2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 10/3/08 Section: Opinion
Boozman is an economic failure??
Congressman John Boozman voted with George W. Bush more than 95 percent of the time and consequently is a complete economic failure. Boozman has distinctly followed the Bush Republican agenda of radical corporate socialism, marching lockstep as the American economy was driven off a cliff.
We now know the current economic calamity facing America was caused largely by Bush Republicans. Two causal agents in particular are Republican anti-regulation ideology, which was targeted at helping Big Business make more short-term profit, and Bush and Boozman's Iraq War. Economist Joseph Stiglitz has calculated that the Iraq War cost is another factor.
Although direct war costs are about $600 billion, Stiglitz has calculated hidden war costs, such as welfare for wounded troops, and finds that the war will ultimately cost more than $4 trillion.
Additionally, the vast majority of the Bush agenda was ultimately geared toward helping the wealthiest 1 percent first, which exacerbated economic inequality and consequently weakened lower and middle classes. Weaker lower classes are increasingly unable to pay their bills, including skyrocketing gasoline costs, so it is no wonder mortgage defaults have jumped.
The Bush and Boozman tax cuts are the quintessential example of their extremist agenda geared toward the superrich. Their tax cuts have cost our budget more than $1.3 trillion, and with the war cost, are the largest contributors to our national debt surge toward $10 trillion, which will approach $11 trillion when the Wall Street bailout bill arrives.
Interestingly, in past wars, America raised taxes to pay for war, but in this war Bush and Boozman cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy. Their tactic sheltered Americans from the taxing cost of war and enabled sustained support, but our children will be paying dearly for decades.??
Boozman can put varying shades of lipstick on the pig of his near perfect allegiance to the Bush agenda, but his record remains a filthy failure.
Abel Tomlinson
Graduate student
Green Party candidate for U.S. Congress
Offshore drilling reasonable
In an attempt to lay bare previous letters, a contributor in a recent issue has mislaid a few facts about offshore drilling and energy independence. I would just like to fill in the blanks and give readers a fair perspective.
The editorial of interest claimed offshore drilling was an extraneous solution to our energy crisis as oil companies currently hold 68 million acres of inactive leases.
Sure, an uninformed person might wonder if there would be any production from offshore rigs if these leases aren't even being used. According to an article in the June 20, 2008, Wall Street Journal, an oil lease is contracted before any real exploration can take place.
The author says until exploration is complete, a company doesn't know if the lease will be productive. If there is no oil or it doesn't justify drilling expenses, the company moves on, yet continues to pay rent. Until a predetermined amount of time has passed without development, a company may not drop the lease and it is listed as nonproducing.
As for the argument made that producing more oil will not relieve the energy burden, I believe you're missing the point. Producing American oil is not about relieving gasoline prices; it's about oil independence. This is essential in a time when monetary assets are pouring out and the dollar is shrinking. Estimates say there are about 85.9 billion barrels of oil in our outer continental shelf. With this amount, America can operate independently for more than 10 years.
Many people do not realize that the amount of oil spilled by drillers in the last 20 years is miniscule compared to tanker spills. Much more oil seeps through the ground than is spilled from rigs.
Besides, when was the last time you went swimming 25 miles offshore?
Nicholas Ezell
Senior
Pre-veterinary medicine
Congressman John Boozman voted with George W. Bush more than 95 percent of the time and consequently is a complete economic failure. Boozman has distinctly followed the Bush Republican agenda of radical corporate socialism, marching lockstep as the American economy was driven off a cliff.
We now know the current economic calamity facing America was caused largely by Bush Republicans. Two causal agents in particular are Republican anti-regulation ideology, which was targeted at helping Big Business make more short-term profit, and Bush and Boozman's Iraq War. Economist Joseph Stiglitz has calculated that the Iraq War cost is another factor.
Although direct war costs are about $600 billion, Stiglitz has calculated hidden war costs, such as welfare for wounded troops, and finds that the war will ultimately cost more than $4 trillion.
Additionally, the vast majority of the Bush agenda was ultimately geared toward helping the wealthiest 1 percent first, which exacerbated economic inequality and consequently weakened lower and middle classes. Weaker lower classes are increasingly unable to pay their bills, including skyrocketing gasoline costs, so it is no wonder mortgage defaults have jumped.
The Bush and Boozman tax cuts are the quintessential example of their extremist agenda geared toward the superrich. Their tax cuts have cost our budget more than $1.3 trillion, and with the war cost, are the largest contributors to our national debt surge toward $10 trillion, which will approach $11 trillion when the Wall Street bailout bill arrives.
Interestingly, in past wars, America raised taxes to pay for war, but in this war Bush and Boozman cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy. Their tactic sheltered Americans from the taxing cost of war and enabled sustained support, but our children will be paying dearly for decades.??
Boozman can put varying shades of lipstick on the pig of his near perfect allegiance to the Bush agenda, but his record remains a filthy failure.
Abel Tomlinson
Graduate student
Green Party candidate for U.S. Congress
Offshore drilling reasonable
In an attempt to lay bare previous letters, a contributor in a recent issue has mislaid a few facts about offshore drilling and energy independence. I would just like to fill in the blanks and give readers a fair perspective.
The editorial of interest claimed offshore drilling was an extraneous solution to our energy crisis as oil companies currently hold 68 million acres of inactive leases.
Sure, an uninformed person might wonder if there would be any production from offshore rigs if these leases aren't even being used. According to an article in the June 20, 2008, Wall Street Journal, an oil lease is contracted before any real exploration can take place.
The author says until exploration is complete, a company doesn't know if the lease will be productive. If there is no oil or it doesn't justify drilling expenses, the company moves on, yet continues to pay rent. Until a predetermined amount of time has passed without development, a company may not drop the lease and it is listed as nonproducing.
As for the argument made that producing more oil will not relieve the energy burden, I believe you're missing the point. Producing American oil is not about relieving gasoline prices; it's about oil independence. This is essential in a time when monetary assets are pouring out and the dollar is shrinking. Estimates say there are about 85.9 billion barrels of oil in our outer continental shelf. With this amount, America can operate independently for more than 10 years.
Many people do not realize that the amount of oil spilled by drillers in the last 20 years is miniscule compared to tanker spills. Much more oil seeps through the ground than is spilled from rigs.
Besides, when was the last time you went swimming 25 miles offshore?
Nicholas Ezell
Senior
Pre-veterinary medicine
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Alex
posted 10/03/08 @ 9:55 AM CST
Domestic supplies of oil will not be able to meet the demand in the US. Period, end of story. Oil is used to power engines, make plastics, anything that has "mineral oil" as an ingredient, and fertilize corn fields. (Continued…)
Post a Comment