Sens. Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown joined 14 members of the Ohio congressional delegation in urging the Obama administration to approve a $2 billion loan guarantee to build a uranium enrichment plant in southern Ohio.
In a letter today to Energy Secretary Steve Chu, the lawmakers wrote that the project “offers a unique capability for the United States and is worthy of national priority.’’ They also wrote that “this project will create an enormous number of jobs at a time when unemployment in Ohio is 9.6 percent and in Pike County, where this project would be located, is at 14.8 percent.’’
Read the rest here.
Comment: Portman (R-OH) and Brown (D-OH) are supposed to be from opposing parties yet both are seeking cash from our wallets to be put into the hands of a private company (special interest group), all so we can end up paying the private company money to generate electricity. But the problem is not with the cash needed to build the plant, it’s with the high cost of litigation involved for the power companies, who will go to court at every step of the way caused by lawsuits brought by the environmental groups, who are empowered by the regulations Congress created. It's all about regulations.
So why not get rid of the regulations and ease up on these companies so they can build new plants to replace the old ones. It makes sense to me, but I guess not to Portman and Brown who would rather take our money and give it to a private corporation, and indirectly to the leftist environmental groups in the settlement, rather than to do the work we elected them to do in the first place.
2 comments:
Thank you for posting this article here. This is an example of corruption that a repeal of the 17th would not help.
Unless the public understands what exactly would and would not be affected by a 17th repeal, they will continue to believe the blanket "lose your right to vote = anti-freedom" mentality.
For instance, trade agreements would be tougher to ratify after a 17th repeal, but "pork" situations like this would continue to be a problem.
Dan:
To a point, but with 42 states on the verge of bankruptcy, I believe that if the 17th was repealed we would see fiscal responsibility returning to the US Senate because we just can't afford the high levels spending.
I believe that fiscal responsibility will reemerge from a grassroots effort and then will work its way into the states, and finally in a few years, to the federal government.
Post a Comment