When political leaders advance polices that are compatible with their own unique vision for America, rather than individual and economic freedom, it is often ironically harmful to the very people their vision was advertised to help.
President Obama’s energy vision for America in particular, is very dangerous, as pointed out over at The Foundry.
The Heritage Foundation’s Amy Payne highlights what’s happening in North Dakota, and how what makes them so successful – domestic energy production accompanied with sensible regulations – deviates strongly from Obama’s energy vision for America:
North Dakota is proving that the U.S. can develop its resources efficiently and in an environmentally sensible manner. Oil production has quadrupled since 2005–North Dakota is now the second-largest oil producer in the U.S. behind Texas–and state regulators have effectively balanced economic growth and environmental protection.
North Dakota’s formula for success have brought – and are continuing to bring – happiness and prosperity to the lives of its citizens, all while protecting the environment. Proving to be an excellent model for other state and federal lawmakers to imitate.
Not only does Pres. Obama’s energy vision for America resist this proven formula for success, it goes completely against it. According to Payne, Pres. Obama has threatened to veto Senator James Inhofe’s joint resolution to set aside power for EPA to shut down domestic coal-fired power plants under one of the most costliest environmental regulations in history. Because the Senate voted it down today, the President will no longer have to do that.
Why would the President want to impose such unfairly stringent regulations on ANY form of domestic energy production? One possible motive behind the increasingly burdensome regulatory measures being imposed on domestic energy productivities such as coal-fired power plants would be because an increased rate in compliance failures could generate billions for solar, wind, and biofuel industries.
Being in favor of measures which so clearly imply higher energy costs, disproportionately impacting middle and lower-middle class families the most, could have consequences in an election year, says Heartland Senior Fellow James Taylor:
“The U.S. Senate was given a choice today between affordable conventional energy and the higher energy prices resulting from expensive alternative sources. As we approach the November elections, I suspect voters will be well aware of our soaring energy costs and how their individual senators voted today.”