By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--March 22, 2013
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
SAFE did indeed first float the idea of a dedicated fund—but Mr. Obama quickly twisted it for his own political purposes while sapping it of bipartisan appeal. The SAFE idea is specific: Revenue for a dedicated fund should be tied to new energy development—from drilling new areas in the Atlantic, the Pacific and Alaska (including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Yet within a day of Mr. Obama's State of the Union mention, the White House was insisting that there would be no new drilling. Instead, new revenue would come from "growth" in royalties from existing leases. Yet, as the White House knows, it is dramatically cutting back on existing drilling, so there will be no increased royalties. Royalty money would instead be diverted away from the general Treasury, where it now flows. Mr. Obama's "bipartisan" proposal thus conforms to the usual pattern: The GOP gives him yet more deficit spending and gets nothing in return. Even so, the president is still betting he can get GOP buy-in. He knows the history of Republicans searching for green plaudits.Not only does Obama know there is no $2 billion fund available to pay for this, he is well aware that Republicans know it too. But he is betting they'll go along in order to create a defense for themselves against charges that they are enemies of the environment. Would they? Perhaps a better question is: Are you confident they wouldn't?
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.