Around these parts, we have a word that aptly describes shale formations: ubitquitious . (sic) Every conventional oil and gas basin must have a hydrocarbon source, and that source is a shale. And since shales are low in permeability, we’re finding that the source rock still contains plenty of hydrocarbons, if you can figure out how to get the stuff out. One of the newly-emerging plays is the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, which is being explored in a wide arc that cuts across central Louisiana and southern Mississippi. Although the promise of the Marine Shale has yet to be proved, there is reason for optimism: if you follow that arc to the west, roughly parallel to the Texas coast, you’re smack-dab in the middle of the Eagle Ford trend of south Texas, currently the site of one of the hottest oil drilling plays in the country. The Tusc is equivalent in age to the Eagle Ford, and the newest well just tested almost 800 barrels of oil per day. Yes, the shales are indeed ubiquitious . Tuscaloosa shale promising St. Helena well’s initial production spurs interest The Encana Weyerhauser well, completed in November, averaged 784 barrels of oil per day and 309,000 cubic feet of natural gas , according to Encana’s filing with the state Department of Natural Resources. … Around two dozen wells have been drilled or are being drilled in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, an oil-rich formation that covers Louisiana’s midsection. Energy companies have leased more than 1 million acres in the formation, but so far the firms aren’t sharing much of their early production figures. Kirk A. Barrell, president of Amelia Resources , of Texas, said before the formation can be considered economically viable, 10 to 20 wells will have to be completed. “You need the initial (production) rates for 10 to 20 wells, but you also need to get 12 to 15 months out and see what the decline of that rate is,” Barrell said. Barrell has a blog called The Tusacaloosa Trend : Sources indicate that Devon will be adding a 2nd rig to the TMS play soon. Encana, who has been rumored for weeks to be adding rigs, now appears to be slowing down the plan. Several sources indicate that it is for corporate reasons relating to very depressed natural gas prices and not the TMS results. The initial rates on the Weyerhaeuser 73H-1 and their record drilling time and lateral length on the Anderson 17H-1 are very encouraging. Sources indicate that after 5-6 completions, a full operational plan will be implemented. It is worth noting that RedState’s editor, Erick Erickson, attended high school in Jackson, LA. Jackson is in East Feliciana Parish, right in the heart of the Marine Shale play. Considering that Erick’s younger years were spent in Abu Dhabi , we should not be surprised if eventually oil and gas leasing action heats up in and around Macon, GA. Cross-posted at stevemaley.com . Follow @VladimirRS !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”);
Original post:
Introducing the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale
The good folks at the RNC took a look at what candidate Obama promised in Nevada during the 2008 presidential campaign … and the record of failure that followed. The result reveals President Obama’s failure to live up to candidate Obama’s promises. In a new video the RNC reminds us of how Obama’s failed promises impact Nevada. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country — 12.6%, the highest foreclosure filings in the country and more than 58% of properties with mortgages underwater: Research proving Obama’s failed promises is provided below the fold courtesy of the RNC. FAILED ON HOUSING PROMISE: Obama Promised Nevadans That He Would “Act Quickly To Help People Stay In Their Homes” “I’ll also act quickly to help people stay in their homes, something that’s especially critical here in Nevada where foreclosure rates are five times the national average. I’ll help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages on affordable terms, and put in place a three-month moratorium on foreclosures to give folks the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. And I won’t let banks and lenders off the hook when it was their greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08) FAILURE: Obama’s “Mosaic” Of Housing Policies Is “ Entering Its Fourth Year Of Weak Sales And High Foreclosures.” “The proposal, to be released in the coming weeks, is the latest addition to a mosaic of Obama administration programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Obama Pushes Proposal To Streamline Refinancing For Homeowners,” Bloomberg , 1/25/12) Under Obama’s Housing Programs “ Fewer Than 1,000 Loans Have Refinanced.” ”Haven’t similar programs been tried before? Yes. But those programs put in place a series of rules designed to ensure that government entities weren’t taking on more risk by allowing investors and banks to offload risky mortgages onto the government. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration rolled out a program to let underwater borrowers refinance through the FHA, but that program required banks to first write down loan balances so that borrowers could qualify under existing rules. Fewer than 1,000 loans have refinanced through the program. Congress approved a more complicated version of this idea in spring 2008 called Hope for Homeowners, but it also resulted in just a few hundred refinances.” (Nick Timiraos, “Six Questions On Obama’s Mortgage Refinance Proposal,” The Wall Street Journal , 1/25/12) Four Years Later Housing Is Still “ Especially Critical Here In Nevada” “For 60 Consecutive Months, Nevada Has Had The Highest Foreclosure Rate Of Any State. That’s Five Long, Painful Years.” (Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, “No Silver Lining In Housing Market As Nevada Votes,” CNN , 2/3/12) “More Than 6 Percent Of Nevada Housing Units (One In 16) Had At Least One Foreclosure Filing In 2011, Giving It The Nation’s Highest State Foreclosure Rate For The Fifth Consecutive Year” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release , 1/12/12) “[L]as Vegas Posted The Nation’s Top Foreclosure Rate For The Year Among Metropolitan Statistical Areas…” “With 7.38 percent of its housing units (one in 14) with at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, Las Vegas posted the nation’s top foreclosure rate for the year among metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 200,000 or more.” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release , 1/12/12) In Nevada, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Homeowners Are Underwater On Their Mortgages. ”Data earlier this year from CoreLogic.com showed that nearly two-in-three Nevada homeowners owed more on their property than their homes were worth – a situation also known as being ‘underwater.’ Nevada was followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent) and Michigan (36 percent) in terms of underwater loans.” (Aaron Blake, “Obama And The Politics Of The Housing Foreclosure Crisis,” The Washington Post ‘s “ The Fix ,“ 10/24/11) FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED NEVADANS THAT HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS PROMISE: Obama Said That Under His Plan, Americans Would See “Lower Premiums.” “If you have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08) FAILURE: Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care “Less Affordable.” “At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made – that the health care law would ‘lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.’” (D’Angelo Gore, “Promises, Promises,” Factcheck.org , 1/4/12) The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker: “Insurance Premiums Have Gone Up . . .” “Moreover, at this point it is debatable whether the law has made health care more affordable. Insurance premiums have gone up, in part because of new benefits mandated by the law.” (Glenn Kessler, “The Fine Print In Obama’s ‘Promises Kept’ Ad,” The Washington Post’s ” The Fact Checker ,” 1/6/12) Kaiser Study Found That Costs Of Family Coverage “Climbed” 9 Percent In 2011. “The average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073, according to a poll of 2,088 private companies and state and local government agencies by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, and the Chicago- based American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Educational Trust.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,” Bloomberg , 9/27/11) Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage In 2011 Than They Did In 2010. “Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News , 9/27/11) The Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Kaiser Survey. “Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News , 9/27/11) Nevada Received A Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization” The Obama Administration Gave Nevada A Statewide Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “ Destabilization Of The Individual Market .” “The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, ‘may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.’” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun , 5/16/11) Nevada Received A Waiver Reducing The Requirement Of Revenue Spent On Medical Expenses From 80 Percent To 75 Percent Due To Fears It Would Drive Golden Rule And Aetna From The Insurance Market. “Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun , 5/16/11) FAILED ON GREEN ENERGY JOBS IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED TO CREATE GREEN ENERGY JOBS AND REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL PROMISE: Obama Said He Would “Create Five Million” New Jobs And “End Our Dependence On Oil From Middle East Dictators.” “If I am President, I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new, green jobs over the next decade – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08) FAILURE: Obama Has Taken Credit For 2.7 Million Green Energy Jobs That He Did Not Create. “The Brookings Institution study refers to 2.7 million workers currently employed by the clean economy — not the number of jobs created by Obama, which a viewer might interpret from the ad. The report found that ‘clean economy establishments’ added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, comprising six years of the Bush administration.” (“AdWatch: Obama’s 1 st Campaign TV Ad Defends His Energy Record Without Feel-Good Images,” The Associated Press , 1/20/12) Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000. “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,” The Wall Street Journal , 11/28/11) Obama’s $500 Million Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs “Has Come Up Far Short Of Its Goals.” “The Labor Department’s inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals. A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That’s just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,” The Associated Press , 10/3/11) It Is “Absolutely Not True” That Obama’s Policies Have Helped Wean The U.S. From Foreign Oil. “When asked, though, whether the Obama administration’s policies have helped wean the U.S. from foreign oil, [Oppenheimer & Co. energy analyst Fadel] Gheit was equally emphatic. ‘Absolutely not true,’ Gheit said. ‘It was all market driven and all through American ingenuity….It was no thanks to Washington, not thanks to lobbyists, not thanks to anybody.’” (Josh Gerstein, “What Obama’s First Ad Doesn’t Say,” Politico’s “Under The Radar” , 1/19/12) The Obama Administration Denied A Permit To Build The Keystone Pipeline. “The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, an important link between a U.S. market that’s thirsty for energy and a rich source of petroleum in nice, stable, neighborly Canada.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Politics: Misguided Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline,” Chicago Tribune , 1/19/12) “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,” The Detroit News , 11/14/11) Previous editions of Obama’s failed promises: Obama’s failed promises: Florida edition Obama’s failed promises: Iowa edition
The rest is here:
Obama’s failed promises: Nevada edition
Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post gives credit where credit is due : After the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood, attention has focused on its Vice President for Policy, Karen Handel. She joined the group last January after a failed run for governor in Georgia, where she had advocated defunding Planned Parenthood. But there’s another woman who deserves equal credit: Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest. It’s her group that issued a report last fall, ” The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood ,” that led to a probe by the Energy and Commerce Committee. And it’s that investigation that puts Planned Parenthood in violation of Komen’s new policy that bars funding of groups under investigation. Stipulate
Last week’s State of the Union address was a sad and pathetic affair, full of transparent rhetoric and demagoguery, brimming with incandescent hypocrisies, variegated with an expansive assortment of half-truths and lies, palled by a mediocrity that almost seemed intentional, detached from reality like an unmoored hot-air balloon that slowly ascends to the heavens, stuffed with dense and infuriating arrogance, and draped over our nation like a several-sizes-too-small coat with promises and ideas rendered diminutive in the shadow of the historical moment. All this was clear last Tuesday night. And yet somehow over the past week, the address actually grew worse. The president’s speech was less a factual information session about the current American condition than it was a mawkish parade of political images and symbols, meant to make us identify with the president’s vision and feel at safe harbor with his leadership. It was less a speech than a play, lavish with props and masquerading actors tasked with immersing the audience in an alternate version of reality. But over the past week, key scenes of the drama have fallen apart. The president now looks less like a seasoned political actor than like Quince at the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream , farcically fumbling his lines. One of the supporting thespians was the Indiana-based electric car battery-maker Ener1, whose subsidiary EnerDel received a $118.5 million grant under the stimulus bill. EnerDel was also showered with more than $4 million in federal gifts under the Bush Administration. The scrappy little green boutique was meant to symbolize the flowering benefits of the sort of business-government handshaking that the rest of the civilized world calls “crony capitalism.” “In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” Obama declared last Tuesday. Precisely two days later, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company had been an encore actor in the president’s campaign theatrics. Almost one year ago, Vice President Joe Biden visited the Ener1 facilities, effervescent about the administration’s promise to airlift 1 million electric cars onto the road by 2015. That pledge has since crashed on the shoals of reality and the cardboard prop that is Ener1 has blown over. Watching Ener1 fold, it’s hard not to recall that last great monument to the progress of the green revolution: Solyndra. President Obama lauded that company in his 2010 State of the Union and it promptly imploded last year. One imagines executives at Pepsi placing urgent phone calls to the White House, encouraging the president to mention Coca-Cola in next year’s address. If you’re employed by a business receiving checks from the Department of Energy, you may want to dash off a few copies of your résumé this afternoon. But the star of the State of the Union show, the leading lady, was Warren Buffett’s Secretary. “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary,” Obama declared. “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else — like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans?” So central was Warren Buffett’s Secretary to the performance, she attended as the special guest of the president and belle of the ball, standing in the audience as a quiet testament to the grinding, Dickensian class divide that darkens the backstreets and alleys of modern America. Warren Buffett’s Secretary was played by Debbie Bosanek, who is Warren Buffett’s actual secretary, and who makes between $200,000 and $500,000 per year, according to the calculations of Paul Roderick Gregory over at Forbes . It was a brilliant dramatic portrayal. While Bosanek herself is a creature of the upper classes, she effortlessly slipped into the part of Warren Buffett’s Secretary, a downtrodden proletarian exploited by the tax code, reminiscent of Peggy Olson in Mad Men . This, by the way, presents a knotty conundrum for progressives. If Gregory’s deductions are correct, then Bosanek is likely a member of that charter club known as the “wealthiest 2%,” a coven of blackhearted plunderers and blue-blooded aristocrats that looted the country for all it was worth in 2008. Progressives have demanded higher taxes on the wealthiest 2%, yet hailed Bosanek as an overtaxed hero. They’ve blamed the wealthiest 2% for all the nation’s ills, but hoisted up this secretary as an emblem of justice in the class wars. Well, which is it? Should we add her image to the Two Minutes Hate tape, or no? And should we raise her taxes? Lower them? Maybe we should just raise everyone’s taxes. The overarching themes pervading the president’s State of the Union drama were America’s greatness and stifling inequality. America was great when it allowed for the president’s accomplishments, like killing Osama bin Laden. But when it came to the president’s failures, most notably three years of a doldrums job market, it was all the fault of that yawning canyon of economic class. Wealthy Americans — for whom Debbie Bosanek’s membership application is still pending — were cast as the villains, cackling all the way to their banks with insufficiently punitive Treasury receipts. The only solution was to sock it to them, specifically with a 30% net tax on millionaires. This (along with solar batteries) was the Big Idea, the great glowing light bulb of the president’s address. And according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times , it would raise $30 billion in revenue — and that’s assuming that the sledgehammer of adding yet another tax didn’t further stall the economy. Of course, $30 billion isn’t immaterial, but the Tea Party Caucus could cut that much from the federal budget during a bad hangover. Meanwhile, the national debt is $15.2 trillion . And Democrats have already booby-trapped the tax code for the wealthiest Americans. With current tax rates set to expire at the beginning of 2013, taxes on capital gains will shoot up from 15% to 20%. And thanks to a pernicious little slice of the Obamacare legislation, taxes on capital gains will further increase to almost 24% in 2013. All this will happen unless the federal government takes action to prevent it. It’s piquantly fitting, isn’t it? If the president wants to see tax rates tighten for millionaires, his easiest course is simply to get reelected. But I regret that I’ve disposed of two paragraphs trying to refute the president’s numbers when the numbers are nugatory here. Obama is fully aware that his tax increase would do little to arrest the deficit and less to catalyze the economy. His purpose is to blacken the wealthy into villains and portray himself as the eminently reasonable hero; to siphon all the laws and details of politics and economics into a simple, dramatic dichotomy and cast himself on the side of good. He is, with total self-awareness, jousting with phantoms and trying to bring the rest of us along for the ride. It may make for a spectacular show, but at the end of the day, that’s all it is: cheap lines and theatrics cluttering the stage floor.
The rest is here:
All the President’s Props
As part of their ongoing “jobs agenda,” House Republicans will unveil this week and soon consider the American Energy & Infrastructure Act (AEIA) to reauthorize transportation spending for five years. The “highway bill” promises a host of reforms (consolidating programs and streamlining red tape) and includes increased oil and gas exploration. But unfortunately these reforms are meant to distract from the overall size of the program, and the fact that such spending will require a massive bailout from federal taxpayers. [Before getting into the proposal, let’s first reflect on something. What does it say about a Republican Majority when their number one priority heading into an election year is to pass a massive federal infrastructure bill? I know Republicans are split on the issue, and that many burn all of their anti-Keynes stimulus talking points to give transportation spending a special dispensation as a government “job creator.” But really? This is what they want to fight on and draw stark differences with the other party? That is depressing.] Proponents of federal infrastructure spending have long maintained its legitimacy based on the fact that it is user financed by drivers who pay gas taxes. Good driving years generate enough revenue for generous spending on roads and bridges, and bad driving years require such spending to be ratcheted back. The problem is that the last highway bill—the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act (SAFETEA)—increased spending levels far above what the trust fund could support ( and 31% over previous levels ). Of course, Congress refused to scale back the spending and instead infused the programs with money from general taxpayers. These bailouts of the highway trust fund occurred in 2008 ($8 billion), 2009 ($7 billion), and 2010 ($19.5 billion). This is confirmed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service : Historically, the trust fund-based revenue collection system was a reliably growing source of funding for surface transportation, as the trust funds collected more than was expended to implement the program defined by Congress. This situation has changed under SAFETEA, as spending on highways and transit has exceeded both highway and mass transit account revenues on a regular basis. And under current law, if Congress does not reduce the spending, another billion dollar bailout will likely be needed right before the election. According to numerous press reports and the marketing material released already , the GOP bill will set the “long term reauthorization at current funding levels” and “revenues from additional oil and gas production will help fund programs” (emphasis added). Obviously, increased energy exploration is a good thing, but using the revenues generated to pay for existing unaffordable transportation obligations when we are running trillion-dollar deficits each year is insanity. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the energy revenues will come anywhere close to being able to cover a $59 billion shortfall over five years. That means other offsets and gimmicks will be needed or a massive straight-up bailout from taxpayers. All of us want better roads and bridges, but conservatives have long championed devolving the highway program to the states to collect and spend gas tax revenues as they see fit without heavy federal micromanaging. Both regularizing the recent taxpayer bailouts and relying on offsets elsewhere in the federal government will ensure that conservatives will never be able to devolve these programs and that the federal government will never get out of the federal highway business. It is great that Republicans are proposing to consolidate programs, but rationalizing transportation policy while growing government at an unaffordable pace harms the country. In short, it may be the difference between Chinese communism and Soviet communism, but it’s still communism. Furthermore, the claims that federal highway spending creates millions of jobs are dubious. These claims are typically based on economic models that ignore that a billion spent on highway projects is a billion that needs to be borrowed or taxed from the private sector, thereby destroying jobs somewhere else. During the last reauthorization of the highway bill, Heritage’s Ron Utt looked at the available research on the subject and concluded that, “such claims…are highly questionable given the mixed findings of decades of independent academic studies on the relationship between federal spending programs and job creation.” One last point. The GOP highway bill, which will violate the House-passed Ryan budget, is arguably another violation of the Republican Pledge to America, that specifically pledged to “end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ‘must pass’ legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.” Now Republicans will argue that “must pass” meant only appropriations bills, but the sentiment behind that component in the Pledge was to guard Congressmen from being pressured to support overwhelmingly bad policy (a highway bailout) that includes some long-sought conservative victories (increased energy drilling). Remember, the old Republican majority had a habit of packaging items like a minimum wage increase and ANWR together or health savings account reforms with a prescription drug expansion, and thus the Pledge included the line of advancing major issues one at a time. I fear a bums rush in the next few weeks. Republicans love them some highway spending. The last highway bill, with the 31% increase in spending, passed by a vote of 412-8 and 91-4 . Speaker Boehner has made this “jobs bill” a priority of his Speakership, and many conservatives are tired of fighting their Leadership. Who wants to oppose a bill that fixes potholes and increases energy drilling? But not fighting bills like this is exactly how our country got in its current fiscal situation. Conservatives in the House need to rise up and fight this legislation, and they need to fight hard.
View post:
House Conservatives Need to Block the Coming Highway Bailout
