Jobs and the G.O.P.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is no truer truism in American politics than James Carville’s catchphrase from the 1992 election “It’s the economy, stupid.” When people discuss Barack Obama’s current approval rating, which is at its lowest level ever, they may invoke his supposed lack of toughness or his tendency toward moderation, but the only really important factor is the dismal state of the U.S. job market. The American Jobs Act, which Obama is now promoting across the country, is an attempt to change this, by giving the economy a temporary boost with a mixture of tax cuts and government spending amounting to $447 billion. It’s an excellent idea: many independent analysts suggest that it could boost G.D.P. growth over the next year by 1.5 per cent or better, and create as many as one and a half million jobs. And it’s ideologically canny. A hefty chunk of it comes in the form of tax cuts, which Republicans typically love, and much of the rest would go toward more spending on infrastructure, which House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has expressed support for. Even so, it’s unlikely that House Republicans will pass the bill, and there’s a good chance that they’ll stop it even from coming up for a vote.So far, pundits have been arguing that obstruction would be a politically risky tactic for the G.O.P. After all, while a weak economy will damage Obama’s reëlection chances, it will also hurt congressional incumbents on both sides of the aisle. National issues matter less in congressional races than in Presidential ones, but they’re still important, and, in a study of elections from 1916 to 1994, the political scientists Kevin Grier and Joseph McGarrity showed that the state of the economy has a major impact on the outcome of congressional elections. A recent CNN poll showed that just forty-one per cent of those surveyed thought their House representative should be returned to office. That’s a startlingly low number; normally, even when voters are unhappy with Congress as a whole, they still support their own congressmen. All this gives credence to the idea that incumbents of both parties will be in trouble if the economy stays in the doldrums, and concern about this may explain why Republican criticism of the initiatives has so far been muted.

But people are underestimating a number of factors that could allow the G.O.P. to pursue an obstructive line without being much punished for it. To begin with, studies show that voters are more likely to hold politicians accountable for economic conditions when there’s “clarity of responsibility”—and responsibility for the economy now belongs to Obama and the Democrats. The recession started long before Obama took office. But, from a voter’s perspective, he had two years with sizable majorities in Congress to do something about it. While the 2009 stimulus plan succeeded in making the recession less awful than it might have been, you rarely get credit in politics for what didn’t happen. More important, in launching the plan, the President effectively took responsibility for the result. If you try to fix it, it’s yours. The Republicans were out of power for two years, and now control only one house of Congress. They can dodge blame, since they’ve had little chance of enacting anything. Coöperating on a bill would make it harder for them to disclaim responsibility for a weak economy at election time. They need to do enough to seem as if they cared about unemployment but not so much that they get blamed for it.

In addition, while most voters say that they want the government to do something about jobs, talking about voters in general is deceptive: different sets of voters react to economic conditions quite differently. The Republican base is actively hostile toward more government spending, and polls show that swing voters think that reining in deficits is the main priority. That reduces the pressure on Republican politicians to do something about the jobs crisis. Compounding this is the fact that Republican and Democratic voters seem to have different expectations of officeholders. The economist Douglas Hibbs has found that, historically, Democratic voters were more likely to punish incumbents for presiding over periods of high unemployment, while Republican voters were likely to punish incumbents for presiding over periods of high inflation. And a study of gubernatorial elections found that Democrats who presided over increases in taxes and spending were rewarded by voters, while Republicans who did the same were punished. Voters, it seems, don’t expect Republicans to do much about jobs, so they’re not penalized as much for inaction. Uncoöperative Republicans are really just delivering what their constituencies expect.

It’s not that the Republican approach is popular: one recent Bloomberg poll found that forty-five per cent of those surveyed think congressional Republicans are responsible for the gridlock in Washington. But it seems to be working: for the past year and a half, the Party has consistently gone for a do-nothing approach and voters have consistently rewarded it. In the run-up to last year’s midterms, Republicans were explicit about their opposition to past, present, and future stimulus programs. They won a landslide victory. And, just last week, in two special elections for the House, Republican candidates who campaigned largely against Obama’s policies won seats in Nevada and New York by margins that were much bigger than expected. Americans may be saying that they want the government to use fiscal policy to get the economy moving again, but the way they vote tells a different story. Perhaps fourteen more months of economic stagnation and no job creation will change that. But, for now, it’s not only our representatives who are to blame. It’s ourselves.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/09/26/110926ta_talk_surowiecki#ixzz1Z4hJaf6n

[lostinblue 1,989]

America's oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million men and women across the United States in a wide range of highly skilled, well-paying professions. In fact, oil and natural gas industry exploration and production wages are more than double the national average. An analysis of API's public data, independent research and corporate annual reports finds that the industry distributed $176 billion in wages paid to U.S. employees, plus benefits and payments to oil and natural gas leaseholders.

http://energytomorrow.org/job-creation?gclid=CIbh4ISzu6sCFYdrKgodljyvfg#/type/all

Dimwits are trying their best to destroy these jobs .

[one...two...tree 2,762]

America's oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million men and women across the United States in a wide range of highly skilled, well-paying professions. In fact, oil and natural gas industry exploration and production wages are more than double the national average. An analysis of API's public data, independent research and corporate annual reports finds that the industry distributed $176 billion in wages paid to U.S. employees, plus benefits and payments to oil and natural gas leaseholders.

http://energytomorro...jyvfg#/type/all

Dimwits are trying their best to destroy these jobs .

I hear Meth production is lucrative. We could start selling LSD laced-candy to children, or even better, get into the market of taking in other countries toxic waste like China does. The economic opportunities are limitless when we just disregard the drawbacks.

[Dan J 277]

America's oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million men and women across the United States in a wide range of highly skilled, well-paying professions. In fact, oil and natural gas industry exploration and production wages are more than double the national average. An analysis of API's public data, independent research and corporate annual reports finds that the industry distributed $176 billion in wages paid to U.S. employees, plus benefits and payments to oil and natural gas leaseholders.

http://energytomorrow.org/job-creation?gclid=CIbh4ISzu6sCFYdrKgodljyvfg#/type/all

Dimwits are trying their best to destroy these jobs .

9.2 million? That must include all the people who work at gas stations and car manufactures. There is no way that oil and gas production directly employs 9.2 million people.

Even if we move away from oil/gas production, which we will need to over the long term, most of those jobs would continue to exist. The rest would just shift to other sectors.

[Nina~ 431]

9.2 million? That must include all the people who work at gas stations and car manufactures. There is no way that oil and gas production directly employs 9.2 million people.

Even if we move away from oil/gas production, which we will need to over the long term, most of those jobs would continue to exist. The rest would just shift to other sectors.

I don't find it hard to believe that 9.2mil people are employed by the O&G sector. There are plenty of iron workers, pipeline companies, material testers, cement companies, refineries, etc who easily employ 9.2 mil people. However, I can tell you for certain that only about half of those people are American. In fact, most of the well paying jobs are other nationalities who are here on an H1B or inter-company transfer.

My previous employer was small, about 50 employees. Out of the 50 only 4 of the "well paid" employees were American. There were a couple of drafters, one accountant, an HR lady, a document controller and a receptionist were Americans, but they didn't get paid nearly as much as the others did.

[natty bumppo 297]

There is no truer truism in American politics than James Carville's catchphrase from the 1992 election "It's the economy, stupid." When people discuss Barack Obama's current approval rating, which is at its lowest level ever, they may invoke his supposed lack of toughness or his tendency toward moderation, but the only really important factor is the dismal state of the U.S. job market. The American Jobs Act, which Obama is now using as a cover so he can campaign promoting across the country, is an attempt to change this, by giving the economy a temporary boost with a mixture of tax cuts and government spending amounting to $447 billion.

only a temporary boost ?!?!?!

in other words .... lets all get high and feel good ... get munchies and spend money ... and wake up tomorrow in the same place yesterday started ... geez ..

[lostinblue 1,989]

New Boom Reshapes Oil World, Rocks North Dakota

by NPR Staff

September 25, 2011

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

[11 min 16 sec] Add to Playlist

Download

Transcript

Enlarge Gregory Bull/AP The North Dakota oil boom has produced a housing shortage — and workers are living in company-owned "man camps" like this one outside the town of Williston.

Gregory Bull/AP The North Dakota oil boom has produced a housing shortage — and workers are living in company-owned "man camps" like this one outside the town of Williston.

A couple months ago, Jake Featheringill and his wife got robbed.

It wasn't serious. No one was home at the time, and no one got hurt. But for Featheringill, it was just the latest in a string of bad luck.

"We made a decision," he says. "We decided to pick up and move in about three days. Packed all our stuff up in storage. Drove 24 straight hours on I-29, and made it to Williston with no place to live."

That's Williston, ND. Population — until just a few years ago — 12,000. Jake was born there, but moved away when he was a kid. He hadn't been back since.

"We came in right through the stretch of where the Badlands is," he remembers. "And then you come into the town. So many trucks. Semi trucks and four-wheel-drive pickups — for a mile straight. You've never seen so many trucks in your life."

Those trucks were in North Dakota for one reason — the same reason Featheringill had decided to move his wife and three kids to a remote section of western North Dakota.

Oil.

A $1,200 Parking Space

Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half. And by 2017, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts the US could be poised to pass Saudi Arabia and overtake Russia as the world's largest oil producer.

Places like Williston are the reason why.

"For many years, they knew that there was oil in that area, but the technology wasn't available to get it out," the town's mayor, Ward Koeser, tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.

But in the last few years, advances in such technologies as "fracking" and horizontal drilling have made, by some estimates, as much as 11 billion barrels of oil available in the Bakken formation under North Dakota and Montana.

"There's oil companies coming from all over the country now." Koeser says.

Williston has skipped the recession entirely. Unemployment there is less than 2 percent. The population, the mayor estimates, has grown from 12,000 to 20,000 in the last four years.

"We actually have probably between 2,000 and 3,000 job openings in Williston right now," Koeser says.

Oil workers like Jake Featheringill are fueling Williston's population growth. He's working as a shophand for Baker Hughes, making enough to support his wife and three children. But with such a sudden population increase, Williston's infrastructure can't keep up.

"When we came up here, we were told housing was tough but not impossible," Featheringill says. He and his wife got lucky and borrowed an RV from a family friend. "We got lucky again and got to park the RV in a place where we were rent-free. Most of the RV spots around here run $1,000 to $1,200."

That's $1,000 a month, just for a parking space. "Is that not amazing?" Featheringill says. "And that's in a 70-mile radius. Just to park your RV."

'Boom-Town Syndrome'

"It's the old boom-town syndrome," says Charles Groat says, professor of energy and mineral resources at the University of Texas in Austin.

A small town like Williston, he says, can be burdened by a sudden oil boom.

Enlarge Gregory Bull/AP Ben Shaw hangs from an oil derrick outside Williston, ND, in July 2011. Williston's mayor, Ward Koeser, estimates that the town has between 2,000 and 3,000 job openings for oil workers.

Gregory Bull/AP Ben Shaw hangs from an oil derrick outside Williston, ND, in July 2011. Williston's mayor, Ward Koeser, estimates that the town has between 2,000 and 3,000 job openings for oil workers.

"All the workers. And then you have roads and trucks and pipelines. And then you have all the community services that have to be provided — law enforcement, education. So it turns into a real bonanza in terms of income, but it becomes an environmental effect that people aren't used to experiencing."

In Williston, many workers forgo prices as high as $2,000 a month to rent a small apartment and instead live in "man camps," massive group-housing provided by their companies.

"Just a little room with a bed and a TV," Mayor Ward Koeser explains. "And then they have recreation areas."

The boom in Williston, Charles Groat says, is happening in spots across America. New drilling technology is also fueling boom towns in Texas, Louisiana, and Colorado. New drilling technologies mean companies can extract oil and natural gas from shale rock that was previously thought unreachable.

"Horizontal drilling — accessing a huge area of reservoir — and then the fracking process, which props opens those cracks, and allows the liquid or gas to flow to the well," Groat says. "That's what's made shale gas and shale oil such a viable resource."

But those techniques also raise environmental concerns that Groat is studying.

"There is a danger, here – the fact that we drill so many wells," he says. "If you look at the numbers of wells that have been drilled in North Dakota, just in recent times, the numbers of wells are huge, which increases the opportunity for bad things to happen environmentally or procedurally in developing the resource. We also are not dealing, of course, with the question of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide as we continue our hydrocarbon dependence."

Global Implications

Amy Myers Jaffe of Rice University says in the next decade, new oil in the US, Canada and South America could change the center of gravity of the entire global energy supply.

"Some are now saying, in five or 10 years' time, we're a major oil-producing region, where our production is going up," she says.

The US, Jaffe says, could have 2 trillion barrels of oil waiting to be drilled. South America could hold another 2 trillion. And Canada? 2.4 trillion. That's compared to just 1.2 trillion in the Middle East and north Africa.

Jaffe says those new oil reserves, combined with growing turmoil in the Middle East, will "absolutely propel more and more investment into the energy resources in the Americas."

Russia is already feeling the growth of American energy, Jaffe says. As the U.S. produces more of its own natural gas, Europe is free to purchase liquefied natural gas the US is no longer buying.

"They're buying less natural gas from Russia," Jaffe says. "So Russia would only supply 10 percent of European natural gas demand by 2030. That means the Russians are no longer powerful."

The American energy boom, Jaffe says, could endanger many green-energy initiatives that have gained popularity in recent years. But royalties and revenue from U.S. production of oil and natural gas, she adds, could be used to invest in improving green technology.

"We don't have the commercial technology now," she says, noting the recent bankruptcy of American solar companies like Solyndra.

"The point is you can't force a technology that's not commercial. Rather than subsidize things that are not going to be competitive, we need to actually use that money to do R&D to create technologies — the same way that the industries created these technologies to produce natural gas and it turned out so commercially successful."

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140784004/new-boom-reshapes-oil-world-rocks-north-dakota

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why does anyone think a political party will give them a job? The better quote that Carville's was General Honore's. "Lets not get stuck on stupid"

Congress needs to pass the FAIR TAX and get the heck out of the way.