My take on Christian Burridge's visit to Lone Peak

I have posted a link to the burridgeforcongress blog on my blog. I have spent most of my time discussing issues that are relevant to Republicans for the convention and the upcoming primaries. However, I also want to use this blog to discuss my views on the Democrats as well.

On Burridge's website his blogmaster writes of his recent visit to Lone Peak High School. First of all, I want to say that this is good. However, I hope that the teacher also tried to bring in a Republican candidate as well to give our students a balanced forum for debate. I certainly don't want to see our public schools become feeder stock for any political party. I also hope that Burridge and other congressional candidates can find their way into other schools. A visit to a title 1 elementary school would be very educational indeed for a candidate of either party.

The blog discusses how Christian taught the high school students about avoiding personal debt and credit card responsibility. My problem comes when Burridge then teaches the students about the importance of voting by discussing how Congress has reduced the availability of Pell grants and subsidized loans. There seems to be a conflicting message here. Message #1: You should be financially independent and wise with your money. Message #2: You should rely on the federal government to pay for your college education.

I went to college, and I now teach at English at BYU. If I could have a Pell grant for every time I met a student with a Pell grant that didn't need it or deserve it, I could probably buy a house. I paid for my college education by working and going to school at the same time. I will finish my Masters degree without taking out a dime in student loans. I am pretty strongly opposed to politicians going into our high schools and telling students that they are entitled to a free college education courtesy of the federal government.

If I were to go to this high school class I would ask the students if any of them want to go to the Marriot School of Management. (If this class was anything like my high school classes, the boys would all raise their hands). I would then say, "Good luck! You have your work cut out for you. Did you know that because BYU admits students who pay for their education with federal grants that BYU has to adhere to federal standards of enrollment? This means that the Marriot School of Management can only admit a limited number of white male students. Even though all of you would like to get into to that program, only a small percentage will actually be accepted regardless of your academic performance and business experience. The best thing you can do as a young generation of voters will be to vote for leaders who will eliminate the federal government's intrusion into our higher education system (which by the way is the only level of education that truly works in this country becuase it actually encourages excellence and competition as opposed to our federally funded public education system that encourages mediocrity and entitlement)."

I would have then taken time to teach the students about 529 Education Savings Plans. These are custodial investment acocunts that grow tax free like an IRA. Not only would teaching students about these plans encourage them to take their future into their own hands, these acocunts will also teach them to become disciplined investors. They will learn the advantages of growing wealth in tax free accounts; this will encourage many of them to open IRAs and reduce the social security burden. When they have a stake in the economy, they will become more politically active by default (but they will probably be Republicans).

At the risk of sounding too conservative, I am going to say that a generation of high school students with a stake in the economy and a stake in their future sounds a lot better to me than a generation of high school students that feel the federal government owes them an education.

Is Chris Cannon Paying off the Deseret News?

Today the Deseret News published a story entitled, "Cannon rival lacks name recognition." Certainly a headline like this is problematic for Jacob. To define Jacob by referring to him as Cannon's rival instead of by his own name is a subtle yet violent way of privileging Cannon in the upcoming primary. I understand the the headline for my post is equally misleading, but someone has got to keep the press honest? Except for the problematic headline, the article outlined the problems confronting Jacob in the primary. Here is a link for those who would like to read it: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635209444,00.html



There were also a few interesting tidbits hiding between the lines of this article. First of all Cannon passes off his loss to Jacob at the convention as a result of an "interesting time in our country" where there is an abundant toxicity towards incumbents. "Interesting time" is probably an understatement when it refers to one of the most conservative districts in the country threatening to vote out one of the most conservative Congressman.

The article also claims that Jacob's victory at the convention was "shocking." If the victory was so shocking, then doesn't the man deserve some name recognition - or at least some headline space along with his rival. Instead of apologizing for the incumbent, why not give some press space to let the people know why the most poltically active Republicans gave more votes to John. I'm sure there are plenty of delegates (circa 572) that would be willing to do interviews explaining why they voted for Jacob. The reporter might get to the bottom of this "interesting time" that is so mesmerizing for Chris.

A similar poll was conducted before the convention, and the results were similar. Nevertheless, Jacob still won at the convention. I wish the newspaper would spend more time articulating each man's positions on issues instead of privileging polls.

The Energy Committee for John Jacob

Most of the synopses of the Convention last Saturday determine that John Jacob beat Chris Cannon because of the illegal immigration issue. Jacob clearly identified better with his constituents on this issue, but I don't think it is the primary reason why Jacob won.

Regardless of why Jacob won, the primary is a whole new ballgame. I think his contract is a good idea, but his promises are too abstract. However, in his speech at the convention he did mention that we are funding both sides of the War on Terror, which demonstrates that he is learning more about the energy issue.

It will be crucial for Jacob to establish exactly what he is going to do regarding energy. Since Cannon has the advantage of touting seniority and membership in important committees, Jacob needs to address how he will fit into the Congressional power struggle. If Jacob were to include in his contract that he wants to go to Washington to join the House's Energy and Commerce committee, this would be a concrete promise that would address what his constituents want. Utah currently has no members in this committee, yet all of the candidates in Utah's races are quick to acknowledge Utah's wealth of energy resources. How can we be sure that these resources will be allocated to our advantage if none of our own, are on the energy committee? The committee is dominated by Republicans from energy rich states, and environmentalists from the left coast. Utah needs someone on this committee, and Cannon already has his hands full. Since energy was one of the top issues referred to Jacob by his constituents, he needs some concrete ideas. This would be an easy issue to steal from Cannon.

Article from deseretnews.com

Benjamin Burr (benburro.delegate@blogger.com) thought you might be interested in reading the following story, which appeared on deseretnews.com on Saturday, May 13, 2006.

Do not reply to this messsage. To send a message to the sender, use the address here: benburro.delegate@blogger.com.

NOTE FROM SENDER: This is a start.

WINDS MAY BRING A WINDFALL
A potential source of clean, renewable energy in Spanish Fork also may be a source of cold, hard cash for Utah County, a study conducted by Utah State University researchers has concluded.
FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C635207079%2C00.html

My reasons for not voting for Chris Cannon (Rebuttal to Corey)

I will address Corey's reasons why he is voting for Chris.

1. Accessibility - Corey claims that Cannon is the most available of the other two candidates. I don't deny this, but the claim that the other candidates make no personal contact is false. I have talked with all three candidates on the phone. I have been satisfied with each candidates accessibility, but this should be expected during a campaign. So if this is a major reason for voting for Chris, then it seems a little shallow.

2. Relationships - Corey believes that Cannon's relationships are his greatest strengths. Cannon has certainly made a point of this himself. However, I have said this about Merrill and I'll say it about Chris. What makes Chris so certain that his relationships in Washington will still be in tact? The political climate in our country is pretty volatile, and I think many representatives will lose their seats. If this is the case, then the nation clearly wants a change. Therefore, Jacob would be the strongest candidate to back to Washington and form NEW relationships with all of the other NEW representatives.

Also with regards to Cannon's relationships, they are also his biggest weakness. Cannon is obviously in bed with the Credit Union lobby. In fact, Mountain American Credit Union sent out mailers endorsing delegates to vote for Cannon. This seems pretty fishy to me, if not illegal. I am a member of a Credit Union, but I also do business with banks. I am strongly opposed to Cannon's relationship with the Credit Union, and this relationship spells danger to me with regards to energy. If Cannon is willing to pander to the credit unions and give them a preferential tax status, whose to say that he won't do the same for big oil. Oh wait, he voted for Bush's energy policy that was written primarily by oil industry execs to give the oil industry an unfair tax advantage over other energy producers. Chris' relationship with Credit Unions demonstrates that he is no friend to the free market in that two businesses that offer exactly similar services are treated differently by the IRS because of legislation backed by politicians such as Chris Canon.

3. Leadership - I do admire Chris' leadership, and I do agree that he is working hard. I don't think that either of these attributes significantly sets him apart from the other candidates.

4. Lies - Indeed Merrill has certainly been guilty of mud slinging. In fact, I believe that Merrill's biggest weakness is that he has built his campaign on tearing Chris down instead of positioning himself as an innovative leader on important issues. Jacob has also strategically positioned himself against Merrill in this regard.

In reference to illegal immigration, I understand that the issue is hard. I don't believe that there is a politician alive who can solve this problem perfectly, and I admire Chris for trying. However, irrespective of Merrill's "lies," I have heard from Chris' own mouth that he doesn't believe that sending illegal immigrants home is a possibility. Whether or not he is right, Chris is not connecting with at least 80% of Americans who feel our country is being invaded. I have also heard from Chris' own mouth at the debate last Saturday that despite stagnant wage growth in the jobs inundated by illegal immigrants, illegal immigration is good for the economy because the owners of the businesses make more money. Although he didn't say this very eloquently, so I might be misinterpreting him, I understood that he privileges the interests of big business over the interests of working-class and middle-class Americans. A politician that caters to special interests over the interests of 80% of his/her constituents is not what I would call a leader.

As far as Jacob is concerned, give him ten years of experience and a substantial staff, and you will have a man who will be able to discuss issues as well as any other candidate. I perceive the weakness in this argument, but I am willing to live with it so I don't immediately discount Jacob on account of his lack of experience. As someone who is young, I don't see a lot of hope coming from the last ten years. I won't go to the convention on Saturday and vote for the status quo. So far, Chris represents the status quo more than any of the other two candidates.

Fool.com: Good article on the energy problem

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following was sent to you by a friend and comes from The Motley Fool's Personal Finance and Investing website.
We hope you enjoy the information and can take a moment to drop by the website and say hello. It's completely FREE.

http://www.fool.com/index.htm?ref=Yo

***Note - While we hope this was recommended by a friend, The Motley Fool does not verify the sender's e-mail address. Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Congress Is a Joke

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06050910.htm

By Bill Mann (TMF Otter)
05/09/2006

I just love the sight of people getting exactly what they deserve. Over the past two months, the weathervanes up on Capitol Hill and in the White House have been in a dead panic over what to "do" about gasoline prices.

In a fine article in last week's Washington Post, Shailagh Murray and Jim VandeHei (am I dreaming, or does that name mean "from the shark?") detail the search that the Republican leadership in Washington has undertaken for the "problem" of high gasoline prices. To quote: "Republicans on Capitol Hill and at the White House are well aware that $3-per-gallon gas spells trouble."

The article is accompanied with a picture of four senators -- James Talent, Rick Santorum, Pete Domenici, and Bill Frist -- from their press conference last week announcing plans to give a $100 rebate to America's motorists to compensate us for gas prices.

My editors hate it when I call people idiots. But I mean it. Our elected officials are either stupid, or they think enough of us are stupid that they can say stupid things and we'll just thank 'em for it. I fear it's the latter. But for these purposes, I'm going with the former. So, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot. Pay $100 from the federal Treasury to compensate Americans for high gas prices? Are you people completely, utterly devoid of brain matter?

There. I feel better.
Except I have this suspicion that there are scores of politicians still trying to "fix" the problem. They will fail. They'll probably make it worse.

Politicians take credit for things they have no hand in. Sadly, people believe them.
You see, gas prices of $3 a gallon are a political problem only in that for the past 50 years, every single one of our elected officials has tried to take credit for, or assign blame for, things that are actually realities of the free market that they had no control over. I'm not talking about the politicians from one party or another, I'm talking about both parties. They tax us to death, spend like teenagers with their parents' credit cards, and insinuate rather openly that anything that happens great on their watch happened because of their magnificent leadership, or when they're not in power, they blame anything that is bad or painful on the folks on the other side of the aisle.

We're at the point now where, as the quote from the Post article attests, the administration and the GOP are being harmed by the political fallout from high gas prices. Unfortunately, what no one seems to remember is that the price of anything is just information. You want to blame $3 gas on something? Fine, let's start with where blame should go -- on $0.95 gas.

The great "Gas is too cheap!" protests of 1999
Do you remember all of those gigantic protests that went on in Washington and in cities around the country when gasoline went under a buck in 1999? No? That's because there weren't any. But protests weren't the only things that didn't exist. Neither did exploration for new oil, or accelerated production schedules. And most of all, neither did profits for refining. People thought the folks at Valero (NYSE: VLO) were suicidal to go out and aggressively buy refineries. No one took to the streets in 2002 chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho, dayrates are way too low for Rowan (NYSE: RDC) to make a profit on their cantilever jack-up rigs!" No one cared that Rowan or myriad other companies along the exploration and production value chain were losing 80% of their stock value as a result of having no financial incentive to explore, or to produce, because oil prices that low simply didn't cover the expense of doing so.

We had low oil prices for 20 years. And you know what happened in that time? Demand steadily rose, and supply did not, because companies had no financial incentive to invest in expanding business. So they didn't.

Yes, sure, there are components of the current price of gas that we can blame on Washington. For example, the borderline vegetative decision from last year's energy bill that ethanol should replace MBTE as a gas additive, and that the deadline for this switchover was for this month, May 2006, at the beginning -- rather than the end -- of peak driving season.

But that's just insult to injury -- more than three-quarters of the cost of a gallon of gasoline goes to the cost of oil plus refining. For the big refiners, the profit on a barrel of oil these days sometimes exceeds the price of an entire barrel four years ago. Know why? Because there are no new refineries, and because that same energy bill didn't include any provisions that might attract localities to build more. There's not a single large-scale refinery in the entire state of Florida. Does this not strike anyone else as being a problem? And does no one remember the storms that hit the Gulf Coast last fall? Think those had an impact on the national gas infrastructure? How could they not have? Think that the whole thing has been put back together yet? How could it?

That's why gasoline is at $3 per gallon. It's the market's own way of saying, "If it hurts, then figure out a way to use less!" Unfortunately, those two decades of underinvestment, and the continuing underinvestment in refining, can't be undone with a few short months of heavy catch-up work. The infrastructure simply doesn't exist. But if you note just how hot the drilling companies have been, like Chesapeake (NYSE: CHK), Apache (NYSE: APA), and Cimarex (NYSE: XEC), you'll know that drilling is under way nearly everyplace where it is not expressly prohibited by our let's-do-something-meaningful-about-the-price-of-gas legislators.

"We're spending too much! Take our profits!"
But while the C-note plan was dumb, two other legislative ideas are downright contemptible. The first is the "windfall tax" that some congressional leaders have suggested that the big oil companies should pay on their "obscene" profits. Sen. Arlen Specter -- who ought to know better -- seems to support this tax, forgetting that these are shareholder-owned companies. The one way we as individuals can participate in a meaningfully positive way in the oil-price story is if we are shareholders in these companies. So, to combat the "harm" to individuals that rising oil prices have caused (and please understand, I'm not belittling the pain of rising prices at the pump), Congress is going to take money from oil companies at the point where those profits can benefit some of us.

That makes sense.

The second horrible legislative idea comes from places like Beeville, Texas, which passed a statute calling on a boycott of ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) -- and only ExxonMobil -- until it brings gas prices down to $1.30 per gallon. A judge in Beeville, the Hon. Jimmy Martinez, has been quoted as saying, "I understand free enterprise, but ..." and actually, you don't need to hear what comes after the "but" to figure out that he understands neither free enterprise nor the oil business, nor does he understand basic math. Basically, the folks in Beeville have come up with a way to destroy the livelihood of the local Exxon station owner, but that's about it.

Consider this: A barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude is $70 per barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. So the stuff coming straight out of the ground is priced on the open market at $1.66 per gallon. Judge Martinez is welcome to put that directly into his car, but I don't think it will work out very well. Neither ExxonMobil nor Apache nor Kuwait determines how much a barrel of oil sells for. The open market does.

ExxonMobil is a vertically integrated company. The alternative sources in Beeville may not be. Guess what company is a large wholesale seller of gasoline? Uh-huh. ExxonMobil.

At no point along the chain does ExxonMobil set prices. I'm not saying that ExxonMobil is the perfect corporate citizen, but it's not an eleemosynary entity, either. If the market for refining generates $15 in revenues per barrel, then it makes no sense whatsoever for ExxonMobil to say, "Well, we're gonna just charge $6."

Prices are information, nothing more. Given the disruptions from last year's hurricanes, and given that our demand of oil products has pushed our supply to the breaking point, the information is being transmitted as: "You have to consume less." The folks in Beeville would have just as much luck demanding that ExxonMobil make the sky green.

But that's the signal for consumers. The signal for producers is very different. For them, it is: "Produce more, produce smarter, and look for alternatives." This is in contrast to most of the past two decades, when pricing told all of these companies to do nothing.

The market fixes things in a way that legislators cannot
Yes, high gas prices are horribly painful. But what that pain causes is the greatest outcome of the free market -- incentive. Incentive to conserve, incentive to develop, and incentive to come up with (and switch to) alternatives like fuel cells and nuclear power. It also has helped companies like Motley Fool Hidden Gems recommendation OYO Geospace (Nasdaq: OYOG) attract a great deal of attention for its technology that helps oil production companies optimize their drilling at existing sites.

Instead of recognizing this basic economic reality, our elected representatives are doing what they tend to do -- pander to voters by misrepresenting their importance to the national economy through saying they're going to "do something" about oil prices ... or conversely, blaming the other side for not doing something. And let me be clear about this: The outcome would be nearly the same no matter who were in office. Democrat, Republican, Whig -- it wouldn't matter. Politicians say these things because no one has ever gotten elected by making certain that his or her comments hewed to economic reality. Taking credit for success you had no hand in causing is a tried and true staple in legislatures worldwide. Sadly, people believe it.

That's where sheer lunacy like the "windfall profit tax" come from. If the government really wanted to do something, it could get out of the way and take down past distortions, like the high tariffs on imported ethanol. It could offer huge, obscene tax credits to jurisdictions willing to have new refineries sited in their borders. It could go back and start charging market rent to companies drilling on government lands and open up other territories for drilling -- like the entire Atlantic Seaboard. But beyond that, all you're hearing is posturing that will lead to pork products that will each achieve something either (a) stupid or (b) more expensive than what the free market could come up with on its own.

That's just the way it is. Sadly, Congress doesn't get merit points for facing reality. The fantasy that it's in charge of things is much, much more lucrative.

Bill Mann owns none of the companies mentioned in this article. He is the co-advisor for the Motley Fool Hidden Gems small-cap newsletter, where OYO Geospace has been recommended. Come and see what else we have to offer! We invite you to a 30-day guest pass to Hidden Gems, with our compliments. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The Motley Fool is dedicated to Educating, Amusing, and Enriching all visitors to their website at http://www.fool.com/index.htm?ref=Yo.

You can become a registered Fool for Free:
http://www.fool.com/community/register/Register.asp?source=foolemail&ref=Yo

My second impression of Merrill Cook

Merrill Cook was better behaved when he wasn't in the same room as Chris Cannon. I went to a dinner with him last night, and decided that he has some strengths. He began by discussing illegal immigration. He has made it clear that he differs with Chris on this issue. What I hadn't heard yet were his solutions. He believes in building a fence and securing the border by other means - nothing new there. He also extensively discussed how he believes we should crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. His appraoch to doing this is different than what Jacob has been saying about taxing those who hire illegals differently. Merrill wants to just enforce the fines and penalties that are already in place, and he said he would support raising the fines as a deterrent. He also believes that repeat offenders should go to jail. You will not hear Chris Cannon talk this tough against business. You just won't. I believe in free enterprise, but I don't believe the intrinsic laws of free enterprise should trump the laws of the land. I don't see Chris Cannon ever being tough on businesses who break laws at the expense of those who obey the laws. Therefore, regarding the issue of illegal immigration, Merrill Cook has convinced me not to vote for Cannon. However, I am not sold on Cook either.

Merrill also spent a considerable amount of time discussing his position on international trade. He is concerned about the trade deficit and stated several times that for every dollar we get from China they get six from us. He is also against China holding a preferred nation status. He believes that the U.S. has given up much of its sovereignty to foreign powers because of these free trade agreements. I am definitely worried about China, and maybe Merrill is right about some of these issues. However, I also have a stake in this issue that Merrill and the other candidates have failed to address: For every dollar I save from buying cheap goods from China I invest that dollar in Chinese companies. For every dollar that I invest in Chinese companies I get at least $6 in return. Maybe Merrill would consider this behavior as wrong in principle, but it is hard to argue against such outsized returns. He is approaching the issue of international trade from a paradigm that is too narrow for me, although I do admire his tenacity for his principles.

I am not as concerned about the trade imbalances with China as I am concerned about the futures market for intellectual capital. Merrill's stance on education doesn't have much bearing. He is against No Child Left Behind, and that sums up his stance. I agree with Cannon's words on education, but I don't agree with his actions. I have heard a lot of complaints about sending our manufacturing jobs to China. I don't see this as a problem. I think they will come back in twenty years when my wife's second grade students are the new international pool for cheap manual labor. My wife has listened to Merrill and Chris, and she said from and education standpoint Merrill is definitely more in tune than Chris. Chris thinks he can solve the problem, and that is the problem. My wife believes that politicians cannot solve this problem. Only those in the ecuation field and parents can solve this problem. Teachers see No Child Left Behind as the product of arrogant politicians trying to solve something that they know nothing about. I haven't heard a single candidate tell me how much time they have spent in our public shools to personally observe the situation themselves.

Merrill spent some time discussing the leadership positions that are waiting for him in Washington. Merrill has to do this to counter the rhetorical barrage of self-promotion coming from Chris, but Merrill was definitely using these leadership possibilities as a way to discount Jacob's possibilities at being effective. It is nice that Merrill has friends in high places. His endorsement by Tom Tancredo is almost enough to make me vote for him. I certainly value an endorsement by Tancredo more than I value Cannon's endorsement by Boehner. However, my problem with Merrill's and Chris' references to their friends is that I strongly believe that a lot of their friends won't be there when they get back to Washington. I see a big shake up on the horizon. If there is a shake-up then Jacob's disadvantage in experience becomes completely irrelevant.

Finally, I asked Merrill about energy and told him I didn't see any candidates leading on this issue. He actually said the words "anti-trust," which I have yet to hear from Cannon's mouth. He also said that part of the problem is the lack of new refining capabilities. This statement led me to believe that he fundamentally misunderstands the oil industry and the energy problem. I might not be an expert myself, but this article is helpful: http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06050910.htm

Merrill also plugged hydrogen powered cars. I would be fine with the hydrogen plug if I didn't feel like politicians were so condescending about it. I feel like they're saying, "Don't worry little constituent, one day your car will run on hydrogen and all of our problems will be solved. Don't worry about energy prices, Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Don't worry that Iran, Venezuela, and Suadi Arabia are amassing fortunes, and they want to destroy you; Hydrogen will solve all the problems."

If Merrill believes in hydrogen so much, let's hear a plan.

Merrill seems to be on the right track with social security and health care, but so do the other candidates. I am not convinced that I will vote for Merrill, but he at least gave me some good questions that I can ask John.

John Jacob's Weaknesses

Jacob's is probably the candidate that has impressed me the most so far, but he is not without his flaws. He doesn't have his head around the issues as much as the other two candidates, but I don't see this as a permanent problem. He seems to be pretty capable, and I think he would adapt rather quickly.

My biggest problem with Jacob is my biggest problem with all three candidates. Neither of them seems to have a very progressive energy policy. Jacob called me on the phone several weeks ago, and I discussed my concerns with him (this was when gas was around $2 a gallon). I told him about a recent article I had read in the newspaper about the huge energy windfall that is enabling Wyoming to have one of the best education systems in the country. He said that he knew about this, and considered Utah to be in a similar position if we would allocate our resources well. However, he didn't say how he was going to make it happen. With regards to energy, there are few, if any, politicians who I see actually rising up to the challenge of this issue. I was hoping one of my local candidates would, but I have been disappointed.

I haven't heard a candidate yet acknowledge that we are funding both sides of the War on Terror. They just don't put the energy problem in this context. Jacob's tells a quick anecdote about a glue that would replace staples for installing molding, but hasn't made it to market because it would put staple manufacturers out of business. He sees the oil industry in a similar way. However, he doesn't say what he would do to decrease the oil industry's stranglehold on our government. Where I generally like his attitude that "the sky isn't falling," with regards to energy I wish he would be more urgent. I will write what I wish John would start saying about energy. I think if he took this stance, he would capture this important issue from the other two candidates. John should say:

"The biggest advantage that I bring with my candidacy is the belief that I am trying to secure a brighter future for my grandchildren. I know that this future will not be so bright without abundant, efficient, low-cost sources of energy. This future will also not be so bright if we keep funding terrorists who want to kill us everytime we fill up our cars. If you elect me to congress, I will lead Republicans on the issue of energy independency. For too long, the idea of clean, alternate energy has been too closely associated with left-wing environmentalists. It is time for Republicans to take the lead on this issue. Before I lay out my objectives regarding energy independence, I would like to read a passage from Kennedy's speech where he encouraged scientists and engineers to put a man on the moon:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

If you elect me to congress, I will advocate an energy policy that is hard. I believe that Americans will achieve great things when great things are asked of them. I know there are those who believe that America can't become energy independent for a long time. There were those who thought America couldn't put a man on the moon. I believe that America can rise above the doubts.

My opponents like to emphasize their experience in Congress. They love to talk about which committees they are in and how they have great potential to lead on certain issues. None of them have mentioned an affiliation with a committee dedicated to solving the energy problem. One of the first things I will do when I get to Congress is affiliate myself with a committee dedicated to this problem. I have an advantage here, because as a freshman I am not already committed to other causes. If there isn't a committee that is fighting for long term energy policies written by someone besides big oil, then I will take the lead on this issue. As your congressman, I will lead our national leaders to take the following actions:

-Increase the production and available infrastructure for ethanol
-Make Utah a major source of wind power
-Decrease evironmental regulations to allow further energy production in Utah. I want Utah to be the oil refining capital of the West.
-Accelerate the development of hydrogen fuel cells, and encourage wind-powered hydrogen production
-Encourage the development of Utah's shale oil
-Cut tax benefits recieved by oil companies for exploration, and dramatically increase tax benefits for alternate sources of energy

In conclusion, the energy problem is a result of 50 years of shortsighted and selfish policies. If you elect me to congress, I do not believe that this problem will be solved immediately. So I am going to ask the American people and my constituents to do something that no other Republican will ask them to do. I am going to ask my constituents to sacrifice, because the only solution to this problem is hard. It might take several years of high gas prices to resolve this issue, but in my re-election campaign in two years I will come back as a congressman with a flawless record for promoting long term energy solutions."

I guess you get the idea. As a young voter with a baby on the way, I really want leadership on this issue. I don't think that I am alone. I am just afraid that our leaders don't believe America can do this, or they are too deep in the pockets of the oil companies to try. I think that whoever takes the lead on this issue will strike political gold.

John Jacob on Illegal Immigration

I went to a breakfast with John Jacob last week, and I like his position on illegal immigration. In the media I read about poll after poll that indicates that American voters see illegal immigration as a major problem, and American voters don't want amnesty. Nevertheless, I keep hearing from politicians that it is impossible to round illegls up and send them home. To me this attitude says that it is impossible to enforce the law. Maybe I am being simpleminded, but I don't want people making laws that believe that law enforcement is impossible.

John Jacob believes that illegal immigrants need to go back ot their own countries and come in the right way. He doesn't discount this as an impossible task. Frankly, I am getting sick of hearing from the media and form politicians what is impossible for Americans to accomplish.

My First Impression of Merrill Cook

Of the three candidates at the debate, Merrill connected with me the least for several reasons. First of all, I am still not quite sure what he is doing in my district, but I guess he is. I hadn't yet been to any of Merrill's events, so I only knew what I had learned from mailers. After seeing him at the debate, my biggest problem was that he was good at finding problems and slow to offer solutions. In this sense he was fitting the mold of so many democrats that I currently abhor. He did say words that could be considered "solutions," but his demeanor and tone suggested one who was content to just tear the others down.

He spent most of the night fighting with the incumbent about certain bills that were passed and saying he would not pass said bill. To me, acting like this isn't taking leadership on an issue.

Above all, I don't agree with Merrill's stance on free trade. I don't know why he is trying to make this into an issue. I liked Jacob's response that we can vote with our feet. If we don't want a trade deficit with China, then we should stop buying digital cameras from Walmart. I certainly don't want the government deciding for me whether I can buy cheap goods from China.

Chirs Cannon's Strengths

After watching the three candidates debate, Chris surely knows the most about the issues. However, you would expect this after 10 years. He is quick to mention the many committees that he is involved in. I agree with Chris with regards to private social security accounts and health savings accounts, but these were issues that all three candidates agreed upon. I also agree with Chris' stance on smaller government and free markets. It would be nice to get rid of the Dept. of Education, but I wish I could see some solutions to the education problem that can be applied now.

Chris' greatest strength seems to be his experience, but I don't see this as a strong enough moat.

Chris Cannon on Illegal Immigration and Wages

I went to the debate between the three 3rd district congressional candidates on Saturday, so I will post some of my reactions to what was said.

I understand that the immigration debate is complicated, but I don't get the impression that Chris is connecting with his constituents on this issue. He began his remarks on this topic by asking how many people actually believe that we can deport 10 million people. A surprising number in the audience raised their hands (John Jacob did as well). Chris dismissed this response by saying that this would lead to a police state and couldn't happen. I agree that rounding up and deporting 10 million people would probably lead to a police state, but to use this excuse as a way to completely discount the idea of deportation isn't a good stance. Where a police state is a dark end to the immigration problem, we are currently in a state where the police have no authority to deal with the immigration problem. Our law enforcement officials encounter illegal immigrants in their daily routines, but they can't do anything about this. I don't see why tax dollars are used to pay for law enforcement if we can't enforce the laws that we have.

Chris also seems to favor big business over the average wage earner. Both Merrill and John argued that illegal immigration is deflating wages, and Chris rebutted that there are 27,000 empty jobs in Utah. The other candidates claimed that when you have a demand for workers then wages should be increasing. Chris gave a weak analogy of how lower wages help the business owner make more money. This response didn't seem to resonate with the audience so well. Chris also didn't seem to win the support of those who believe that Americans will do the jobs that the illegals claim we won't. In short, he doesn't seem to favor an immigration policy that helps the working class.

Salt Lake Tribune: Cashing in on energy boom

This article was mailed to you by: Ben Burr
The sender included this message:
read this
Click to View this Article

Cashing in on energy boom

Utah's BLM office to pitch a record number of oil and gas leases for sale
By Joe Baird
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

The status of Utah's energy market may have to be upgraded - from hot to sizzling.
   With demand increasing and values soaring, the state Bureau of Land Management office announced Monday that it will hold its largest-ever oil and gas lease sale on May 16. The BLM plans to offer 440,000 acres on 296 parcels scattered throughout the state - but with a focus on southern Utah.
   The proposed sale dwarfs the size of the agency's previous lease sale in February, and is significantly larger than the previous record offering made in September 2004.
   Driving such large lease sales, BLM officials say, is an almost insatiable demand for more domestically produced energy. Since 2002, the average per-acre bid in Utah has grown from $10.25 to $113.70.
   "We anticipate that people will be interested in these parcels. The industry already is interested," said Adrienne Babbitt, a BLM spokeswoman. "They've been waiting a long time for these parcels to be offered. That kind of market demand is what's driving this."
   Kent Hoffman, the BLM's deputy state director of lands and minerals, calls the upcoming auction "the most closely scrutinized sale yet," because the agency had to ensure that lease offerings would not clash with ongoing land-use plans being developed in its Utah field offices.
   Nearly two-thirds of the parcels being offered were pulled back from previous sales for further analysis because of protests or unresolved issues. Agency officials are calling this sale a "decisive cut" in which parcels will be offered, or held back until land-use plans are completed.
   BLM officials say that the most environmentally sensitive parcels will continue to be tabled - perhaps permanently - or offered for lease with stipulations that will restrict how energy companies can explore and drill on them.
   But conservation groups, which have routinely pilloried the BLM for leasing in areas that have potential wilderness, cultural or wild and scenic river characteristics, say it has not been nearly enough. One group, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, says the May lease sale may be the most egregious example of that yet.
   "This confirms our worst suspicions: that the Interior Department is in the back pocket of the oil and gas industry," said Steve Bloch, a SUWA attorney. "When they call this the most scrutinized sale yet, it kind of makes you wonder what they've been doing up to this point. It's sort of a backhanded acknowledgement that they haven't scrutinized parcels as closely as they should have in the past."
   Several of the most controversial parcels that the BLM has offered for lease in the past year, and later withdrawn under protest, remain off the table. BLM officials say parcels near Hovenweep National Monument, the Parowan Gap cultural area and Labyrinth Canyon along the lower Green River, will continue to be deferred until at least the end of the land-use planning process.
   Another cluster of hotly debated parcels in Nine Mile Canyon also has been at least temporarily shelved, though the agency will offer seven parcels farther away from the canyon rim.
   And the BLM will offer leases along the Price River, the Mussentuchit Badlands adjacent to Capitol Reef National Park and the San Rafael Desert.
   Babbitt says each of those parcels will have stipulations attached.
   The Price River leases require a minimum quarter-mile setback from the river; the Mussentuchit parcels cannot be accessed via park roads, and the BLM will require at least a 200-meter separation, as well as other restrictions in the San Rafael Desert offerings.
    "We're trying to protect the special places, and we're confident that where we are offering leases, there are adequate stipulations in place that will protect the values that make them special," said Babbitt.
    jbaird@sltrib.com
   
   

This e-mail was initiated by machine [10.148.8.5] at IP [10.148.8.5].