This page was last updated on April 4, 2011.
Cash rewards; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 3, 2011.
American English is my first – and only – language so I think it’s safe to say the editorial accuses Gov. Tom Corbett of quid pro quo activity regarding campaign contributions from natural-gas-industry-related groups. Since at least 1998, only twice (2004 at 86% and 2006 at 87%) did less than 90% of labor union federal campaign contributions go to Democrat candidates. It was 93% in 2010. I’ll go out on a limb and guess a similar trend at the state level. Using Times logic, this means Democrats are bought and paid for when it comes to pushing leftist ideology instead of being supported for their true principles.
The editorial tells us “the state Department of Environmental Protection announced a new policy that requires that the approval of enforcement actions and punishments aimed at Marcellus Shale drilling operators, who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Corbett’s gubernatorial campaign, go through agency officials who are political appointees. (They didn’t announce the last part, but that’s the reality.) In essence, the new policy strips the DEP’s field inspectors of their regulatory powers.” The editorial failed to note the policy also applies to regional directors and to issuing permits. The implication is DEP field/regional personnel currently make objective decisions according to existing law with no personal policy preferences thrown in but decisions made at DEP HQ will be tainted by politics.
The editorial said, “The DEP said the move was made to provide consistency in enforcement. However, that argument was undercut because the new policy applies strictly to Marcellus Shale-related drilling activity. It does not cover any other agency activities - mining, construction, water and sewer treatment, power generation and medical X-rays.” Here is what this means. If there is a perception of inconsistency regarding field enforcement of DEP policy/regulations in a single DEP activity area, the Times assumes all activity areas need the same actions taken. If the Times has a problem in one department, does it assume the same problem exists in all departments?
The editorial says, “Pennsylvania faces a mammoth budget deficit, yet Corbett has turned his back on a source of revenue that could raise hundreds of millions of dollars.” I addressed this position in my critiques of “Quick hits/DO THE MATH,” “Money matters,” and “No need to panic.”
The editorial concludes by telling us “Natural gas drillers are receiving dividends beyond their greatest expectations. It’s too bad Corbett has not seen fit to allow the people of Pennsylvania to share in the bounty.” Note the deception. I believe you’ll find “the people of Pennsylvania” really means “the government of Pennsylvania,” not you and me. Here’s why. Natural gas consumers (you and I) will ultimately pay any severance taxes via our gas bills. This means any severance tax is another hidden tax on you and me. It’s true for all so-called business taxes. Opponents of Marcellus gas production tend not to mention that little fact. The idea a severance tax is a “bounty” for PA taxpayers is hogwash.
As he did for “No need to panic,” local self-described Marxist Carl Davidson provided his comments about the editorial on the Times website on the same page as the editorial. Mr. Davidson’s profile on the Times website doesn’t do him justice.
When you read Mr. Davidson’s comments, keep in mind the left opposes so-called “carbon-based energy” of any kind as well as nuclear power and instead wants us to chase so-called “green energy,” “renewables,” et cetera. As I’ve noted before, you can identify “green energy” sources because they are not currently technically and/or economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy. As soon as a “green energy” source gets close to commercial viability, it’s no longer deemed “green.” We’ve seen this with some hydro, wind, and solar projects. Knowing the manmade global warming myth increasingly falls on deaf ears, followers of this faith try to use safety, water quality, etc. as backdoors to stop drilling and production of Marcellus natural gas. You can find examples here, here, here, here, and here. At least four of those letters were written by Mr. Davidson’s fellow members of Beaver County Reds.
carldavidson posted at 7:01 am on Sun, Apr 3, 2011: “Good editorial, but I’ll add a bit. This nonsense has a name; it’s called neoliberalism--meaning markets all good, government all bad. Just let businesses do as they please, take their funds for your campaign chest, and stay out of their way.”
[RWC] Apparently having worn out “neo-conservatism,” lefties now seem to prefer “neo-liberalism” as one of their boogeymen. As with many of these “neos,” the definition varies with the user. In any case, assuming we’re talking about today’s American definition of liberalism, do you know any liberals who believe “markets all good, government all bad?” Given the tarnished brand of “liberal,” could lefties be trying to label principles of the right as “neo-liberalism?”
Regarding “markets all good, government all bad,” Mr. Davidson uses this straw man regularly. It’s bogus, of course, but it sounds good when preaching to the choir or the uninformed. Limited government does not mean no government/regulations. Government should provide a civil and criminal legal environment, law enforcement, national security, some elements of infrastructure like roads, et cetera. The belief in rule of law extends to the business place. Leftists would have you believe conservatives want neither laws (regulations) nor law enforcement for business. Nothing could be further from the truth. A free market requires consumer and supplier confidence and this doesn’t happen in a lawless marketplace. We saw the effect on the marketplace of low confidence in the wake of the Adelphia, Enron, Global Crossing, et al scandals. That said, we need the minimum regulation required to achieve the desired effect. When we pass the sweet spot, we start getting some of the same results as a government-directed economy.
As for the last sentence of the paragraph, this sounds like projection on Mr. Davidson’s part. Isn’t labor union management in Ohio, Wisconsin, et cetera complaining (demonstrations, harassment, death threats, etc.) it’s not getting what it thinks it paid for? Have you noticed lefties never seem to be concerned about labor union management in this regard? Perhaps that’s because 93% of labor union management PAC contributions to federal candidates (over $62 million) went to Democrat/leftist candidates in 2010. Of the top ten contributors to 527s for the 2010 election, six were labor unions and three others were Democrat/leftist-affiliated. Number one was Service Employees International Union at $17.6 million, more than four times number two (United Food & Commercial Workers Union) on the list and more than five times the largest business-related contributor (Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc.) at number four.
“We’ve seem [sic] this before--coal operators strip mining, paying a small fine and leaving the mess, pollution so bad the streetlights come on at noon, a river you couldn’t put a toe in for fear of toxic sludge, and so on. Worst of all was shutting down entire profitable industries to chase super-profits abroad or speculation in the Wall St casino.”
[RWC] It’s curious. When trying to convince us this or that poor behavior will return unless we follow leftist ideology, lefties have no trouble taking us back decades and even 100+ years. Talk about the Constitution, however, and suddenly the past becomes irrelevant.
Who “shut down entire profitable industries to chase super-profits abroad or speculation in the Wall St casino?” It’s difficult to discuss without specifics. Besides, I thought profit was a dirty word.
“I hope some who voted for Corbett are now having buyers’ remorse. We need and deserve a hefty tax on the Marcellus gas extraction, so the industry can provide the funds to have it done safely with some left over to develop alternative energies. Otherwise, WE pay for the damage in the end.”
[RWC] “We need and deserve a hefty tax on the Marcellus gas extraction?” First, “we need and deserve a hefty tax?” As I noted above, natural gas consumers (you and I) will ultimately pay any “Marcellus gas extraction” taxes via our gas bills. This means any severance tax is another hidden tax on you and me. What did we do to “deserve” that?
Second, note the use of “hefty,” not appropriate, fair, reasonable, etc., but “hefty.” The goal is to make Marcellus gas too expensive to produce via regulations and taxes, similar to the cap-and-tax plan President Obama wants for both natural gas and coal-fired power plants. The idea is to take out competitors of so-called “green energy” by making them prohibitively expensive. If that’s unsuccessful, the thinking goes, at least there would be a lot more revenue for government to spend. Previously Mr. Davidson told us the work “has to be done onsite by local union workers.” That condition has two goals. The first is the same as for the tax, help make Marcellus gas too expensive to produce. The second goal is about funding to advance leftist policies/programs/politicians and a big chunk of leftist funding comes from mandatory dues collected from employees forced to join labor unions by closed-shop labor laws. There’s also the labor union member manpower used for in-kind contributions (knocking on doors, manning phone banks, generating and distributing collateral, rallies, etc.) to support leftist policies/programs/politicians.
Why should our home heating bills include taxes “to develop alternative energies?” This would be like imposing a rental car fee to subsidize government-run buses. Oh wait, Allegheny County does that. The marketplace will take care of developing “alternative energies” if we let it and government doesn’t pick winners and losers based on political ideology.
As I’ve written previously, companies harvesting our natural resources must do so in a responsible manner and must have the financial and technological wherewithal to handle worst-case scenarios. It is government’s responsibility to enforce these rules and to make sure everyone involved [businesses and government (local, state, federal)] is prepared (via drills, for example) to execute disaster plans. As for potential damage, an alternative to a tax is to require drillers to purchase adequate insurance. Since that approach would not put money in the hands of the government, however, would lefties be happy? No.
“Finally, by putting GOP commissars over EPA workers, you see why.”
[RWC] Mr. Davidson wrote “EPA” but I believe he meant “DEP” (Department of Environmental Protection).
FYI, the two relevant Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of commissar are “a Communist party official assigned to a military unit to teach party principles and policies and to ensure party loyalty” and “the head of a government department in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics until 1946.” I always smile when lefties insult those on the right by using terms lefties coined to describe themselves. It’s like saying, “oh yeah, well you’re me!” Another example is when lefties refer to righties as “Nazis” despite the fact the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), the party of Hitler, was leftist. Then again, being a self-described Marxist and a leader of CCDS (offshoot of the Communist Party USA), perhaps Mr. Davidson was paying the GOP a compliment. <g>
The following comments by Mr. Davidson were in response to another poster and came the day after I originally published this critique.
carldavidson posted at 9:04 am on Mon, Apr 4, 2011: “If EPA is not being hindered, why is Jim Christiana, our local state rep, demanding that it keep it’s nose out of the state, opposing Senator Casey’s efforts to bring it in?”
[RWC] Note the inconsistency. Above Mr. Davidson opposes the DEP meddling with its own field/regional personnel but has no problem with the federal EPA superseding the state DEP.
“On the state level, if the DEP needs to do more work and a better job, why is the GOP trying to slash its ranks? Do you really think you’ll get better protection with fewer workers in an outfit already understaffed when there’s way more work to do?”
[RWC] After searching, I could find nothing to support the position DEP Marcellus staffing will be cut. Though there is no Marcellus Shale line item in Gov. Corbett’s proposed budget, “Environmental Program Management” spending would be cut $0.84 million to $28.6 million while “Environmental Protection Operations” spending would remain at $79.5 million. As for being “understaffed,” I guess it’s possible but other than law enforcement and the military, is there any government function for which lefties don’t make this claim?
“As for unions, true, they don’t solve everything--but they help us all in more ways than you might think. And $13.50 an hour for a 40 hour week adds up to $540, and even with a 20 percent benefit package, that doesn’t add up to $1200 a week. But the main reason for union jobs on these sites is so workers won’t be afraid to blow the whistle when they see safety regulations being violated--that’s the main point, and if you believe it’s not needed, you probably believe in the tooth fairy, too.”
[RWC] I covered this assertion in my response to the third paragraph of Mr. Davidson’s Sunday comments.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.