Here! Have A Benjamin! And All It'll Cost You Is ANWR

[filkertom]

More proof that our Republican lawmakers are crooks. They can't help themselves -- they think like crooks.

Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

This is, literally, a bribe. Here, take yer hunnert bucks, an' don't see nothin'.

I wish to call special attention here to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who has been trying to, among other things, authorize drilling in ANWR since forever, despite his own constituents' wishes, and build the most useless bridge in the world.

Seriously, now: Can you be bought for a hundred bucks, if it means they can drill in Alaska?

(Thanks to AmericaBlog for the heads-up.)

Comments

[ericcoleman]

There was a poll on the front page asking if it was a good idea or political posturing. 85% said it was the latter. The poll has since disappeared. Damn left wing media.

[pixel.livejournal.com]

"Its a pretty sad bribe, considering that $100 won't even buy three tanks of gasoline.
But drilling in the ANWR will lower gas prices right? Just like freeing Iraq did.

...oh wait.

Oops.


Ackward..."

[alicetheowl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was gonna remark on that.

I have a fairly efficient car and don't drive it ALL that much, and I think that money would last me a whole month and a half. What the hell's the point?

And just how high do gas prices have to go before people will start trading in the SUVs and WALKING to the corner store instead of driving?

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

Since I can find no as in NO authorization in the Constitution or its amendments for anything like the ANWR, they can drill all they want up there and I couldn't care less.

In any case, the drilling that's been proposed does little-to-no damage to the ecology up there---and would be taking place in the depth of winter, when there basically IS NO ecology and no wildlife to be disturbed. The law creating the ANWR was not, and is not, a suicide pact.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Wrong (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-26.htm) on (http://www.unc.edu/~money/geography/anwr2.html) every (http://www.audubon.org/campaign/arcticpolicy/) point (http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.htm). Shall (http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml) I (http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/cgi-local/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=anwr&imageField22.x=43&imageField22.y=16) go (http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold04202005.html) on (http://www.anwr.org/techno/techno.htm)?

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

They can't drill in the North, the ecological damage is catastrophic. The north is already suffering from Global warming, adding oil drilling and we might loose a whole bloody eco system.

What is with people and oil? I'd like to see a tax on gas guzzlers, SUVs and such when they are bought just because, not because they are needed. A tax at purchase time and a highner plate renewal price. And I'm not talking 20 dollars or so. sigh, I should stop now or I'll injure something

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

I'd rather see a higher tax on gasoline than CAFE standards, taxes on guzzlers, and deductions for hybrids. Four carpoolers in a Lincoln is more efficient than four Hondas. And some hybrids are less efficient than some non-hybrids. If tax policy is designed to modify behavior (and I think it should be), then the goal should be to reduce gasoline consumption. Therefore, taxing gasoline directly will modify consumer's behavior most efficiently.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall an Onion article from 2002, maybe early in 2003, in which Bush asks Congress to pass "$300 tax rebate to all Americans (and we invade Iraq)" legislation.

Maybe I should rely on The Onion (and perhaps the Daily show) for news and information from now on. They're more accurate than the non-parody media.

[jedilora.livejournal.com]

A hundred bucks? That's maybe two tanks of gas. Not only is it a bribe, it's a SUCKY bribe.

And even if it were free gas for a YEAR, I wouldn't take it.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

Well, the only thing is that if it passes, you'll still get your $100 check anyway, and whether or not you cash it, they're going to drill in Alaska anyway... -.-

The only way not cashing the check would make an impact is if enough people do it, and unfortunately that's not going to happen. Most people nowadays are way too poor to pass up $100. -.-

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Okay, let me see if I understand this. We're in the largest deficit ever, and the Republicans think that the way to make the gas problem better is to take taxpayer money that we shouldn't be spending in the first place... and give $100.00 of it back to each taxpayer, no matter how much they gave the government in taxes. Meanwhile, the lawmakers keep their bribes received from Big Oil's lobbies and Big Oil gets to go on pricing gasoline at $3.00/gallon, showing billion-dollar record profits each quarter.

This ... is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. We're talking about Congress here, which is a veritable font of stupid, half-assed ideas and criminal schemes perpetrated on the public, and they have now managed to top themselves.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

The drilling can be done safely and properly - if the oil companies have someone watching them like hawks who can pull their permits if they screw up. That's the only thing the oil companies fear - loosing access while competitors do not. Fine them and they'll just add the cost of the fine to the product.

But the tech does exist to do it without harming the environment. It's currently in use in Canada, the Gulf (how many gallons of oil were lost when Katrina destroyed the platforms? Very little) and off the coast of California. And the wildlife in Alaska doesn't have a problem cohabiting with the existing fields and pipelines. I think it can be done safely if someone holds the oil companys responsible in a way that they'll really do the job correctly. However, I don't believe the Republicans are the ones to keep the oil companies honest. That's the fox guarding the henhouse.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

What, you mean the party run by the oil men (http://www.apfn.org/APFN/bush-cheney.htm)? Heaven forfend (http://tinyurl.com/j53up).

[beldar.livejournal.com]

I had always heard that the majority of Alaskans supported ANWR drilling, and that it was bleeding hearts in the lower 48 getting in the way.

I have also heard that the drilling area is but a small fraction of the ANWR area, which is true (there's a map at one of your links), but it takes up practically all of the shoreline area of the Reserve. That's hogging an entire type of ecosystem. And how does this indirectly affect the ecology inland?

I don't trust the big oil companies any further than I can throw 'em, but on the other hand, according to the environmentalists of my youth, Alaska should already have been destroyed by the existing oilfields and pipeline. So I'm on the sidelines in this one.

[codevixen.livejournal.com]

Hey, Tom? I don't know if you noticed, but there's a little box on that "bridge" article that says "Who's Blogging?" and YOUR Livejournal happens to be the top result.

That said, I wonder what they intend to achieve with the tiny $100 a person - I don't drive and I know that would barely buy a couple tanks of gas. And hey, I *don't drive* and I would still get the check, so where does that put me?

[gypsy1969.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the fact that the last "rebate" was really a bait and switch. I ended up losing money on that deal. But that's another story.

[sarahtoalaska.livejournal.com]

A crummy $100 is not enough to pay me to drill in my State. Yep. I'm Alaskan. Honestly I don't think it's worth it to drill. Sure, we are short on oil.... maybe then we should try SOMETHING ELSE.
Alaska is a place like no other in America. I personally believe a lot of the issue is the mentality of.... it's Alaska, who cares? I don't want drilling in my state, not for $500 a person. Destroy some of my state because some idiot in the lower 48 thinks he needs a H2, I don't think so.
Oh and Ted Stevens... yeah, he's special. If I'm not misstaken (and I may be) he wants the bridge because he owns some land on the other side. The people who live there certainly don't want the bridge. They are living there to be AWAY from the rest of the world.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Alaska is a place like no other in America. I personally believe a lot of the issue is the mentality of.... it's Alaska, who cares?

I've never been there, and I care. The issue isn't that... the issue is that if they can break through at ANWR, then no reserved land is ever safe again.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

I've put a link to this in my LJ. Having put up an article and rant about ExxonMobil's latest quarterly profit there this morning, I obviously can't let well enough alone...

[giza.livejournal.com]

I take public transit to work and rarely drive.

If they give me $100, I'll be making a profit, oddly enough.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Until they raise the tax rates next year to make up for it, anyway.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

The amount this would add to the national debt--perhaps 30 billion--is staggering. Still, Democrats and Republicans seem to have found something to agree on: lower oil prices. Myself, I'd rather have bread and circuses.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Fuck oil prices. I want my Mr. Fusion.

$100

[nezmaster.livejournal.com]

I've spent more than $100 to sierra club and greenpeace to PREVENT things like drilling in Alaska..so I think i can safely say they can stuff their money, no matter how desperate I am. I don't CURRENTLY have a car for various reasons, which is another reason the wole plans stupid.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE MORE MONEY OUT OF THE TREASURY SO THAT CONSUMERS CAN BUY 2 OR 3 TANKS OF GAS??? Why don't they, you know, make the energy companies pay royalties on their leases, which they haven't done in years?? GRRRR>

[crwilley.livejournal.com]

First, a little math: At 18 cents/gallon, that $100 covers the federal gas tax on roughly 555 gallons of gas. YMMV, literally, on how long that covers your gas tax. Assuming 1000 miles/month and 20mpg, that's got you pretty good for the year.

You know what convinces me that this is a pure-and-simple bribe? Nothing I've seen in this proposal - which the Repub's are billing as a "rebate on your gas tax" - indicates that it's tied in any way, shape, or form to how much an individual drives. You make under a certain amount of money? Here, have a gas tax rebate. I suppose it's a nice windfall for people who don't drive, but please don't call it a 'tax rebate' if it's not related to the amount of tax a person has actually paid. The proposal for a 60-day "gas tax holiday" is more intellectually honest, and cheaper, but won't put $100 checks in people's pockets, and the checks that went out a couple years back seem to have boosted George's poll ratings...

I also ditto annearchy's thought that the oil companies need to pay their royalties. My Republican brother-in-law pointed out that if we don't give a tax subsidy to the oil companies, we'll pay more at the pump, but had to agree that at least then the true cost of the oil will be paid by the people who guzzle the most of it; right now people who don't own cars are paying for gasoline.

[gan-chan.livejournal.com]

Seriously, now: Can you be bought for a hundred bucks, if it means they can drill in Alaska?

Well, my response to that rhetorical question is a two-word one. The second one is "no" and the first starts with an "F".

Scott's Top Ten List of Things Government Could Do That Would Be More Helpful Than Drilling in ANWR:

10) Plastics are made from petroleum. Implement full mandatory plastics recycling (all "numbers" of plastic) in counties with populations of a certain size nationwide.

9) Government contract purchasing agreements for B100 biodiesel (100% war-free) and E85 ethanol (85% war-free), and purchase or modification so that all federal, state, and local government-owned vehicles can run on same (or on electricity, compressed natural gas, or liquified natural gas).

8) Raise Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards and stop giving "light trucks" (aka SUVs and pickups) a free ride.

7) Home heating oil takes up a big chunk of petroleum usage. Implement nationwide buydown incentives, tax incentives, and educational programs for solar-thermal, solar-electric, wind-electric, and geothermal home heating systems that replace conventional oil- and gas-fired furnaces.

6) Fix the mass transit systems in our cities. Light rail (electric) is quick, clean, quiet, and convenient. Portland, OR, has got this one right, big-time. Keep them clean and safe so that bus and rail transportation are no longer looked on as "only for people who can't afford to drive a car or fly." Give discounts on auto insurance and tax credits to people who buy monthly mass-transit passes. Getting cars off the road saves gas twice - once from the vehicle itself and once from the construction equipment that has to continually add more lanes to the highways.

5) Promote energy conservation with the same zealotry with which they promoted the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war. Cancel that limo and get a Prius, Senator.

4) Reform city zoning regulations nationwide to encourage more mixed-use property development, where shops, offices, and homes are closer together (see "New Urbanism"). The concept of the "bedroom community" is one whose time passed with the Hubbert peak.

3) Set up countywide biodiesel and ethanol co-ops in farm areas to produce and distribute blood-free fuel for farm equipment.

2) Give tax incentives to consumer homebuilders and commercial builders who create buildings that meed the top levels of the U.S. Green Builing Council's Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) standards. Tax penalties to those who do not.

1) Stop subsidizing the petrochemical industries, to instantly double the value of all the measures described above.

[bchbum-98.livejournal.com]

$.10 deposit on each aluminum can. Recycling aluminum is the most fuel efficient recycling program. None of these cans should ever go anywhere other than the recycle bin.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Yeah. They want to give you a hundred bucks that you'll end up giving right to the oil companies. So not only are they trying again to sneak another ANWR attempt through, they're also making another sneaky subsidy for the oil companies... whose profits are already running ahead of last year's record pace.

Bastards.

What amazes me is not that there's a 60% disapproval rate for the Liar. I'm not even amazed that there's a 32% approval rate--typically, there's anywhere from 25-35% of hardcore unshakable partisan support for either party, and that's historically, not just recently.

What amazes me is that at this stage, there's still 8% that say they don't know what they think about these crooks.

Sigh.

[james-rayner.livejournal.com]

Okay. First thing is first here. I would like to say that I am not a lawyer, nor am I an enviromentalist. Yes, I think we need to take a little better care of our world here, but I am not a fervent follower of enviromentalist issues. I apologize that my liberalism is currently limited to social issues, mostly because I realize enviromentalists have -already gotten what they really wanted- which was Focus on alternative fuel sources to stymie the global warming issue, and I think there are bigger issues worth fighting for at the moment.

Continuing onwards, I'd like to note that - While a dumbass move, It was coming whatever way you slice it. The problem is, ANWR - No matter how much yelling we do - Is going to get drilled in, unless a massive reshift in the power of Capitol Hill happens this year - And I am speaking of a complete Democratic victory the likes of which will make Gettysburg look mild. The problem is that - Given current oil prices and our reliance on mid-eastern oil concerns, OPEC's current attitude towards supply, and the price gouging by major gas companies, The thought of the huge tap that is ANWR is too big of an election point to even Democratic senators who must answer to a majority that want lower Gas Prices, and will elect anyone who will give them that. Having that much oil in a place we actually own is too big of a proverbial carrot to pass up for these people, who are held down in elections by constituants - The majority of which are NOT conservationists. There are enviromental, economic and, of course, Social issues that counteract this matter, but sadly, the opposing forces are too strong at the moment.

I dont think it's a good thing to do, Not at all - But there's far too much political pressure right now to alleviate the gas-prices problem.

Unfortunately, Biofuel, Hydrogen power and other such alternative energy sources are not going to become economically viable within the next 2 to 4 years, Short of a massive industrial effort to make it so, an effort the industrialists seem reluctant to do at the moment. Leaving us in the unenviable position of being between a Rock and a Hard place.

I wish it was otherwise, but if I could inflict my desires upon reality, I'd be eating Arby's right now. =P