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..."

[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.

[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

[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.

[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)?

[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.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[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).

[dubheach.livejournal.com]

shockwave is right that the technology exists, but that Halliburt, er the White House can't be trusted to do the job. So...who can? Who polices the Canadians? Darn it I wish we weren't so apathetic that unscrupulous people can count on our not doing much more than whine about the situation.

[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.

[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?

[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. -.-

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

Not to mention Alaska is a RED state :(

[jedilora.livejournal.com]

My job gives me $200 for every person I find to work there. Now THERE'S a bonus that's of USE. My friends get jobs with pretty good pay, I get a bonus, and nobody drills in protected lands.

I'm a poor young college student. I could use the hundred-but not at the cost of my future.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.