Schaffer's energy experience a major plus
Liberal special interests have been attempting to paint Senate candidate Bob Schaffer as somehow in the pocket of “big oil”. During these times of $4 gasoline, Schaffer should react to “criticism” of having worked in the energy industry in much the same way that Br’er Rabbit reacted to threats of being thrown into the briar patch, but the misrepresentations by Schaffer’s opponents nevertheless cry out for correction.
Congressman Schaffer worked for Colorado-based Aspect Energy for about five years, beginning in 2003. Aspect Energy is hardly “big oil.” Rather it is a small-to-mid-sized independent energy producer, less than one percent of the size of the well-known energy “majors”. Approximately 80% of Aspect’s business is natural gas production, and during Schaffer’s time at the company his primary focus was on the company’s wind energy project. Indeed, according to Schaffer’s former boss, Alex Cranberg, only about ten percent of Schaffer’s work at Aspect was related to oil. If it is somehow reasonable to call Bob Schaffer an “oil executive”, it is more reasonable to call him a “renewable energy executive” despite the constant attention by his opponents and the media to the very narrow fraction of his job that dealt with oil.
As for Schaffer’s compensation during that time, something his opponents are advertising as if he should have been working for free, his salary for each of the five years was $160,000…one thousand dollars lower than Mark Udall’s average annual government salary during that same time.
Without the benefit of their tax returns, estimating they each paid a 25% federal income tax rate after all deductions, Bob Schaffer would have contributed about $200,000 to the federal Treasury in income tax payments on his salary over the five years he worked at Aspect Energy. On the other hand, Mark Udall would have been a $604,000 net drain on taxpayers…not including his non-salary costs such as pension accrual and other benefits he will keep after retirement from Congress, with taxpayers continuing to foot the bill. (Schaffer has no such benefits from Aspect, though he did receive a one-time severance package...which he will pay taxes on.)
Of course, I don’t believe Congressmen should work without compensation any more than Schaffer or anybody else should. However, I do believe that compensation should reflect actual (or at least expected) productivity. And by that standard, Udall owes us all a refund.
During his five years in the energy industry, Bob Schaffer contributed substantially to the federal coffers while working for a local company on projects to increase supply and lower the cost of energy. During that same time, Mark Udall took his salary from the American taxpayers while doing everything in his power to make energy as costly as possible, following the wishes of every liberal and environmentalist group at the expense of the average American who needs to drive to work or heat his home.
While liberal activists think campaign contributions to Bob Schaffer from energy companies are worth criticizing, it is no less interesting to note that Udall has received tens of thousands of dollars from groups such as the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters (Udall’s largest donor in the past year), and the American Wind Energy Association, all of whom have a clear interest in forcing up the price of gasoline, electricity, and all other non-imaginary forms of large-scale energy supply. One wonders whom these people think would supply fuel for their Priuses without the existence of “big oil”, or even “medium-sized gas, oil, and solar” such as Schaffer’s former employer.
Would you rather support Bob Schaffer whose views on energy policy might allow oil companies to profit while they are expanding the supply and lowering the price of the fuel you need to use every day, or Mark Udall whose energy policies have forced you to cut back on dining out, going on vacation, and saving for your retirement while ironically also contributing to the profits of “big oil” he and his liberal friends hate so much?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 09/27/08 at 12:46:26 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
09/27/08 @ 08:19:02 am
While you make some really valid points your jab at liberals driving Prius' and the use of the fuel they put in them makes you sound like another far-leaning extremist. This leaves you open to responses like if you big engined, 8 person capacity (three in the car) rightists (which most Libertarians are; right leaning but also often SUV driving) would just wake up to the individual changes we all can make to reduce consumption equaling increased supply thus dropping prices maybe issues like who gets money from oil companies, big or small, would not be quite so important. But since excessive , irresponsible consumption is the backbone of our society, the microscope is required to find out who may be allocating their attention towards those ( oil companies that are already sucking the financial life out of this country) that are profiting from this culture so that efforts may be enacted at the top levels to control consumption and bring into reality of energy independence.
09/27/08 @ 08:46:10 am
Joe,
For the record, my vehicle is a V-10 twin-turbo diesel SUV.
I disagree with the concept of "irresponsible consumption" as you use it. Consumption would be irresponsible if, for example, it recklessly jeopardized someone's chance to send his kids to college. But it's a case-by-case analysis. Consumption is not inherently bad.
There is no way to profit from it without providing a good or service that people want, so profit is also good.
Energy independence is a valid, though very long-term, goal. But not for bogus reasons like "excess consumption" or attacking profits you don't approve of.
09/27/08 @ 09:03:40 am
Irresponsible consumption implies both excess use and excess exhaust. To say that there is nothing reckless in driving a vehicle designed to haul in order to go out to dinner then you must then believe that there is nothing reckless in buying a filet mignon, eating half and throwing the rest out. Irresponsible consumption, from my perspective, rests on the ideal that if there is the ability to use a resource more wisely (to get more energy out of less) then we do ourselves the greatest disservice by not doing so. Oil is not an infinite resource. Within our lifetimes we will likely see the extraction of oil requiring as much or more energy than we are taking out. Therefore, burning diesel in a twin turbo v-10 like it was 1950 and we didn't know any better is like a present MD lighting a cigarette in his exam room.
I am moderately familiar with Libertarianism and it seems you view right down that line. Sorry but an open free market economy rarely offers much of a foresight view on the economy and environment.
09/27/08 @ 09:20:05 am
The problem is that your definition makes you the arbiter of "wisely". While there is a difference between driving a less efficient car and throwing away food, if you make me pick just based on those concepts, I would say that it's better for someone to be able to throw away food than for you or government to say that his consumption must be limited.
I'll bet you $1,000 that we will not see the extraction of oil in a way that's net energy-negative as a consistent action during our lifetimes...If I would live forever, I'd bet you on that forever.
Oil reserves haven't dropped despite our production and consumption. Driving my car is nothing like lighting a cigarette in an exam room. (For the record, I get better gas mileage than almost any other SUV out there, and certainly better than any large SUV because diesel is quite efficient.)
The problem with people who call for "foresight" is that it's usually code for a planned economy. Planned economies always fail. A successful economy is not so much about foresight as about the ability to signal what's working and what's not, what's in enough supply and what is undersupplied, and then to have the market react.
Every single thing you're suggesting requires government telling people what to do.
My belief is not only that liberty is an end in itself but that it also gives the best outcomes in the long run, despite bumps in the road along the way.
09/27/08 @ 11:05:03 am
Oil companies charge what they want for a product they know will run out. The geologic evidence can be swung many ways but it is unrealistic to think oil is near inexhaustible. But even if it is, it is irresponsible and obtuse to think that burning all that fossil fuel is not going to truly alter the atmosphere causing many irreversible problems for the next generation. England had to put major restrictions on wood and coal burning on London, the world had to remove lead from gas and now we have to reduce drastically the amount of carbon we burn. Putting the frog in the pot of water and waiting until the water boils and it dies is not going to be ok this time. The long term damage will not go away once the damage is causing global drought, famine, disease and war. The answer is not to chase the grain belt into Canada and say screw them to Africa and Indonesia.
And yes, government needs to step in. Govt always has told the people what to do and now should be no different. Society is based on rules and govt develops and enforces them. Libertarianism is borderline with a state of nature approach to the economy and community. People and business are greedy. They will cut corners and break rules to get ahead. They will push the boundary of the rules to be competitive. This is not better for the economy. Massive corporations redirect wealth to the top and reduce the middle class. Every time a Ma and Pa store shuts because of walmart, home depot, target, etc etc the middle class gets a little smaller. This is destroying what this country was meant to be. This destroys opportunity as the only chance to be successful then resides inside of large corporations where individuality and imagination and squashed. The allure of experiencing small town america has been absorbed by McIndustry and Walmagnitude. Everything looks the same. Everything tastes the same.
the point being that govt always has control and to think that the control over who is in the govt resides in the hands of the people is asinine. Big Corp control the politics and direction of this company and they are the ones that make and break the rules. The problem stems from the franchising of our country and the lose of the middle class family owned business. Bring that back by tough tax and regulations on big corporations and after a few steps back we will start taking big steps forward. Keep it Local, waste less resources, stop policing the globe and all will fall into place. Of course, taxing those who make the most wouldn't hurt that much either.
And yes, I am a socialist.
09/27/08 @ 11:43:36 am
Joe. There is no way that the argument of lower consumption will persuade the majority of people to change there decisions. It has to be coupled with an argument that the change will favorably impact their wallet (especially when everyone is scared about the economy). I drive a 94 Chevy V8 that gets 17 MPG. Which is being more wasteful, buying a new $35k prius or continue to drive my paid for Chevy?
09/27/08 @ 12:14:20 pm
Joe,
All I can say is that every society that has tried an economic model based on your views has failed. I can't imagine why you think this time would be different.
09/27/08 @ 04:09:22 pm
which societies are you referring to? Sweden, Denmark, Holland... they seem to be doing quite well right now as far as I can tell. They have some of the best education systems, the lowest rates of unemployment and growing industries (might I say they are focusing on renewable resources as the back bone of their industry). It seems to me that you may be confusing allowing money hungry corporate mongers (like the East India Company) that almost single handedly destroyed economies of many "colonies"
09/27/08 @ 04:38:34 pm
to Kyjohnso
well, I guess you have to look at the individual immediate impact financially versus the long term socio-economic and environmental impact down the road. If all you care about is the here and now, yourself and your prosperity, then go ahead and throw 38's on that beast and drop the mpg even more. You'll look really cool and the chicks may just dig you for it (even if you have never taken it off road once). On the other hand, when the basal cell carcinoma forms on your kids noses' at age 8 you may end up regretting your decisions. Of course, the expense may put you on medicaid if that exists after it has been reduced to a privatized drug company run profit based industry.
09/27/08 @ 05:14:46 pm
and to add monsieur rossputin,
capitalism has made a commodity of all that exists in our life. love, sex, sleep, comfort, intelligence, convenience, power, laughter, etc, etc. These are all things that are marketed and sold. these are all things that have engulfed us in advertisements as necessary. You can't be happy without a happy meal or powerful without a great car, great body, great food and happiness... in a can. These are all things that are offered to us as purchasable possessions that millions fall for and purchase making several people very very rich. Meanwhile there are exponentially more people in factories all around the world producing these products that exist on so very little but that is ok because it makes our lives' so very much easier.
The major problem in all this is capitalism controls politics now too. Money drives the process and those who produce the most money get what they want.
One of the major problems the early Immigrants from Europe had with their old land was the system of familial wealth. They were tired of the rich getting richer. They wanted a land where hard work paid off. Well, we are back to the point from which they left from.
A good example of how this is manifesting is at this website
http://www.lcurve.org/
So much for maintaining the middle class with a free capitalist society... or is everyone not doing well just lazy. I know I work for 240 hours a month and earn 24,000 dollars a year saving lives, literally. I am on an ambulance crew. I am the guy sticking the needle in your arm so you can get drugs IV. I am the guy driving through traffic, lights and siren blaring so you can get to the hospital before you die. I earn shit but some jack ass with an equivalent education to me (BA and EMT-B) is selling drugs for a drug company that is responsible for expensive insurance and making a killing. so, yeah, I think our foot print needs to be smaller and our ideas of income need to be more realistic. we have overinflated our self-worth on income so much that it is all some care about. I do what I do because after a 24 hour shift I know I have had a positive impact on many peoples lives. why do I not deserve to have an above poverty level lifestyle. why do I not deserve to take a week and go wherever. Why? because some drug company execs and sales people need to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. And you know what, I do go to the vehicle that is not the SUV first and make sure they are ok before I check on the vehicle (not really, I go to the vehicle with the most damage and or a spidered windshield, but I have wanted to).
The point is the free market capitalist system is shrinking the middle class which can only lead to some pretty violent and bad outcomes if you truly read your history books because in the end it has nothing to do with your form of govt but your distribution of wealth. Eventually the hard working poor get pissed and revolt and chop the heads off of people. Simple as that