|
|
Ron Paul on Energy & OilRepublican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President |
Unless Congress does something about this EPA bureaucrats will continue to inflict potentially devastating economic consequences on communities like Matagorda County. Destroying the economy is no way to save the environment. A thriving economy and a fair judicial system that respects property rights and the Constitution provide the best protection for the environment.
GINGRICH: We have to find a safe method of keeping nuclear waste in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 and 30,000 years of geological safety.
Q: Is Yucca Mountain that place?
GINGRICH: Most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is.
PAUL: I've opposed this. I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong. The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. Nuclear energy is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage. The more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.
Q: Everybody would like $2 gas, but is it realistic for a president to promise that?
PAUL: I do want to address the subject of $2 oil or gasoline, because I can do it much better than that. I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime. You can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations.
A: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.
[Supports a House resolution] to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 4.3-cent increases in highway motor fuel taxes.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:
The Campaign for America`s Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America`s priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.
About the CAF report, `Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric`:
Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.
No Climate Tax Pledge: `I pledge to the taxpayers of my state, and to the American people, that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.`
Sponsoring organizations: Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEU); National Taxpayers Union (NTU); Institute for Liberty Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual`s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans.
Congressional Summary:Amends the Energy Conservation and Production Act to repeal provisions concerning the Department of Energy`s weatherization assistance program for low-income persons to increase energy efficiency of dwellings.
Proponent`s Comments (Rep. Chuck Fleischmann Press Release):Fleischmann said, `I have worked since day one to balance our budget and stop the `tax, borrow, spend` mentality that has dominated Washington for far too long. I am glad to introduce legislation to end the Weatherization Assistance Program in order to save billions of dollars.`
Other federal programs, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), are already in place to assist low-income households in managing energy costs. The Dept. of Energy`s Inspector General conducted a review of this program concluding that weatherization work on homes was poorly administered and led to potentially harmful effects for home inhabitants.
Opponent`s Comments (GreenBuildingAdvisor.com, Nov. 22, 2011):The purpose of the measure is to eliminate the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which provides free weatherization services for low-income households. The WAP has historically been ignored by politicians as a cost-cutting target because its annual budget was, at a few million dollars, relatively small. But its budget ballooned dramatically--to about $5 billion over three years--under the federal stimulus program.
The congressman says the WAP is dispensable because LIHEAP is already in place. Weatherization improvements, however, provide ongoing energy savings rather than one-time assistance with energy bills.
Fleischmann points to a DOE review that called the expanded program `poorly administered.` But the main concern identified in that report was the sluggish rollout of services in many states, due to confusion over wage and other implementation requirements.
Congressional Summary of H.R.97:
Congressional Summary of H.R.153, `Ensuring Affordable Energy Act`:
OnTheIssues Explanation:These two related bills exclude the EPA from taking on global warming by defining greenhouse gases as a `pollutant.` These bills do not directly oppose regulating greenhouse gases nor cap-and-trade; either could still be accomplished by an act of Congress. Instead, they REQUIRE an act of Congress, rather than letting the President and the EPA bypass Congress by regulatory implementation instead of legislative implementation.
A Liberty Candidate will Defend the Great American Principles of Free Markets and Constitutional Government, [such as the views of] Peter Schiff, Senate 2010 candidate from Connecticut, on the Economy: `Strong fiscally conservative principles and beliefs that our economic recovery should be left to the free market through businesses and individuals--not the federal government.`
And [such as the views of] Michael McPadden, Congress 2010 candidate from Virginia, on Energy: `I favor tax incentives for alternative energy, but I oppose subsidies, which has the effect of allowing the government to choose winners and losers. I favor tax incentives for research into finding cheaper liquefaction and gasification processes for coal. The private businesses that would be involved in the exploration and development of these American energy sources would also be creating real, high paying, permanent jobs for real Americans in real congressional districts.`