Sen. Deevers encourages officials toward an Oklahoma First energy agenda

Deevers Encourages Officials Toward an Oklahoma First Energy Agenda

OKLAHOMA CITY (Dec. 4th) — Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, issued the following statement regarding Oklahoma energy policy reaffirming his commitment to an Oklahoma First agenda of low energy costs and government efficiency.

“Oklahomans have been very clear on their desire for an Oklahoma First energy policy, which means: (1) Prioritizing Oklahoma-based companies and local reinvestment, not foreign-controlled entities; (2) Focusing on proven energy sources under Oklahomans’ feet—oil and gas—rather than speculative technologies; (3) Rejecting climate alarmism which has been proven false on almost every prediction for 20 years; (4) Protecting Oklahoma’s natural beauty; (5) Protecting resources from ‘green’ energy scams that are resource-intensive and strain local utilities and water supplies; (6) Rejecting companies who embrace woke, globalist ESG/DEI ideologies; (7) Rejecting the waste of taxpayer dollars and redistribution of wealth through subsidizing ‘green’ energy in any way.

Sen. Lankford seeks to end federal subsidies to professional sports stadiums

Lankford Wants to Stop Federal Subsidies to Professional Sports Stadiums

WASHINGTON, DC (Feb. 14) – Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the No Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act, a bill to end generous federal subsidies for professional sports stadiums. The bill would close a loophole in the tax code that allows professional sports teams to finance new stadiums with municipal bonds that are exempt from federal taxes. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) is leading the bill’s introduction in the House of Representatives.

Gann: Is Oklahoma being sold down the river for CANOO?

Is Oklahoma Being Sold Down the River For CANOO?

by State Rep. Tom Gann (R-Inola)

It would appear so.  Leadership at the Capitol in Oklahoma City are scheming to compete for a “Mystery” company everyone says is a lithium battery manufacturer that would supply CANOO, an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer. According to a 2/16/2022 article in CARBUZZ by Jay Traugott, CANOO is an EV startup company which had to use a shell corporation, to get listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange, prompting an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Recent financial reports by CANOO show the company lost 138 million in the last quarter of 2021 but found resources to fund political activities in Oklahoma City. In another reporting document, the State of Oklahoma through the Governor’s “closing fund” gave CANOO 15 million dollars and ordered 1000 of their electric vehicles.

Scheme #2 is a proposal cloaked in “secrecy” using non-disclosure agreements, creating a barrier to hide behind when the questions get tough, with the local add on tax incentive called a Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF). Chouteau Schools is being asked to bear the weight of this TIF which diverts local Mayes County ad-valorem tax dollars away from its traditional use for local schools and county government for up to 25 years and channeling those taxes to the Mid America Industrial Park and “mystery company”.

Recently the legislature of the State of Kansas passed SB347 a 1.3 billion dollar plus tax giveaway to have this same “mystery” company to locate in Kansas. The company would bring 4000 new jobs at $50,000 per year. That comes out to about $325,000 in tax giveaways for every $50,000 job.  This might look good politically, but economically it is insanity as Kansas could end up with a short fall in their budget. 

1889 Institute: Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

By Byron Schlomach

HBO’s mini-series, Chernobyl, depicts the disastrous 1986 nuclear power plant explosion in the Soviet Union and the heroic efforts to control its meltdown. It shows Valery Alexeyvich Legasov, Deputy Director of the Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, working tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and investigate its cause. He is portrayed making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when such an explosion should not have been possible.

The reactor had a design flaw covered up by the Soviet State and kept from reactor operators at Chernobyl and identical reactors across the Soviet Union. Legasov’s speech, though fictional, seems to fairly accurately express his point of view. He addresses the question of how an RBMK reactor like Chernobyl’s explode? After explaining the nuclear and mechanical details, Legasov gets to what he considers the true cause:

“Because of our secrets and our lies. They’re practically what define us. When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there. It is, it’s still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid. That is how an RBMK reactor explodes… Lies.”

1889 Institute op-ed: Why I am not Pro-Business

Why I Am Not Pro-Business

By Byron Schlomach

Most who consider themselves conservative, even many with libertarian leanings, are comfortable with describing themselves as pro-business.

Not me.

Just because I’m not pro-business doesn’t mean I’m anti-business, though. I’m pro-free enterprise.

Chambers of Commerce across the nation are pro-business, especially pro-BIG business. They are established to represent their business members, with large corporations usually the most influential amongst their numbers. Chambers of Commerce almost always favor business subsidies, special tax breaks for certain businesses that small businesses don’t get, or exempt only certain businesses from regulation. They specialize in persuading gullible politicians anxious to get their faces in the news at ribbon-cutting ceremonies to favor these policies.

Keating, Coburn urge Senate to pass SB888 and end wind subsidies

Gov. Frank Keating and Dr. Tom Coburn Urge State Senate to Take Up Senate Bill 888 and End Exploding Wind Subsidies

Yesterday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 888 which eliminates the ability for producers of wind energy to cash in unused subsidies. Gov. Frank Keating and Dr. Tom Coburn issued the following statements:

From Gov. Frank Keating:

“It’s time to end cash subsidies for wind production in Oklahoma. The wind production subsidy program has grown wildly beyond what was presented to me and lawmakers when we first approved the credits. As policymakers, when we realize that an act of government isn’t working or has gone way beyond what was intended, it is our duty to change it.” said former Gov. Frank Keating, who signed the first iteration of wind production tax credits when he served as the 25th Governor of Oklahoma.
“Protecting millions of Oklahomans from being forced to unjustly subsidize a wasteful and now unnecessary government program is far superior and morally right rather than adhering to a flawed scheme. The drafting of SB 888 treats refundable wind subsidies in a prospective manner, just as lawmakers have done with the constitutional elimination of the refundability of the Oklahoma Earned Income Tax Credit.”

From Dr. Tom Coburn:

“Since 2015, policymakers at the state Capitol have raised taxes and annual revenue on Oklahomans by $1.1 billion—even raising Oklahomans’ personal income taxes since 2016 by at least $185 million annually alone. Given how much in taxes have been raised on millions of Oklahomans who don’t have an army of well-paid lobbyists to represent them at the state Capitol, it’s unconscionable that Oklahoma would continue the kind of crony-capitalist policy that is a major part of state government’s over-spending addiction that got us into this problem in the first place,” said Dr. Tom Coburn, who served as a United States Senator for Oklahoma.

“I encourage Oklahoma State Senators to cut through the hyperbole and scare tactics presented by crony capitalists who want to continue to massively benefit at the expense of millions of Oklahoma taxpayers. A vote in favor of SB 888 is the exact kind of reform and oversight that lawmakers can support to keep their promise to voters to protect them from wasteful government spending. Wind production in Oklahoma is receiving more than $110 million a year in subsidies from state taxpayers. With some estimates showing state subsidies for one wind turbine exceed the starting salary of an Oklahoma teacher even after the legislatively enacted pay raise, this boondoggle must end.”

Big Government Helps Buddies

Big Government Helps Buddies

by Dustin Siggins

On June 13, Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow in Labor Policy James Sherk released a paper analyzing how the Obama Administration’s auto bailout could have cost the taxpayer nothing in the long run if the United Auto Workers (UAW) had received normal bankruptcy treatment. Instead, they were provided special treatment which violated numerous aspects of traditional contract law, and were given approximately $3.5 billion more in treatment than the total cost of the bailout. In short, according to Sherk, the taxpayers were charged $26.5 billion on their maxed-out credit card.

On Tuesday, Ed Carson wrote in Investors Business Daily that taxpayer losses may be worse than Sherk calculated, given General Motors’ continuing drop in stock price. From Carson’s op-ed:

General Motors (GM) shares fell to a fresh 2012 closing low of 19.57 on Monday. The stock hit 19 in mid-December, the lowest since the auto giant came public at $33 in November 2010 following its June 2009 bankruptcy. 

Normally you might say, tough luck investors. But this is Government Motors. The Treasury still owns 26.5% of GM, or 500 million shares… 

Those shares were worth about $9.8 billion as of Monday. That would leave taxpayers with a loss of $16.6 billion. 

But that's not the full tally…[T]he administration essentially gifted $45 billion in write-offs (book value $18 billion) to GM. So when GM earned a $7.6 billion profit in 2011…it paid no taxes. 

Include that $18 billion gift, and taxpayers' true loss climbs to nearly $35 billion.

Regardless of whether you look at Sherk’s or Carson’s numbers, the losses dealt to the public as a result of special treatment for the UAW are significant. While admittedly only one percent of this year’s expected deficit, and a much smaller fraction of the totality of deficits since the auto bailout was first initiated nearly four years, it is another reminder that big government will always help out its buddies and special interests first. This assistance flourishes under both parties, whether it’s by protecting farm subsidies and defense contractors, bailing out banks via TARP, giving the insurance industry a generation of guaranteed customers via the individual mandate, providing college students further taxpayer subsidization in an election year, or giving a bailout to the UAW.

With Democrats controlling most of Washington during a period of the largest deficits in the history of America, including Congress under the last two years of the Bush presidency, it’s easy for Republicans to claim such government favoritism is a problem mostly confined to the Democratic Party. However, this ignores the history just prior to 2006, when then-record deficits were brought by Republicans, and ignores that many Republicans have supported the individual mandate, farm subsidies, TARP, and student loan subsidization over the years, and have defended the defense industry to the hilt. Mitt Romney, for example, has taken four of these five positions in the last couple of years alone.

Big Government is a bipartisan problem, and conservatives would do well to remember this as we head into the fall elections and the potential for a Republican sweep in Washington. Voting for a party won’t prevent us from falling off the fiscal cliff we are heading towards – voting for a number of candidates might.

Dustin Siggins is a policy and politics blogger who regularly contributes to HotAir.com, HotAir.com’s Green Room, Race42012.com, and RightWingNews.com. He is the co-author of a forthcoming book on the national debt with William Beach of The Heritage Foundation.

Jonah Goldberg: Low Volt-age

 Jonah Goldberg, columnist

Low Volt-age
The Chevy Volt is a vanity car for the well-off, and the government is subsidizing it.

Let us compare the Volkswagen and the “Voltswagen.”

The original Volkswagen was intended as the “people’s car” (that’s what Volkswagen means). The idea of a cheap, safe, reliable car for the working man was popular before Adolf Hitler embraced it, but as a self-proclaimed man of the people, he made the idea his own. Whereas industrialists and aristocrats didn’t think the common man needed a car (“The people’s car is a bus” was their refrain), Hitler sided with one of his heroes, Henry Ford, arguing that everyone deserved his own ride. He ordered the German Labor Front, the union arm of the Nazi party, to start building a people’s car. When it looked like the car might be too expensive, the Labor Front created a savings program that promised a car for even the poorest workers.

At the 1934 Berlin Motor Show, Hitler proclaimed: “It is a bitter thought that millions of good and industrious people are excluded from the use of a means of transport that, especially on Sundays and holidays, could become for them a source of unknown joy.”

And then there’s the electric-gas hybrid Chevy Volt, a.k.a. the “Voltswagen.” At $41,000, about as much as the average American makes in a year, this is no people’s car. GM, owned by the government and the labor unions, is pitching it to affluent hipsters who don’t need a lot of space for a family. Deloitte Consulting says that the demand for such cars is from “young, very high income individuals” from households that make more than $200,000 a year, which is why the Volt will be rolled out in upscale, trendy urban markets. (Meanwhile the Chevy Cruze, the gas-only version of the Volt, has more room inside and is a mere $17,000.)

Because the Volt’s sticker price might be too high for even that crowd, the government is offering a federal subsidy of up to $7,500 (Californians have a state subsidy, too), which means that working-class people will be helping to pay for playthings for upper-income people.

“Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market,” Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, says, “the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations.”

Indeed, the Volt’s price is $41,000, but the cost is much higher. “Government Motors” is already selling the car at a loss. According to the blogger Doctor Zero, if you apply the subsidies that have gone directly into the car to just the first 10,000 vehicles, the cost is more like $81,000 per car.

Of course, electric-car boosters say this sort of thing is necessary to get the industry up and running. (Green responds: “Supporters claim that electric cars need subsidies because they’re still in their infancy. Electric cars have been around for over 100 years. That’s some infancy.”)

But would it be a good thing if we all switched to electric cars? The point is to reduce CO2 emissions, right? But in some regions, we get our electricity from CO2-spewing coal. The more electricity pulled from the grid, the more coal is burned, essentially replacing dirty oil with dirtier coal (which is why some coal backers see much promise in electric cars). Studies confirm that China — which is allegedly “beating us” in the race to a green economy — would produce vastly more greenhouse emissions if it switched to electric vehicles.

The expected response to that is that we need stuff like CO2-free windmills to generate electricity. Don’t get me started on the Volkspropeller.

Regardless, no matter how you crunch the numbers or the science, there’s no disputing that this is a political car, designed to meet the demands not of an economic market but of an ideological one, directed by the collusion of big business and big government. In this sense, the Volkswagen and the Voltswagen have a lot in common.

If the government weren’t taking taxpayer money and spending it on toys for upscale urban liberals (Obama’s strongest base of support outside of black voters and labor unions), there’d be no reason to care about the Volt. If rich people want to be “early adopters” and buy expensive gadgets that help them preen the plumage of their political sanctimony, that’s great. It’s not so great when the government gets involved in wealth redistribution, and it’s outrageous when it involves redistributing wealth upwards.

Jonah Goldberg can be reached at JonahsColumn@aol.com.