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:
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
James Of England
Stuart Creque
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.
The investment in Solyndra was made with tax money extracted from my bank account.
A reduction in tax rate doesn't cost me any money. Unless, of course, you believe in "tax expenditure," in which all money belongs to the government and when they deign not to take it, they are in fact spending it.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
James Of England
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.
The investment in Solyndra was made with tax money extracted from my bank account.
A reduction in tax rate doesn't cost me any money. Unless, of course, you believe in "tax expenditure," in which all money belongs to the government and when they deign not to take it, they are in fact spending it. ·
The total tax bill is equal to our spending plus inherited debt, with most of our payment being deferred and with the payers as yet unspecified. Santorum's bill shifts a portion of the burden from manufacturers to everyone else. In practical terms, there's very little difference between varied tax rates and subsidies, as you noted in the Romneycare threat.
May '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
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. · Feb. 18 at 10:54pm
No, I believe all industries should have their taxes lowered. The U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than our northern neighbor's. Our nation should be encouraging economic activity by making it less onerous for businesses to function in our country. I think you and I both agree about that. However, I think that just as it is inappropriate to tax the wealthier at a higher tax bracket and show favoritism to those less wealthy, it's also inappropriate for the government to show favoritism to certain industries.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
FeliciaB
Stuart Creque
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. ·
No, I believe all industries should have their taxes lowered. The U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than our northern neighbor's. Our nation should be encouraging economic activity by making it less onerous for businesses to function in our country. I think you and I both agree about that. However, I think that just as it is inappropriate to tax the wealthier at a higher tax bracket and show favoritism to those less wealthy, it's also inappropriate for the government to show favoritism to certain industries. ·
To play with the horse analogy a moment, it's uncomfortable to walk in very high heels, and helpful to switch from them to comfortable flats if you want to do a lot of walking. Switching only your preferred side's footwear, though, is a terrible idea.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
James Of England
Stuart Creque
The investment in Solyndra was made with tax money extracted from my bank account.
A reduction in tax rate doesn't cost me any money. Unless, of course, you believe in "tax expenditure," in which all money belongs to the government and when they deign not to take it, they are in fact spending it. ·
The total tax bill is equal to our spending plus inherited debt, with most of our payment being deferred and with the payers as yet unspecified. Santorum's bill shifts a portion of the burden from manufacturers to everyone else. In practical terms, there's very little difference between varied tax rates and subsidies, as you noted in the Romneycare threat. · 14 hours ago
I am not big on static analysis. Removing a burden from part of the economy helps the entire economy grow. The opposite happened with the Clinton luxury "yacht" tax: the tax raised no revenue and depressed employment in boat manufacture and also in the businesses supplying the boat manufacturers and their employees.
There is a massive difference between differential tax rates and subsidies - which is what I was hoping to tease out in the Romneycare thread.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
FeliciaB
No, I believeall industries should have their taxes lowered. The U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than our northern neighbor's. Our nation should be encouraging economic activity by making it less onerous for businesses to function in our country. I think you and I both agree about that. However, I think that just as it is inappropriate to tax the wealthier at a higher tax bracket and show favoritism to those less wealthy, it's also inappropriate for the government to show favoritism to certain industries.
If the idea is that all industries are in jail and it's unfair to let only a few go free, then the argument for "favoritism" is harder to make.
But in reality, it's more like all industries are a big family stuck in a depressed area and Santorum wants manufacturers to move out and earn more -- which will allow them to "send some money home" to help the other industries. As manufacturers revive and they and their employees make money, they will spend that money with the service industries. And if we make domestic manufacturers more competitive, then growing service companies and their employees will buy domestic goods.
Aug '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
I am not big on static analysis. Removing a burden from part of the economy helps the entire economy grow. The opposite happened with the Clinton luxury "yacht" tax: the tax raised no revenue and depressed employment in boat manufacture and also in the businesses supplying the boat manufacturers and their employees.
There is a massive difference between differential tax rates and subsidies - which is what I was hoping to tease out in the Romneycare thread.
I'd have to agree with you that if it were a choice between no reduction in the tax and regulatory burden, and reduction only for manufacturers, I'd agree to the reduction for manufacturers.
However, not without trepidation... For one thing, as others have pointed out, deciding who is and who isn't a manufacturer could eat up a lot of resources right there. There'd be other unintended consequences, too, like malinvestment, though I don't know if they'd be so bad as to make the alternative preferable.
But with political negotiations, you never really know what you get to choose between. When do we know tax breaks for all is an impossible sell?
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 10:45pmDec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I'd have to agree with you that if it were a choice betweennoreduction in the tax and regulatory burden, and reduction only for manufacturers, I'd agree to the reduction for manufacturers.
However, not without trepidation... For one thing, as others have pointed out, deciding who is and who isn't a manufacturer could eat up a lot of resources right there. There'd be other unintended consequences, too, like malinvestment, though I don't know if they'd be so bad as to make the alternative preferable.
But with political negotiations, you never really knowwhat you get to choose between. When do we knowtax breaks for all is an impossible sell?
Absolutely I think a tax break across the board makes the most sense. I'd love to see the next President propose that and have Congress agree.
That doesn't make tax relief for manufacturing industries bad if that's the one action we get to take. Would it be bad to roll back regulation only on one sector, if that were the only rollback available, or would the whole economy be better off if nobody got regulatory relief?
Feb '12
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Disappointing there is no follow up from the candidate on his post. It makes one feel as though he sees this forum merely as free media where he can post long form ads or perhaps get picked up and given broader exposure on more popular sites like Real Clear Politics and The Corner, or a given attention by a conservative talk show. This place, I believe, is meant to be a forum for discussion and conversation, not a campaign vehicle for political candidates strapped for cash.
Edited on February 21, 2012 at 3:36amApr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
MJMack: Disappointing there is no follow up from the candidate on his post. It makes one feel as though he sees this forum merely as free media where he can post long form ads or perhaps get picked up and given broader exposure on more popular sites like Real Clear Politics and The Corner, or a given attention by a conservative talk show. This place, I believe, is meant to be a forum for discussion and conversation, not a campaign vehicle for political candidates strapped for cash. · 15 hours ago
Edited 15 hours ago
See Comment #12. Senator Santorum treats us pretty well.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
James Of England
The total tax bill is equal to our spending plus inherited debt, with most of our payment being deferred and with the payers as yet unspecified. Santorum's bill shifts a portion of the burden from manufacturers to everyone else. In practical terms, there's very little difference between varied tax rates and subsidies, as you noted in the Romneycare threat. ·
I am not big on static analysis. Removing a burden from part of the economy helps the entire economy grow. The opposite happened with the Clinton luxury "yacht" tax: the tax raised no revenue and depressed employment in boat manufacture and also in the businesses supplying the boat manufacturers and their employees.
There is a massive difference between differential tax rates and subsidies - which is what I was hoping to tease out in the Romneycare thread. ·
Subsidies also have multipliers. If you double a companies profits, whether you do it through a special tax rate, subsidy, or tax credit makes zero difference to the multiplier (assuming they all scale the same and have the same level of predictability looking into the future). Tax cuts and spending do awesome things, but not affordable things.
May '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Midget Faded Rattlesnake I'd have to agree with you that if it were a choice betweenno reduction in the tax and regulatory burden, and reduction only for manufacturers, I'd agree to the reduction for manufacturers.
However, not without trepidation... For one thing, as others have pointed out, deciding who is and who isn't a manufacturer could eat up a lot of resources right there. There'd be other unintended consequences, too, like malinvestment, though I don't know if they'd be so bad as to make the alternative preferable.
But with political negotiations, you never really knowwhat you get to choose between. When do we knowtax breaks for all is an impossible sell? · 21 hours ago
Edited 20 hours ago
Ah, Midge. Once again, you've stated my mind and have used up the best words.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
James Of England
Stuart Creque
I am not big on static analysis. Removing a burden from part of the economy helps the entire economy grow. The opposite happened with the Clinton luxury "yacht" tax: the tax raised no revenue and depressed employment in boat manufacture and also in the businesses supplying the boat manufacturers and their employees.
There is a massive difference between differential tax rates and subsidies - which is what I was hoping to tease out in the Romneycare thread. ·
Subsidies also have multipliers. If you double a companies profits, whether you do it through a special tax rate, subsidy, or tax credit makes zero difference to the multiplier (assuming they all scale the same and have the same level of predictability looking into the future). Tax cuts and spending do awesome things, but not affordable things.
Except subsidies have an offsetting NEGATIVE multiplier as well, because they require taking money away from other taxpayers to spend on the subsidy. Subsidies are not the same as tax rate reductions.
Apr '11
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Stuart Creque
James Of England
Subsidies also have multipliers. If you double a companies profits, whether you do it through a special tax rate, subsidy, or tax credit makes zero difference to the multiplier (assuming they all scale the same and have the same level of predictability looking into the future). Tax cuts and spending do awesome things, but not affordable things.
Except subsidies have an offsetting NEGATIVE multiplier as well, because they require taking money away from other taxpayers to spend on the subsidy. Subsidies are not the same as tax rate reductions.
Write up a couple of balance sheets with subsidies and tax reductions of the same size. You'll find they have identical effects on the deficit, and hence on required taxes. The label you attach to the reduction of entity A's transfer of $X to the government makes no difference to A's profitability or the government's benefit from the $X.
Dec '10
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
James Of England
Write up a couple of balance sheets with subsidies and tax reductions of the same size. You'll find they have identical effects on the deficit, and hence on required taxes. The label you attach to the reduction of entity A's transfer of $X to the government makes no difference to A's profitability or the government's benefit from the $X. · 21 hours ago
Let's do just that for Solyndra, the Federal government and Company X:
1) $500 million subsidy: Company X pays the Government $500 million to fund the subsidy to Solyndra. Company X is $500 million poorer and Solyndra $500 million richer. The Government shows no change in its balance sheet.
2) $500 million refundable tax credit: the Government shows $500 million in debt and Solyndra shows a $500 million infusion. Company X is unaffected (for now).
3) Tax rate reduction for Solyndra targeted to be worth $500 million if they hit their growth and profit targets. Since Solyndra was a bust, the Government loses zero and Solyndra gets no cash.
But if Solyndra does well, the Government collects payroll and income taxes from its employees as its owners enjoy tax relief.
Feb '12
Re: Unleashing American Innovation and Ingenuity through Energy and Manufacturing
Rick,
Keep fighting the good fight