Saturday, February 06, 2010

Where the jobs are ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Everyone agrees that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Everyone agrees that we need to increase American jobs.

Everyone, except perhaps the president and his minions in the majority, agrees that the government cannot afford to subsidize either of these goals.

Both of these goals can be achieved quite easily with no government subsidy: drill here; drill now!

Congress could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the twinkling of a Senate vote. This would pave the way to upwards of 10 billion barrels of new crude for America. Paving the road to this new inventory would provide employment for as many as 735,000 people – at no cost to the government.

Congress could open the oil-rich areas offshore, where as much as 85 billion barrels of oil is waiting for our use. Every new barrel produced provides new jobs for America – at no cost to the government.

Instead of choosing this perfectly logical course of action, the president and his minions in the majority chose to spend $159 billion to create 640,000 jobs.That's $248,000 per job, for a job that typically pays much less than $100,000 per year and in many cases will last only a few months. How dumb is that?

When a stupid program doesn't work as well as was projected, the only thing to do is to up the ante and do it again. That's why the president wants to spend another $100 billion doing what didn't work last time. How dumb is that?

This stupidity cannot be laid at the feet of this president alone. Democrats, and a few Republicans, in Congress have justified this wrongheadedness on the U.N.'s threat that the continued use of carbon fuels would sink the continents and fry the polar regions. Anyone who still believes this nonsense has refused to read the preponderance of evidence that is now available.

Global warming that may have occurred over the last century is well within the range of normal variability.


Bookmark and Share

No comments:

Post a Comment