NEW CASTLE —
When is a pipeline not a pipeline?
When it’s converted into a political football and used to divert attention from larger issues.
To hear congressional Republicans tell it, a proposed pipeline that would run from Canada across much of the United States is crucial to the nation’s economy. And the Obama administration is doing everything it can to make sure it’s never built.
But like most of what’s coming out of Washington these days, what’s said and what’s true are two different things. There are indeed differences over this pipeline, and elements of politics on both sides of the issue. But a few facts can put things into perspective.
The pipeline is intended to boost energy production by pumping petroleum from Canadian oil sands to various American refineries. These oil sands are a petroleum-laden, tar-like product that is America’s largest source of oil these days.
There’s no doubt that new construction from more than 2,000 miles of pipeline would provide an energy benefit to the United States. There’s also no doubt that thousands of people would be employed building that pipeline. The number of permanent jobs is far less dramatic.
Republican lawmakers are pushing the project as a jobs package, and inserted pipeline language into a bill that would extend a payroll tax cut into the new year.
Interestingly, that language does not specifically call for the construction of the pipeline. Instead it gives President Obama 60 days to make a decision.
Now, if you think it’s no big deal to dig a ditch and lay a pipeline across much of the United States, then you probably would make a good bureaucrat in China. That’s how such decisions are made there.
In America, however, we like to look at the lay of the land, so to speak, to consider options and even offer locals impacted by the project the opportunity to provide input.
Yet the Republican Party, which routinely gives lip service to the joys of local control, is advocating a big-government, cram-it-down-their-throats approach to this pipeline.
From the Obama administration’s view, the environmental impact of this pipeline is a concern. That appears to be especially so in parts of Nebraska, where sensitive lands could be impacted.
A recent agreement in that state to alter the projected pipeline route may speed the process, but this doesn’t mean the issue is resolved.
Again, a key point here isn’t that the Republican legislation forces construction of the pipeline. Instead, it forces Obama to take a stand within a narrow time frame. The goal of the bill isn’t to build a pipeline; it’s to put the president on the spot, with the hopes of creating a campaign issue in 2012.
Plus, it’s intriguing that Republicans are insisting on pipeline language before they will back a payroll tax cut. Isn’t this the same party that advocates tax cuts on a routine basis, arguing that they pay for themselves by putting money in the private sector and prompting economic growth?
The Democratic-controlled Senate approved the bill with the pipeline language, but in a twist of its own, limited the tax cut to just two months. This will force Republicans to act again early next year, and House Speaker John Boehner is threatening to kill the final deal that most Senate Republicans agreed to.
There are good reasons to oppose a payroll tax cut — or any tax cut for that matter. Both parties in Washington need to bring spending under control. After that’s done, cutting taxes makes sense.
But rational policies and fiscal discipline aren’t part of the equation in Washington. Instead, we get an endless supply of games. And the American people are the big losers.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Playing politics with an oil pipeline
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Another medical truth falls by the wayside
Everybody knows that if you want to lower your risk of a heart attack, it’s important to raise your HDL level. The term refers to high-density lipoprotein, also known as “good” cholesterol. It’s the opposite of low-density lipoprotein, the “bad” cholesterol that blocks coronary arteries and causes heart attacks.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Politics of marriage makes lots of money
Excitement raged across the political spectrum last week when President Obama came out in support of gay marriage. I yawned. The news didn’t strike me as particularly dramatic.
-
Mitchel Olszak: GOP dispute is matter for the party, not the law
John Altman is someone I would describe as a good citizen. You may not always agree with him, but he is involved and active in the community in a variety of ways. A frequent candidate for New Castle City Council, Altman has never won elected office, but he keeps trying.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Lavish spending reflects badly on government
Boy, those federal employees sure now how to live it up. At least that’s the impression. Recent revelations about a 2010 conference conducted by the General Services Administration have made it a symbol for government excess and arrogance. The conference cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and included such expenses as magicians and commemorative medals.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Take a close look at tax elimination plans
There are seemingly countless ways to tax people. And these days, there are seemingly countless proposals for dramatically altering — or even eliminating — various taxes.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Reshaping Legislature remains self-serving project
When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a legislative reapportionment plan earlier this year, it created a tizzy. At least among state lawmakers. They had gone to the trouble of crafting new districts designed to aid their re-election efforts, and here were judges who demanded better.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Is ‘social Darwinism’ a new species of insult?
If Barack Obama wanted to insult the political right in America, he picked an unusual way to do it. And I’m pretty sure his use of the term “social Darwinism” was a deliberate insult. While such conduct doesn’t quite match the rhetoric of a man who pledged to restore civility to Washington upon taking office, it fits into the general scheme of things these days.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Florida shooting raises multitude of questions
“The fog of war” is a term for confusion that arises from battlefield actions. Who fired first? Who issued that command? Why was that order missed or misunderstood? Whenever there are mistakes made in combat situations, and investigations result, answers can be difficult to come by.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Don’t expect me to start using Facebook
If you go looking for my Facebook site, you won’t find it. That’s because I don’t have one. There are several reasons I have refused to join the Facebook rush, but mainly, it’s because I prefer to operate in the real world, rather than in a virtual one.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Republicans deny role in mandated coverage
In presidential primary campaigns, a common tactic is to cast your opponent as a sympathizer of the other party. You’re seeing a lot of that in this year’s Republican presidential contest as Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul attempt to define each other in Democratic terms.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
