Obama's first failed appointment

The Daschle withdrawal comes at the time of a related first signficant achievement by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

Obama was planning to sign the SCHIP bill tomorrow; the bill that Congress enacted last week (and that Bush vetoed lat year) expanding the program to cover an additional 4+ million uninsured children. Daschle was supposed to be at his side and it was to be touted as the first step to providing quality, affordable health care to cover all children.

I guess we'll see if he postpones the bill signing to perhaps combine it with announcing a new nominee for HHS in which case, I think he will act quickly on a nominee.

[classicman]

Postpone it??? Why? Cuz a tax cheat got caught? Eff that. Forward my man! Obama is gettin shit done. keep it on a roll.
Hell the IRS should audit every congressman/woman and senator, then move right down the line through all the lobbyists and everyone else till all those involved with raising our taxes are damn sure paying theirs.

[smoothmoniker]

I'm curious to get Radar's take on this.

Originally Posted by classicman

Postpone it??? Why? Cuz a tax cheat got caught? Eff that. Forward my man! Obama is gettin shit done. keep it on a roll.....

No postponement

At 4:30 p.m. in the East Room, he signs the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/....html?wprss=44

On the heals of Bush's veto of SCHIP last year, this marks one small step for change, one giant leap for children!

I like the $500,000 cap on executive compensation for companies receiving taxpayer bailouts that Obama will announce today as well.

More change!

[TheMercenary]

SCHIP is a good thing. He should be applauded for that move.

Another Obama third-week success?

This time for the environment as well as the earliest heritage of the country by putting on hold a Bush "fire sale" of oil and gas exploration leases in the waning days of his administration.

In a clear signal that the Obama administration is shifting the government's approach to energy exploration on public lands, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar yesterday canceled oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land after opponents said the drilling would blight Utah's scenic southeastern corner.

Salazar's decision -- which reverses the Bush administration's move to allow drilling on about 130,000 acres near pristine areas such as Nine Mile Canyon, Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument -- is one of a series of steps that the new administration and congressional Democrats are planning to reshape federal regulation of drilling, mining, lumbering and other resource-tapping activities, both on U.S. soil and offshore.

full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401785_pf.html

To understand the potential impact of oil and gas exploration on Utah's Nine Mile Canyon, the home to one of the most important and extensive collections of native American rock art.

Check out the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yveYWkpCnEw
(is there a way to embed youtube vids here or is that discouraged?)

In my opinion, these Bush last minute leases (issued with little or no opportunity for public comment or review) should be burned in a public display on the front lawn of the White House to send an even stronger message.

There are places to explore for new oil and gas resources (if necessary - and I dont think it is, with millions of acres already under lease to oil companies) and other areas that should remain untouched.

In close proximity to national parks and sacred landmarks should remain untouched!

[TheMercenary]

Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.

[classicman]

Or we could do both - one short term and the other long term. Seems like the intelligent solution.

[TheMercenary]

I think I understand the motivation of the act on 2 parts by Bush. On one hand he had to make it look like he was doing something desperate to move us towards energy independence after more than 6 years of pandering to the Oil/Gas companies and on the other hand he was throwing them a bone. Either way it could have been to our benefit. And to Obama's credit at least he sugar coated it by saying that it was only delayed for further environmental review. That approach prevents anyone from saying he is against energy independence, which I don't believe he is. I think it more about his staffers looking for various ways to stick a finger in the eye of Bush. Hey that sounds just like most people.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.

Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?

Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?

I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.

The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?

Cite.

Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?

I would agree, citation needed please.

I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.

I would tend to agree, but if you are going to accuse someone of wrong doing please provide evidence. Thanks.

The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.

I personally have no problem with it if it gets us off the teet of any country outside our borders. If I had my way we all be going solar, wind, and water to solve our energy dependence.

Cite, cite, cite - the Merc Mantra!!!

Much if it can be explained in legislation the Democrats introduced last year to require existing leases to be explored or face losing them and/or before issuing new leases.

The current lease and potential production numbers are in there (68 million acres already leased and sitting idle.) I used ballpark figures.

Rahall to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It

In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."

Damn right...Use it or Lose it! (and lose the tax writes offs that come just by holding those leases) and stay away from national parks while other options (existing leases) are available.

The Republicans in the House defeated the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act ...

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes.

...last June, just in time to make "drill baby drill" a campaign slogan. (BTW, the manner in which the Republicans, the minority party, defeated it, was because of Pelosi's loose House rules at the time....something her Republican predecessor would not have allowed with their old rules. She learned her lesson and the new rules this year, while much stricter, are still no where close to the restrictive Republican rules from 01-07.)

I expect the bill, or something like it, will be introduced again later this year as part of a broader Obama energy package that will include some drilling (on existing leases) and a much greater focus on both alternatives AND reducing demand (conserve, baby, conserve!)

[TheMercenary]

Don't get all huffy. As I stated I would rather depend on us rather than "them" for energy resources. You make a number of claims. I just asked you to back them up.

No huff and puff here.

Your responses are already very predictable to me in a matter of two days.

I'll let you know when I get bored or huffy.

[TheMercenary]

Ok. Go away when you are tired of defending the indefensable Demoncratic Congress. I will be here when you want to spar.

Respectfully, The Merc.