POMBO LOOKS OUT FOR STATE’S RIGHTS – WITH THE DOER ACT!
Right now, there is no federal law that bans drilling for oil off of the coastline of the United States. There are two temporary bans — one that is passed annually by Congress, and another which is even more tenuous, an "executive order" of the President which the Chief Executive can undo with 
the stroke of a pen. There are many who believe that drilling for oil offshore is a bad idea, and some that think it is a good idea. California Congressman Richard Pombo has been pushing hard to pass legislation that simply makes the issue of whether such oil drilling should happen off of the coast a state’s rights issue rather than a decision made by politicians in Washington, D.C.
The political reality is that the California legislature would never approve such drilling on its own coastline, but that doesn’t mean that other coastal state governments might choose to do otherwise.
Actually, Pombo’s legislation has two important features to it, in addition to moving the decision on allowing drilling from the federal to the state level. The first is that it permits revenue sharing so that if a state does allow the drilling, the state government benefits financially. Secondly, the legislation gives a state the ability, should it choose to prohibit offshore drilling, to do so for a vastly longer distance from the coastline.
There are a lot of reasons why Americans, and Californians in particular, might want to reject an impulse decision to oppose offshore drilling — especially in light of the chaotic politics in the Middle East. Right now, the U.S. is dependent on oil from this volitile region. But whether Californians want drilling or not, we should all be embracing Congressman Pombo’s legislation which makes it very clear — it is a California decision, no one else’s.
Today on the main page, we feature an exclusive column from Congressman Pombo, in which is discusses in detail his Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act. It’s worth a read!
OPPONENTS OF THIS TAX SHOLD BE REASSURED – BECAUSE IT IS A TAX
I have been hearing a lot the last few days about a bill on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk – Senate Bill 927. It probably should come to no one’s suprise that legislation authored by liberal Democrat Alan Lowenthal would be a tax increase – in this case, it is a tax that would raise $500 million (yes, a half-billion dollars) annually by charging a free on all imports and exports coming in and out of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. What would the tax money go towards? Rail system improvements, fighting pollution, and for port security issues.
The likelyhood is that this legislation, if signed into law by the Governor, would violate both the State and Federal Constitutions. Here in California, the voters amended the State Constitution with Proposition 13 and requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise taxes (a threshold that SB 927 did not achieve). The United States Constitution bans all export duties, and allows only Congress to place tariffs on imports.
The legal issues are totally separate from the stupidity question — what do you think happens when you raise the costs of using California ports? I will give you a hint — there are a lot of other ports that ships can use to load and unload their cargo… This is a job killer if there ever was one!
Here is the good news for those who agree with me that this legislation is bad news. Governor Schwarzenegger has made his opposition to new taxes and fees a bellweather issue in his re-election campaign. And while he has supported some Democrat legislation that indirectly increases taxes or fees by increasing regulation, he has been pretty consistent in opposed straight-forward tax and fee increases.
Governor, here is another tax that Phil Angelides would sign were he in your chair. Fortunately, he’s not!
"MUST READ" PIECE ON CONGRESSIONAL PORK IN TODAY’S WSJ!
Today there is a very sobering column penned by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal. It is featured as today’s Golden Pen Award winner on the main page.
Republicans have controlled Congress since the beginning of 1995 – for over a decade. But instead of using our GOP majority to scale back the decades of growth in the size and scope of the federal government that had taken place under the Democrats’ rule, Republicans have only swelled the federal bureaucracy, making it very difficult for the GOP to claim the mantle of ‘limited government’ – we aren’t.
Congress needs to REJECT the notion that "if money is going to Washington, then we must bring it ‘home’ to our districts" and, instead, fight to reduce the government so that funds stay home in the pockets of constituents. When Jerry Lewis, the California Republican who heads up the Appropriations ("spending") Committee of the House of Representatives sees no problem appropriating federal dollars for a community SWIMMING POOL in his district, it shows a COMPLETE DISCONNECT about what our founding fathers defined as the role for the national government. Conservative Representative Chris Chocula mentions in the Fund piece the idea of applying ‘term limits’ to members of the Appropriations Committee — clearly a good idea. No, a GREAT idea.
California Republican Dan Lungren weighs in:
Fund ends his piece with this sobering thought:
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.