There's been a lot of talk lately about the practice of "outsourcing" or "off-shoring" of jobs. Whatever term you use, the definition is the same -- sending American jobs to foreign countries. Some Democrats seem particularly eager to make this subject a central one for the next seven months.
At a time when Americans are paying record-high prices for gasoline at the pump, I relish the opportunity to have this debate on outsourcing.
Through their opposition to a comprehensive national energy policy, I believe a very strong case can be made that the Democrats are unwittingly themselves the biggest proponents of outsourcing.
Their refusal to work with President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress to pass a national energy plan has created and nurtured an environment that is hostile to job creation and makes our nation more reliant on foreign oil.
Since 2001, the Republican-led House has passed comprehensive energy legislation three times. Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to follow suit, and this nation has no energy policy as a result.
The ramifications of the Senate's failure is staggering. During that time gasoline prices have increased to all-time highs, U.S. imports of oil have increased 10 percent, the price of oil has increased 65 percent and the cost of natural gas has increased a whopping 92 percent.
According to the Department of Commerce, the United States loses 12,389 jobs for every billion dollars spent on imported oil. That means we are "off-shoring" 1.7 million jobs for oil every year.
Not only have the Democrats in the Senate blocked all efforts to legislate an energy policy, they have encouraged their surrogates to litigate their true agenda. Time and time again, reasonable efforts to increase domestic production have been met with radical and obstructionist litigation.



We're not just talking about drilling in Alaska. Their allies have litigated to prevent the development of clean natural gas, low-sulfur coal, hydro-electric energy and even wind power projects. This policy -- or lack thereof -- is a recipe for economic disaster and a threat to our national security on several levels.
The House-passed energy bill, on the other hand, is estimated to produce 838,500 good-paying jobs. It has a great deal of incentives for cleaner fuels, renewable energy and tough environmental standards.
By reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we strengthen not only our economic security but also our national security. I don't know about you, but having our energy resources controlled by Saudi Arabia, Russia, even Canada, makes me nervous. The last time we were this dependent on foreign oil, OPEC disrupted our supply and we ended up with gas rationing and three-hour waits at service stations. We don't need to go there again.
So I look forward to a discussion about outsourcing. It will probably be one of the more prominent issues in this election season, and it should be.
U.S. ingenuity and 21st-century technologies can and must combine to produce more domestic energy.
Our history as a nation proves that given the tools, American workers can accomplish anything. One of the most critical tools they need right now is affordable, reliable and safe supplies of energy with which to create good-paying jobs. It's time for the Congress to do their job and pass a national energy bill.
Salt Lake Tribune

Also, Bush has been a disaster in regard to ecology. This may be part of the issue. I will review further, but willing to consider your arguement.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

bush and his boss cheney...

As soon as that happens, problem solved...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Sorry maze, this is the most convoluted logic I've seen in a long time.

The administration is unwilling to compromise on an energy bill, so they don't have one. In a two party system, one either compromises or dies. My best guess on why the complete lack of compromise is that they are perfectly content to not have one, so their buddies in the energy business can continue to ring up record profits.

This next point is a total red herring. While I agree that the United States loses approx. 12,000 jobs for every billion dollars spent on imported oil. This has zero to do with outsourcing, and there is simply no data to support this conclusion. The reason productivity has risen so sharply is in the recent past is that more work is being done by the same number of workers. The price of oil is the price of oil. It is the same in China, the world's #2 energy consumer, as it is in the US. When oil prices rise on the world exchange, they rise everywhere except in countries that are net exporters of oil. It can be shown, however, that this directly effects other areas like capital spending.

No, we're not just talking about drilling in Alaska. The Bush energy policy is a major windfall for the energy companies who wrote it. More corporate welfare in the energy business is not the answer to anything.

I'm sure that the energy bill, if passed would produce at least 838,500 good-paying jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs would be paid for by the taxpayers, ratepayers and consumers and at the expense of environmental issues, local business revenue in some cases.

It is also true that the last time that our energy supplies have been disrupted in the past because of action by Arab states. However, since that time the US auto industry has fought a pitched battle so that they can continue to offer absurdly large vehicles powered by archaic pushrod V8 engines, and six administration have been in the Whitehouse. To say that were are in this situation because the Senate won't pass another one of Bush's corporate welfare acts simply doesn't pass the straight face test.

oc

You're most welcome....

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

but if it is I'll find something better...not to mention spend a couple months on the beach and in the gym

As usual, you seem to hit the bullseye.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

...but no solutions OC. So if Kerry comes with anything similar will you and Truebit and MarkH have the same argument? I listen and read most of criticism from the left, but I haven't read or heard of any solutions to wane our dependence from foreign oil. Continuing our dependence will only keep us at war with the Islamic extremists.

You want to wean us off foreign oil. How about conservation.

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/...003-12-22a.asp

http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/cafe.html

The whole concept fo the SUV as a light truck is obsolete. They are station wagons in todays world. But they get a pass from passenger car safety and CAFE standards, having their won weaker standards.