Carol Shea-Porter: Ahead of the Curve on Energy, National Security and Yes Business.
Well known New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman supported the Iraq invasion. In 2002 he wasn’t trumpeting a visionary energy Policy. Friedman also wrote the best seller The World Is Flat about the world economic picture. Agree with him or not—Friedman is an influential voice. Today I heard the article below quoted on one of the Sunday morning (network) political shows.
What’s interesting is that Friedman and many other heavy hitters are now echoing what Carol Shea-Porter has been telling us since campaign 2004.
In short—American energy policy is a National security issue ( like Iraq) as well as an economic issue. Furthermore, developing a comprehensive and sustainable energy plan is perhaps the grandest business opportunity of the 21st Century.
Carol Shea-Porter has the “vision thing.” Thomas Friedman and other opinion makers are getting on board finally.
So please read Mr. Friedman’s passionate words below:
Note: This is the last half of Mr. Friedman's column.
My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.
I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry — renewable energy and clean power — and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry.
“America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so,” Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib noted last week. “A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else.”
We used to try harder and do better. After Sputnik, we came together as a nation and responded with a technology, infrastructure and education surge, notes Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. After the 1973 oil crisis, we came together and made dramatic improvements in energy efficiency. After Social Security became imperiled in the early 1980s, we came together and fixed it for that moment. “But today,” added Hormats, “the political system seems incapable of producing a critical mass to support any kind of serious long-term reform.”
If the old saying — that “as General Motors goes, so goes America” — is true, then folks, we’re in a lot of trouble. General Motors’s stock-market value now stands at just $6.47 billion, compared with Toyota’s $162.6 billion. On top of it, G.M. shares sank to a 34-year low last week.
That’s us. We’re at a 34-year low. And digging out of this hole is what the next election has to be about and is going to be about — even if it is interrupted by a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war or peace in Iraq. We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.
Chaz Proulx
16 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
Shea-Porter didn't even run for office until 2006. In 2004 she had barely arrived in NH from the DC area. In the past couple of years she has not been afraid to speak her mind, so there is no need to embellish her record. The next thing you're going to tell us is that Shea-Porter invented the internet, when we all know it was Al Gore who did that in his spare time.
I am always willing to admit a blunder if I made one.
I'll try to find that article.
Thanks for the tip.
Oops just realized you are referring to a book. I just read the synopsis at Friedman's site but didn't see any reference to energy.
Maybe you could steer me to it. I wasn't trying to short change Mr. Friedman. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes not, but I do find him interesting and worth reading.
I will concede that neither Mr. Friedman nor Carol Shea Porter are the original "visionaries" of energy. I don't think anyone can legitimately make that claim, and I don't think its that important anyway.
But my big point stands: two years ago when she was campaigning CSP had the foresight to see this as a major issue. She stuck her neck out and clearly proposed an Apollo scale solution.
As a matter of fact, when the Concord Monitor endorsed Jeb Bradley the Monitor claimed that an Apollo type project would be too expensive.
This cost CSP votes, but she never backed away from her convictions.
Now we are seeing that no energy policy is what is too expensive.
Here is a sample from 6/24/05:
Talk of the Nation, June 24, 2005 · According to writer Thomas Friedman, America needs a national science project. The goal? To make America energy independent in 10 years. Friedman talks about his new book The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.
I agree with Shea-Porter on energy policy, but there is no need to try to make her into a visionary. Friedman and others were advocating for energy independence and alternative energy long before anyone had heard of Shea-Porter.
Carol is a well-read person. It's possible she got some of her ideas from reading Friedman. However, there's no way Friedman got his ideas from Carol.
You Chaz, obviosly aren't so well-read. I can't believe you didn't know "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" is a book.
"If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, in one fell swoop he would dry up revenue for terrorism, force Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia onto the path of reform--which they will never do with $50-a-barrel oil--strengthen the dollar, and improve his own standing in Europe by doing something huge to reduce global warming."
You should make it a habit to read Friedman. You'd love him. He's brilliant.
It's too bad Bush didn't heed his advice.
"Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America"
My issue isn't with the scope of the project it is the way CSP and others (Obama, Shaheen, Hodes, all other democrats) want to pay for it.
They want a 'windfall' profits tax on the energy companies. The Robin Hood theory. Unfortunately it has two major defects
1) the energy companies won't pay for it we will as they will factor any additional taxes into the products 'cost basis'. The politicians get what they want, they can blame the energy companies for any increases even though they are a direct result of their taxing ways. Makes no difference to the energy companies as the consumer ultimately pays.
2) by taxing the companies it places the money into the general revenue stream where it can be used for anything. It also puts the tax on all forms of energy instead of just the 'automotive' fuels.
If they believe with all their heart and soul that this is the right thing to do then stand up and have the courage of the conviction. State your case for adding additional costs to energy and place the tax directly onto the fuels. This way you can tax 'automotive fuels' and leave home heating untouched.
It will also keep the tax in the 'Transportation' budget where it will be harder to use it for random stuff like health care for Illegal Immigrants.!
Work Hard Have Fun!
Bob DeMaura
NHInsider Owner/Operator
Thanks for your reply. But I'm a bit vexed.
I agree with you quite a bit and when I wrote the following sentence--that was my way of agreeing with you publically.
"I will concede that neither Mr. Friedman nor Carol Shea Porter are the original "visionaries" of energy.
On the other hand this discussion began when you took exception to these two sentences of mine:
Well known New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman supported the Iraq invasion. In 2002 he wasn’t trumpeting a visionary energy Policy"
All of your references to Mr. Friedman and energy policy date to 2005.
So doesn't my original sentence hold up factually.
Also your observations about my reading list are pretty good. I've always loved to read. Books are one of lifes great pleasures.
Unfortunately for the last few years have found little time to catch up.
I'll take a cue from you and make the time this summer. Thanks
You are giving me a lot of ammunition today.
LOL
Curious, how would you pay for it?
Democrats are adhearing to "pay go"
That means that if you are going to propose spending you must off set it.
At least Dems are telling us where the money will come from as opposed to borrowing from the Chinese.
Energy companies perform a vital service to our country, but they have had a great ride for eight years. They get tax payer subsidies and Dems are accused of raising taxes when all they are doing is cutting the subsidies.
A windfall profits tax is reasonable and timely.
So again, how would you fund this?
Should we tax the software companies that have a higher percentage of profit than oil companies who make only about a 10% profit margin?
I am all for pay as you go. I think you would agree that any vote for an unbalanced budget is a vote to give the Chinese more money and rob our children and grandchildren.
I think only 2-3 Congressman vote down unbalanced budgets. Heck, Hodes just patted himself on the back for $30,000 more in the name of Christa McA. $30,000 will be $100,000 by the time our kids have to pay for it.
I just don't want the government funding these things at all. We need private people doing it. If everyone is so 'green' they should act like it. Sounds simple but it is true.
I believe I did say where to get the money from, tax the fuel directly.
That is a much more efficient system than taxing the companies and letting them set the new price of fuel and other goods based on increased product costs. All types of fuel will get price increases including home heating oil, As well as all other products made from the byproducts of refining such as tires and anything plastic or having a plastic component. Inflationary pressure results from this broad approach.
Direct taxation results in much better control, more efficient collection and better accountability of the funds once collected.
Work Hard Have Fun!
Bob DeMaura
NHInsider Owner/Operator
Oops you did point out a source. I stand corrected.
Personally I agree to a large extent with you. A dedicated tax would make sense,
Of course that would also make people howl too. And for people who's budgets are stretched beyond the limit that would be tough.
You can't win when it comes to taxes, but its nice to see that we agree that our country needs a real energy policy and not one brokered behind closed doors by Dick Cheney.
Cheney wouldn't even let the American people know who he met with, but all the evidence points to oil industry leaders.
That's beneath contempt and a major reason why I think its fair to lean on oil companies now. They've brought this on themselves and reap huge profits.
It wouldn't kill them to be a more producting part of America's future.
You can win when it comes to taxes...
LOWER THEM.
I think you give Cheney too much credit.
Dedicated taxes are much better.
You know just like Social Security is just for Social Security
Opps right the Federal government raided that fund and spent it all.
C'mon. LOL I give Cheney too much credit? You don't think Dick Cheney is one of the most powerful men on Earth?
I guess you should have voted for Al Gore. Remember the social security lock box ?