Let’s put the brakes on the NAT GAS act
posted at 2:45 pm on February 4, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
Apparently we didn’t learn much, if anything, from the ethanol boondoggle, Solyndra or Washington’s other adventures in meddling in the markets. If we had, perhaps Congress would not currently be considering passage of H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act. (Or NAT GAS) In it, the tax code would be amended to to provide a series of credits and breaks to benefit the production and expanded adaption of natural gas, both liquified and compressed.
Not everyone is buying into the enthusiastic hype, however. A group of conservative leaders have come together to remind us precisely what’s happened in the past when the government attempts this sort of market manipulation.
Today AFP joined a group of 16 conservative coalition partners in renewing their strong opposition to the NAT GAS Act and urging Members of Congress to reject the legislation in 2012.
H.R. 1380, introduced by Representative John Sullivan (R-OK), and S. 1863, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), would create new and expand existing special tax treatments for the production, conversion, and sale of of natural gas-powered vehicles — all at a time when Congress should be simplifying the tax code instead of adding more special handouts for favored interests.
You can read their full letter at the link.
Now, some of you may already be wondering about why I’m not supporting this. “But Jazz, I thought you liked natural gas!”
I do. Quite a bit, actually. Not only do we have a lot of it, but it burns pretty cleanly and we can produce vast quantities with far less disruption to the surrounding lands with new technologies. As increased supply has driven prices down, other industries are turning to natural gas for their energy needs, spurring further economic development. Also, additional transportation segments are looking at converting, such as with trains.
So why would I not be embracing H.R. 1380? Because if natural gas is to continue to succeed as a viable, mass market energy source – which I fully believe it shall – it needs to be able to do it on its own and prove that it’s viable. If the demand is there, the market will respond. If it isn’t, then it wasn’t meant to be. Washington has repeatedly proven that it has zero clue when it comes to picking winners and losers in the free market. Let’s not allow them to stick their noses even further into the energy industry.
Bonus: You can get a feel for where the various presidential candidates stand on this and related issues here.
Edit: Link fixed for the study on powering trains with natural gas.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
It’s come to this: Venezuela approves funds to relieve the toilet-paper shortage
Video: Dem Congressman rips IRS for abuses, threatens bringing in special prosecutor
Sebelius touts ObamaCare as a boon to graduates instead of the war on the young it actually is
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
There’s a whole fleet in the Med. One aircraft or drone would have ended the attack. The SEALs fighting for their lives just needed a little help, any help and they got none.
The people in Tripoli could have helped, but they got turned around and told to stand down.
The child running things was paralyzed with political fear and indifference.
He’s told America’s enemies that attacks on us will go unanswered because he doesn’t give a crap.
dogsoldier on May 9, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Sadly Benghazi was ,figuratively speaking, demoted to page 33 in the tabloids (even by Fox News)by a highly sensational murder trial verdict and an equally bombastic kidnapping-rape arrest. Although these two titillating stories had fortuitous, feel good results, they have no more effect on our nation’s destiny and security than a frog fart.Yet they both buried the far more important Benghazi coverup and extortion– which does not augur well for any substantive corrections and prosecutions coming from these hearings.Of course, a MSM in the tank for Obama, would not have adequately covered the hearings anyway but Fox’s relegating Benghazi to the “back pages” tells you all you need to know about the American public–Fox is ratings driven 24/7 and they knew they would lose market share by covering the more crucial story.
MaiDee on May 9, 2013 at 6:25 AM
Not to mention the lack of ambassadors left to die.
The Schaef on May 9, 2013 at 7:04 AM
The Media should be ashamed. My take.
kingsjester on May 9, 2013 at 7:09 AM
As I said before, Hillary will get all the justice that will be left after she remembers and recalls “witnesses” that nobody ever knew about coming to testify in her favor.
Arkysaw was just the warm up. And when the Foster evidence up and disappeared, she was running the show in Virginia and DC.
dockywocky on May 9, 2013 at 8:29 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3017194/posts
To me one of the seminal moments was when talking points woman speirer asked Hicks “if he could be stationed anywhere in the world where would it be.”
She had ask him twice. Few caught on the threat of “do as we say or you go to Siberia.” But it was a direct threat form the Chicago thuggery if you know how they play the game.
rodguy911 on May 9, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Question for Stewart – what attacks like this occurred under Bush with no hearings afterwards?
Seven hour sustained attacks (which could have lasted longer for all anyone in DC knew when they refused to send help), missing and then dead ambassadors, with no help from anyone on the ground, in the middle of an election?
Seriously, I want to know.
Sure, there have been bombs, where it’s a blast or two and then over. And yes, people have been killed by those bombs.
But sustained attack from armed terrorists? Ambassadors with almost no security killed and dragged through the streets? On the anniversary of 9/11 when boosted security ought to have been an no-brainer?
I really want to hear about these.
Missy on May 9, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Does Hicks have grounds for a civil suit against his bosses for the demotion, or is that not allowed? I realize he is a white male hair challenged person, but that doesn’t usually count for much.
Fleuries on May 9, 2013 at 9:45 AM
How on earth do you know that American bodies were never dragged through the street after bombings under Bush? Stewart’s segment made you all look like fools, and I’m glad you’ve all seen it.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 9:59 AM
54 attacks on American diplomatic centers, 13 killed under Bush. 3 hearings.
One attack under Obama, 4 killed, 9 hearings.
Do the math.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Missy said Ambassadors. How can you willing be so stupid?
No, Stewart’s segment made him look like a partisan fool.
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Zero lies.
Dozens of lies and cover-ups.
Do the math.
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:04 AM
libfreeordie, can you at least admit that the Obama administration lied about Benghazi because the truth ruined their attempt to maintain the impression that Libya was a big success story???
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Except that there aren’t really any cover ups, just lots of conjecture.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Yes, there is. They lied about who changed Rice’s talking points.
How on earth can you deny this? Are you deliberately keeping your head in the sand?
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Subpoena both Hillary & Rice, confront them with the proof of their lies, charge Hillary with Felony Crimes of Perjury as she lied last time while under oath (do so with Rice if she testified last time and also lied under oath), & begin Impeachment proceedings immediately!
easyt65 on May 9, 2013 at 10:17 AM
<
Yes, there is. They lied about who changed Rice’s talking points.
How on earth can you deny this? Are you deliberately keeping your head in the sand?
blink on May 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM
It was PROVEN FURTHER yesterday that Ambassador Stevens HIMSELF passed on at the start of the THIRD terrorist attack against him that the attack was indeed a TERRORIST ATTACK – “We are under ATTACK”! This was passed on by one of the witnesses to the State Department / the WH before contacting the military attache, the Libyan Govt POC, and the Libyan Military POC to request assistance. The State Dept ws contacted & notified of the ATTACK at 3am Libya time – 9pm Washington DC time
It was proven FURTHER yesterday that the administration knew inside of 12 hours that this was a terrorist attack, the identity of the group that perpetrated it & was claiming responsibility.
It was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a CIA report was sent via CABLE explicitly calling this a terrorist attack & providing much detail – we know the administration then edited that report no less than 3 times, stripping out every reference to terrorism or a terrorist attack. We KNOW that the administration – OBAMA, Hillary, & Rice along with others – were shoveling the BS ‘video’ LIE WEEKS AFTER THE ATTACK!
These 3 men yesterday proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1) this whole Benghazi story coming out of the White House – which Obama himself participated in by insisting it was over a video weeks after the attack – was a calculated conspiratorial LIE to cover up what went on in Benghazi to shelter Obama from the event & protect his re-election chances. Even more heinous, it proved Americans who fought for their lives for hours while waiting for help to come were abandoned – BETRAYED – LEFT TO DIE, that there were assets available & closer that could have responded & that there WAS a ‘stand down’ order given! Opposed to the Lie the administration told, the Libyan Govt was never contacted to coordinate approval through Libyan airspace to go to the rescue in Benghazi!
The very President who promised to find out who did this & make them pay, to find out the truth so this would never happen again,is the man responsible for the lack of security, the death of Stevens, the abandoning / betrayal of 3 Americans, & the top man in this massive coverup! DESPICABLE…and IMPEACHABLE!
easyt65 on May 9, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Mostly because we also have the reports from those events, and no one was working their butts off to cover up what happened, or deny the terrorist nature of the attack.
Also, most of the “attacks” that took place, no one was killed and in more than a few of them there were not even any injuries.
Also, it is a lie to say this is the one and only attack. Those who claim thus are deliberately leaving numerous attacks out of the count for arbitrary reasons, and in focusing on embassy attacks they are further ignoring the number of attempts here at home, most of which were thwarted by dumb luck.
The Schaef on May 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Can Jon Stewart name one ambassador killed on Bush’s watch? Um…I thought so. He’s a washed out comedian who’s getting old and unfunny, he’s following so close into Letterman’s steps that it’s almost sad…
jimver on May 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6