Term limits, the state of the California budget, to partner with Israel or not or even what appears to be a bogged down Republican candidate process.
The winning topic, if you can call it that, was the recent U.S. Senate 56-42 vote down on the amendment that would have bypassed the White House administration and allowed forward movement on the Keystone Pipeline.
While I can find some common ground with both the pros and cons that have swirled around the issue, my blood pressure did rise a bit when one of the journalists reporting on the issue said something to the effect of, “The pipeline project might still get the green light from the president after November …” As in after the election, I have to ask?
Adding to my internal spike was the fact President Obama personally speed-dialed fellow Democrats to insure the vote went his way.
Although I acknowledge pressure calls are a fairly common political practice, I lack trust in his motives.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the possible delay was timed to allow for the environmental green that will be filling his war chest between now and the election.
Past arguments from the president on the issue have ranged from the need to have more time to study the environment to “it won’t impact gas prices.”
Well, the latter was a “duh” if ever I’ve heard one. Of course, constructing a pipeline won’t ease gas prices today, but you can bet it will in the tomorrows to come.
As to the environment, I have to wonder if he has ever been afforded the opportunity to view the map that reveals a surprising amount of different pipeline structures currently in operation under that very same dirt?
Bottom line, I don’t see much difference between the political timing of this issue and his oft-spoke plans to make program changes that won’t show monetary results for at least 10 years, or worse yet, those that offer some benefit for today but put the tab off for another 10 years.
Doesn’t the basic theory boil down to the same point? Don’t you have to at least start something to effect change?
Unlike his many pie-in-the-sky proposals, the pipeline project presents positive tangibles to me. I see a long line of people going to work, the potential of states collecting different property tax revenues during the downward housing market trend and local businesses experiencing a work related transient consumer boom.
I also favor a stronger bond with our “friendly” nation to the north, the hope of less dependency on foreign oil and perhaps even a less volatile stock market as a by-result.
And last, but certainly not least, the potential of reducing the national debt with the annual dollar deal America should be making for allowing the passage of this transcontinental system makes good sense to me.
Being allowed a smoother route across America rather than incurring the increased construction costs inherent to the rougher and colder landscape of its home turf, Canada will undoubtedly benefit; I believe our economy and unemployment rates should too.
|< Prev||Next >|