paint the lawmakers into the corner of vowing to vote against a reconciliation package that would open ANWR.
They aren't even cutting all these programs.
They are cutting the rate of growth.
Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, executive director of the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership (funded, in part, by George Soros), the Club’s chief nemesis in the 2004 GOP primaries, said the conservative group was to blame for a Republican loss in a Kansas House race last year and continues to hurt Republicans running this cycle.
Sen. Rick Santorum’s (R-Pa.) flagging poll numbers — the Pennsylvania Republican has been trailing his Democratic rival, state treasurer Bob Casey — are due, in part, Chamberlain Resnick said, to last year’s bloody GOP primary between Specter and Toomey. She said the primary had left the party badly divided.
From what I have read what seems to have happened is that around 15 of them stood firm and told hastert if you don't get it out of the budget and promise us it won't come back in we will vote against it.
Typical rino's they get anwr out of the budget and then go for more. Now they want less cuts for the budget. This after they told Hastert they would have the votes if they took ANWR out.
Never ever negotiate with a rino. The only thing a rino will listen to is fear. Threaten to take away their committee seats, take away money from them, no appearanes from anyone to raise money, run strong well funded primary opponents against them.
When you cave into these rino's they smell blood. The elections on tuesday even emboldened them more. They need to fear the primaries as much as they fear the general elections. Their number one goal is to destroy the conservative movement so nothing you can do will ever get through to them. But at least put fear in them that they will lose a primary.
Good remedy. Add that there will be strong opposition in the primaries and no support in the general campaign.
April 14, 2004, 8:40 a.m.
Penn. Shuffle
Soros funds Specter?
snip
The Main Street Individual Fund — a 527 group that has a similar views and goals as the pro-moderate, anti-conservative Republican Main Street Partnership — announced Tuesday it would be spending $200,000 over the next two weeks to help Specter. Half is slated for television ads and half is for get out the vote efforts. About 175,000 phone calls will go out to potential pro-Specter voters, half live, half taped, according to Main Street Individual Fund Spokeswoman Sarah Chamberlain Resnick.
snip
The second-largest single donor to the Main Street Individual Fund, according to most recent information on Opensecrets.org, is George Soros. Yes, that George Soros, the one who compared the Bush administration to Nazi and Communist regimes, who has compared the Bush administration to George Orwell's 1984, called Bush's policies "Social Darwinist," who called defeating Bush in 2004 "the central focus of my life," and who donated $15.5 million to groups aiming to defeat Bush.
But that donation apparently arrived before Soros began frothing at the mouth about Bush, at least publicly. Resnick explained that Soros donated $50,000 to MSIF shortly after its founding in late 2002.
"We had no idea he was going to go after Bush," she said. "Since then, he has offered additional donations, but we have turned them down because we are Republicans first."
Apparently the moderate Republicans on the Main Street board missed Soros's April 8, 2002, speech at the University of Pennsylvania where he said, "If we assess the foreign-policy accomplishments of the Bush administration since Sept. 11, the scorecard is quite dismal."
"There are some people in the Bush administration who have the same mentality as Arafat or Sharon," Soros said. "I can name names, like Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, although that is considered impolite.... [T]he war on terrorism cannot be won by waging war. We must, of course, protect our security; but we must also correct the grievances on which terrorism feeds."
MSIF kept Soros's donation.
"We thought it might be a bigger story if they returned it," Resnick said. "It's, by comparison, only a little bit of money, and we might as well get some Republicans help with that money."
Of course, the Main Street Individual Fund has other large donors. The single largest is the Goldman Sachs Group with $125,000. The largest individual donor is Dinakar Singh, managing director at Goldman, Sachs & Co., who has given $100,000 to the fund this cycle, according to Resnick. This is legal (at least for now, the FEC is expected to rule on it shortly) under the current campaign-finance law, because Singh and other donors are not earmarking their money to a particular candidate.
But Singh's donations from the last cycle reveal he's not exactly a big GOP booster. He gave $5,000 in hard money and $70,000 in unlimited soft money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $5,000 to DASHPAC (Tom Daschle's political action committee) $1,000 each to Democratic senators Tim Johnson, Bob Torricelli (now ex-Sen.), and Tom Harkin, and $2,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. His sole GOP contribution last cycle? One grand to Specter.
snip
But don't expect Toomey to make an issue that money for pro-Specter ads is coming from folks like George Soros.
"It's too complicated, too tangential," Keating said. "The average voter doesn't really care about this. This is more for the activists."
Fund spokeswoman Sarah Chamberlain Resnick said the group has spent $100,000 on TV ads and will phone 175,000 centrist Republicans for a get-out-the-vote campaign, targeting those who switched parties to vote for Democrat Gov. Edward G. Rendell in 2002.
But Mr. Specter, who is a staunch advocate for campaign-finance reform
Miss Resnick said if Mr. Specter loses in the Pennsylvania primary, it almost ensures that Democrats will win his Senate seat, "and we cannot afford to lose any Republicans in the Senate."
September 8, 2005
REPUBLICAN MAIN STREET PARTNERSHIP BLASTS LAFFEY PRIMARY CHALLENGE TO RHODE ISLAND’S SENATOR CHAFEE AND CHALLENGES NATIONAL TAX-CUTTING GROUP TO DO THE SAME
“The Club for Growth should be willing to join us in defeating Mayor Laffey and supporting RMSP’s incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Rhode Island primary and general elections,” said Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of RMSP.
1. Understanding Supply and Demand - for Dummies
Oil is a commodity with a worldwide demand. It is managed with a worldwide supply chain made possible with corporations with worldwide capabilities.
Sudden changes, or major changes, or changes in the long term trends in the world demand for oil greatly affect the price of oil, and its retail products, everywhere in the world, not just the United States.
If enough buyers, due to the demand they are trying to meet, are willing to bid up the prices they will pay for oil contracts, their competitors all over the world have to increase their bids to insure they get enough of the volume in the supply chain to keep their customers supplied. Domestic US oil companies are not immune to these forces.
Because the United States needs to import much more oil than the oil the politicians will let it produce domestically, it has very little room to not be affected by the world demand on oil. The US has alot more oil available, and much that is restricted to US domestic producers alone, but politicians will not allow alot of that oil to be made available to US consumers.
World demand for oil has been increasing greatly for over a decade. A large source of that increase is the growing ecnomies in India and all across Asia. There is no projected decrease in those nations' rates of economic growth and so their demand for oil is expected to continue to grow. Those factors have been the largest source of wholesale and retail price increases for all oil products in the last few years.
The domestic US oil capacity received too great shocks, in the form of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita this past year. Significant percentages of drilling, refining, storage and delivery capacities were temporarily disrupted. However, since the oil supply chain is a global supply chain and oil companies have global operations, domestic retail delivery of oil products did not experience major shortages. That benefit came with some temporary costs. Retail gasoline prices shot up quite a bit, for a while. However, since most of the affects of Katrina and Rita, on the energy industry have been repaired, and the economics of supply and demand actually work, retail prices of gasoline are now down to or below pre-Katrina prices in most places. SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS, when you let it.
2. Environmental Myth
Alot of the political objections to increased domestic oil production are erroneous and misplaced environmental myths. Alot of available oil lies offshore of the US continental shelf. Environmental activists claim drilling there is dangerous to the environment. That is a lie.
We just went through two major hurricanes - Katrina and Rita - that made direct hits on major sectors of our offshore drilling and domestic refining and storage operations. Yet, with dozens of drilling rigs and wellheads damaged and major repairs needed for some major refining and storage facilities, there was not a single major "environmental disaster", not one.
Yet, politicians without a backbone will continue to let the environmental activists get away with their lies; lies that continue to diminish the ability of the US to become less dependent on foreign oil. More dependence on foreign oil means less ability for our own supplies to help control the price. But that is the cost of pleasing the environmental lies.
3. Profits
There is a misguided view of oil company profits. Much is made of Exxon-Mobil Corporation's annoucement of its third quarter 2005 profits, which came to roughly $9 billion dollars. People who were unwilling to look at what that meant said "wow" and their next thought was the retail price of gasoline. But, before making the unfounded charge of price gouging, the profit has to be put in perspective.
The "profit" of approximately $9 billion for Exxon-Mobile is what they retained, after all costs and liabilities from revenue of just over $100 billion. For the layman, that would equal you making a chair you sell for $100 dollars, and after paying all your expenses to make the chair you have $9 dollars left over. How long do you think you would stay in the chair business?
How does the Exxon-Mobil recent profit of 9 cents on the dollar (or 9%) compare to other corporations? Citibank's most recent profits are running at 27.99%. Gee, I wonder how many billions they need to save for their product development operations, compared to an oil company?
General Electric's profits lately are 11.4%, JP Morgan Chase is getting 12.47%, Johnson & Johnson's latest figures are 18.65%, Nike Shoes - 9.38%, US Steel - 8.77%, Motorola - 11.43%, Lucent Technologies - 12.73%, Verizon - 11.85%, Google - 33%, Pruidential Insurance - 11.99%, 3M - 15.9%, Kellog - 9.58%, Merrill Lynch - 19.58%, Norfolk Southern(trans) - 14.39%, Burlington Northern 11.66%,. Has there been a big political outcry that these companies are earning "excessive" profits which should be partially rebated with "windfall profits" taxes? No? Why not, if that concept is legitimate and you can define a "windfall" profit?
In addition, the trend of the oil industry in recent years has been closer to the range of 7%, or 7 cents on the dollar and in the 1980s and early 1990s it was lower than that. If your best profits in good years are topped off with additional taxes, how do you maintain a steady stream of long term capital developments during the lean years, when profit margins are lower, for a company whose survival depends on huge long term capital developments? You don't. Oil companies' profits are large in size, because the companies are doing a large size, world wide job. Revenue, and costs are large, from that job. But as a % of revenue the profits are not excessive.
4. Profits and Taxes
Another illustration of misguided notions comes from the following. Where does the consumer dollar that is spent on gasoline go? After that dollar pays for the cost of drilling, refining, delivery and pumping the gas who gets the lion's share of any "excess" above those costs? The answer is your federal and state politicians.
As noted earlier, Exxon-Mobil's profits in this latest quarter, considered a good quarter, ran about 9 cents on the dollar. So, if gasoline was selling for $3.00 (approximately its highest, and much higher than the long term average), the Exxon-Mobil made 27 cents "profit".
But, the federal government collects 18.4 cents tax on every gallon. And, Wisconsin collects another 32.1 cents per gallon. So, for every gallon of gas, above the costs of delivering that gas, Wisconsin consumers gave 27 cents to Exxon Mobil and 50.5 cents in taxes.
For New York the figure is 31.9 cents for the state and 50.3 cents in total; Pennsylvania 31.1/49.5 cents; Rhode Island 30/48.4 cents; Connecticut 25/43.4 cents; Kansas 24/42.4 cents; Massachusettes 23.5/41.9 cents; Colordao 22/40.4 cents; Iowa 20/38.4 cents; California 18/36.4 cents; New Jersey 14.5/32.9 cents - just to give you a range.
In only two states, Alaska ($0.08/$0.264) and Georgia ($.075/$0.239) are the taxes that consumers pay for Exxon-Mobil gasoline less than Exxon-Mobil's most recent (higher than historical) profit.
Politicians better start worrying about the reality of who it is that has actually been gouging into the pockets of the consumers. The truth is that between 1997 and 2004, federal and state retail taxes alone took in twice as much from the consumers as did oil company profits. How can the taxpayers get that "windfall" back from the politicians?
5. Summary
Now we have a few flat-earth people in congress that think we can get lower prices for gas and heating oil if we continue to obstruct development of domestic oil resources and, right when oil companies need most to maintain their long term capital projects, we cut some of their profits out. Taken either separately or together, the failure to support the extraction of domestic oil resources, where we have them available, and the misguided tax approach to "big oil" will not only not improve oil supply or gasoline prices, they will affect them both negatively.
6. Action
What we will do is make sure that the voters (in the congressional districts of the misguided representatives) will learn the true source of the much higher gasoline prices coming soon to a gas station near them.
I'm furious about this. I'll be working against these clowns with a passion in the next election. I'm of a mind that it serves the long term interest to vote out RINOs even if a Dem replaces them. It sends a message.
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.