Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The short term memory of John Kerry

Normally I don't really like to pile extra rancor onto a beaten man, but for the rest of his life, John Kerry will hold a special spot in my list of really idiotic people. He is a throwback politician who will talk out of any side of his mouth that people will listen to. When I say throwback, I mean Tammany Hall. So during the 2004 election runup, John Kerry took the conservationist's view when debating the environment, while at the same time gauranteeing union jobs for the building of an ANWR pipeline. A Flip-Flop in the truest sense. Want some proof? I thought you'd never ask.

First is a discussion between Chris Matthews and Jimmy Hoffa Jr. concerning a discussion Hoffa had with Le Senator:

MATTHEWS: How about ANWR? You guys want to see ANWR because you want to see guys working in your business. I guess there‘s a lot of Teamsters jobs up there lined up and organized, if you could put a pipeline up to the Alaska wilderness. He is against that.
HOFFA: Well, we talked about that. He says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and we‘re going to drill like never before. (CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What, are they going to run water through it? (CROSSTALK)
HOFFA: ... more jobs than the ANWR would have...

Wow, so Kerry is against ANWR, but thinks putting in a pipeline and drilling like never before is a good idea? Wait for it people, it gets better. Today, the Senate voted to allow drilling in ANWR, as part of an ongoing effort to maintain supply as well as to help stabilize oil & gas prices. For those of you interested in investing and commodities, T. Boone Pickens says Liquified Natural Gas is the way to go, but I digress. Most conservationists believe that a pipeline will ultimately harm the wildlife refuge, but have no details to quantify such a hypothesis. At least none that I've seen. So back to my original vitriol, today Kerry came full circle on his "beliefs":
"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," What an astute statement. The real fact is that there are approximately 10.4 Billion barrels of oil in the refuge, which would certainly diminish our dependence on the Saudis, or any other foreign suppliers. Isn't that one of Master Kerry's campaign themes? So in truth he was for it when it was convenient to get Union votes, while at the same time being against it to get the conservation votes.

Here is another point that not many people even know about: Residents of Alaska have a rather sweet deal as far as oil is concerned, each year they receive a dividend payment based on oil production and sales. It's called the Alaska Permanent Fund and here's how it works: In 1976, the state constitution was amended such that 25% of all oil income is put into an account, the Alaska Permanent Fund. Some of the money is invested in order to offset years with lower income. Each year, 2 months before Christmas, the fund sends a check to the state government and the money is then dispersed to every citizen, even the kids.
Here's a link to the fund- Money for Oil
I imagine that drilling in ANWR will only increase the amount of this dividend, and if anything, boost the local economy, such as it is. I know it's a lot to read and I got off track, but I think my point has been made. It's not about what specific lobbyists want, it's about helping Americans. Thank you and good night.


Post a Comment

<< Home