But, that is just what John Laird has done with his Sunday, June 12, 2011 editorial Fist-bumps in anti-government crowd.
From his grossly out of context Reagan quote, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” to his mischaracterization of conservatives as “anti-government” instead of what we really are, “limited-government,” Laird laments on government jobs being lost in this “Great Recession.” Even on his facebook page, he labels the editorial, “Reflections on the recent wave of cuts in government jobs,” ignoring millions of private sector jobs lost since the Great Repression began in 2007.
While Laird whines about government jobs lost, he completely ignores the ongoing efforts of that very government in blocking private sector jobs at the ready by the hundreds of thousands for several years. Jobs that not only are good paying, but that would spur supportive jobs while at the same time helping to end our reliance on foreign sources for our energy security.
Yes, the Oil Companies, hated as they are while they continue to supply our most efficient and economical energy needs, keep the nation moving our goods and supply the much needed material for computers, medical supplies, clothing and even sanitary components for our Hospitals have been seeking to expand their operations in recovering billions of barrels of our own petroleum within our borders and off our shores, efforts that continue being blocked by the very government now crying over reduced revenues that force cutting those government jobs.
Recovering our own sources from fields previously seen as too expensive have become economical as OPEC continues to play with their price for crude oil, driving it up over $100 a barrel in recent months. Economists associated with the American Petroleum Institute, after studying data supplied by the U.S. Government have concluded that the United States and Canada could provide 92% of America’s liquid fuel needs by 2030 and decrease our dependence on the rest of the world by 22%.
Besides the usual dragging of their feet and denial of drilling permits, egged on by EPA rules and environmentalists, a pipeline has been proposed to carry the oil from Canadian Fields to America’s Gulf Coast refineries. The Keystone XL Pipeline is proposed to carry the oil sands down from Canada into America and awaiting State Department approval since it crosses an International Border.
API president Jack Gerard says the “Canada Pipeline Is Critical to U.S. Energy Security.” Needless to say, the EPA has “issues” with the project that again deny and block much needed jobs for American citizens, jobs that are also needed to refill the treasury that pays for all of the government jobs and programs that now have to be cut due to reduced revenues coming in.
A recent Fact Sheet released by API states,
“A recent study found that more than 340,000 new jobs could be created here in the U.S. between now and 2015through a full utilization of Canada’s oil sands. One pipeline construction project alone, the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will increase the amount of Canadian oil coming into the U.S. is projected to create 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs here in America.”
It also states,
“Almost 1,000 American companies from 47 states are already involved in the development of Canada’s oil sands. A variety of American companies manufacture equipment and products that are then used in Canada for oil production, everything from engines made in Indiana to tires made in South Carolina. In addition, U.S. dollars sent to Canada to purchase energy resources can end up back in the U.S. through the purchase of finished products and other American goods. In fact, increased development of Canadian oil sands is expected to add more than $30 billion to U.S. GDP in2015 alone.”
For those who will continue hawking the canard of job growth due to “green energy” and “alternative energy,” a recent Wall Street Journal articles informs us,
“The great energy irony of recent years is that governments have thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at wind, solar, ethanol and other alternative fuels, yet the major breakthroughs have taken place in the traditional oil and natural gas business. Hydraulic fracturing in shale, horizontal drilling and new seismic techniques are only the best known examples.”
“Private companies must innovate to survive, and they have the profit incentive to do so, while government cash is usually steered to politically favored companies that may or may not know what they're doing. If you live off federal grants, you need to work the corridors of power more than the technology. Federal grants for cellulosic ethanol are rife with political earmarks, for example. This is why these columns have argued that the political fad of alternative energy has misallocated scarce capital when the economy can least afford it.”
The jobs are there. The energy sources are there. The willingness is there. And, government blockades are there as well. While the current administration continues running around seeking more foreign sources of energy, we have that and more sitting idly under our own ground right here in America.
How correct the words spoken by Ronald Reagan and quoted out of context by John Laird are proving to be, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.”
The more than 470 oil and natural gas companies represented by the American Petroleum Institute are prepared to carry their share of the burden today, providing jobs and energy security. As Mark Green says in the video above, “America’s Oil and Natural Gas companies can provide energy security. The only question is will our government let them.”
Isn’t that a question a political editor like John Laird should be asking?