What’s Going On Here?

US military members tend strongly to vote Republican.  Yet in election swing states, absentee ballot requests are shockingly low.  There are a couple of possibilities for why this is so: on the one hand, our soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, don’t care enough about voting in this year’s elections to request their ballots.  This is hard to credit.

On the other hand, they’re not getting the information they need to get their ballots so they can vote.  We know some things about this.  For instance, we know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in the chain of command for our soldiers, but it is charged with providing the command chain with training, equipage, and support for the commanders’ soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

We also know that the Chairman of the JCS, General Martin Dempsey, is too busy hectoring ex-military and civilians for exercising their free speech rights to have any time left providing that support—which, among other matters, includes making it possible for our soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, to vote absentee.

Here’s how well he’s doing on soldiers’ absentee voting, and how will others specifically charged with the task are doing.  This table, taken from the Military Voter Protection Project‘s report, shows how far the numbers of requested absentee ballots have fallen from the numbers in 2008 (the complete report is available at the MVP Project link).

State

Total Requested
in 2008

Current
Requested
in 2012

Percent
Difference

Florida

121,395

65,173

-46%

Virginia

41,762

12,292

-70%

North Carolina

19,109

7,848

-59%

Illinois

9,858

3,532

-64%

Ohio

32,334

9,707

-70%

Alaska

13,766

6,535

-52%

Colorado

5,104

2,986

-41%

Nevada

4,919

1,750

-64%

We also know some other things about this shameful failure.  DoD spokeswoman Cmdr Leslie Hull-Ryde is insisting that 2012 is much different than 2008: the 2008 elections had contested primaries for both major parties, but this time only Republicans had a contested primary.  That’s their excuse, apparently: there must be primaries by both parties, else the Pentagon is relieved of its duty.  Hull-Ryde added, proudly,

We are in complete compliance with the law.  (The Federal Voting Assistance Program) strives to ensure that every absent military and overseas citizen voter has the tools and resources to receive, cast and return an absentee ballot and have it counted—regardless of who they vote for.

When I was on active duty in the USAF, such “meets standards” performance, noted on an Officer Efficiency Report or an Airman Proficiency Report, was the kiss of death to a career.  We were expected to do better than that.  Moreover, DoD was authorized $75 million for last year and this to set up the mechanisms—including those voting assistance offices—for getting this voting information to its service members.  Yet it has chosen not to, to any great extent, despite the fact that the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires them to.

Pam Mitchell, acting director of the FVAP, compounds the matter, bragging that there are over 220 voting assistance offices seat up worldwide, and claiming with a straight face,

I strongly believe that voting assistance is the best that it has ever been.

Never mind that she has a vested interest in downplaying this failure.  Never mind that the 220 offices of which she’s so proud is a trifling number compared to the thousands of locations around the world at which we have soldiers and spouses, and those who support them—or just soldiers and their support—stationed.  It seems the FVAP isn’t striving very hard.

Despite the Pentagon’s decision to fail [sic] on this, soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, can request absentee ballots at the MVP Project link above and at  the Heroes Vote Initiative Web site, http://heroesvote.org.

One more thing: think the military vote is too trivial to matter?  Aside from the utter immorality of depriving these men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything in order to protect us and our freedoms—including our right to vote—of their right to vote, think about the numbers involved.  Compare the present reduction in military votes cast (again, a segment of our population that tends strongly to vote Republican) with the closeness of past Presidential elections in Florida and other swing states, the 2008 Senatorial election in Minnesota, the gubernatorial elections in Washington, and so on.

A Tax for a Health Fiscal Cliff

It joins Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s enormous tax hike he has taking place at the start of the new year, and it also creates a health cliff for the nearby future as it actively stifles medical innovation in the US.  “It” is the 2.3% tax that will be charged to American medical device manufacturers—on top line revenue—sales—not on profit.  Former Governor and US Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh (D, IN), offered some thoughts on this problem in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

As a result of this problem,

For a typical company, a 2.3% tax on revenues equals a 15% tax on profits.  When combined with a 35% corporate tax and state corporate taxes, the tax rate for the medical-device industry will exceed 50% in most jurisdictions.

[This inflicts an] added cost of $30 billion—according to the Congressional Budget Office—to the industry.  This tax comes straight out of a company’s bottom line.  Because many devices are sold to hospitals, physicians and other providers through multiyear contracts, the prices are already locked in, so the tax cannot be passed on to the buyer.

Think about the effects this will have on medical innovation.  Governor Bayh did:

America is a global leader in medical-device production and sales.  Last year the US device industry earned $5.4 billion more in exports than we spent on imports of such devices.

Even more important to the average American is the industry’s role in saving and sustaining life.  Medical devices have contributed to remarkable advances in numerous areas: artificial hips and knees, and devices used in the treatment of cancer, and for angioplasty, vascular surgery and in-vitro fertilization, to name a few.  Many of these devices have not only improved the quality of life for patients, but also produced health-care cost savings—for instance, each time an angioplastic balloon made open-heart surgery unnecessary.

and

Especially hard hit could be the hundreds of small companies developing medical software applications. These apps promise to revolutionize the practice of medicine—for instance, by delivering blood-sugar test results for diabetics.

But now

Thirty billion dollars must be taken out of operations or R&D.  Who knows what lifesaving devices that might have been developed will fall victim to this tax?

What about jobs?

Many US device companies, in response, have already announced layoffs, canceled plans for domestic expansion and slashed research-and-development budgets.  This month, Welch Allyn—a maker of stethoscopes and blood-pressure cuffs—announced that it will lay off 10% of its global workforce over the next three years, but all of the jobs being cut are in the US[]

and

In my state of Indiana alone, Cook Medical has canceled plans to build one new US facility annually in each of the next several years, and Zimmer plans to lay off 450 workers, while Hill-Rom expects to lay off 200.  Stryker, based in Michigan, anticipates having to lay off 1,000 workers[]

and

[P]roduction is moving overseas, good jobs are going to Europe and Asia, and cutting-edge medical devices will now be produced elsewhere for import into the US.

Of course Obama and his Progressive Congressmen knew this when they wrote the tax; it’s part of why the entire bill was written behind closed doors in the back of Harry Reid’s office suite, and why Nancy Pelosi was so anxious to get the bill passed before “we can find out what is in it.”  So much for Obama’s concern for the little guy.  So much for Obama’s concern for the health of Americans.  So much for Obama’s concern for America’s innovation leadership.

Update: added the actual name of the man in the first paragraph.

Lies of my President, Part 2

This is Part 2 of my series on the lies told by Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama in the nearly four years in which he’s been in office.  As I said earlier, I’m not concerned with his broken campaign promises so much as I am with his dishonesty while in office.

This post consists entirely of a letter from Senators David Vitter (R, LA), Jeff Sessions (R, AL), and John Cornyn (R, TX) to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar regarding “claims” made by the Secretary about energy production in the US.  I lay these lies off on Obama because, in the end, Interior is a Department within the Executive Branch and because Salazar, like all Cabinet appointees, is Obama’s man, serving at Obama’s pleasure (who can demand the Secretary’s resignation at any time, even though formal firing is done via Congressional impeachment), and so his words are what Obama instructs or permits him to speak.

Dear Secretary Salazar:

We are concerned with the veracity of statements you made in recent weeks regarding domestic energy production on our federal resources.  These statements are similar to claims made by other members of the Administration including the President himself.  As you may know, the federal government owns almost 2.5 billion acres of mineral estate, an area larger than the entire land mass of the United States.  As director of the Bureau of Land Management, Robert Abbey, testified this month, oil production on our federal property is actually down 14% and offshore production from federal areas is down 17% from only a year ago.  Just last week, the Congressional Research Service issued a report revealing that 96 percent of the increase in domestic oil production since 2007 has occurred on non-federal lands.  It further revealed that in 2011 production on federal public lands has actually declined by an average of 275,000 barrels per day.  Oil production on private lands is indeed up year-over-year, but the Administration does not manage private lands and should not attempt to take credit for private market decisions.

Oil production on federal lands increased in 2009 and 2010 as a result of leasing and permitting decisions made before your Administration took office.  However, the falloff in leasing and permitting actions under the Obama Administration is apparent, and even your own Energy Information Administration anticipates continued falloff in production in 2012 and beyond.

We also ask that you rectify the President’s claim that we only have 2% of the world’s oil.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as even the Washington Post reported last week.[1] He bases this statement on US “proved reserves” but the US Energy Information Administration has stated that proved reserves is “not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term.” As Secretary of Interior, surely you are aware of the vast oil resources we possess both onshore and offshore that are currently off limits due to this Administration’s combined actions.  America is endowed with resources that exceed a TRILLION barrels of oil.[2]

According to the Institute for Energy Research, “USGS estimates that unconventional US oil shale resources hold 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, with about 1 trillion barrels that are considered recoverable under current economic and technological conditions.  These 1 trillion barrels are nearly four times the amount of oil resources as Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves.
We provide the following examples of what we would view as further inaccurate statements by the Administration regarding the state of federal energy production and resources:

  1. Claim: “Expanding offshore oil and gas production is a key component of our comprehensive energy strategy to grow America’s energy economy, and will help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs here at home.” Secretary Ken Salazar, DOI Press Release 1/26/2012

Fact: You made the two most pivotal decisions to shrink domestic offshore energy production over the last three years that could have been made.  First, you eliminated the 2010-2015 OCS lease plan that would have opened areas of the Atlantic, four geologic basins off S.  California, one geologic basin off N.  California, while expanding areas in Alaska, including the Cook Inlet.  Instead, you have proposed a new 5-year plan that excludes all of the areas of the OCS where the moratorium was lifted in 2008, and reduces the number of planned lease sales by roughly half.  Essentially, the moratorium lifted by President Bush and a Democrat Congress in 2008 will continue in effect for a decade under your plan.

  1. Claim: The proposed 5-year offshore lease plan will “make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.” Secretary Salazar, DOI Press Release 11/08/2011

Fact: These numbers distort the facts.  The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is 1.76 billion acres.  Of that 1.76 billion, less than 35 million acres are actually leased (less than 2%).  Your proposed 5-year lease plan does not open a single new lease planning area, and therefore we have no way of knowing what estimates of “technologically recoverable” oil in all of the areas that remain off limits are because you have chosen to keep them off limits.  Most of our OCS has not been explored for decades, and providing access to only a fraction gives us no clue what is truly there.

A more accurate statement is that your 5 year plan opens 75% of the oil and gas in areas where we think it exists because we have drilled there.  We don’t know about the vast majority of the OCS that isn’t leased, much of which has not been assessed with the benefit of new information for a quarter century.

  1. Claim: “Since we put in place new safety standards in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, we have approved more than 400 drilling permits.  In fact, we are now permitting at levels seen before the spill, all while meeting these important new standards.” Secretary Ken Salazar, 3/12/2012

Fact: There exists no evidence that permitting for production has indeed reached pre-moratorium levels.  In fact, the families impacted in the Gulf are still reeling from the impacts of the slowed pace of permitting.  Exploration and permitting have yet to recover to pre-2010 levels on account of the moratorium and ensuing permitorium on shallow and deepwater permits.  According to one recent study, “Prior to the deepwater drilling moratorium, the US oil and natural gas offshore industry was forecasted to grow significantly due to identified prospects, mostly in the deep water.  With the establishment of the moratorium and the subsequent slowdown in the issuance of drilling permits at all water depths, an estimated $18.3 billion of previously planned capital and operational expenditures did not occur in 2010 and 2011.”[3] The study further concludes that the permitting challenges have already cost 90,000 jobs.  It is of importance to note that the moratorium was never endorsed by the National Academy of Engineers, as you had attempted to represent.  An Inspector General investigation was required to uncover the political influence and misrepresentation by the White House and your office in an important scientific document.

  1. Claim: “The fact of the matter is that we are producing more from public lands, both oil and gas, both onshore as well as offshore, than at any time in recent memory.  And when you look back at the years of 2009, 2010, and 2011, we’ve continued to make millions and millions of acres of the public estate available both on the land, as well as on the sea.” Secretary Ken Salazar, 3/12/2012

Fact: As we pointed out earlier in this letter, there is significant lag time to production after the process of leasing.  Presumably this is the reason for your repeated observation that “there is no immediate fix” for higher gas prices.  After a company has leased property they then have to explore, develop and produce, with each stage requiring new permits and compliance with federal processes.  The production gains we saw in 2009 and 2010 were the result of leasing and permitting that occurred in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and was just beginning to come online.  However, by 2011 we began to experience the impacts from the moratorium and falloff of leasing and permitting under your leadership.  Total oil production on federal lands is down 14% over the previous year, offshore is even worse at down 17%, and federal lands saw the fewest number of new onshore leases since 1984.  You also failed to hold a single offshore lease sale in fiscal year 2011.

As a further example, in 2008 the industry spent $2.6 billion to obtain 487 leases in the Chukchi Sea for production offshore Alaska.  So far, not a single well has been drilled on any of these leases.  There have also been numerous new regulatory roadblocks and permit withdrawals from federal onshore production since you took over leadership of the Agency.  Examples of onshore leasing challenges include your withdrawn and slowed leasing in the West, including Montana and the Dakotas.

In July of 2008, then as a United States Senator, you had an opportunity to support increasing domestic energy production, if the price of gas increased beyond a certain threshold.  You repeatedly objected to increasing domestic energy production, even if the price of gas were to have reached $10 per gallon.

Although gas prices are not $10 per gallon, they are increasingly impacting our economy and fellow Americans, particularly low-income and middle-class families.  We are hopeful that similarly to Secretary Chu, you have reevaluated your position on gas prices and will redirect your efforts to alter what the agency has done to limit future production, and will instead work to develop our truly vast domestic oil resources, resources that well exceed “2%” of the world’s oil.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/pinocchios-obama-gets-a-downgrade-romney-an-upgrade/2012/03/21/gIQAX7uPSS_blog.html#pagebreak
[2] NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY INVENTORY, Institute for Energy Research, December, 2011. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/oil-shale/
[3] The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry, An in-depth study of the outlook of the industry investment flows offshore, Quest Offshore Resources, Inc., December 2011.

Sincerely,

Jeff Sessions
David Vitter
John Cornyn

Successful Economic Policies

The present administration’s policies are not examples of these.  The Wall Street Journal reported last week the following, which are the results of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s policies [emphasis mine; perhaps, those falling incomes, reported elsewhere, are showing up].

  • US economic output in the second quarter was weaker than previously thought.  GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.3% between April and June, down from the previously reported 1.7% gain.
  • That revised GDP figure showed weaker growth because of downward revisions in inventory investment, consumer spending, and exports.
  • Orders for durable goods, products designed to last at least three years, fell 13.2% last month, the biggest decrease since January 2009 [at the depth of the Panic of 2008].  Absent highly variable transportation, August orders still slid 1.6%.
  • Shipments of durable goods slid 3.0%.
  • Unfilled orders, a sign of future demand, decreased 1.7%.
  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported this week that US industrial production dropped sharply in August.  This follows last week’s Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia report that said factory activity in the Mid-Atlantic region continued to contract “this month….” [two major national sectors suffering decline]

In another report from the WSJ, we get this datum from the Chicago PMI: the Chicago Business Barometer fell last month to a seasonally adjusted 49.7 from 53.0 in August.  This is the first contraction in three years: a reading below 50 constitutes contraction in the sector.

All of these add up to a fading economy.  The policies in place are inhibiting what should be a very robust recovery from the sharp contraction of the Panic of 2008.  Now consider: the Progressives will argue that we’ve had 20+ straight months of growth, and the data from this report extend that streak.  They’re right, of course, as far as they go.  However, think about how far we would have come instead, had we had 20+ straight months of growth unimpeded by these policies.

Can we afford four more years?

Lies of my President, Part 1

Every politician makes promises in the course of his campaign for election, serious promises and frivolous, that go unkept for one reason or another.  Presidential candidates are no exception , and the promises made by the current Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, during the course of his 2008 campaign are legion: his promise to keep unemployment under 8%, if Congress would only pass his $800 billion stimulus bill in 2009 comes to mind (unemployment rose above 10% within months of passage and has remained above 8% since), as does his promise to ban lobbyists from his administration (followed by his hiring lobbyists into his Executive Branch, including the president of a lobbying firm to be his envoy to the Afghanistan/Pakistan/India region).  So does his promise to be open and transparent, with legislation being written in public (followed by Obamacare and Dodd-Frank being written behind locked doors and back rooms so secretively that even then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) had to push for passage of Obamacare “so that we may know what is in it.”  And so on.

But I’m not concerned here with broken campaign promises.  Instead, I’m going to write about the outright lies that Obama has made since he took office, taking them in no particular order, but with some rough grouping by general topic.  With that, this is the first in a series of posts I’ll be making this month about the lies of my President.

First up, from Obama’s February speech at the University of Miami on “home-grown energy,” and Investor’s Business Daily‘s fact checking of some of his claims:

“We’re focused on production.”

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production.  He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index.  The Energy Dept. says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011.  Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has “done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.”

and

“The US consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil.  But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that “we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices.” The argument goes that since the US supply is limited, it won’t ever make a difference to world prices.

It’s bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.

In fact, the US has a mind-boggling 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to “fuel the present needs in the US for around 250 years,” according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.

Here’s more concerning the “focused on production”…claim, via Power Line who quote from Greenwire, a New York Times specialty publication:

Domestic oil production may be at an all-time high nationwide, but the increase is primarily occurring on state and private lands rather than on federal land and waters, where production appears to have dropped significantly in 2011, according to the most recent government data.

Production of natural gas on public lands and waters in fiscal 2011 dropped 11 percent from the previous year, according to Interior Department data.  Oil production dipped nearly 14 percent…

Finally, here are four graphs that illustrate Obama’s lies about Federal “focus on production,” from the New Orleans Regional Economic Alliance.  They speak for themselves.  And nothing has changed in the year since they were formed.