GOP Members of Congress Unveil ‘No Cost Stimulus’ Bill

cnsnews.com ^ | March 13, 2009 | Edwin Mora

[kellynla]

Five conservative Republicans – three from the House and two from the Senate -- have introduced a “common sense” economic stimulus package that includes energy proposals tthey say will boost the economy without adding to the national debt.

The “no-cost stimulus plan” calls for expanding offshore oil and gas production and leasing the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas producers, which in turn would generate new federal revenue.

“This is an energy plan involving both traditional and renewable energy that can create significant jobs, significant economic growth without costing the U.S taxpayer one cent and without having to borrow more money,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said during a Capitol Hill news conference.

The plan also would allow commercial leasing of oil shale as long as there is a profitable interest, expedite the nuclear plant licensing process and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act as “ammo” to enforce carbon dioxide regulations.

If adopted, Vitter said the plan would provide “well over 2 million long-term sustainable and well-paying jobs,” and would “dramatically increase GDP” -- by approximately $8.2 trillion over the next 30 years – in addition to reducing the cost of energy.

Best of all, the Louisiana senator pointed out, the stimulus would create those jobs at no cost to taxpayers.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The only thing the Demonrat Congress is concerned about is making more people dependent on them being in power. If there was no government money involved there would be no power.

Proposal DOA without serious discussion or debate.

[ScottinVA]

Funny, this sounds familiar — oh yeah — it’s what SARAH PALIN was pushing for throughout the campaign!

[ScottinVA]

The GOP should soft-roll this until 2010. Then push it hard.

[bray]

The DNC doesn’t want more energy, it wants much much less. It wants to enslave us to higher taxes and less oil/electricity to control us. They want an all powerful Turd World gummit. Enjoy your bicycle commrade.

Pray for America, Our Troops and obama’s Failure

[OH4life]

Don’t we just buy our oil at international market prices? As far as I know, oil from alaska doesn’t get subsidized to be cheaper if its consumed in the US (we don’t have a nationalized oil company, and we shouldn’t!). If you’re an oil company, it just doesn’t make any sense to sell oil here cheaper if a country like Japan or China is willing to pay more for it. We’ll never increase production enough to become a net exporter, it just ain’t gonna happen.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, if we pulled out all the stops, we could probably become a net exporter of petroleum, but only is oil prices hit the point where oil shale is competitive. I believe the U.S. has more oil reserves the Saudi Arabia, but only when oil shale is included in the calculation.

[kellynla]

“Don’t we just buy our oil at international market prices? As far as I know, oil from alaska doesn’t get subsidized to be cheaper if its consumed in the US (we don’t have a nationalized oil company, and we shouldn’t!). If you’re an oil company, it just doesn’t make any sense to sell oil here cheaper if a country like Japan or China is willing to pay more for it. We’ll never increase production enough to become a net exporter, it just ain’t gonna happen.”

I’ll let “Thackney” respond since this is his field.

[polymuser]

.

Could the southern border fence be rolled into this?

.

[gjones77]

If America was to produce it’s own oil, yes it would be sold at the international market price, which would then drop do to an increase in supply.

It would also go a long way to stabilize the oil markets prices since one little utterance from a Middle Eastern dictator wouldn’t cause massive spikes, we would essentially remove almost all volatility from the market.

[kinghorse]

How about coming up with a radical agenda of conservatism, morons? It’s not like you have a lot to lose.

No wishy washy, piddy paddy, muzak. Ted Nugent, Chuck Norris and Glenn Beck conservatism. I guess it’s coming.

[OH4life]

I completely agree that it would drop international oil prices, but as someone earlier mentioned, we’re only really competitive if oil is expensive enough to tap things like oil shale.

We’re kind of in a sticky situation. If oil is >$100/barrel, we could probably become energy independent, but if oil gets that high, it sufficiently depresses economic activity to the point where oil gets way cheaper than that. The US will probably never be energy independent if a) we *don’t* have government subsidized/nationalized oil infrastructure AND b)the price stays under ~$75/barrel or so. It seems kind of like a catch-22 =(

[thackney]

Don’t we just buy our oil at international market prices?

Yes.

As far as I know, oil from alaska doesn’t get subsidized to be cheaper if its consumed in the US

Correct. The majority of the oil produced in Alaska is ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Anadarko. It is hardly subsidized. The taxes paid are some of the highest in the world.

If you’re an oil company, it just doesn’t make any sense to sell oil here cheaper if a country like Japan or China is willing to pay more for it.

Did you forget your first point? What would make you believe that America, the world's largest single consumer country of oil is paying below market rates?

The fact is it is cheaper to sell Alaska oil in the US West Coast because it is closer than any other market like China or Japan. Buyers pay the going rate for comparable grades of oil. The seller will have to pay the cost to get the prodect to the markets.

[gjones77]

Actually Royal Dutch Shell said they could recover the shale oil at roughly $20 a barrel and make a profit, even if they’re off by $10 and it’s $30 it’s still viable.

[depressed in 06]

What should the price of oil, on public land, be? It has no value until consumed. As a public asset, should it not be used as collateral on the national debt. The Bolshecrats want oil to be worth zero, but, the holders of our debt should want oil to be $80. Currently, fossil fuel will always be cheaper than alternatives, because, the supply and availability are plentiful. Government will try to make fossil more expensive than alternatives. But, that will fail, because, the alternatives will have to be built with fossil fuel that is still less expensive than alternatives due to higher costs of energy. The “Catch 22” here is the more government does to enhance the political favoritism of alternatives over fossil the more it is doomed to fail, because, alternatives cannot be made cheap enough until fossils dry up. The way out of this mess is to set a zero price (plus processing costs) for publicly owned fossil fuel, or, at least market based, with unfettered access. This will allow alternatives to develop at lower cost until supplies start to dry up and alternatives become viable.

The Bolshecrat plan is to stop using $1 per watt energy now, and, in twenty years, use $2 per watt energy, while, in the interim, the world uses 10 cent energy and we freeze.

We are in this mess, because, 30 years ago the Bolshecrats decided that fossil fuel was a no-no, but, did nothing about it, except demagogue.

[Just A Nobody]

Oh, yippeeeeee!!!

“The no-cost stimulus bill is actually a way of having your cake and eating it too,” Fleming said.
“It’s green, it’s environmentally friendly, and it’s funded by the very extraction of the fossil fuels that will be provided.”

The new revenue would be used to create an Alternative Renewable Energy Trust Fund that would be dedicated to “clean” and renewable energy programs.

Just what we need -another- TRUST FUND the criminals in CONgre$$ can steal from for their favorite pets!

[Just A Nobody]

Funny, this sounds familiar — oh yeah — it’s what SARAH PALIN was pushing for throughout the campaign!

Actually, it is the plan PRESIDENT Bush was pushing for the past 10 years!

- calls for expanding offshore oil and gas production and leasing the...(ANWR) to oil and gas producers

April 19, 2002: [ANWR]...was not the only place where the Bush administration was hoping to find more oil. It is also encouraging drilling at more than 50 new sites in the lower 48 states, particularly in the Rocky Mountains.
March 16, 2005
The Bush administration has long sought to open the refuge as part of the president’s national energy policy, but the proposal has repeatedly run into opposition on Capitol Hill.
June 21, 2007:
I strongly believe that we ought to open up more outer continental shelf area, as well as ANWR in Alaska.

- involving both traditional and renewable energy

May 18, 2001:
And one of the keys to energy security in America, and national security, is to have a diversified energy base. That means oil; that means gas; that means safe nuclear energy; that means clean coal technologies…
But it also means interesting new opportunities, such as biomass…
I can't think of anything better for national security than to replace barrels of oil that come into the country from nations that can't stand America -- some of them don't -- with products that we grow here in America. I would much rather replace oil from Iraq with corn products from Iowa.
October 12, 2006:
Nuclear power is renewable, and there are no greenhouse gases associated with nuclear power.
And one of the keys to energy security in America, and national security, is to have a diversified energy base.

- expedite the nuclear plant licensing process

Executive Order
May 18, 2001
Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects
…it is the policy of this Administration that executive departments and agencies shall take appropriate actions…to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy
June 21, 2007:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working to improve and streamline the regulatory process to help accelerate the construction of nuclear plants.

- prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act as “ammo” to enforce carbon dioxide regulations.

March 14, 2001:
…this administration will enforce the clean air laws of the country. We will work with our utilities to encourage better efficiency, so as to clean up the air.
April 28, 2001
We are adopting new, scientifically sensible rules to discourage emissions of lead, to protect wetlands, to reduce the amount of arsenic in drinking water, to curb dangerous pesticides and to clean the air of pollution from on-road diesel engines.
June 21, 2007:
the Supreme Court ... ruled that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. That's what the Court said. And when the Court says something, then the executive branch of government says, okay, you said it, now we'll listen. We'll do what you asked us to do.
So Congress can pass the law, which I hope they do, but if they don't, we're moving forward because the Supreme Court told us to move forward. And either way, in either case, we're going to become less dependent on oil, and that's good for the United States of America.