Energy Frustrations

I picked a crappy time to buy a diesel vehicle. I bought one because I was wearing out gasoline motors driving as many miles a year as I do. Just the other day I went to fill up and paid $3.97/gallon! Yeah - it was a bio-diesel 80/20 blend, but still -



they didn't give me any of this petroleum by-product to go with it!




Why is diesel fuel so much higher than gasoline? It is a by-product of gasoline production anyway, right?

I am writing this as I watch a documentary on the DOC channel entitled "Oil is Blood," about the US' effort to get oil for the WWII war effort. The question I have at this time is: Could the US do something like fight a world war again? Would Americans rally around any war effort the way they did before.

SC Club For Growth Endorsement

The South Carolina Club for Growth recently sent out it's endorsements for the 2008 election cycle. This is my second endorsement from this conservative group and is very much appreciated!
I proudly stand with the other members whom have been endorsed!

February 21, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Matt Moore
803-454-1134
matt@SCClubForGrowth.com

SC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Seventeen Legislators for June Primaries

Columbia, SC – Today, the South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed seventeen current South Carolina legislators that are seeking election in the upcoming June 10th primary.

Each of these legislators has shown a continued commitment to limited government and responsible spending, while leading efforts to change South Carolina's antiquated system of government. All earned a combined grade of "B" or better in the Club's legislative scorecards and cumulatively represent approximately the top 10% of grades for the entire General Assembly.

South Carolina Club for Growth Executive Director Matt Moore released the following statement on the endorsements:

"On behalf of our membership across the state, I'm proud to announce these endorsements. We believe leadership matters. South Carolina's future generations will benefit from these legislators leading the charge to reform our state government.

Through the support of hundreds of members around the state, we are hopeful that many more change-oriented legislators will join these reformers at the Statehouse next January. We will be carefully monitoring their re-election efforts. Should credible challengers run against any of them, we will urge our members to contribute generously to these endorsed incumbents."

SC State Senate:

Legislator – District #, Area, Party
Kevin Bryant – 3rd District, Anderson, Republican
Danny Verdin – 9th District, Laurens, Republican
Mick Mulvaney – 16th District, Lancaster, Republican
Greg Ryberg – 24th District, Aiken, Republican
Larry Grooms – 37th District, Berkeley, Republican
Chip Campsen – 43rd District, Charleston, Republican

SC State House of Representatives:

Legislator – District #, Area, Party
Don Bowen – 8th District, Anderson, Republican
Michael Thompson – 9th District, Anderson, Republican
Jeff Duncan – 15th District, Laurens , Republican
Dwight Loftis – 19th District, Greenville, Republican
Eric Bedingfield – 28th District, Greenville, Republican
Herb Kirsh – 47th District, York, Democrat
Thad Viers – 68th District, Horry, Republican
Nathan Ballentine – 71st District, Lexington, Republican
Nikki Haley – 87th District, Lexington, Republican
Jim Merrill – 99th District, Berkeley, Republican
Chip Limehouse – 110th District, Charleston, Republican

Climate Change

Duncan attends INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Well, I am off to attend a climate change conference in New York City. I really don't know what to expect, but as that I am interested in the topic of climate change (global warming, etc.) I am excited about hearing what others from around the globe have to say.

I recently read a book which I recommend to anyone who is interested in the subject. It is titled "Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1500 years" and provides some very sound evidence that warming and cooling of the globe is naturally occurring on a 1500 year +/- cycle, tied to the sun's activities.

I am currently reading Tom Mulliken's book on global warming. Tom lives in Camden, SC and is a friend of Rep. Mike Pitts. Tom has traveled the globe studying the issue and I am enjoying the book so far......I just started.

I look forward to posting about the conference and picking up some additional information that I can share with my House colleagues.

Serious or Not?

I am perplexed as to why we, as legislators in South Carolina, can't seem to really get serious about tough issues - primarily in addressing illegal immigration issues, but while I'm at it, I'll add education finance reform, DUI laws, medicaid reform and the rising cost of higher education. I mean, man......we all talk tough, but when it comes down to passing legislation, well it seems we don't have the fortitude to pass anything with real teeth - instead of legislation that, technically meets the goals, but in reality amounts to little more than political posturing.

I am going to limit this post to illegal immigration - like I haven't written about this before, right!? South Carolinians want, no expect, the Legislature to tackle the problem of the growing population of illegal immigrants in our state. I know that it is a tough issue to solve - heck, I know there isn't a silver bullet. I don't like what I am hearing out of the Senate as they water down the issue surrounding employer verification of legal residence. Here are some of my thoughts:

In the State: South Carolina needs to decide which services we will provide with taxpayer dollars to those people in our state illegally. We need to strongly tell the Feds that they can either fix the illegal immigration problem or quit telling us what we can or cannot do in our state for citizens and non-citizens.

I am adamant about this: Employers who are trying to do things correctly shouldn't be concerned about any law we pass. If they have made a good faith effort to verify residency status of potential or current employees under the current system for such verification and have documentation to that effect, then OK by me. However, the fines/penalties etc. for those employers who do not have proper documentation should be super-duper strong.

My Federal Plan Idea:

First: Secure the Border. We are Americans for the love of Pete!! We can do anything we put our minds to and a secure border should be an easy one for us. Build it, patrol it, hire the people - whatever it takes.

Second: Create a valid "Guest Worker Program." Give all immigrants 120 days to come forward (120 is arbitrary - it could be 90 or 180 days - whatever). If they have an employer sponsor (ie. gainfully employed by an employer who will sponsor them and acknowledge that they have a job) then: 1) get identification/biological data/etc. to properly identify the individual & 2) give them a "Guest Worker Identification" card which is not easily duplicated - similar to the new passports. This would create an id number with which employers can withhold taxes, FICA, etc. If they change jobs, they are required to let INS know the change and the employer they left is required to let INS know they are no longer the employer-sponsor.

Third: After 120 days, any immigrant who is found without this "Guest Worker ID" is immediately deported. No ifs, ands or buts. Zero Tolerance.

Fourth: The "Guest Worker ID" and the corresponding legal status is good for five years. At that time, the immigrant must return to his/her home country. If the employer still agrees to sponsor that employee, then the process is easy for coming back. The person goes to the "front of the line" so to speak, is re-issued a new guest worker id and returns within 30 days or less.

Employers caught hiring workers who do not have the "Guest Worker ID" would be subject to substantial fines and imprisonment.

Guest Workers who choose to seek citizenship while they are here must go through the proper channels to apply and meet all of the requirements for citizenship just like any other person seeking citizenship to this great country. No "easy path to citizenship" nor "amnesty" just for walking across our border.

If we are serious, that is...........

Fundamental Changes

Three weeks into the 2008 Legislative Session, I have come to the conclusion that some changes need to take place in the South Carolina House of Representatives because I think that we waste an enormous amount of time. If you have followed the House calendar thus far, you would agree that we have not had very much legislative action on the House floor and the only reasoning that I see behind actually going into Session each day is to record attendance and introduce bills. We did take up an important rule change dealing with earmarks, but that could have been taken up anytime prior to the budget. Here are my thoughts - which might formulate into a piece of legislation:

There has been talk in the past of shortening the Legislative Session. I don't think we should shorten it - just reorganize our order of business:

For the first four weeks of the Session, sub-committees and committees should meet - just like they are doing now. If you are a member of the sub-committee or committee, have a bill before one of these committees, or if you are interested in the topic/hearing, etc., then you come to Columbia. If you have legislative work to do during this time, you come to Columbia. There would be no floor time....no recorded attendance.

If you are there during the first four weeks, you record your attendance with the desk administrator on your office floor and you will get paid normal per diem, mileage, etc. just like now. the only savings for the House would be for the members who don't come down on certain days - but the goal isn't necessarily about fiscal savings - it is about being productive.

Let the committees meet and crank out some legislation. Allow bills to be introduced and read across the desk, assigned to committee just as if the body were in Session. All the committees could work and would have a more flexible schedule for committee meetings. I believe that the bills would get a more thorough study by the committees, we could possibly get through the budget quicker since Ways and Means could have multiple sub-committee hearings on the same day, and once we got on the Legislative calendar we could have more productive floor time.

Maybe one day.................

Defining Renewable

The South Carolina House Environmental II sub-Committee, Chaired by Rep. Dwight Loftis, met yesterday to take up a Senate bill that attempted to define "renewable energy."

The SC Senate had included "nuclear energy" as a renewable resource. Listening to the debate, I asked myself "What is the underlying question here?" I concluded that the question yesterday was whether or not to keep "nuclear" in the definition of "renewable" and whether nuclear is renewable. The environmental community testified that they did not want nuclear energy included. I have given the topic a lot of thought and research, so here is a summary of my thoughts:

Isn't the environmental community sort of at odds with itself over this issue, when taken in the "Global Warming" context. There are virtually no air emissions issues with nuclear energy, especially carbon emissions. The real concern is the by-product or waste product produced in nuclear energy. How do we dispose of this waste, safely for human populations as well as the environment? I share this concern and plan a visit to Yucca Mountain to see the national storage site for myself soon, as part of my education on the issues of the day.

Even with my concerns over the future of storing nuclear waste, I believe that nuclear energy expansion is the answer to many of our future energy needs - and I believe that the US is behind the curve on nuclear energy supply and technology. In addition, I believe that nuclear produced electricity is cleaner and more friendly to the atmosphere than any other conventional means of electricity production. And, unlike air emissions, we have some control over the nuclear waste in that it is in a manageable, tangible form that we can contain.

The question of the day, though, was: should nuclear be included in the definition of "renewable." My research concludes that: 1. The US Dept. of Energy does not include it in the definition, but they have also been part of the policy implementations of the past 30+ years that delayed and discouraged the proliferation of nuclear energy for electricity; 2. Well respected nuclear physicist Bernard Cohen (Google his name for more) stated as early as 1983: "We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5×10⁹ yr of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used."

All sides will have a differing opinion on the definition of renewable, just as we will all have differing opinions over the extent of man's impact on the environment versus the earth's own natural cycles. I am currently not advocating one position over the other. Nor am I falling for a lot of spin on the issue of Global Warming. I am educating myself on the issues in the hope of forming my own opinion, and I don't have an economic gain or loss either way, unlike many others in the debate. I personally don't see a problem with including nuclear in the definition of renewable, if it helps move the ball down the field toward the goal of more nuclear energy for electricity production; but, I don't see a problem with commonsense conservation either, and I applaud the environmentalist movement for encouraging energy conservation, investments in wind, solar and alternative fuels technologies.

All, I believe, are part of the solution to make us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels and better stewards of God's creation.

Immigration Reform SC Style 2008

Well, with the 2008 Legislative Session scheduled to kick in gear today, January 8th, Immigration Reform is the "Topic de Jour." Speaker Bobby Harrell and the SC House Republican Caucus has embraced the idea and went public on Monday with the plan. Now the SC Senate is saying "Hey, just pass the Senate Bill currently sitting in a House Committee."

I am just glad to see this topic start to pick up steam. With the US Congress failing to do anything substantive, and with them focusing so much on amnesty (giving citizenship and citizenship rights to illegal immigrants), the states are having to address the issue of what state services we want to see our citizen's hard earned taxpayer dollars paying to provide to immigrants who are in our state and our country illegally.

That is really what it all boils down to with me: do we continue to use your tax dollars to pay for goods and services that we as a state provide for our citizens and allow them to be used to pay for illegal immigrant's access to healthcare, public education, corrections and the like.

Some folks say that it is "un-Constitutional" for the states to address this issue. I disagree and here is why: The US Constitution says that any power not specifically spelled out as a power belonging to the Federal Government, nor prohibited, by that same document - the Constitution, to the states (meaning that individual states may not exercise that power), shall be reserved to the states and/or to the people. I don't see anything in the Constitution that says that the individual states may not decide which goods and services the state will provide with state taxpayer dollars and to whom these are provided.

Press on South Carolina General Assembly, Press On!