On Nov. 6, U.S. voters will have a clear choice between the political parties on the issue of jobs and energy policy.
In a nutshell, Republicans want cheaper energy as a way to jump start our economy. They would use all sources for producing energy such as coal, oil, natural gas, water power, wind, solar and atomic energy.
The Democrats want to bankrupt the coal producing plants and go for alternative-energy producing sources. Their position is based primarily on their belief that man, through his dependence on fossil fuels, is responsible for global warming.
This opinion piece will not even touch that subject, except I will state I do not accept the arguments offered that man is the cause of global warming. The distinction on that issue is 1) Is there global warming? (Probably), and 2) What is/are the cause(s) for it? Enough said on this.
Concerning energy and jobs, Democrats have for years offered as their mantra that we (the U.S. population) represent about 2 percent of the world population, we have approximately 4 percent of the world’s known energy reserves, (I would dispute this, especially for natural gas deposits) and we consume about 25 percent of the world’s energy.
What the Democrats leave out of their argument is that the United States produces about 25 percent of all the products and services in the world. Common sense would tell you that you consume energy when you produce a product or offer a service. Democrats have also claimed that we consume too much. When they make that argument, they are not talking about the 1 percent so-called rich, they are talking about you, Joe or Jane Average consumer.
On Jan. 26, 2008, former President Bill Clinton was stumping in Denver, Colorado for his wife in her campaign against Sen. Barrack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president in the November, 2008 election.
President Clinton stated: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ‘cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
This very statement is what drives the energy policy of President Barrack Obama and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. This is the reason why gasoline, which on average in January, 2009 was $1.85 a gallon, is now, in 2012, on average, $3.85 a gallon. It also explains why we have high unemployment in the United States. If Joe or Jane Average does not have a job, he or she and their other family members will be consuming less.
Couple this Obama/Warren policy with their position on who is responsible for building businesses and the only conclusion to be drawn is that re-electing President Obama and sending Elizabeth Warren to the U.S. Senate is a prescription for higher unemployment.
Both President Obama and candidate Warren have repeatedly stated "you didn’t build that business," implying of course that government did it. Most businessmen and women would probably disagree with the position of the president and Ms. Warren.
For the moment, let us assume they are right. Okay. President Obama spent $1 trillion to stimulate the economy and create new businesses and jobs. Would someone please inform the unemployed as to where those jobs are so they can find work? You will not find them in Berkshire County, nor anywhere else, because they do not exist. When your sons and daughters graduate from high school or college how many of them find work in the Berkshires? Government does not create private jobs. Businessmen and women who are willing to take a risk are the ones creating jobs and they alone will get us out of the unemployment mess we are in.
As a final point, from 1789 to 1793, Massachusetts had eight representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. From 1943 to 1963, the state had 14 representatives. We now have nine, having lost the seat formerly held by Rep. John Olver. Democrats love to tout they are the progressive party. I have to wonder, do Democrats wake up in a brand new world every day?
John R. Cowie Jr.