Tax Code Tweak Might Make CNG for Vehicles More Available

Rep. William Cassidy (R-LA) common-sense approach to increasing the role of natural gas as a vehicle fuel, without the grandiose involvement of the Federal government. Unlike the Pickens Plan, this plan does not rely on massive government subsidies or direct payments for vehicle conversion. Instead, it would change the definition of “independent producer” in the tax code, to get around their current prohibition from making retail sales exceeding $5 million per year.

Full text at www.thehayride.com. Originally published in the Shreveport Times.

The recent natural gas boom in the United States has been so wide-spread and profound that it has dropped natural gas prices to historical lows. These prices are so low that producers have begun to scale back operations as extraction has almost become uneconomical. We should be focused on exploring new commercial markets for natural gas to take advantage of such a low-cost energy source. Because technology and supply is currently available to sell the natural gas equivalent for about $1.50 a gallon compared with the current price of gasoline, it would seem natural for consumers to begin making the switch to compressed natural gas CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) vehicles.

So if the technology is already available and we have at least a 100-year supply of natural gas right here in America, why aren’t we all driving CNG cars?

Unfortunately, the main obstacle is a lack of natural gas fuel infrastructure in our country. Currently in the United States, there are only 449 CNG fueling stations accessible to the public, which is dwarfed by the more than 157,000 gasoline stations.

There are a number of proposals to spur natural gas infrastructure development in Washington. Not surprisingly, when it comes to Congress, the most talked about option involves subsidies for both natural gas vehicles and for the actual CNG fuel itself. While we should be using all of our available natural resources to aid in lowering the costs of transportation, the reality is that our country has neither the money to subsidize development nor the expertise to pick winners and losers in the energy and transportation sectors.

As opposed to subsidies, I believe that a simple change to our tax code would help those companies that develop natural gas look at domestic retail infrastructure development as a serious option. For background purposes, it is important to understand the differences between independent and major oil and gas producers. Under our tax code, independent producers of oil and gas, such as Apache and Chesapeake, are different from major oil and gas companies, such as ExxonMobil or Shell, as independents are limited to $5 million in revenue from retail sales. Whether intentional or not, this antiquated provision is keeping companies that from investing in CNG fueling stations all over the country.

I have drafted legislation, H.R. 1712, that will help remove these unnecessary tax barriers. It begins by recognizing that independent producers are the companies principally involved in new natural gas discoveries, and who have the most financial incentive to find new markets for natural gas. The creation of a new market for natural gas — as well as a new income stream for independent producers — would almost undoubtedly incentivize these companies to invest in the infrastructure needed to deliver CNG through retail operations.

Cassidy is a medical doctor by training and a potential 2014 opponent for Mary Landrieu.

Cross-posted at Stevemaley.com.

View the original article here

Heritage Foundation’s Conversations with Conservatives

Above is the live stream of a new weekly conversation with some of our conservative members of Congress, who will discuss issues of the day and answer questions submitted via Twitter. The event goes live at 11:30 ET. [Update: Rescheduled for noon.] From their description:

Conversations with Conservatives is a group of free market and liberty-minded members of Congress that will meet monthly with traditional press and bloggers to discuss the most important issues of the day. Chaired by Representatives Tim Huelskamp (KS-01), Jeff Landry (LA-03) and Raúl Labrador (ID-01), each meeting will feature different conservative members of Congress to share their ideas and field questions from the media. While questions are not limited to these topics, members are expected to talk about appropriations and the upcoming reconciliation package.

View the original article here

Indiana Hocks a Lugar

We here at RedState were the first national site to endorse Richard Mourdock. We had him at last year’s RedState Gathering. I am personally a big fan.

Tonight, we’d like to congratulate him on his huge win in Indiana against Richard Lugar. We still have the general election to win, but things are looking good.

Congrats Mr. Treasurer!

Be sure to chip in for his general election fund. Even Senator Lugar has already come out on board now and said he’ll support Mourdock.

View the original article here

Mitt Romney and the ‘vision’ of #julia.

This is pretty much exactly what I want to hear coming out of Mitt Romney’s mouth when it comes to things like that ridiculous ‘Julia’ slideshow* from the Obama campaign.

Have you seen President Obama’s vision of the future? To help us see it, his campaign has even created a little fictional character, living an imaginary life filled with happy milestones for which she will spend the rest of her days thanking President Obama. It’s called “The Life of Julia.” And it is a cartoon.

Julia progresses from cradle to grave, showing how government makes every good thing in her life possible. The weak economy, high unemployment, falling wages, rising gas prices, the national debt, the insolvency of entitlements – all these are fictionally assumed away in a cartoon that is produced by a president who wants us to forget about them.

What does it say about a president’s policies when he has to use a cartoon character rather than real people to justify his record?

I won’t belabor the point: unlike President Obama, I trust that the people reading/viewing this are functional adults. Check out the rest of Mitt Romney’s speech here.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*For those who missed it: the Obama administration just recently put out a slideshow that purported to demonstrate the Democrats’ devotion to women’s causes by… suggesting that the only thing that would save one half of the population from utter, nihilistic DOOM would be a slavish devotion to a cradle-to-grave paternalistic slew of government programs.

This slideshow was, as you might imagine, very soundly mocked. Not even the media is trying to pretend that this one was a win for Team Obama.

View the original article here

Remember to Vote Yes to Amendment 1 In North Carolina

Today voters in North Carolina will go to the polls to consider Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment to ensure liberal judges and gay rights activists are prohibited from changing the definition of marriage under North Carolina law. Polls suggest the measure will pass. But then polls suggested the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi would also pass and it did not.

The Republican Primary is largely over in North Carolina, except in some contested seats. Republicans may not want to turn out. I do hope they turn out to vote for Scott Keadle, however, in his race. And I hope they turn out and join Latino voters and black voters as they did in California to support traditional marriage.

In 31 states that have considered constitutional amendments to uphold traditional marriage, all 31 have passed those amendments. Republicans should go to the polls in North Carolina to make sure North Carolina becomes the 32nd state to uphold traditional marriage.

The last thing we need is for Anthony Kennedy to decide that one state out of 32 is an “emerging national consensus.”

In the past decade, spurred on by the siren song of happiness and fairness and claims for equality and progress when men and women in the country already have equal rights to marry, gay rights activists have systematically sought to redefine marriage as something other than what several thousand years of human history have come to define it. They have been helped by liberal activist judges and deteriorating cultural values. In a day when we should be doing all we can to save marriage, we’re on a course to have its meaning eroded.

Over several thousand years, whether by edict from on high or through trial and error, humans settled on the two parent, heterosexual nuclear household as the most stabilizing force in society. In the past few decades, many people have decided that several thousand years of human history can be ignored in favor of unproven claims of happiness, fairness, progress, and an expanded notion of equality. The standard argument is that with divorce already at 50% in heterosexual households, it is not like gay marriage can undermine what is already being weakened. If it’s already broke, why not break it further?

In fact, I take the reverse position — just because people have already devalued marriage does not mean it should be devalued further — particularly by changing long held definitions and claiming that the equal right we all have today to marry is somehow unequal. At no time in human history until the past few decades have people thought marriage should be anything other than between a man and woman. We should not be so quick to further erode the cornerstone of stability in society and slide further down the slippery slope.

Whether you believe it was a god or just nature, we should not think ourselves so unique as to be so brazen to upend the existing order of our nature when marriage, as it exists and has existed has been tried and tested by billions of people over thousands of years.

I hope North Carolina voters will reaffirm what marriage is within their constitutional framework as a sign that 32 states are not quite ready to give in to progressive norms. Oh, and Amendment 1 passing today would make the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC even more awkward than it already will be.

View the original article here

The Funniest Story of the Day: Eric Cantor’s Implausible Deniability

In what may be the funniest story of the day, Eric Cantor is throwing his own super PAC under the bus.

His denial is implausible once the facts are in full view, but given the blow back he has gotten for his super PAC coming out for a host of squishy candidates who’d spend their time in Washington sucking up to Cantor instead of actually fighting for limited government, Cantor must now urge everyone to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The Young Guns Action Fund was set up by Cantor’s Deputy Chief of Staff John Murray, top aide Rob Collins, and several other Cantor staffers are involved. When Cantor’s press secretary, Brad Dayspring, was involved in an office altercation a few months ago, Dayspring was removed from the office and placed into the Super PAC.

Certainly, as Cantor partisans note, because the Young Guns Action Fund is a Super PAC, legally Cantor’s role must be limited. But considering John Murray’s role in Cantor’s office was, as the Politico reported at the time, “to increase Cantor’s image outside the Beltway by getting him in front of influential audiences across the country”, it’s a bit silly to pretend there is no relationship.

Now, as Cantor seeks to distance himself, even reporters are having a hard time believing his denials.

It would be a stretch to say that Cantor has nothing to do with the YG Action Fund. The PAC is headed by two top former Cantor aides, John Murray and Brad Dayspring. And the majority leader has donated money to the group, appeared at its events and even helped it raise money.

I await Eric Cantor’s public decision to denounce this Super PAC and publicly say he’ll never help them again.

View the original article here

Obama Was Against Disavowing. Before He Was For It.

You have to love the era of YouTube. Nothing gets past us these days because it’s all on tape! Although somehow people are still questioning what someone said even when it is on tape.

Either way, it makes for great moments in campaign years. Take for instance this little diddy that took place on the Romney trail.

For the video impaired, a woman had some not too kind words to say about President Obama.

Via Huffpo:

“We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution,” the audience member said to applause. “And I want to know — yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason — but I want to know what you would be able to do to restore balance between the three branches of government and what you are going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country.”Romney didn’t correct the woman, choosing instead to address the question she posed.

“Well, as I’m sure you do, I happen to believe the Constitution was not just brilliant but probably inspired. I happen to believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence,” said Romney. “I would respect the different branches of government if I am fortunate enough to become president.”

Apparently the White House is very upset that Romney didn’t immediately punch this woman in the face and arrest her for sedition.

“We saw what a weak leader Romney was in the whole [Richard] Grenell mess,” DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said, in reference to the openly gay foreign policy spokesman who left the Romney campaign last week. “Not surprised he didn’t push back on the treason remark.”

Choice words from the party of Joe Biden, a man who was just smacked down for offering his own opinion on gay marriage that stood in stark contrast to the view of the President.

But Obama’s people weren’t done yet.

“Time after time in this campaign, Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to show that he has the fortitude to stand up to hateful and over-the-line rhetoric and time after time, he has failed to do so. If this is the ‘leadership’ he has shown on the campaign trail, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?”

So there you have it. There is absolutely nothing worse than a man of Governor Romney’s stature staying quiet while awful things are said about his opponent. This is something that Obama would never find himself on the wrong end of. Unless of course when he was exactly on the other end of it just last year.

From Buzzfeed:

Democrats are capitalizing on comments made at town hall by a woman asking a question who said President Obama should be tried for treason, comments not immediately disavowed by Mitt Romney. In 2011, during a Labor Day rally with Obama rally, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa said Democrats should “take these [Republican] sons of bitches out”. WH Advisor Daniel Pfeiffer responded in an interview with AM 630 that officials shouldn’t be responsible for everything said and don’t have to serve as the “speech police.”

(emphasis mine)

Here’s the audio:

And I thought Romney was supposed to be the flip flopper.

Follow @BenHowe

View the original article here

The Attempted Al Qaeda Bombing & Democrats Silencing Dissident #EERS

Tonight, I’ll have the latest on the attempted Al Qaeda bombing of an American passenger plane. Also, in Georgia, the Democrats have hit on a novel way to silence dissent — go after poor bloggers who do not have the money to fight the lawsuits.

You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK. The show runs from 6pm to 9pm ET.

Consider this an open thread.

View the original article here

Obama’s bodacious gay marriage straddle

In yet another attempt to be on both sides of a controversial issue, President Obama refuses to be straight about his position on gay marriage.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama said he did not support same-sex marriage and believed “marriage is between a man and a woman.” You can watch Obama say it here.

Two years later, on Oct. 27, 2010, Obama revealed that his views on gay marriage are evolving.

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

Last year Obama instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Then, on Sunday, in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Vice President Biden said that he is “absolutely comfortable” with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples. On Monday Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said he believes gay marriage should be legal in the United States.

That got the White House press corps so hot and bothered that White House press secretary Jay Carney had to obfuscate president Obama’s evolving position on same-sex marriage more than 50 times during yesterday’s press briefing. Watch a video of Carney’s ordeal:

The reason Obama goes to such lengths to try and be perceived on both sides of the gay marriage controversy is simple –it is his politics of expediency.

Today Gallup reported that 50 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. That’s down from 53 percent  last year.  Forty-eight percent say such marriages should not be legal. According to Gallup:

President Obama’s campaign strategy team obviously is continuing to grapple with how to handle it — with the vice president on the one hand essentially endorsing legalized gay marriage, while the administration on the other hand stops just short of the same pronouncement.

Two core Obama constituencies -– young voters and African-Americans — are on opposite sides of the gay marriage divide. Today North Carolina, one of this year’s critical swing states, is voting on a constitutional ban on gay marriage. So Obama, even more nuanced than Senator John Kerry, continues to try and be perceived as if he is both for and against gay marriage.

View the original article here

In new ad, Obama admits he didn’t get it done in three years

"If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." - President Barack Obama, February 2, 2009:

Today President Obama’s reelection campaign launched a new ad campaign attempting to deal with Obama’s failed economic policies.

As the headline for an article by Yahoo News White House correspondent Olivier Knox, put it:

“New Obama ad strikes ‘don’t blame me’ tone on economy.”

The new ad plays right into the hands of the Republican National Committee’s effort to re-brand the 2008 Obama campaign “hope and change” theme with “hype and blame.” Worse, after attempting to avert blame by once again talking about the “inherited” recession, and another reminder about getting bin Laden, the ad ends with this admission:

“Instead of losing jobs, we’re creating them. Over 4.2 million so far. We’re not there yet. It’s still too hard for too many. But we’re coming back.”

This is a huge mistake for Obama. Having said that if he doesn’t have this “done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition,” admitting that after three years “we are not there yet,” is the same as admitting that he is going to be a one term president. Perhaps Obama was paying attention when Romney said, the presidential campaign is “still about the economy…and we’re not stupid.”

The new Obama ad is also notable for the fact that it fails to mention Obama’s signature still unpopular ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank financial reform, and $831 billion-dollar so-called stimulus package.

The new ad will air in the battleground states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado. You can watch Obama’s “Go” ad here.

View the original article here