Innovation over Regulation
By Rep. Kristi Noem
Just when many of us were starting to feel the relief of lower gas prices, President Obama put forward a plan to increase the price at the pump by about 25 cents per gallon. Obviously, he does not recognize that many people are just trying to keep their heads above water financially. Why hike costs when people are finally getting some room to breathe?
Earlier this month, President Obama put forward his final budget proposal. Included in it was a $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil. GasBuddy.com’s Patrick DeHaan reacted saying, “This proposal would trickle down and be a $10 per barrel tax on motorists – or 20 to 25 cents per gallon on refined fuels…. It will likely be completely passed to consumers in the years ahead.” The White House confirmed DeHaan’s assessment, saying: “We recognize that oil companies would likely pass on some of the costs.”
Why would the President offer up such a hard-hitting tax? To support his environmental agenda.
Time and again, this administration has put its anti-energy agenda above your financial security. He rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have offered much-needed revenue for cash-strapped South Dakota counties. He also announced a rule last month that would stop coal production on federal land as well as one that would make it more difficult for companies to produce oil and natural gas on federal land.
Perhaps the most concerning was the administration’s greenhouse gas proposal, which the President admitted would “necessarily skyrocket” energy costs for families. By that he meant electricity costs could increase by as much as $17 billion nationwide and put a quarter-million people out of a job every year, by some estimates. In South Dakota, power providers have already said wholesale electricity rates could increase by 40 percent, if changes aren’t made to the President’s plan. Already, families in our state earning less than $50,000 per year spend one-fifth of their after-tax income on energy costs, which is double the national average. Many can’t afford to pay even more.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court blocked the administration’s greenhouse gas proposal earlier this month – temporarily, at least. As the judicial system is doing its job, I’ve been working in Congress to stop the President’s proposal as well. More specifically, we’ve passed legislation to stop it, although the President chose to veto it. I also cosponsored legislation, which has already passed the House, requiring bureaucrats to institute regulations based on sound data and at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. It seems like commonsense – or something that should be happening already – but it isn’t, so I’d like to write that requirement into law.
We all want to preserve our environment for future generations, and in a place like South Dakota where we largely make our living off the land, that is especially true. But that preservation should be done through innovation, not regulation. I’ve fought hard to make it easier to invest, produce, and build smarter technologies in America, but President Obama has opted for Washington bureaucracy instead of American ingenuity.
###
Ah, the ol’ razz-ma-tazz! Scare folks about higher taxes while not bothering to point out what the tax is actually for. Obama wants additional funds for transportation infrastructure (which we here in SD desperately need), and to curb reliance on fossil fuels – something that would undoubtedly benefit the biofuels industry.
Leave it to our elected Rodeo Queen to take on the role of the Rodeo Clown and distract us from where we should actually be focusing.
So, we should be thankful that Obama wants to tax someone else to fund SD projects.
gotcha.
What… I thought we liked red state welfare? Remind me again what part of our state budget comes from the feds? Feel free to compare and contrast that percentage with libby states like California and New York.
Are you arguing for or against the feds further funding of SD roads projects?
Pick one and go with it.
Otherwise, stop trolling.
Sarchasm: the ditch between what I wrote and what you understood.
Pignorance: your inability to coherently explain yourself or any idea that you may have.
$10 a barrel oil tax would not come from California or NY.
The $10 tax would come from mostly red states to fund blue state projects.
Geez, you can;t even get your boilerplate rants right.
The rant is correct… unless you suppose that NO federally funded SD projects will get the green light?
So, do you support or oppose federal funding of road projects in SD?
Yes or no.
Leave to harebrain to believe that Obummer would actually use the funds for something worthwhile and would actually not just spend it on entitlements to ensure more Dumbocrat voters. Such a trusting soul!
Indeed. It’s all a ruse to stuff more of that sweet, sweet stolen cash into the undeserving pockets of pregnant unwed meth addicted non-white layabouts. I’m sure congress will easily fall prey to Obama’s satanic plan…
…and yet, here you managed to figure it all out for them. Your dubious ability to fashion pure fiction from plain fact leaves me slack-jawed and glassy-eyed.
Trollollary: the snarky or condescending followup to a response to one’s own incoherent trolling comment. A common attribute of internet trolls. noun.
Trollop: A verbose floozy who prowls internet blogs. noun.
These insults seem unchristian.
These posts are inane. How about a discussion about the overreach of the feds via regulations instead of legislatively passed laws?
No executive branch dept. can “regulate” without the underlying “legislation” that authorizes and permits such regulation in accord with the statute.
So, it ain’t “one or the other” since one authorizes the other.
Got it?