Jeff Arnold who represents Algiers in the state legislature filed House bill 235 which would allow Algiers to become incorporated into a city within the City of New Orleans. The new city would be led by a mayor-council form of government, all according to a Times Picayune article of 4/8/15 by staff writer Andrea Shaw.
This latest Arnold proposal differs from the one he alluded too in a Times Picayune article of 1/23/15where Arnold wanted Algiers and other cities on the west bank of Jefferson to secede from Orleans and Jefferson Parish to form a new parish on the west bank. That TP article was the subject of a three part series published here in "PolitiDose."
If the proposed changes are adopted the governor would appoint the new city' officials until the next general municipal election . In the latest article Arnold complains about a lack of service from the City of New Orleans, especially police service. Yet he states the new city would retain the service of the N.O. Sewarage and Water Board, the public school system and the Sheriff's and district attorney's offices. And one can bet other services Arnold complains about will still be carried out by the City of New Orleans for the new city.
In the first article of 1/23 Arnold stressed he would not run for public office in the new parish but in the latest article says he mignt return to public office some day. One can make a sure bet that if the governor appoints the new officers of the new city they will be political ally's who have been in politics. So when the first election rolls around by the people one can believe it will be the political connected who run and rake in campaign contributions.
This writer is not opposed to Algiers becoming it own incorporated city within the City of New Orleans with its own elected officials but it should be done with a plan and input from its citizens first. This writer has a suspicious mind when it comes to the subject matter when driven not by the public but an elected official.
Every city in the Metro area on both sides of the Mississippi River have its problems of providing adequet services to the people they serve. And it is basically a matter of revenue short fall caused by an unfair tax system that doles out billions of dollars in tax breaks and loopholes to special interest groups and business. There is also lost sales tax revenue to the city and state because of internet sales. In a Times Picayune article of 5/8/13 according to congressional estimates Louisiana could gain approximately $808 million a year in sales tax revenue from products sold by all online merchants to Louisiana residents. Has Mr. Arnold come up with a plan to address just those two areas of revenue short fall?
A fair taxing system where everyone pays his fair share of all taxes and where business are not given special treatment and tax breaks, taxes could probably be lowered for everyone. Business exemptions should not go beyond the normal expense to run a business such as depreciation and etc. Business should have to stand on its own two feet to compete. That is what everyone else has to do. A sound tax system that is fair will increase state and city revenues and work to everyones advantage.
Revenue is what it will take to run a new city called Algiers and as of this writing no one knows how much. A new incorporated city may require much more revenue than any one can possible project until after the fact and then where will the people be. An exploratory commission to figure everything out would be the way to go if the people of Algiers want to pursue a new city concept. That should be the first step.
This writer still believes "Federal City" is the reason for Arnold's proposal and not the lack of city services. Hopefully Mayor Landrieu and other elected officials who represent New Orleans and Algiers will oppose and block this ill timed legislation that lacks the fundamental of thought process.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Friday, April 10, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Framework For An Agreement With Iran
The U.S., its allies and Russia completed a framework of agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear program. The framework will now be put in a written draft to cover the subject matter by the end of June. The final written agreement when approved will be submitted to congress for approval.
So far the chicken hawk republicans in congress, Israel's Prime Minister Natanyahu and some democrats are opposed to the framework and Natanyahu and the 47 senate republicans who wrote a letter to Iran would like to see the framework die. They prefer another war in the middle east as they have no alternative to the framework of understanding.
North Korea and Iran advanced their nuclear programs during the previous administration and North Korea actually tested their very first nuclear weapon on the watch of President George W. Bush. Bush's policy on Iran's nuclear program was zero because he had the U.S. bogged down in an unnecessary war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist.
The present talks with Iran started over 6 months ago and Iran agreed to halt most of its program during that time and they did comply. In fact international nuclear inspectors have inspected and run through their nuclear facilities. The U.S. and its allies now know more about Iran's nuclear program than they know about the nuclear programs of Israel, India and Pakistan and those three countries have stock piles of nuclear weapons and have possessed them for many years.
In this writers judgement the President's policies have been the right ones. Since he announced U.S. ground troops would not be deployed in a direct combat role in Iraq and the middle east several of those countries are now fighting the ground war in Iraq with U. S. and allies air support and have taken back territory it had lost previously. And now Saudi Arabia and others have joined the fight against ISIL and some rebel groups in Yemen. This writer does not think that would have taken place had the President not put the middle east on notice that it is their war to fight and win.
Most nuclear experts agree that the framework is a good one and that despite all the negative talk Iran did indeed make deep consessions in the framework of agreement. Natanyahu said years ago Iran was only 6 months away from making their first nuclear bomb and yet they do not possess any. He and Israel have been wrong and do not want any progress in the middle east on any terms but their own. They are a threat to America's interest and a threat to the middle east peace process.
Regardless what happens with the framework of agreement with Iran it will not end the nuclear issues in the middle east or elsewhere. At some point some other country will say: Well lets see, those who possess nuclear weapons say, no one else can have them but us. In other words they can threaten my country and try to intimidate, so for protection my country will pursue nuclear weapons. If any one thinks that sounds silly why do you think India and Pakistan has those nuclear weapons? And as I wrote several years ago in "PolitiDose" if some one ever uses nuclear weapons in the middle east or that part of the world you can bet it will be Israel, Pakistan or India who launches the first strike.
If all parties to the agreement framework sign onto the written agreement then the U.S. senate should vote to ratify the agreement. This writer trust that the President will not sign onto a faulty agreement. I think his record proves that.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
So far the chicken hawk republicans in congress, Israel's Prime Minister Natanyahu and some democrats are opposed to the framework and Natanyahu and the 47 senate republicans who wrote a letter to Iran would like to see the framework die. They prefer another war in the middle east as they have no alternative to the framework of understanding.
North Korea and Iran advanced their nuclear programs during the previous administration and North Korea actually tested their very first nuclear weapon on the watch of President George W. Bush. Bush's policy on Iran's nuclear program was zero because he had the U.S. bogged down in an unnecessary war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist.
The present talks with Iran started over 6 months ago and Iran agreed to halt most of its program during that time and they did comply. In fact international nuclear inspectors have inspected and run through their nuclear facilities. The U.S. and its allies now know more about Iran's nuclear program than they know about the nuclear programs of Israel, India and Pakistan and those three countries have stock piles of nuclear weapons and have possessed them for many years.
In this writers judgement the President's policies have been the right ones. Since he announced U.S. ground troops would not be deployed in a direct combat role in Iraq and the middle east several of those countries are now fighting the ground war in Iraq with U. S. and allies air support and have taken back territory it had lost previously. And now Saudi Arabia and others have joined the fight against ISIL and some rebel groups in Yemen. This writer does not think that would have taken place had the President not put the middle east on notice that it is their war to fight and win.
Most nuclear experts agree that the framework is a good one and that despite all the negative talk Iran did indeed make deep consessions in the framework of agreement. Natanyahu said years ago Iran was only 6 months away from making their first nuclear bomb and yet they do not possess any. He and Israel have been wrong and do not want any progress in the middle east on any terms but their own. They are a threat to America's interest and a threat to the middle east peace process.
Regardless what happens with the framework of agreement with Iran it will not end the nuclear issues in the middle east or elsewhere. At some point some other country will say: Well lets see, those who possess nuclear weapons say, no one else can have them but us. In other words they can threaten my country and try to intimidate, so for protection my country will pursue nuclear weapons. If any one thinks that sounds silly why do you think India and Pakistan has those nuclear weapons? And as I wrote several years ago in "PolitiDose" if some one ever uses nuclear weapons in the middle east or that part of the world you can bet it will be Israel, Pakistan or India who launches the first strike.
If all parties to the agreement framework sign onto the written agreement then the U.S. senate should vote to ratify the agreement. This writer trust that the President will not sign onto a faulty agreement. I think his record proves that.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Monday, April 6, 2015
President Obama Has Been Consistent In Dealing With The Republicans In Congress
The republican controlled House and Senate passed approval of the XL Pipeline over a month ago which the President said he would veto and he kept his word and did so. Mitch McConnel, senate majority leader said the senate would vote to overide the President's veto the following week (that was three weeks ago) and as of this date the senate has yet to vote to overide.
Early this month the President blocked a resolution passed by both houses of congress to overturn new union friendly federal regulations issued by the President's administration. The republicans knew the President's position but still voted for the resolution. Both issues continue the republican party's attemp to satisy their business base and are hardly related to the more pressing issues facing the country and its people.
When coupled with their record and rhetoric concerning the Iran negotiations it is evident six plus years into the Obama administration the republicans still lack any sense of commitment to support the President's position on anything. The President has used his veto authority infrequently since he was elecgted but he has used it wisely and has always let the republicans know on what issues he would do so.
The President was elected twice by the people in the United States of America and won both times by not only the electoral vote but also the popular vote. Members of congress represent only a state and districts within that state and their votes are not on a national scale. The republicans have a history of wanting to run the country nationally even when they lose elections. They need to grow up, serve the country and support the duly elected President.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Early this month the President blocked a resolution passed by both houses of congress to overturn new union friendly federal regulations issued by the President's administration. The republicans knew the President's position but still voted for the resolution. Both issues continue the republican party's attemp to satisy their business base and are hardly related to the more pressing issues facing the country and its people.
When coupled with their record and rhetoric concerning the Iran negotiations it is evident six plus years into the Obama administration the republicans still lack any sense of commitment to support the President's position on anything. The President has used his veto authority infrequently since he was elecgted but he has used it wisely and has always let the republicans know on what issues he would do so.
The President was elected twice by the people in the United States of America and won both times by not only the electoral vote but also the popular vote. Members of congress represent only a state and districts within that state and their votes are not on a national scale. The republicans have a history of wanting to run the country nationally even when they lose elections. They need to grow up, serve the country and support the duly elected President.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Religious Freedom: This Writer Has Always Possessed That Freedom
Our forebearers who produced what we now call The United States of America had the wisdom to guarantee its people the separation of church and state. That wisdom has escaped many of our elected officials today who use religion to divide both our country and its people.
This writer has always had and will always have the Freedom of Religion: To pray any time of the day or night at any place because most prayer are done silently, even in church except when the congregation prays together: To respect other people's religion: To attend church services as I deem necessary. To respect the people's right to choose how they live: To respect Christians and non Christians, after all Christianity is only 2000 years old, makkind is much older.
I have the Freedom of Religion: To make my own judgements concerning those who feel they have the right to impose their moral code on some one else: To reject those who use freedom of religion as an excuse to discriminate: To understand how the misuse of freedom of religion is used in the middle east to kill innocent men, women and children in the name of God and I totally reject that: To understand that freedom of religion is personal between an individual and his God.
I also have the Freedom of Religion: To possess freedom of thought: To understand the answer to every problem is not found in religion: I also have the Freedom of Religion to be humble and compassionate, after all, that is what makes Freedom of Religion work.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Louisiana's Film Tax Credit: Another Source Of Loss State Revenue To Business.
Economist Loren Scott in a study for the Louisiana Department Of Economic Development concerning the film tax credit reported the following that appeared in the Times Picayune of 3/25. (1) In 2014 Louisiana spent $222 million in film tax credits and earned back only $51 million or about 23 cents on every dollar spent. That does not represent a fair return of the tax payers money in this writers judgement.
The film tax credit has been in effect since 2002 and was introduced in the state legislature by then state law maker Steve Scalise. Now 13 years later Scalise says he is open to change in the program to insure tax payers dollars are maximized. Yeah right, 13 years after the fact.
Scott estimated the film industry brought in as much as $1 billion in sales and $728 million in household earnings in 2014 supporting as many as 12,100 direct and indirect jobs. He then says the numbers may be skewed because those estimates were based on certified Louisiana spending numbers that include the multi million dollar payments made to well known actors, writers, directors and producers. That those numbers are heroic assumptions that these monies will actually be spent in Louisiana since these individuals are typically not Louisiana residents.
The only reason the film tax credit is in the news is the state faces a $1.6 billion budget deficit for fiscal year that begins July 1 and looking for ways to find the money to balance the budget. Reducing the tax credit is one way to put more tax income in the states treasury.
Louisiana's elected officials have been looking out for business interest instead of the tax payers interest and are willing to reduce state income in doing so and then cut higher education and health care to balance the state budget. The average monthly state unemployment in 2002, the year the film tax credit was established was 5.9%. In February of 2015 the unemployment rate in Louisiana was 6.2%. In other words the unemployment rate is rising in Louisiana while the film industry enjoy more tax breaks and the state has less revenue.
Does anyone really believe Jindal, Scalise and the republican controlled legislature is looking out for the tax payers money and state revenue when the state receives only 23 cents for every dollar given in film tax credits? Those actors, writers, directors and producers who Scott alluded too that are collectors of multi million dollar payments are laughing all the way to the bank and out side of Louisiana to boot.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Special Note: California, the state the movie industry left to come to Louisiana, recently passed Texas as the No. 1 producer of job creation
The film tax credit has been in effect since 2002 and was introduced in the state legislature by then state law maker Steve Scalise. Now 13 years later Scalise says he is open to change in the program to insure tax payers dollars are maximized. Yeah right, 13 years after the fact.
Scott estimated the film industry brought in as much as $1 billion in sales and $728 million in household earnings in 2014 supporting as many as 12,100 direct and indirect jobs. He then says the numbers may be skewed because those estimates were based on certified Louisiana spending numbers that include the multi million dollar payments made to well known actors, writers, directors and producers. That those numbers are heroic assumptions that these monies will actually be spent in Louisiana since these individuals are typically not Louisiana residents.
The only reason the film tax credit is in the news is the state faces a $1.6 billion budget deficit for fiscal year that begins July 1 and looking for ways to find the money to balance the budget. Reducing the tax credit is one way to put more tax income in the states treasury.
Louisiana's elected officials have been looking out for business interest instead of the tax payers interest and are willing to reduce state income in doing so and then cut higher education and health care to balance the state budget. The average monthly state unemployment in 2002, the year the film tax credit was established was 5.9%. In February of 2015 the unemployment rate in Louisiana was 6.2%. In other words the unemployment rate is rising in Louisiana while the film industry enjoy more tax breaks and the state has less revenue.
Does anyone really believe Jindal, Scalise and the republican controlled legislature is looking out for the tax payers money and state revenue when the state receives only 23 cents for every dollar given in film tax credits? Those actors, writers, directors and producers who Scott alluded too that are collectors of multi million dollar payments are laughing all the way to the bank and out side of Louisiana to boot.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Special Note: California, the state the movie industry left to come to Louisiana, recently passed Texas as the No. 1 producer of job creation
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Another Economist Confirms What "PolitiDose" Spoke About Years Ago
Economist Paul Krugman in an editorial of 3/28 in the Times Picayune reported how job creation in the economy has come back from the great republican recession of 2008. He also reported how the republican rhetoric of tax breaks for the wealthy to create jobs is a trickle down fairy tale. (Not in those words)
Krugman does not use the word elite, a word this writer has used to describe conservatism, but goes on to say, "when good news arrives about the budget, the economy or the ACA which is reducing the uninsured numbers while costing much less" it must be denied by republicans. Their ideology utterly depends on the proposition that conservatives and only they, possess the secret key to prosperity. That is the same as thinking they are elite.
The article points out how big business would never admit that govrnment policies can create jobs because that would devalue one of their favorite arguments. The fact shows that democratic administration policies over the years has proved big business wrong concerning job creation. The latest being President Obama's economic policies, job creation, lower unemployment and reducing the deficit.
In line with Mr. Krugman's article, the National Association of Business Economics forecast more hiring, lower unemployment, low inflation and more growth in consumer spending in 2015. They also perdict more investment by business in both equipment and intellectual property.
The key to understanding what has taken place since the great recession is democratic policy. And it happened despite the many obstacles thrown up by the republican party. "PolitiDose" is proud to have played a part in telling this story early on.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Note: Comment by the Nationsl Association of Business Economics quoted above was published in the New Orleans Advocate of 3/31.
Krugman does not use the word elite, a word this writer has used to describe conservatism, but goes on to say, "when good news arrives about the budget, the economy or the ACA which is reducing the uninsured numbers while costing much less" it must be denied by republicans. Their ideology utterly depends on the proposition that conservatives and only they, possess the secret key to prosperity. That is the same as thinking they are elite.
The article points out how big business would never admit that govrnment policies can create jobs because that would devalue one of their favorite arguments. The fact shows that democratic administration policies over the years has proved big business wrong concerning job creation. The latest being President Obama's economic policies, job creation, lower unemployment and reducing the deficit.
In line with Mr. Krugman's article, the National Association of Business Economics forecast more hiring, lower unemployment, low inflation and more growth in consumer spending in 2015. They also perdict more investment by business in both equipment and intellectual property.
The key to understanding what has taken place since the great recession is democratic policy. And it happened despite the many obstacles thrown up by the republican party. "PolitiDose" is proud to have played a part in telling this story early on.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Note: Comment by the Nationsl Association of Business Economics quoted above was published in the New Orleans Advocate of 3/31.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Louisiana Needs State Representative John Bel Edwards To Be The Next Governor
Democratic state representative John Bel Edwards has the political understanding and knowledge needed to be Louisiana's next Governor. He is a "serious" public official who understands the role of leadership in governing and that state government represents the people's business. I believe it is safe to say under Edwards leadership both the state government and its people would prosper.
Representative Edwards has been outspoken in the legislature on the way Gov. Jindal has used gimmicks to balance the state budget that continues to be unbalanced, unnecessary cuts to education, the use of one time money to patch holes in the budget and other legislation that has set Louisiana and its people on a backwards course. Mr. Edward's three republican opponets, Jay Dardenne, David Vitter and Scott Anglee have all been silent on Jindal's mismanagement of state government and his created fiscal disaster that leaves the state a $1.6 billion deficit projected for next fiscal year. Those three republicans, especially U.S. Senator David Vitter have only come aboard recently since they announced their run for governor in speaking against Jindal's fiscal failures. They had been silent up to that time.
Both Jindal and Vitter served in congress during the Bush 43 administration and are familiar with republican fiscal deficits. Both were silent during Bush's watch. Jindal and the Louisiana republican controlled legislature had their chance to move Louisiana and its people forward and they blew it big time. The republicans have no policy, just ideology that pushes them to sign pledges with out of state organizations who care nothing about Louisiana or its people.
Its time for the state to return to the democratic party where history tells us the state and its people have had their best years. To those who say the democratic party can not win in Louisiana I say hogwash. Representative Edwards has a message and policy he will share with the people during this campaign. The republican candidates have the baggage of Jindal and Bush 43 to drag around and can not escape their support of those two failed administrations.
A republican governor has run the state 16 of the past 20 years. Thank goodness democratic governor Kathleen Blance came along in between and restored fiscal health to the state budget while in office. Representative Edwards has a good record as a state legislator and because he has "political understanding" that quality makes him the best candidate to be Louisiana's next governor.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Representative Edwards has been outspoken in the legislature on the way Gov. Jindal has used gimmicks to balance the state budget that continues to be unbalanced, unnecessary cuts to education, the use of one time money to patch holes in the budget and other legislation that has set Louisiana and its people on a backwards course. Mr. Edward's three republican opponets, Jay Dardenne, David Vitter and Scott Anglee have all been silent on Jindal's mismanagement of state government and his created fiscal disaster that leaves the state a $1.6 billion deficit projected for next fiscal year. Those three republicans, especially U.S. Senator David Vitter have only come aboard recently since they announced their run for governor in speaking against Jindal's fiscal failures. They had been silent up to that time.
Both Jindal and Vitter served in congress during the Bush 43 administration and are familiar with republican fiscal deficits. Both were silent during Bush's watch. Jindal and the Louisiana republican controlled legislature had their chance to move Louisiana and its people forward and they blew it big time. The republicans have no policy, just ideology that pushes them to sign pledges with out of state organizations who care nothing about Louisiana or its people.
Its time for the state to return to the democratic party where history tells us the state and its people have had their best years. To those who say the democratic party can not win in Louisiana I say hogwash. Representative Edwards has a message and policy he will share with the people during this campaign. The republican candidates have the baggage of Jindal and Bush 43 to drag around and can not escape their support of those two failed administrations.
A republican governor has run the state 16 of the past 20 years. Thank goodness democratic governor Kathleen Blance came along in between and restored fiscal health to the state budget while in office. Representative Edwards has a good record as a state legislator and because he has "political understanding" that quality makes him the best candidate to be Louisiana's next governor.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Sunday, March 29, 2015
The U.S. Congress Passes A Budget
The republican controlled congress passed a budget in both houses that they claim would balance the federal budget in 10 years. Really? The budget cuts $5 trillion over 10 years the republicans say including cuts to medicare and medicaid. Dana Milbank a noted columnist said the budget is one big gimmick. And if the word gimmick sounds familiar its because this writer has described Gov. Jindal's budgets that way here in "PolitiDose" many times over.
No democrat in the House or Senate voted for passage because they are familiar with past republican failures to balance the budget. They have yet to walk the talk since 1960, the year President Eisenhower balanced the federal budget. That was over 55 years ago. Now they say they need 10 more years. At the end of Presidnet Obama's last fiscal year budget that ended 9/30/14 the federal deficit was $483 billion. It was $1.4 trillion at the end of President Bush's last fiscal year budget. So the Obama administration has reduced the deficit over $900 Billion in just 5 years. The republicans are telling the people they need 10 more years to balance less than half the $900 billion reduction in 5 years by the President. The President has already put the country on the path to a balanced budget.
The republican budget also contains tax breaks for the wealthy and the repeal of the ACA. The republican control of congress and their actions so far still represent the failed policies of past republican administrations. Their conservative right wing ideology still will not allow them to be truthful to the people, not even those who support them.
But America still has hope because President Obama will not allow this bankrupt budget to become law.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
No democrat in the House or Senate voted for passage because they are familiar with past republican failures to balance the budget. They have yet to walk the talk since 1960, the year President Eisenhower balanced the federal budget. That was over 55 years ago. Now they say they need 10 more years. At the end of Presidnet Obama's last fiscal year budget that ended 9/30/14 the federal deficit was $483 billion. It was $1.4 trillion at the end of President Bush's last fiscal year budget. So the Obama administration has reduced the deficit over $900 Billion in just 5 years. The republicans are telling the people they need 10 more years to balance less than half the $900 billion reduction in 5 years by the President. The President has already put the country on the path to a balanced budget.
The republican budget also contains tax breaks for the wealthy and the repeal of the ACA. The republican control of congress and their actions so far still represent the failed policies of past republican administrations. Their conservative right wing ideology still will not allow them to be truthful to the people, not even those who support them.
But America still has hope because President Obama will not allow this bankrupt budget to become law.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
The 2016 Presidential Campaign: What This Writer Would Like To See.
U.S. republican Senator Ted Cruz announced on Monday he is running for President. It was the first official announcement by any so called candidate, republican or democratic. There will be more republicans making the same announcement soon. It is this writers hope that democratic candidates make no such announcements before Labor day. That applies even if only one democratic candidate decides to run.
What the country and the people need are shorter campaigns. That makes more sense for so many reasons, one which is the show business attitude on the part of the news media and its coverage. Another reason is we know the drill. The republicans campaign will be one of personal attacks as usual and little policy explanation. The democratic campaign will be one of policy and where they stand on the issues.
The candidates all have records known to the voters. The country does not need a rerun of that but that has been what campaigns are made of. The news media wants the campaign to last forever because of the money they make on ads and etc., and their power of sound bites and spin. The Fox News Network believes Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee and already started their constant attacks months ago. It will only get worse.
This writer would like to see two or three democratic candidates run for their party's nomination. And I would like to see at least one new face among them with solid credentials, policy plans, mature judgement and thought, courage and a sense of understanding the mistakes of the past in order to achieve a better future for the country and the people.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio.
What the country and the people need are shorter campaigns. That makes more sense for so many reasons, one which is the show business attitude on the part of the news media and its coverage. Another reason is we know the drill. The republicans campaign will be one of personal attacks as usual and little policy explanation. The democratic campaign will be one of policy and where they stand on the issues.
The candidates all have records known to the voters. The country does not need a rerun of that but that has been what campaigns are made of. The news media wants the campaign to last forever because of the money they make on ads and etc., and their power of sound bites and spin. The Fox News Network believes Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee and already started their constant attacks months ago. It will only get worse.
This writer would like to see two or three democratic candidates run for their party's nomination. And I would like to see at least one new face among them with solid credentials, policy plans, mature judgement and thought, courage and a sense of understanding the mistakes of the past in order to achieve a better future for the country and the people.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Will The Oil and Gas Industry Ever Operate In A Truthful Way?
How many times have you heard the Industry and their republican friends say the Obama Administration is not offering enough land for lease for drilling, especially in the Gulf Of Mexico? This writer has heard that over and over and most recently from the President of Lafourche Parish which was the topic of a recently commentary here in "PolitiDose."
Well, guess what? Federal regulators announced the week of 3/16 that only 195 bids were placed Wednesday on leases in the Gulf on 41 million acres off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Last years sale which was equivalent, the industry offered 380 bids and the year before more than 500 bids. This years bids of 195 were the lowest since 1986 when 129 bids were submitted.
So what happened? Why so little bids on the offshore acreage? The Oil industry had an answer, the falling price of a barrel of oil. Offshore drilling is so expensive it can not be done at today's price for a barrel of oil. The fact of the matter there has never been a shortage of leases to drill on in state lands or federal lands and acreage. The industry and their republican mouth pieces just can not tell the truth about the subject matter of leasing acreage for exploration and or drilling.
It should be noted that those 195 bids covered over 920,000 acres. This lease sale is just another reason to understand why the domestic Oil industry's exploration, drilling and production will never make the U.S. independent of foreign oil. Other reasons have been explained in previous commentary here in "PolitiDose." It is sad when you have an industry so important to the economy and our daily lives that just can not be truthful and elected officials who are not only willing to be their spoke persons but take it a step farther and lie to the people who elect them. Louisiana has more than enough elected officials who are ditto heads on the subject matter.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Well, guess what? Federal regulators announced the week of 3/16 that only 195 bids were placed Wednesday on leases in the Gulf on 41 million acres off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Last years sale which was equivalent, the industry offered 380 bids and the year before more than 500 bids. This years bids of 195 were the lowest since 1986 when 129 bids were submitted.
So what happened? Why so little bids on the offshore acreage? The Oil industry had an answer, the falling price of a barrel of oil. Offshore drilling is so expensive it can not be done at today's price for a barrel of oil. The fact of the matter there has never been a shortage of leases to drill on in state lands or federal lands and acreage. The industry and their republican mouth pieces just can not tell the truth about the subject matter of leasing acreage for exploration and or drilling.
It should be noted that those 195 bids covered over 920,000 acres. This lease sale is just another reason to understand why the domestic Oil industry's exploration, drilling and production will never make the U.S. independent of foreign oil. Other reasons have been explained in previous commentary here in "PolitiDose." It is sad when you have an industry so important to the economy and our daily lives that just can not be truthful and elected officials who are not only willing to be their spoke persons but take it a step farther and lie to the people who elect them. Louisiana has more than enough elected officials who are ditto heads on the subject matter.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)