You are browsing the archive for 2013 June 27.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Sen. Paul Appears on Fox's Your World with Stuart Varney- 6/27/2013

June 27, 2013 in Politics & Elections

…read more

Source: RAND PAUL

Avatar of admin

by admin

Salerno Interview on the Fed

June 27, 2013 in Economics

By Mark Thornton

Joseph Salerno appeared on Russia Today’s TV show Prime Interest to discuss money, the Fed and the future economic crisis. He comes on at about the 3 minute mark.

Link to show

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Senators Reject Department of Interior’s Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation with Introduction of FRESH Act

June 27, 2013 in Politics & Elections

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today reintroduced the Fracturing Regulations are Effective in State Hands (FRESH) Act of 2013 (S.1234) for the 113th Congress. The bill is cosponsored by the EPW committee’s Ranking Member Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) along with Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Boozman (R-Ark.), and John Hoeven (R-N.D.). Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has reintroduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

‘States have been safely and effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing since it was first done in Duncan, Oklahoma in 1949,’ said Inhofe. ‘Since then, a robust regulatory structure has emerged in every state where hydraulic fracturing occurs. States and industry have developed strong working relationships so that today’s regulations match the industry’s practices and provide effective environmental protection. The Department of Interior’s foray into this space is simply an attempt to further hinder oil and gas production on federal lands and makes it more difficult for us to achieve domestic energy independence.

Streamlined regulations are critical if we are going to achieve this important goal, but the DOI’s rules are duplicative and add unnecessary layers of complication and compliance to the already frustrating business of developing energy in the federal mineral estate. The DOI should abandon its rulemaking effort and simply defer to the states to continue effectively regulating the process when it occurs on federal lands.’

Sen. Vitter added, ‘All too often we see the federal government using flawed science on hydraulic fracturing, even though the states have shown they are capable of regulating themselves. There has been such positive progress with hydraulic fracturing – clearly the brightest spot in our otherwise slumping economy – and this bill gives states the freedom they need to be effective in providing proper safety protocols while growing American businesses. Just recently the EPA was forced to step aside in Wyoming and allow the state to take the lead, and we want this to be the case nationwide.’

‘Hydraulic fracturing has allowed for an unprecedented increase in the production of domestic sources of oil and …read more

Source: RAND PAUL

Avatar of admin

by admin

Thwarting America's Crude Awakening

June 27, 2013 in Economics

By Scott Lincicome

Scott Lincicome

The American “shale boom” is poised to revolutionize global energy markets. It could transform the nation from a longtime net oil importer into an export powerhouse. Consider that the 2012 increase in U.S. crude oil production, announced last week, was the largest not just in U.S. history but the world.

To help this transformation, a bipartisan swath of federal and state officials is pressing for new infrastructure, like the Keystone XL pipeline, to move a glut of domestic oil from the center of North America to Gulf ports. This is a crucial step, but unless Congress reforms archaic restrictions on crude oil exports, all that black gold’s going nowhere.

These restrictions not only contradict global trade rules and national trade and energy policies, they also threaten to derail the American energy revolution. Yet, unlike similar restrictions on natural gas, almost no one in Washington is talking about them.

Archaic restrictions on crude oil exports threaten to derail the American energy revolution.”

In a free market, the answer to the key question of where to sell all this new American oil would be simple: wherever demand takes it. Unfortunately, the U.S.crude oil market is anything but free.

Instead, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 authorized an export licensing system that, though intended to address temporary conditions, remains in place. It prohibits almost all crude oil exports — even in this time of abundant supply.

Exports today require a license from the Commerce Department that, except for shipments to Canada and a few other narrow circumstances, is only approved if the proposed transaction is “consistent with the national interest.”

Non-Canadian exports of U.S. crude oil are effectively banned. No license applications were approved under the “national interest” exception between 2000 and mid-2012, and subsequent data confirms that this unfortunate streak remains intact.

This de facto ban creates a host of problems. First, by curtailing exports and subjecting license approvals to the whims of bureaucrats, the current system slows domestic production, breeds economic distortions, discourages investment and destabilizes energy markets.

U.S. oil producers, for example, lose an estimated $10 billion a year due to their inability to sell crude in foreign markets. They’ve also spent hundreds of millions of dollars building “mini-refineries” in the Midwest and Gulf region to circumvent the current restrictions and export a slightly processed, cheaper product — leaving another $1.7 billion in potential profit on the table.

As Rube-Goldbergian as this sounds, producers have few alternatives, given that …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

Like Flawed Honest Abe, Singh Should Aim for greatness

June 27, 2013 in Economics

By Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar

Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar

As prime minister Manmohan Singh enters his final year in office, he is likely to be hoping to go down in history as the man who made India a miracle economy, growing at 8.5 per cent a year. However, after a series of scandals, critics say he stands to be remembered for presiding over New Delhi’s most corrupt regime ever.

Nobody doubts his personal integrity. He has long been seen as an honest man struggling against the tide in dishonest times. But the Teflon is finally wearing off. In May he tried to save the jobs of two ministers: one accused by the Supreme Court of interfering in a probe of an alleged coal mines allotment scam; the other following the arrest of his nephew over a disputed bribery allegation. Both ultimately had to resign.

The Supreme Court accused Mr Singh of trying to convert the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is examining the coal case, into a “caged parrot”. Columnists who once sympathized with him now say he is tainted by complicity.

Mr Singh’s place in history as an economic reformer is assured but he should aim for a higher goal.”

I think history will judge him more positively: it usually lionises people achieving difficult goals in tainted times. Consider, for example, Abraham Lincoln, as portrayed in last year’s Oscar-winning biopic. Lincoln graphically shows the dirty tricks and bribes the 16th US president used to ensure passage of the bill abolishing slavery. Yet this did not diminish his heroic stature, in the film or in history books. Indeed, he is popularly remembered as “Honest Abe”.

American politics was highly corrupt in Lincoln’s time. There was no permanent civil service, so hundreds of important (and lucrative) positions could be given by the president to his supporters. “To the victor the spoils” was the motto of the day. It could also be the motto of contemporary Indian politics.

Lincoln was not an idealist demanding freedom from slavery as a fundamental right. Rather, he held that the constitution gave each state the right to keep or abolish slavery. He won the Republican nomination to run for president in 1860 because delegates thought his moderate stance would win more votes than outright abolitionism, especially in the border states between north and south (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware).

Lincoln tried hard to avoid …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

Clinton Has No Room to Call Obama a 'Total Wuss'

June 27, 2013 in Economics

By Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow

Despite his evident reluctance to take America into the Syrian civil war, President Obama appears to be traveling down that road step-by-step. It may be pure coincidence, but the president acted only after being criticized by Bill Clinton.

The former president warned that the current occupant of the Oval Office could end up looking like a “total wuss” and being “lame” if Obama did not intervene in the Syrian killfest. Clinton also said that the president risks looking like “a total fool” if the latter acts cautiously in response to opinion polls.

Of course, former President Clinton always has had a curious view of the purpose of war. He once expressed his frustration that he likely would not be considered a great president without prosecuting a war.

Of course, former President Clinton always has had a curious view of the purpose of war.”

Clinton is an odd person to accuse someone of looking like a “total wuss” and “a total fool” and being “lame.” I’m not thinking about storied assignations in and out of the Oval Office. I’m thinking about draft avoider/evader Clinton who, when his nation called him to serve in a similarly messy conflict more than four decades ago, turned out to be “lame” and look like a “total wuss” and “a total fool.”

Vietnam was a stupid war in which tens of thousands of fine Americans died as a result of dumb decisions by foolish Washington policymakers. I respect those who served; I don’t blame those who avoided serving. Happily I turned 18 after the draft had ended and U.S. troops had gone home.

However, in 1964 Clinton went to Georgetown University and received a 2-S student deferment. As he neared graduation four years later his classification was changed to 1-A, making him a prime candidate for conscription. Then ensued months of complicated machinations. The details are contested and the truth long ago was lost to time, but events do not place the young Clinton in a good light.

Ultimately, after he didn’t show up for induction while employing various stratagems to keep the draft board at bay, he was admitted to the University of Arkansas ROTC program, which earned him a deferment and the classification of 1-D. But he didn’t enroll as promised, heading off to Oxford University instead.

He was reclassified 1-A, but Selective Service’s move to a lottery, and his high number (311), kept him out of uniform. Afterward …read more

Source: OP-EDS