A Fox Forum piece by Richard Grenell.  Published July 06, 2010.  FoxNews.com

Grand Isle, Louisiana

Sitting on the Gulf of Mexico looking out into a vast coastline of small islands and thousands of acres of marshland gives you a great perspective as to just how difficult it will be to clean the incoming oil from plants, sand and animals of all types. The thick oil kills most everything it touches.

In fact, we were instructed by Buggy Vegas’ employees at Bridge Side Marina to buy Dawn dish soap before leaving in our boat to tour the oil spill in case we touched the oil. “You have to get it off your skin immediately. It kills animals so just think what it will do to your skin,” one young captain told us.

It’s clear that the marshes and fragile ecosystems are going to be destroyed when the oil hits them.
But talking with local captains and fishing experts you begin to realize that the plants are not gone yet and we should be fighting to keep the oil from getting to shore.

While there are plenty of new ideas, cutting-edge technology and thousands of interested volunteers, there is little access to the oil that is about to kill most everything in its path. While BP is responsible for the spill, the Obama dministration is responsible for denying access to those that want to help clean it up.

Many American entrepreneurs and Midwest inventors are begging the Obama administration to allow them to get in the water and try out their ideas on how best to pick up crude oil from the salty ocean in and around Grand Isle, La.

The bureaucracy that has been created by BP and the federal government to hear ideas and inventions is like a reality show – with multiple rounds of tryouts and cuts and endless voting from secret judges. Most ideas are being tested in secret and under alternative conditions by the inventors themselves because access to the real oil spill is being denied.

But local residents have listened to the out-of-towners and their big ideas more than the federal government has – and the locals want action. “If this was hitting the Florida beaches then Washington would be acting a lot faster,” said one frustrated resident.

Dan Sinykin, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, runs Monterey Mills and is one of the many inventors eager to help. Sinykin spent a considerable amount of his own money to travel to the Gulf with his team to showcase his industrial fabric that grabs the oil once it touches it. A Monterey Mills video showing its fabric went viral on the Internet, catching the attention of the U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), singer/songwriter Sophie B. Hawkins and thousands of everyday Americans. To watch the video yourself, click here.

In one day of touring, I spoke with six entrepreneurs from all over the country eager to prove that they could help. Every one of them had paid their own expenses to research and develop their product and personally invested in trips to multiple cities in and around the Gulf region to make their case. And none of them could actually get an official appointment with any decision maker. “I’ve had my application in with BP and the federal government for 60 days, I haven’t heard a thing,” said one frustrated inventor of a high tech oil skimmer.

But what troubles the locals most is why people have to prove that they can help. Why not take assistance from wherever we can get it? And most importantly, why is the Obama administration deferring authority to BP?

This oil spill is so massive that BP and the Obama administration should be asking — moreover begging — Americans for their ideas and time.

Unfortunately, entrepreneurs and do-gooders are having to plead even for attention, much less to be able to help.

We’ve been watching oil pour into the Gulf for 78 days now; isn’t it time President Obama got out of the way so American innovators can help solve the problem?

Richard Grenell served as the spokesman for 4 U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. including John Negroponte, John Danforth, John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad.  He currently writes from Los Angeles where his pieces can be seen at www.richardgrenell.com.

Posted: July 7th, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, In Focus, In the News, In the States.
Comments: 2

The Americans for Tax Reform released the following statement about the Senate Energy Bill that is costing America jobs and billions of dollars:

“Kerry-Lieberman Energy Bill Will Kill 522,000 Jobs and Reduce GDP by $39 Billion

New study proves disastrous costs of liberal Kerry-Lieberman energy bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act is an attempt by the Obama Administration to put a stranglehold on the economy by unnecessarily inflating the price of energy and taxing American families. This butchering of the free market will cause severe negative effects for the economy. A study performed by Chamberlain Economics, L.L.C on behalf of the Institute for Energy Research provides figures which illustrate this point:

• 522,000           Increase in unemployment in 2015[1]
• 5,000,000        Jobs lost by 2050
• $1,042              Cost to households annually
• $125 billion     Over economic loss each year
• 75 percent      Seniors that would forfeit 2.3 percent of their income
• 5.8 percent     Income forfeited for those making less than $10,000/yr
• 0.9 percent     Amount of cash income those making $150,000/yr would be taxed
• $1,174/yr        Increase in household bills for Northeast residents
• $987/yr          Annual increase households in the South would face
• 14 percent      Increase in petroleum prices to consumers
• 12 percent      Electricity and utility increase families will bare
• $39 billion       Reduction in GDP by 2015
• $384 billion     2050 total loss in GDP
• 119,000            Job losses to the petroleum industry
• 81,400              Natural gas and electric utility job losses
• 49,7000           Chemical product industry job losses

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform had one thing to say, “Are the Democrats and Obama serious about this being their national energy strategy?”

———

[1] All figures and statistics come from the Institute for Energy Research study

 Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases. “

Posted: July 1st, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, In Congress, Issues in Focus.
Comments: none

 Dems Ready To Break Obama’s Middle Class Tax Pledge, And They’re Starting By Not Extending Bush Tax Cuts   

View This Research Briefing At GOP.com

Follow RNC Research on Twitter

Learn More in our “Stomping Grounds” Blog  

 BUSH TAX CUTS PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN 2001, 2003   In 2001, 28 House Democrats Joined House Republicans In Lowering Tax Rates On Income, Dividends, Capital Gains.(H.R. 1836, Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001, Roll Call Vote #149, Approved 240-154, R: 211-0, D: 28-153, I: 1-1, 5/26/01)  

•  And 12 Senate Democrats Joined 46 Senate Republicans In Supporting The Legislation.(H.R. 1836, Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001, Roll Call Vote #170, Approved 58-33, R: 46-2, D: 12-33, 5/26/01)

  In 2003, 7 House Democrats Joined House Republicans To Further Reduce Taxes On Income, Dividends, Capital Gains.(H.R. 2, Jobs And Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2003, Roll Call Vote #225, Approved 231-200, R: 224-1, D: 7-198, I: 0-1, 5/23/03)  

•  And 2 Senate Democrats Joined 48 Senate Republicans In Supporting The Legislation. (H.R. 2, Jobs And Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2003, Roll Call Vote #196, Approved 50-50, Vice President Voted Yea, R: 48-2, D: 2-47, I: 0-1, 5/23/03)

  BUT NOW HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER HOYER IS AGAINST MAKING THEM PERMANENT, BREAKING OBAMA’S PLEDGE NOT TO RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS   Candidate Obama: “I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks In Dover, NH, 8/12/08)  

• President Obama: “If Your Family Earns Less Than $250,000 A Year, A Quarter Million Dollars A Year, You Will Not See Your Taxes Increased A Single Dime. I Repeat: Not One Single Dime.” (President Barack Obama, Address Before A Joint Session Of Congress, Washington, DC, 2/24/09)

  Hoyer Says The Bush Tax Cuts For The Middle Class Should Not Be Permanent. “Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, said in an interview that he expects Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that are set to expire at the end of this year. But he said the extension should not be permanent.” (Lori Montgomery, “Rep. Steny Hoyer Says Middle-Class Tax Breaks May Not Be Affordable Long-Term,” The Washington Post, 6/22/10)   Hoyer Is Laying The Groundwork To Break Obama’s Pledge Not To Increase Taxes On The Middle Class. “Tax cuts that benefit the middle class should not be ‘totally sacrosanct’ as policymakers try to plug the nation’s yawning budget gap, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday, acknowledging that it would be difficult to reduce long-term deficits without breaking President Obama’s pledge to protect families earning less than $250,000 a year.” (Lori Montgomery, “Rep. Steny Hoyer Says Middle-Class Tax Breaks May Not Be Affordable Long-Term,” The Washington Post, 6/22/10)   And Other Democrats On Capitol Hill Do Not Feel Bound By President Obama’s Pledge Not To Raise Taxes On Those Making Less Than $250,000 A Year. “Democrats are looking at the possibility of raising taxes on families below the $250,000-a-year threshold promised by President Barack Obama during the election. The majority party on Capitol Hill does not feel bound by that pledge, saying the threshold for tax hikes will depend on several factors, such as the revenue differences between setting the threshold at $200,000 and setting it at $250,000.” (Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bou nd By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)  

•  Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) Says That “You Can’t Make Promises To People.” “‘You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?’ said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). ‘With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.’” (Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bound By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I’m Not Hard And Fast On $250,000. . . Quite Frankly, It Could Be Somewhat Lower Than That.”(Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bound By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)
•  Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “I Don’t Think There’s Any Magic In The Number, Whether It’s $250,000, $200,000 Or $225,000.”(Alex Bolton, “Dems: We’re Not Bound By President’s Tax Vow,” The Hill, 6/22/10)

  NOT EXTENDING BUSH TAX CUTS HITS MIDDLE CLASS INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGHER TAXESAND HAMPERS SMALL BUSINESS JOB GROWTH   If The Bush Tax Cuts Are Allowed To Expire The Average Tax Filer Will See Their Taxes Rise $1,368. (Tax Policy Center, “Make Individual Income Tax Cuts In EGTRRA (2001) And JGTRRA (2003) Permanent,” Table T10-0070, 2/3/10)   If The Bush Tax Cuts Are Allowed To Expire, A Family Of Four With Two Children And One Breadwinner And $50,000 In Yearly Income Would See Their Federal Taxes Increase $2,137 From $688 To $2,825. (Mark Robyn, “Taxpayers Face Uncertainty In 2011 As Bush And Obama Tax Cuts Expire,” The Tax Foundation, 5/26/10)  

• A Family Of Five, With Two Working Parents And Three Children With A Yearly Income Of $45,000 Would See Their Effective Tax Rate Increase From -3.5% to 2.3%. They Would Go From Receiving A Credit Of $1,510 To Owing $1,020. (Mark Robyn, “Taxpayers Face Uncertainty In 2011 As Bush And Obama Tax Cuts Expire,” The Tax Foundation, 5/26/10)
•  A Single Parent With A Yearly Income Of $25,000 Currently Has No Income Tax Liability And An Effective Tax Rate Of -7.5%. If The Bush Tax Cuts Expire Their Rate Would Increase To -3.5%, Reducing Assistance From $1,881 To $928. (Mark Robyn, “Taxpayers Face Uncertainty In 2011 As Bush And Obama Tax Cuts Expire,” The Tax Foundation, 5/26/10)

  Obama’s Income Tax Rate Increase Will Hit Small Businesses That Create 60 To 80 Percent Of New Jobs, “Discouraging” Their “Growth Or Expansion.” “They want to restore the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two individual income brackets, increasing the 33 and 35 percent rates to 36 and 39.6 percent. But these higher rates won’t just hit high wages; they’ll hit business income … Depending on how we define ’small business,’ these higher tax rates would raise taxes on 45 to 55 percent of small business income … So why should we pay attention to the way our tax code treats small businesses? They are an important source of innovation and risk-taking, creating betwee n 60 and 80 percent of net new jobs, employing over half the labor force … Higher income tax rates reduce the investment spending of entrepreneurs and the likelihood that they invest at all, discouraging the growth or expansion of small businesses.” (Robert Carroll, “Small Business And The Personal Income Tax Rates,” Tax Foundation, 10/28/08)   Obama’s Higher Income Tax Rates Will Stifle Entrepreneurship And Hurt “An Important Source Of innovation.” “The impact of the higher tax rates on the entrepreneurial sector is also particularly troubling. An often underappreciated feature of our tax system is that roughly one-third of all business taxes are paid by owners of flow-through businesses … when they file their individual tax returns. These businesses are an important source of innovation and risk taking.” (Robert Carroll, “The Economic Cost Of High Tax Rates,” Tax Foundation, 7/29/09)   NEXT UP: THE DEATH TAX REAPPEARS, HITTING FAMILY OWNED BUSINESSES   Senator Sanders Pushing Excessive New Death Tax. “Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and three Senate Democrats Thursday proposed an estate-tax plan that would hit wealthier taxpayers harder than another proposal on the table. … Under the proposal, as in 2009, the exemption would be $3.5 million for an individual, or as much as $7 million for a couple, with a tax rate of 45%. But estates with taxable assets between $10 million and $50 million would pay a 50% rate, and estates valued above $50 million would pay 55%. A further 10 % surtax would apply to assets above $500 million.” (Laura Saunders, “Sanders Estate-Tax Proposal Would Hit Wealthy Harder,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/10)  

•  “‘The Sanders Proposal Is One Extreme In The Current Debate,’ Said Clint Stretch, An Analyst At Deloitte Tax. ‘The Challenge For The Senate Is Whether The Members Can Agree To Anything At All.’” (Laura Saunders, “Sanders Estate-Tax Proposal Would Hit Wealthy Harder,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/10)

Even If Sanders Proposal Is Not Adopted, Death Tax Will Come Back With A Vengeance Next Year. “The estate tax lapsed temporarily on Jan. 1 after the Senate failed to extend it last year. If lawmakers do nothing, the tax will resume in 2011 with a 55% rate on estates above about $1.2 million. Last year, estates of more than $3.5 million for an individual were subject to a 45% tax.” (Laura Saunders, “Sanders Estate-Tax Proposal Would Hit Wealthy Harder,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/25/10)   And Death Tax Goes After Family-Owned Businesses And Workers “Particularly Hard.” “Despite the common misconception that the death tax impacts only wealthy estates, economists now generally agree that it is actually a tax on capital because of its impact on businesses and workers. Capital–whether it is cash, equipment, or other types of property–is necessary for businesses to create new jobs and pay higher wages. There is a general consensus among economists that taxing capital is harmful to the economy. Yet because it is a tax on capital, the estate tax hits America’s family-owned businesses and their workers particularly hard.” (Curtis Dubay, “Estate Tax A Killer For Family-Owned Businesses And Their Workers,” The Heritage Foundation, 11/19/09)  

Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003
p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: info@gop.com

Posted: June 29th, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, From the Right, In Focus, In the States.
Comments: none

It is not the rich or the poor that are paying a large quantity of America’s annual federal taxes, reported a study from the Congressional Budget Office. CNSNews reported that “middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.”

 Those households that make over $352,900 pay only around 28 percent on federal taxes, but those households in the lower income brackets pay significantly less than the middle class and upper class. The households that make less than $34,300 paid only 5.2 percent, and those earning less than $20,500 had close to no federal tax burden.

 With such programs as Earned Tax Credit that pay credit to households making less than $34,300 are actually paying a negative amount of federal taxes! They receive a credit back on income taxes that was never actually paid.  According to the CBO data, taxation has been getting more substantial, but the taxation has lightened on lower income households while increasing on higher income households.

 The middle class is carrying the burden of America. Rising federal taxes are punishing the middle-range hard working Americans. The burden of the middle class is continually growing while lower income households taxes are growing lighter.

Posted: June 22nd, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, In Congress.
Comments: none

CNSNews reported today that “the Bush administration was twice able to pull off what the current administration has not” after three countries refused to back sanctions to Iran. Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon voted against the resolution. (Read the entire story below)

 “The Obama administration is playing down the absence of U.N. Security Council unanimity in adopting new sanctions against Iran on Wednesday, attributing three members’ refusal to back the resolution to differences over “timing and tactics.”
 
Turkey and Brazil voted against resolution 1929, while Lebanon abstained.
 
For all its supposed unilateralism and unpopularity at the U.N., the Bush administration was twice able to pull off what the current administration has not – a 15 out of 15 vote in the council for sanctions against Tehran. On a third occasion, the Bush administration achieved a 14-0 vote, with one abstention.
 
Resolutions 1737 (in 2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) were, at China and Russia’s insistence, less robust than the U.S. would have wished. But at least the unanimous vote result in the first two cases demonstrated a unified position on Iran’s nuclear activities by the world body’s most powerful organ.
 
The Bush administration was widely accused of substandard diplomacy, not least by its domestic critics. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said last September the new administration had “dramatically changed the tone, the substance, and the practice of our diplomacy at the United Nations” and accused the previous one of “stiff-arming the U.N. and spurning our international partners.”
 
Yet under some of her predecessors – John Bolton in the months leading up to the 2006 resolution, Alejandro Wolff in 2007, and Zalmay Khalilzad in 2008 – the U.S. managed to win over several non-permanent Council members either sympathetic to Iran, or at least not pro-Western in outlook.
 
They included Qatar (2006 and 2007), Indonesia (2007), South Africa (2007 and 2008), Vietnam (2008) – and even Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya (2008).

In voting no on Wednesday, Brazil and Turkey argued the sanctions would endanger a diplomatic solution to the standoff, which has dragged on since 2002. (According to Beirut’s Daily Star, Lebanon abstained after its cabinet could not reach agreement on the matter. Western-leaning ministers wanted an abstention; Hezbollah and its allies wanted Lebanon to vote against the resolution.)
 
Brazil and Turkey last month negotiated an agreement for Iran to send some of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing, and said afterwards that there was no longer any need for additional U.N. sanctions.
 
But the U.S. and others pressed ahead with negotiations on a draft resolution, saying the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal did not resolve the core questions driving suspicion that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability under the cover of a civilian program.
 
When the Security Council a year ago unanimously approved a resolution tightening sanctions against North Korea, U.S. diplomats stressed the importance of the fact the council was “speaking with one voice.”
 
Testifying before Congress in February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that it was important that “we speak with one voice, one voice within our government and one voice internationally, against Iran’s failure to live up to its responsibilities.”
 
Administration officials on Wednesday minimized the significance of the 12-2 vote.
 
“The passage today of resolution 1929 occurred with a very strong majority of the Security Council,” U.S. ambassador Rice said after the session. “We are very pleased by the outcome and pleased by the strong support that was demonstrated by Council members.”
 
“The fact that Turkey and Brazil chose to vote no, I think as you heard in their statements, was a reflection largely of a difference of timing and tactics,” she said.
“Both countries affirmed their view that Iran should not have a nuclear weapons capability, we share that goal. They differed with the other members of the Security Council about the timing and appropriateness of sanctions at this stage.”
 
“We would have welcomed a unanimous vote,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told a briefing. “We didn’t get the unanimous vote, but we got a very, very strong, compelling statement from the international community.”
 
Asked whether the absence of unanimity weakened the signal of collective will, Crowley alluded to the difficulties faced by diplomats.
 
“I would say that given the amount of effort and length of effort by Iran to try to do everything in its power to avoid this moment, I think we are satisfied that this sends a very strong message,” he said.
 
“We have a difference of view over perhaps tactics and timing. We respect that. But I think we are very satisfied that this resolution will raise the cost of Iran’s noncompliance,” Crowley said.
 
“We are going to, now working with international partners, move ahead with aggressively enforcing this resolution. And we expect that it will have impact in Iran.” ”

Posted: June 18th, 2010 under Democrats, GOP Heroes, In the World.
Comments: none

“Since The Obama Stimulus was passed 2,253,000 Workers Have LOST Their Jobs. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, “The Employment Situation – May 2010,” BLS.gov, 6/4/10)  What next from Obama-rama?  Five year plans?  Those did not do too well for the U.S.S.R.”

Posted: June 18th, 2010 under Action Alert, Democrats, In the States, Issues in Focus.
Comments: none

Log Cabin Republicans National Spokesperson Charles Moran is quoted in CNN’s piece highlighting the lack of actual benefits in POTUS’s domestic partners ‘benefits’ policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/obama.gay.critics/index.html Follow Log Cabin on twitter at http://twitter.com/LogCabinGOP

Posted: June 20th, 2009 under Democrats, In the News.
Comments: none

The “stimulus” package being offered up in Washington right now is better described as The Blue Plate Special.  It is laden with pork.  While Farmer John might find this appealing for his sausage plant, we do not.  This is a bad bill in its current form.

This is not a stimulus plan, unless you call adding a trillion dollars to our national debt stimulating.  This bill is the very thing that Senator John McCain campaigned against last year.  Because we are Republicans who believe in limited government, we applaud the members of the House GOP caucus for standing firm and tall in voting no.  Any plan approved by Congress must provide true stimulus through tax incentives for private sector investment and generation of new jobs.  Creating jobs through an expansion of government has been proven time and again to have the reverse effect over the long term.

We hope that Senate Republicans will come up with a better plan for America.  We also know that bi-partisan efforts are underway in the Senate by those who see the spending plan passed by the House Democrats as unacceptable.  Please lobby your own senators—Republicans and Democrats—about this issue.  Click here to find your representatives’ phone numbers.  It’s important.

-posted by Steve Gale

Posted: February 5th, 2009 under Action Alert, Democrats.
Comments: none

Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon recently appeared on National Public Radio to discuss the ongoing conflict over California’s Proposition 8.  You can read more (and listen to the interview) here.

Posted: November 14th, 2008 under Chapter News, Democrats, Elections, From the Right, In the News, Log Cabin In Focus.
Comments: none

As the buzz around Prop 8’s passage in California continues to get louder, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today published an insightful op-ed from Log Cabin Republicans National Board Member Joel Hastings:

For me, the true lesson of this election is that party labels do not predict one’s personal beliefs on marriage equality and gay rights issues. Many people in the gay community place all their trust in electing Democrats as a panacea to fixing LGBT inequalities. It’s clear that strategy won’t lead to victory.

Read the entire piece here.

-posted by Scott Tucker

Posted: November 12th, 2008 under Democrats, Elections, From the Right, GOP Heroes, GOP Progress, In the News, Log Cabin In Focus.
Comments: none