Senate rejects drilling in Alaska wildlife refuge

[BigSqwert]

From MSNBC:

 

Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005

 

WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a measure that had been put into a must-pass defense spending bill in an attempt to garner wider support.

 

Drilling supporters fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense spending legislation. Senate leaders were expected to withdraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.

 

Prior to the contentious vote, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told colleagues that “it is wrong” to consider the issue of drilling in the refuge as part of a defense bill that would provide money for troops in Iraq as well as relief for Katrina hurricane victims.

 

“We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain (of the refuge) for oil exploration and development,” countered Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. She called making the oil available a matter of national security by reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports.

 

'Legislative blackmail'

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has fought to allow oil exploration and development in the refuge’s coastal plain since 1980, angered many of his Senate colleagues by attaching the drilling measure to the must-pass defense spending bill.

 

Senators determined to protect the refuge from development found it difficult to oppose the politically popular defense bill, which has money for troops in Iraq, relief for Katrina hurricane victims and help for low-income families to pay energy bills.

 

“This is nothing more than legislative blackmail,” fumed Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., an ardent opponent to opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

 

Senators grumbled at being kept in session nearly to Christmas because of the legislative standoff. But Stevens was unapologetic and unrelenting.

 

He called the development of ANWR’s oil a matter of national security because the country needs all the domestic oil it can get, said it was a fitting subject for defense legislation and dismissed environmentalists’ arguments that drilling would jeopardize the refuge’s wildlife.

 

“The extreme environmentalists think it’s their playground, that they should set the policies for Alaska,” Stevens said, reminding colleagues on the Senate floor Tuesday that a majority of the Senate repeatedly has voiced approval for drilling, only to be thwarted by filibusters.

 

A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. This time President Bush has made ANWR drilling one of his top priorities and is eager to sign a bill.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wish there was a smilie for being relieved.

 

Glad to see there are people in the Senate who are offended by Stevens' nonsense, and who realize that this sacrifice isn't worth it for the relatively small amount of oil up there. Goldman Sachs' analysis put the financial impact of that oil, even 10 years down the road, as such a small number that consumers would never even notice the difference.

 

Maybe we could actually spend the development money in getting some alternative energy methods further along in their maturation processes.

[BigSqwert]

Maybe we could actually spend the development money in getting some alternative energy methods further along in their maturation processes.

 

Amen to that. You telling me we can put a man on the moon, create robots that mimic humans, make laser-guided missiles and nanomachines but we can't make a vehicle that doesn't rely on fossil fuels?

[Mercy!]

I watched a little of Sen. Stevens ranting and threatening about this issue last night. It’s amazing how much he looks like Strom Thurmond now.

 

Also, totally off topic, but what the heck. Has anyone else noticed how Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert seems to have blown up as big as a house? He looks as obese as Ariel Sharon. Someone should do one of those separated at birth photos. Their blood pressures must be off the chart.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Too bad the raping of Medicaid, Medicare and student loans was passed 51-50 with Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

[jasonxctf]

but the protected land is only the size of South Carolina!!!

 

[Cknolls]

Too bad the raping of Medicaid, Medicare and student loans was passed 51-50 with Cheney's tie-breaking vote. 

 

God forbid we limit the rate of the increase in spending on entitlements.

[BigSqwert]

God forbid we limit the rate of the increase in spending on entitlements.

 

Yeah...who cares about medicare and the like? We need to keep tax breaks for the rich during a time of war.

[Heads22]

Ted Stevens is a douche.

 

 

[Balta1701]

God forbid we limit the rate of the increase in spending on entitlements.

Republicans have been tacking on all sorts of earmarks that are in no way germane to the Defense measure, including $4.4 million for a technology centers in Missouri (home of Sens. Jim Talent and Kit Bond), $1 million for a Civil War center and $3 million for a museum both in Virginia (home of Sens. John Warner and George Allen), and $850,000 for an education center and public park in Iowa (home of Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley). Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens famously got slammed earlier this year for his earmarks in the $286.5 billion transportation bill, but clearly the incident hasn’t taught him to think twice before attaching pork-barrel projects to important spending bills; the Defense bill included $2.6 million in Army research and development funds for a long-term hibernation study at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks and $500,000 for a line item for the Arctic Winter Games, also in Alaska. CongressDaily (subscription only)

[Heads22]

Iowans can go play in the fields.

[NorthSideSox72]

Iowans can go play in the fields.

 

Yeah, 'cause they don't have enough of those already.

 

 

EDIT: Or is that what you meant? Sorry, missed the object there I think.

Edited December 21, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[jasonxctf]

Ted Stevens is a douche.

 

 

copier

 

Dec 17, 2005 -> 02:59 AM Post #11

 

 

Winston-Salem (High A)

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 542

Joined: December 30, 2002

From: Saint Charles, IL

Member No.: 8

 

 

 

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 09:23 PM)

 

The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more. Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agreed. and that biggest douche in Alaska, Ted Stevens is the worst of them all.

 

I want all Republicans here to look at who is the problem of "big government spending"

 

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

 

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

 

 

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)- D

2. North Dakota ($2.03)- R

3. New Mexico ($1.89)-D in 2000, R in 2004

4. Mississippi ($1.84)- R

5. Alaska ($1.82)- R

6. West Virginia ($1.74)- R

7. Montana ($1.64)- R

8. Alabama ($1.61)- R

9. South Dakota ($1.59)-R

10. Arkansas ($1.53)-R

 

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold

 

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

 

1. New Jersey ($0.62)- D

2. Connecticut ($0.64)- D

3. New Hampshire ($0.68) R in 2000, D in 2004

4. Nevada ($0.73)- R

5. Illinois ($0.77)- D

6. Minnesota ($0.77)- D

7. Colorado ($0.79)- R

8. Massachusetts ($0.79)- D

9. California ($0.81)- D

10. New York ($0.81)- D

 

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

 

This post has been edited by jasonxctf: Dec 17, 2005 -> 03:08 AM

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Yeah...who cares about medicare and the like?  We need to keep tax breaks for the rich during a time of war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on, Big!

 

[Heads22]

Yeah, 'cause they don't have enough of those already.

 

 

EDIT:  Or is that what you meant?  Sorry, missed the object there I think.

 

Grassley's widely respected in Iowa by both dems and republicans. My Dad, who spent large parts of the seventies being a hippie and becoming friends with the grass, is still a hardcore liberal, but he votes for Grassley every year because he works hard to represent Iowans.

 

Then again, it'd be nice if he wasn't mentioned in the same breath as Stevens.

[kapkomet]

Right on, Big!

 

f*** yea! Let's increase taxes so you poor f***s can have some more government handouts!

[EvilMonkey]

Seriously, what is the problem with drilling in ANWAR? Might disrupt some caribu? SO WHAT? I agree that we should be trying to find some kind of alternative fuel. I would love to tell OPEC to shove their oil where the sun don't shine. But in the mean time, we need oil, it is there, and I don't give a f*** about caribu.

[BigSqwert]

f*** yea!  Let's increase taxes so you poor f***s can have some more government handouts!

Stop making fun of Wal-Mart employees.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Grassley's widely respected in Iowa by both dems and republicans. My Dad, who spent large parts of the seventies being a hippie and becoming friends with the grass, is still a hardcore liberal, but he votes for Grassley every year because he works hard to represent Iowans.

 

Then again, it'd be nice if he wasn't mentioned in the same breath as Stevens.

 

Grassley gets my respect for beginning the push to bbring Sarbanes-Oxley style reform to non-profits and making thenm start living up to their fiduciary responsibilities.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But in the mean time, we need oil, it is there, and I don't give a f*** about caribu.

 

 

Holy crap, dissing the reindeer three days before Christmas. . . !

 

You won't need any oil, Brother Evil. Looks like you'll have pleny of coal soon enough.

[southsider2k5]

copier

 

  Dec 17, 2005 -> 02:59 AM Post #11 

Winston-Salem (High A)

Group: Members

Posts: 542

Joined: December 30, 2002

From: Saint Charles, IL

Member No.: 8

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 09:23 PM)

 

The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more.  Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending?

agreed. and that biggest douche in Alaska, Ted Stevens is the worst of them all.

 

I want all Republicans here to look at who is the problem of "big government spending"

 

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

 

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)- D

2. North Dakota ($2.03)- R

3. New Mexico ($1.89)-D in 2000, R in 2004

4. Mississippi ($1.84)- R

5. Alaska ($1.82)- R

6. West Virginia ($1.74)- R

7. Montana ($1.64)- R

8. Alabama ($1.61)- R

9. South Dakota ($1.59)-R

10. Arkansas ($1.53)-R

 

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold

 

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

 

1. New Jersey ($0.62)- D

2. Connecticut ($0.64)- D

3. New Hampshire ($0.68) R in 2000, D in 2004

4. Nevada ($0.73)- R

5. Illinois ($0.77)- D

6. Minnesota ($0.77)- D

7. Colorado ($0.79)- R

8. Massachusetts ($0.79)- D

9. California ($0.81)- D

10. New York ($0.81)- D

 

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

 

This post has been edited by jasonxctf: Dec 17, 2005 -> 03:08 AM

 

Didn't we already pretty much send this BS to the grave last time? Why post it again when it was blown out of the water the first time? Basically you just took all of the poorest and least densely populated states and put them on a bad list. It has nothing to do with red/blue states and everything to do with the progressive tax system that takes from the rich and gives to the poor, well shock upon shocks, it has the same effect on poor/rich states as it is poor/rich people. Poor people tend to recieve more in tax benefits than they pay, boy what a shock.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seriously, what is the problem with drilling in ANWAR?  Might disrupt some caribu?  SO WHAT? I agree that we should be trying to find some kind of alternative fuel.  I would love to tell OPEC to shove their oil where the sun don't shine.  But in the mean time, we need oil, it is there, and I don't give a f*** about caribu.

 

 

I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

:headshake

 

For anyone who thinks this is solely about some Caribou, then I think you've got your head in the sand. Unfortunately, the way the environmental lobby comes off in the media (in great part because of their own poor marketing tactics), you'd think the only reason we protect open space was to avoid killing off some specific wild animals. It's about a heck of a lot more than that.

 

And by the way, if you read a previous post of mine, it refers to the Goldman Sachs report (which I am now going to see if I can dig up) that basically says the positive economic impact of that oil on the average US consumer would be so small on a per-gallon of gas basis, that they wouldn't even notice it over an entire year.

 

Use the money to do something useful - reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources.

[southsider2k5]

Some rebuttals for traditional arguements...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm

[BigSqwert]

Some rebuttals for traditional arguements...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm

 

I'm just sick of dependance on oil in general. Emissions from vehicles are destroying the air we breath and accelerating global warming. It's the entire environment I am worried about, not just Alaska's.

 

EDIT: And before anyone points their finger at me and calls me a hyprocrite, I sold my car earlier this year and ride my bike to work or take the bus/train. Also a member of the NRDC.

Edited December 22, 2005 by BigSqwert

[FlaSoxxJim]

Some rebuttals for traditional arguements...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm

 

OK, I'm convinced. If a wonk from Joe Coors' Heritage Foundation says this is the right (Right?) thing to do, then absolutely let's do it. I mean, if this works out half as well as the Foundation's Reagan era advocacy of SDI and the arming of Afghanistan and Nicaragua it should be just fine.