Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
America’s energy policy is critical to our national security and economic growth. Dependence upon foreign sources of oil limits our national security options, undermines our interests, and raises the cost of doing business in America.
Unfortunately, President’s Obama’s approach has facilitated foreign dependence by restricting oil and gas drilling, making it more difficult to get nuclear permits, hobbling our coal industry, and picking winners and losers through failed pet energy projects.
Thirty-two years ago, America had a president with similar policies—Jimmy Carter. America was mired in economic malaise and rising energy prices. When President Reagan came into office, one of his first acts was to deregulate energy markets. The results were dramatic. Gas lines vanished, energy prices declined, and the economy started a 10-year boom. That is exactly what will happen when I take office.
To be competitive and to create jobs, American businesses need cheap energy. Countries such as France and Canada are creating their own energy independence through nuclear power and domestic oil development respectively. Unfortunately, President Obama continues to burden and restrain our energy potential rather than unleash it.
The growth of our economy has also been unnecessarily constricted by the high cost of energy, in the form of expensive imported oil from the Middle East. I will unleash America’s domestic energy potential and exploration. I will not pick winners or losers, such as Solyndra, but encourage the private sector to promote all economically competitive energy sources.
I am committed to eliminating all energy subsidies and unleashing American innovation and ingenuity. I will also expedite the approval of leasing and permitting for domestic oil and gas companies in crucial onshore and offshore locales on day one of my Administration. I continue to support exploration in the Arctic North Wilderness Area (ANWR). It’s long past time to make oil and gas from that huge reservoir available for domestic consumption. Thanks to improved technology, this can be done so in an environmentally responsible manner.
The role of government should be to unleash our resources, not keep them in the ground. Unlike President Obama, I will allow states, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency, to set their own regulations regarding the use of hydraulic fracturing technology, giving America access to vast proven oil and gas reserves.
In my home state of Pennsylvania, market forces are driving natural gas exploration. Hydrofracturing in the Marcellus Shale, for example, has produced an economic boom. Experts predict that this kind of exploration will create up to 200,000 jobs by 2020. This has contributed to dramatically lower natural gas prices for consumers. It has transformed struggling rural communities, created additional revenue for state and local governments, and helped the environment through expanded use of natural gas. It can reinvigorate manufacturing in America through lower energy prices.
Fracking, as it is known, has turned shale in many parts of the United States into a huge economically-viable font of oil and natural gas. Fracking has reduced the unemployment rate in North Dakota to 3.3 percent, the lowest in the country.
The Bakken oil shale in North Dakota and adjoining states, coupled with the Canadian Tar sands across the border in Alberta, can change the geopolitics of energy by reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil from hostile Middle Eastern powers. Thus, the Obama administration’s job-killing decision to prevent the construction of the Keystone Pipeline is simply unconscionable.
Barack Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline project in order to appease radical, environmental activists. One of my first acts as president will be to approve it
President Obama is taking credit for bailing out Michigan’s auto industry, but he is hobbling the industry with mandates to make electric cars which sit unsold on the car lots, raising the price of more popular cars.
By picking winners and losers within the auto industry, President Obama is artificially shifting resources towards electric cars, rather than allowing companies to devote resources to cars that Americans want to drive.
He also wants to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to an unrealistic level of 54 miles per gallon by 2025—two years after announcing a 35 miles per gallon standard for 2016. When I am president, I will set the auto industry free to innovate.
America needs a policy that makes energy more affordable and our nation more secure by lessening dependence on unreliable or adversarial foreign sources. An effective energy policy will expand economic development and create high-quality jobs, resulting in a strong economy for America’s families and workers. It is time to get serious about unleashing America’s domestic energy sources. America's prosperity depends on it.
Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
John Murdoch:
I also worry about how you will define manufacturing. If "assembling raw materials into finished goods, involving substantial processing and/or transformation of the components" is manufacturing, then every McDonald's franchise in the country is a manufacturer.
Why worry? Make the definition as broad as possible. After all, corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes. Everything is ultimately passed on to consumers. If McDonald's didn't pay corporate taxes, my Big Mac would be cheaper; in essence my taxes would be lower.
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Senator, I completely agree with the energy policies you put forward in this post. But please recognize that the same economic logic that makes "picking winners and losers" such a fruitless task applies to the idea of carving out special tax exemptions that only apply to corporations in a certain, politically convenient sector of the economy.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Welcome back, Senator. With respect a few thoughts:
Language: In many cases you have adopted the language of the Left. For example, the use of the word "subsidies". Every business can deduct legitimate expenses. If the oil industry is allowed to deduct exploration and development costs, that's not a subsidy.
Oil importation: This costs Americans somewhere between $700B and $1T a year and makes us dependent, period. We don't get much oil from the Middle East; it varies, but Canada is roughly half, Mexico and Venezuela are most of the rest and the ME is usually around 15%. It's our allies, especially in Europe that make the ME such a critical source.
Environmentalists make sure that everybody thinks drilling in the Gulf is single subject, whereas light sweet crude oil is mostly a western issue and the Eastern Gulf (Florida) is more rich in natural gas; completely different geology. Oil from the Eastern Gulf is mostly lubricant grade and not economic.
Ethanol: Wonderful stuff, but make it from waste, not crops. Also, in gasoline, it should not be mandated. It's destroying equipment that people bought and paid for, including homeowners with mowers, and boaters.
Peace.
May '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Senator,
I will offer some unsolicited advice as someone who is inclined to vote for you. The media and Obama will try to paint you as a scolding puritan who wants to ban contraception and women to stay in the home. You don't have to back down from cultural issues, but you should not allow the media/Obama to make this election about contraception or women in combat.
I can tell from your Charlie Rose interview that you already know this, and you did a masterful job putting Charlie in his place. This should be done at every turn.
Also, humor is a wonderful way to criticize Obama. Make funny ads. People like and remember funny. It's a great way to be critical without being negative.
I would say use this impersonator, but they'll call you racist.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Why?
Why does it constitute "picking winners and losers" when a government removes the friction caused by taxation from a certain segment of the economy, especially one as broadly defined as "domestic manufacturing"?
Will there be less or more demand for services if domestic manufacturing output and employment increases as a result of less tax-driven distortion of the manufacturing sector?
In reducing the tax distortion in the manufacturing sector as a whole, how will the government be picking winners and losers, or forcing taxpayers to subsidize preferred or politically-connected companies?
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Ningrim:
Also, humor is a wonderful way to criticize Obama. Make funny ads. People like and remember funny. It's a great way to be critical without being negative.
Agreed. The "Rombo" ad was wonderful.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Thank you Sen. Santorum for taking some time here. I like all you have said in this thread; however, if you do all that you say you are going to do the enviro-zealots will surely have you in court and try to tie you up with lawsuits so nothing can happen. How will you address this problem? And will you cut off taxpayer dollars to groups that join these lawsuits so Americans won't be funding their own destruction in court.
May '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Two thumbs up from a Steubie-U alum!
My daughter is a junior there now, and looking forward to your visit there.
Oct '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
James Gawron: (cont. from #11)
I literally said these words to myself at the time. "When the data comes in, cooler heads will prevail." The data came in but cooler heads never prevailed. The ideologue monsters continued to drag us further and further down. They were fixing a problem that didn't exist and destroying American Industry to do it. Evil is just Evil after all.
Now for the first time we have a chance to turn the madness around. With Gds help and great effort by all of the people we will do it.
Regards,
Jim · 7 hours ago
This is so true ...I think Santorum has the 'guts' to say OUT LOUD there is evil and we must confront it..
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque:
Why does it constitute "picking winners and losers" when a government removes the friction caused by taxation from a certain segment of the economy. . .broadly defined as "domestic manufacturing"?
[. . .]
In reducing the tax distortion in the manufacturing sector as a whole, how will the government be picking winners and losers, or forcing taxpayers to subsidize preferred or politically-connected companies?
I would simply ask that you re-read your comment, but substitute "solar energy" for "manufacturing." This will reveal that your argument for carving out an artificial advantage for companies that happen to be involved in manufacturing (thus making the corporate tax code less flat and less fair) relies on the same liberal logic as policies we all recognize to obstruct market forces in a harmful and distortionary way.
Picking winners and losers among economic sectors is, conceptually, no better than picking winners and losers within a sector. It's the same central planning that affords preferential treatment based on incomplete information and political convenience. Wherever it crops up, this tempting but ultimately fallacious policy diverts resources away from their maximally productive use.
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 6:08amAug '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Wow. I'm away for a few months, and I return to find that Ricochet has its Very Own Presidential Candidate. I'm gobsmacked! (In a good way.) Thank you, Mr Santorum, for taking time out of your busy schedule to write to us.
But I would ask Mr Santorum the same question that many here have already asked:
Yes, we understand the pressing need to remove economic and regulatory burdens from manufacturers in the United States so they no longer feel compelled to flee overseas. But is it really true that you advocate that these burdens be lifted only from manufacturers, and if so, why?
Manufacturing isn't the only productive activity that finds itself stifled by excessive taxes and regulatory burdens in the United States. If you are willing to lighten the load only for manufacturers, then aren't you advocating a philosophy where the government picks winners and losers, too?
Nov '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
Mark Belling Fan
Rick Santorum:
I am committed to eliminating all energy subsidies..
Please confirm that this includes ethanol. Also, will you commit to ending the ethanol mandates?
I don't want to buy ethanol. I don't know anyone that wants to buy ethanol. · 0 minutes ago
I want to buy ethanol! I just want to put it in me and not my gas tank. · 16 hours ago
Good point. If they want to destroy our food supply as was done in the '30s, why use more energy and incur the extra cost of turning it into Jack Daniel's, Makers Mark or Blanton's first?
Nov '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
While energy concerns are first, let's get more specific. How would you go about getting rid of/reigning in the EPA, and in particular the Lacey Acts and CITES.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Andrew Quinn
I would simply ask that you re-read your comment, but substitute "solar energy" for "manufacturing." This will reveal that your argument for carving out an artificial advantage for companies that happen to be involved in manufacturing (thus making the corporate tax codelessflat andlessfair) relies on the same liberal logic as policies we all recognize to obstruct market forces in a harmful and distortionary way.
Picking winners and losers amongeconomic sectors is, conceptually, no better than picking winners and losers within a sector. It's the same central planning that affords preferential treatment based on incomplete information and political convenience. Wherever it crops up, this tempting but ultimately fallacious policy diverts resources away from their maximally productive use.
Explain to me the mechanism whereby reducing the corporate income tax on one sector (as opposed to robbing taxpayers to pay subsidies to favored, politically-connected companies) distorts the economy. My argument is that it instead helps grow the economy and thus benefits all sectors of the economy.
There is certainly a qualitative difference between targeting one industry or product vs the entire manufacturing sector. The latter doesn't encourage overproduction of specific underdemanded goods.
May '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque Explain to me the mechanism whereby reducing the corporate income tax on one sector (as opposed to robbing taxpayers to pay subsidies to favored, politically-connected companies) distorts the economy. My argument is that it instead helps grow the economy and thus benefits all sectors of the economy.
There is certainly a qualitative difference between targeting one industry or product vs the entire manufacturing sector. The latter doesn't encourage overproduction of specific underdemanded goods. · 5 hours ago
It should be inappropriate for the government to decide which industries get tax breaks and which don't. In an ideal, classically liberal society, every industry is taxed the same rate. The government should not be choosing which industries add more to the economy over others. Government needs to "step off" and leave the private sector alone.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Maybe a useful response:
Give Me Liberty
... if you do all that you say you are going to do the enviro-zealots will surely have you in court and try to tie you up with lawsuits so nothing can happen. How will you address this problem?
Restore original "standing". Currently, we allow people and groups that do not really have standing in court, to sue. It is essentially stipulated. The EPA uses this by actually funding organizations, to pay for them to to sue the EPA. The EPA then turns around and says, "What can we do? The court made us do this".
By addressing the issue of standing, we will limit the access to courts that rent seeking organizations have to sue our government. In my experience, most of the staff in environmentalist organizations are attorneys, not scientists. They often have no idea what they are talking about, but they get paid whether they win or lose; only the defendant faces a pays. We (the EPA) are paying them to sue us.
Simply put, organizations should not be granted standing. Standing should be restored to only those that have a clear and direct stake in an issue.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
I don't think that the Senator is losing much support by being too angry, and don't think Newt's going to be much of a problem after Super Tuesday, but if the Senator is going to change the "angry, white, man" package, I'd prefer that he changed the angry bit. New ethnic accents, blackface, dress wearing.... none of the alternatives appeal.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
FeliciaB
Stuart Creque Explain to me the mechanism whereby reducing the corporate income tax on one sector (as opposed to robbing taxpayers to pay subsidies to favored, politically-connected companies) distorts the economy. My argument is that it instead helps grow the economy and thus benefits all sectors of the economy.
There is certainly a qualitative difference between targeting one industry or product vs the entire manufacturing sector. The latter doesn't encourage overproduction of specific underdemanded goods. · 5 hours ago
It should be inappropriate for the government to decide which industries get tax breaks and which don't. In an ideal, classically liberal society, every industry is taxed the same rate. The government should not be choosing which industries add more to the economy over others. Government needs to "step off" and leave the private sector alone.
FeliciaB, but what is the mechanism by which cutting one sector's taxes makes life harder for any other sector? Or makes the economy less efficient? It seems like you're saying fairness dictates that if you can't take the hobbles off all four legs of the horse, we shouldn't take off either the front or the rear hobbles.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
FeliciaB
It should be inappropriate for the government to decide which industries get tax breaks and which don't. In an ideal, classically liberal society, every industry is taxed the same rate. The government should not be choosing which industries add more to the economy over others. Government needs to "step off" and leave the private sector alone.
FeliciaB, but what is the mechanism by which cutting one sector's taxes makes life harder for any other sector? Or makes the economy less efficient? It seems like you're saying fairness dictates that if you can't take the hobbles off all four legs of the horse, we shouldn't take off either the front or the rear hobbles. ·
How did the investment in Solyndra make any of the rest of us less well off? The answer is the same. If you really can't see how subsidies are not free, 200 words is not going to be enough, but Milton Friedman's Free to Choose series (available there for nothing, suitable for free lunchtime entertainment) would be an excellent place to learn. There's no difference between a tax credit and a preferential rate.
Dec '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Rick Santorum:
In my home state of Pennsylvania, market forces are driving natural gas exploration. Hydrofracturing in the Marcellus Shale, for example, has produced an economic boom. Experts predict that this kind of exploration will create up to 200,000 jobs by 2020. This has contributed to dramatically lower natural gas prices for consumers.
Finally! If there's one thing I want to hear politicians talking more about, it's consumer welfare. Political rhetoric is too focused on "jobs", in my opinion. I've never heard my economics professors talk about "creating jobs", because it's not really meaningful. What's the point of a job if all the goods you want to buy are exorbitantly expensive?