The question still remains on the lips of many opponents of federal funding for family planning: how in the world are contraceptives going to improve the economy? The truth is, we really don’t have to look that far to see the benefits, both financial and moral, of a funded family planning initiative. The most obvious beneficiary is going to be Medicaid. Texas is third in the nation in Medicaid spending. Coincidentally, it is also has the third highest teen pregnancy rate., while simultaneously leading the nation in abstinence only program spending. If we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to teenagers and low income parents through increased access to contraception and education on its use, isn’t that worth the investment? Isn’t the price of a pack of condoms worth the tens of thousands of dollars the state and federal government (i.e. you and I) will end up paying for that child’s healthcare? Isn’t education about the proper use of the morning after pill worth the thousands you and I will end up paying for that child’s WIC? Isn’t a cycle of birth control worth the thousands you and I will end up paying if God forbid this unwanted pregnancy should become an unwanted child and a ward of the state? An investment of millions now can save us billions in the future.

As far as a direct stimulus to the economy, these families will not purchase baby supplies “in addition to”, but rather “instead of”, meaning a teenage mother is putting her money into formula and diapers instead of saving it for college. When someone in America gets a college education, it is a natural boost to the economy. A college education opens doors not only to the college graduate, but to those companies in desperate need of new ideas. A higher rate of college education benefits everyone, particularly in the global economy of today. There are, of course, those that would not be going to college in the first place. I would submit that instead of paying for the needs of a baby, these people would have the extra income to save for a new house or invest in a new business or simply spend it on goods and services. An investment now can generate new jobs and the tax revenue that goes along with them.

Morally, it’s no secret that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the country will lead to a reduction in the number of abortions in this country. Though there’s no one definitive study published by any government agency such as the CDC, almost all private research or polling, regardless of agenda or political affiliation, suggests that the highest rate of abortions takes place among young low income women or couples. Much of this same research shows that women and couples below the poverty line are having abortions at about 4 times the rate of those above it. Research also shows, traditionally, that financial interests weigh very heavily in a woman or couple’s decision to have an abortion, which explains why down economies result in more abortions. Isn’t the price of an ad campaign directed at the use of contraceptives worth the life of an unborn child? An investment of millions now can eliminate millions of abortions in this country and I don’t know anyone, man or woman, Republican or Democrat, that doesn’t want to see that happen.

Will a fully funded family planning initiative eliminate all unwanted pregnancies in this country? No. Will it fix a broken Medicaid system? No. In the above, I don’t mean to imply that it will. It is, however, a start. We need to get rid of the idea that one pill will cure all that ails us and start looking at multiple initiatives that will attack our problems from multiple angles, whether it’s Medicaid, abortion, or our crumbling economy. We need to stop rejecting and vilifying ideas on face value simply because they’re outside the box or don’t fit within our view of the world. If an idea is proven effective, we should embrace it. If it is a proven failure, we should eliminate it. Abstinence only programs, heavily embraced by the governments of Texas and Mississippi, “leaders” in teen pregnancy rates, are proving ineffective. Let’s push access to and education about family planning and contraception, reducing Medicaid spending and the number of abortions. Again, I don’t know anyone that doesn’t want to see that happen.

Rodney Hopper II

My issue with Mr. Barton’s actions are in the timing. Debates on CSPIA took place over the summer and the law was passed in August. Why now, with less than a month before the February 10 date in which the law takes effect, does Mr. Barton all of the sudden see the mistakes in the legislation? Were small businesses simply never considered during the debate? Were they considered and dismissed as unimportant? Was our Congress again whipped into a knee jerk reaction in the wake of all the ‘lead in toys’ reports? We’ve seen this over and over from both sides of the aisle, legislation rushed to signature without being adequately fleshed out.

We deserve more from our legislators. Planning for contingencies, especially common contingencies like small business exemptions, should be made before legislation is passed, not in another rushed knee jerk days before legislation takes effect. Efforts could be made specifically to get a stay on this particular law to allow adequate time to make comprehensive small business protections while still protecting our children. We don’t have to rush into anything. Especially something that will weaken the CSPIA’s original intent which is to protect children from the effects of lead exposure.

Please understand this isn’t partisan rancor. There are plenty of Democrats to blame for this as well; Henry Waxman comes to mind. However, Mr. Barton is my representative and as his constituent, I must hold him accountable for any failure or show of incompetence. I know there are those that would say I should at least be grateful that Mr. Barton is acting at all, but I’ve never been one to thank the fox that raided the henhouse for cleaning up the mess later. While we should support Mr. Barton’s moves for a new hearing and any efforts to protect small business owners from this mismanagement of government, we should also remain ever vigilant to keep an eye on any legislation coming out of this debacle. We must ensure especially that no freebies or special accommodations are made for those who have really put our children in danger, such as Mattel, whose PAC for the first time in October 2008 made a sizable contribution to Mr. Barton’s campaign.

Rodney Hopper II

Let’s look at some of the actions that Mr. Barton has taken issue with in one day back on the job. One day. Mr. Barton refers to the House of Representatives as the Peoples House because it is the body “closest to the people”. Given the canned or non responses I get whenever I try to contact Mr. Barton’s office, my representative’s office and the decidedly unapologetic pro-corporate anti-consumer policies he’s championed, I would submit that Mr. Barton hasn’t been close to “the people” in quite some time. Mr. Barton should spare us this ‘everyman’ act.

Mr. Barton indicates that he feels that “that legislation is best made when regular order and process are followed and the input of all members is heard and considered”. I guess this doesn’t apply to the Combating Autism Act, which he refused to release from his subcommittee despite UNANIMOUS Senate approval. If you can find a word that describes bipartisan better than unanimous, I’d love to hear it.

Mr. Barton decries the new House rules that remove term limits from committee chairs. Let’s not forget that it was Mr. Barton’s party who just five years ago removed term limits for the Speaker of the House. Chalk it up to another piece of the Contract with (on?) America that was later in breach.

Mr. Barton complains about removal of the “motions to recommit”. I suppose Mr. Barton hasn’t heard the term “Do Nothing Congress” or he simply doesn’t have a firm grasp on the reasons behind Congress’s single digit approval rating. We have too daunting a challenge ahead of us to live through political maneuver after political maneuver. I can’t find any record of Mr. Barton being so outspoken about fellow Republican Bill Frist’s continuous threats of the “nuclear option”, the removal of filibusters in the Senate.

Mr. Barton laments the idea that Congress can now subpoena anyone at anytime. Imagine that, a separate but equal legislative branch that will actually enact checks and balances and oversight over the other two branches of government. For my money, this is a welcome change from the rubber stamp Congress that all too eagerly helped former President Bush create a climate of secrecy and corruption that helped bring this country to the brink economically, militarily, and morally.

Mr. Barton continues his complaint with elaborate sobs about uneven committee assignments, which are approved by a full House vote, meaning Republicans have their chance to vote on committee assignments just as Democrats do. He continues this odd diatribe by essentially calling Nancy Pelosi a brutal dictator. If Mr. Barton is seriously this afraid of Nancy Pelosi, this is more a sign of his own impotence than any attribute of Mrs. Pelosi. I’d hate to think what would happen if he ever had to actually face down a real brutal dictator.

Looking at his rant as a whole, I think what I find most troubling is Mr. Barton’s third paragraph, which effectively pits 170 million vs 130 million, 60% vs 40%, Democrat vs Republican, and, really, neighbor vs neighbor. It’s time to move past this divisiveness and these crybaby playground who hit who first games and work together to fix the problems facing this country. The task is simply too daunting and the risks of failure are simply too great. We deserve better and if Mr. Barton can’t provide it, he should consider retirement.

Rodney Hopper II

Barton’s original mailer:

Published: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:34 PM CST
Joe Barton
U.S. Congress

The House of Representatives is often called the “People’s House” because it is the government body closest to the people with members facing election every two years.

I know that elections have consequences. Democrats won fair and square and earned the right to govern by holding on to control of the House and gaining seats. However, whether I am in the majority or the minority, it doesn’t change my core belief that legislation is best made when regular order and process are followed and the input of all members is heard and considered — regardless of party affiliation.

But on our first day back at work, Democrats effectively took away the legislative rights of conservatives — silencing the voices of the more than 130 million people represented by Republican Members of Congress, including more than 60 percent of Texans.

They’ve changed the rules of the House to stack the deck in their favor. These new rules are really old rules. They revert back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom politics that ran Washington for decades and led to higher taxes, unruly spending and larger government.

I believe that how we do things here in Washington is almost as important as what we do because the two are interlinked. The rules governing the way legislation is crafted has a direct effect on the final product.

After Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, the chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past — a reform that was reversed last week by the new Democratic rules package. The new rules imposed upon Congress by the Democrats consolidate the power of committee chairs by ending those term limits.

They further shut down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation — opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as “motions to recommit” during their 12 years in the minority. This proposed change prevents conservative members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases and earmarks hidden by the Democratic majority in larger pieces of legislation.

Another one of the rule changes pushed through by liberals acts as a gag order. It effectively eliminates the minority member’s rights to give opening statements during congressional hearings. On top of that, Democrats have basically given themselves the ability to subpoena anyone at anytime — no matter the cause.

Democrats have also set up an unfair advantage by breaking with tradition and stacking the most influential committees with extra members from their party.

I am the highest ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the situation there is a perfect example of this injustice. Democrats took an additional three seats on this vitally important committee. Unfair ratios can be found on other major committees as well, including Ways and Means, Appropriations and Education and Labor. It all adds up to millions of Americans being left without proportional or adequate representation in committees responsible for writing critical legislation that will affect the lives of every citizen.

These new rules are turning President Obama’s pledge of openness and transparency into another empty political promise.

The new president wants Congress to work together to pass legislation to help our ailing economy, but Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders have crafted rules to shut Republicans out of the process.

And for those of you that still don’t think rules and processes are important, remember the rules and processes are what separate the United States from military dictatorships. The rules and processes are what ensure our government is “of, for and by the people.”

I know because of these changes I will have to work harder to make sure my conservative viewpoints — the ones you sent me here to represent — are heard and considered. As we move forward, I promise Republicans will strive to be the party of better solutions, not just opposition. Democrats may be trying to silence our voices, but they can’t stifle our spirit.

Congressman Joe Barton, R-Ennis, represents the Sixth Congressional District of Texas.

You’re going to hear a recurring word tonight: Mandate.

If we can get a commanding popular vote, not only will we see an electoral victory, we’ll see a commanding mandate for change. I don’t want to just beat these guys, I want to devastate and demoralize them. Let’s run up the score on today.

Also, if you have some spare time today, make phone calls. You can easily knock out 25 get out the vote calls in 30-40 minutes. Simply go to http://my.barackobama.com/n2n.

What does it say about McCain’s views on defense spending if he’s willing to entrust our national security to products manufactured by the Chinese to shave a few bucks off the national budget? This is one-dimensional thinking, using the hatchet instead of the scalpel. We shouldn’t sacrifice American jobs at the altar of spending control. For my money, I’d rather spend a little more and have it reinvested here, using American workers who have an interest in making quality equipment that will adequately protect our soldiers. Let’s not forget about that Boeing deal McCain likes to brag about killing. Besides overestimating the money he saved the government, he fails to mention that the failure led to the loss of up to 44,000 manufacturing jobs, shipped to Europe under the deal he helped renegotiate. In his mockery of “Buy American” initiatives, he said “I know we’ll sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S.”

Phrases like this are not without precedent. This is the same John McCain that, in defense of amnesty for illegal aliens, offered a town hall audience $50/hour ($104,000 a year) to pick lettuce in Yuma. When he got takers, he told them flatly they couldn’t do it, as if workers in this country can’t compete on a work ethic or ability level with workers brought in from another country.

Rodney Hopper II

I want to start with Obama’s plan to improve lives in rural America, including many of the families in Ellis County. That begins with leveling the playing field for family farms struggling to compete with the huge corporate mega-farms to get their crops and livestock to market. Obama will implement a $250,000 payment limit and close loopholes so corporate agribusinesses aren’t abusing the subsidies and tax breaks intended for individual and family farms. Obama will also implement and enforce country of origin labeling. Obama understands the need to cultivate a new generation of farmers and ranchers, particularly organic, and proposes a new program partnering with land grant universities and programs such as 4-H and FFA to provide education and training to young farmers, halting the depletion of family farming. Obama’s a supporter of the Farm Bill and attended Farm Aid at the personal request of Willie Nelson.

Farming is not the only aspect of rural life. Obama’s plan also includes incentives for medical professionals, teachers, and businesses to move to rural areas; expanded rural broadband; increased rural infrastructure; protections of sportsmen’s rights; and a crackdown on methamphetamine manufacturing, a plague on rural life.

I planned a complete comparison with McCain’s plan for rural America, but there’s really not one. The rural section of his website shows his standard rhetoric, “Establishing a comprehensive energy strategy”, “Controlling taxation and regulation”, “Eliminating wasteful government spending”, interchangeable under any number of topics. He opposed the Farm Bill and endorses Brazilian ethanol over American ethanol. It appears McCain’s opposition of “Buy American” initiatives extends past manufacturing into agriculture.

Rodney A Hopper II

In my lifetime, Mississippi has never been a swing state. There have been essentially two choices: Red and Dark Red. A quick glance at the polls would indicate that this year would be no different. I think, however, the media has sold Mississippi short yet again and I want to now explain why Obama supporters should not count Mississippi out. Simple math shows that Mississippi is still up for grabs.

The population of Mississippi is estimated at 3 million people, 26% of them are under 18, giving us about 2.22 million eligible voters. Assuming a 55% engagement rate, this will give us 1,221,000 people actually voting, approximately 70,000 more than in 2004. Given the nationally increased awareness of this election and its historic significance and the rate of population increase in Mississippi, I would say it’s fair to assume that an additional 70,000 people is a conservative bump. My gut tells me it will be higher.

Now, for some totals, assuming that we will have 1,221,000 people voting and assuming that since the population of Mississippi is 37% black, that 37% of the voters will be black, and also assuming that national trends continue and black voters break (at the conservative end) at 95% for Obama, we begin with a vote count of 429,181 for Obama and 22,588 for McCain. Since Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians currently comprise only about 4% of the population, for the purposes of this experiment, we’ll group them in with the white electorate so you know I’m not padding the numbers. This leaves us with 769,230 voters. If Obama is able to pull away 25% of these voters, he will beat McCain 621,488 to 599,510, 50.8% to 49%. That’s right. John McCain has to secure a solid 75% of the white voters in Mississippi to keep Mississippi’s 6 electoral votes.

The latest poll, a Research 2000 poll taken right after the Republican National Convention gives McCain a 52-39 advantage with 3% going third party and 6% undecided. This number, however, is misleading, as it is of a mere 600 “likely voters”. “Likely voters” are generally defined as a voter that has voted in one of the last two elections. This completely eliminates anyone under 22, a group that nationally has trended by about a 30 point spread towards Obama. Also, this poll shows 13% of blacks as ‘undecided’ and only 2% of whites.

This poll shows also 14% of whites are voting for Obama with 81% going McCain. Given that’s only 10% away from where we need to be, it’s time to hustle. Get on the phone. Walk the streets of your neighborhood. Call churches. Call colleges. Call high schools. Secure a location and get people, especially young people, registered to vote. You have until October 3rd. Then get those people to the polls. Witness absentee ballots. Take election day off and provide transportation. Write a letter to the editor of your newspaper. Make more phone calls. Vote. The media has used their junk research to declare Mississippi lost, so you have nothing to lose and everything, EVERYTHING, to gain. Now, let’s go beat these guys.

Rodney Hopper II

Dear Editor,

I’ve remained undecided in the current presidential election until now, but the latest moves by the John McCain campaign has pushed me directly to Barack Obama. This latest ad bashing Obama’s support of a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators is just shameful. As the aunt of two young children and a former daycare worker, I think the protection of children from pedophiles should be one of our highest priorities. To somehow diminish efforts to shield children from this loss of innocence is so disappointing, especially since it comes from a man I used to admire.

I can’t say that this ad is the only reason I moved to Obama. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as VP started the wheels in motion. I take it as a slight towards me and women in general that his strategy is thinking that we’ll somehow identify with her simply because she is a woman. Her position on banning abortions even in cases of rape and incest is quite frankly frightening. To think that if I had a 12 or 13 year old and they were raped and got pregnant, I could do nothing while they suffered through 9 months of pregnancy followed by the tough choice of raising the baby or putting the baby up for adoption. I believe we are only one Supreme Court Justice away from that grim possibility.

Finally, as a woman, I haven’t seen a single Obama ad or statement that leads me to believe that he has in any way acted in a sexist way towards Sarah Palin. For the McCain campaign to suggest such a thing is insulting to me. It’s as if he no longer cares what’s true anymore. It’s so sad.

Lainey Hopper

Also published in:
The People’s Defender, West Union, OH.

As we pass the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the threat of Gustav looms, I’m reminded of the immense horror, frustration, and powerlessness I felt as I watched my fellow Mississippians, my friends, my family, suffer through displacement, hunger, disease, and destruction. More frustrating and infuriating still was the complete failure of the Federal Government’s response. As ‘Brownie’ and the other Bush cronies worried about how they looked on television, as Bush was having birthday cake with John McCain, people I know and love were suffering. The shame of powerlessness that came from being in Texas while Mississippi was enduring this travesty was overwhelming.

John McCain has his share of the blame in this. While I can’t fault his initial inaction as he is not the Senator of Mississippi or Louisiana, I do fault the fact that he twice voted against investigations into FEMA’s failed response to Katrina (HR 2862, 4297). I do fault the fact that he four times voted against investigating the waste, fraud, and abuse that became rampant with the rebuilding efforts (HR 3058, 2862, S 1042, 2766). I do fault the fact that he voted against extending unemployment benefits for the victims of Katrina (HR 2862). I do fault the fact that he voted against allowing limited access to Medicaid (for five months or less) for Katrina Victims and against temporary federal funding of Medicaid in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana (S 1932). Barack Obama voted for every single one of these measures.
In all of this, I’m not suggesting that John McCain doesn’t care; simply that he doesn’t get it. John McCain simply does not understand the needs of the lives of everyday Mississippians.

Rodney A Hopper II

Also printed in:
Mississippi Link -9/5/2008
Clarion Ledger – 9/5/2008

Letter: Responding to Tabor letter
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 Waxahachie Daily Light

Waxahachie, TX
To the Editor,

After reading John Tabor’s Aug. 20 letter entitled appropriately “Dr. Strange Barton or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Exxon Mobil,” I would like to take this opportunity to respond in kind.

Let me begin with the issue of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its effect on gas prices. First of all, this is a very small part of Barack Obama’s energy plan. It is simply a quick fix to help get us through an exceptionally rough time. Obama himself noted this is not a long-term solution and has never framed it that way and, in my letter, neither did I. As far as its relationship to refinery capacity, the only oil Obama intends to withdraw from the Strategic Reserve is light sweet crude, which has lower sulfur concentration and is, therefore, easier to refine than heavy crude, which constitutes a large percentage of all oil produced. This light sweet crude will have a much lower impact on refining capacity than open-market heavy crude. Again, this is not a perfect plan and hardly a centerpiece of the Obama energy plan, so it seems odd that Mr. Tabor decided to spend an entire paragraph in his letter harping about nine words from mine. Also, nobody’s saying “supply and demand” doesn’t have an impact on oil prices, it’s just not the only impact or even the main impact. Just today, the dollar increased in value, shortly thereafter, the price of oil saw its largest drop since 2004. The “law of supply and demand” is not so simple as Mr. Tabor claims.

The argument that we would have more refineries if Democrats had not blocked Joe Barton’s bill is blatantly false since Barton’s bill, HR 3893, was passed by the House on Oct. 7, 2005, and was referred to the Senate, where it failed to even gain the support of all Republicans in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, a committee comprised of 10 Republicans, seven Democrats and one independent. So, let’s look at the timeline since the last refinery was built in 1976. In those 32 years, we have had a Republican president for 20 of them. We have had a Republican Congress for 12 of them. We have simultaneously had a Republican Congress and a Republican president for six of them, during which HR 3893 was passed and subsequently died in the Senate. Does Mr. Tabor really expect the people of Ellis County to believe that during all of this time, an oil company, had they wanted to, could not get a refinery permit approved? If this is the case, this is more a sign of the impotence of Republican governance than the obstructionism of the Democrats.

What Mr. Tabor hasn’t told you is the number of refinery permit applications received by the EPA since 1976. This answer is one. It was approved in March of 2005 and has yet to be built.

The fact is industry consolidation is limiting competition among oil refineries. The largest five oil refiners in the United States – Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell – control more than 56 percent of the oil refining capacity in this country. The top 10 control 83 percent. Ten years ago, these top five controlled only about a third and the top 10 controlled just over half. This has led the major oil companies to exploit their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity. They do this by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies plotting this very strategy and giving self-congratulations on their accomplishment. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, as far back as March 2001, found that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market to drive up prices. A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office report found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices. Simply put, oil companies have intentionally reduced refining capacity. It’s not George Bush’s EPA or a Democratic Congress. The only ones limiting the oil companies’ ability to build refineries are, in fact, the oil companies themselves. That being said, I’m not here to vilify the oil companies. They are simply acting in the best interest of their shareholders, as any corporation does.

Mr. Tabor notes that Exxon Mobil, whom I never mentioned in my original letter, pays a whopping 23 percent tax rate. To put this in perspective, this is lower than the tax rate for individuals making $33,000 a year. That’s right, a $138 billion dollar company pays a lower tax rate than a worker making less than $16/hour. At the same time, oil companies are enjoying $15-$35 billion in tax subsidies funded by the taxes paid by that same $16/hour worker. All of this while the White House projects the next president will be saddled with a $490 billion deficit. We’re not going to pay for that deficit by cutting the 23 percent tax rate the oil companies are paying, as John McCain proposes. In fact, we’ll increase it. While John McCain wants to cut taxes for these wealthy corporations, Barack Obama wants to cut taxes for that $16/hour worker, to the tune of $500 per person and $1,000 per working family.

Mr. Tabor claims that 73 percent of Americans are for increased offshore drilling. Mr. Tabor’s number comes from a June 2008 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll that surveyed a mere 500 people, meaning 365 people in the poll favored offshore drilling. Does Mr. Tabor actually believe the will of 365 people should be imposed on a country of 300 million? Also, it would seem that it is Mr. Tabor who wants to “have it both ways” as he simultaneously decries “our so-called national media,” yet points to research completed by that same national media.

Notice, Mr. Tabor’s letter did not address HR 6515 and the 68 million acres, half of it offshore, already leased to the oil companies. Nobody’s debating we should drill for oil, but shouldn’t we encourage the oil companies to explore what they already have rights to before we hand them over millions of acres more? Shouldn’t we impose a timeline to prevent oil companies from hoarding these supplies with a “use it or lose it” approach that will allow smaller, more nimble companies to come in and bring this oil to market if the larger companies are unable to? Sure, once we have exhausted these supplies over the next few decades, we should act to find new sources, but wouldn’t the better course of action be to use those decades to reduce reliance on oil altogether? Do we really want to invest billions to continue a habit that is killing us economically? Do we really want to continue down a road that only serves to deepen our dependence on an increasingly brutally priced resource?

Mr. Tabor is correct in that none of us could drive down the street without the oil companies. I suppose we owe them a thank you, but then, the oil executives couldn’t have their private helicopters, yachts, mansions, billion-dollar bonuses and political influence unless we drive down the street using their oil. So, Mr. Tabor, you tell me who owes who?

I’m always for research over rhetoric, so I invite everyone to do as Mr. Tabor says and check out the policies on johnmccain.com and barackobama.com. On energy, you’ll find much of McCain’s emphasis is on increased drilling, while the only mention of advancing wind, hydro and solar is to maintain existing funding of those programs until he can permanently end that funding. He is offering nothing new. This is not surprising, since he voted against renewable energy initiatives time and again, including the largest investment in renewable energy in American history, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, citing tax breaks for the oil companies, yet he failed to vote when a proposal to strip those tax breaks came up for a vote in the Senate. This brings me to Mr. Tabor’s statement about the five-week vacation Congress is currently on. Let me remind Mr. Tabor that Mr. McCain is currently enjoying an almost five-month vacation from the Senate. Since April 8, McCain has missed 103 consecutive floor votes, including several energy-related issues. Even for a presidential candidate, that’s exorbitant.

In closing, I’ve found a disturbing trend among letters written by Mr. Tabor in that he tends to marginalize those who disagree with him as the extreme left or some sort of secular anti-capitalist commie. I’m of the opinion that the majority of Americans don’t fall into these over-generalized left and right, black and white categories. This type of divisive labeling generally occurs when a person knows they can’t win an argument on policies or issues and resorts to personal attacks, innuendo and character assassinations. Let me be clear, Mr. Tabor does not know me, but those that do would find his charges of “anti-capitalist” laughable and inform him that he would be hard-pressed to marginalize me into any neat box. In my life, I have supported, campaigned for and voted for a variety of candidates that include Republicans such as Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, George W. Bush and even John McCain, but I’ve also supported Democrats like John Kerry and David T. Harris. I look past these broad ranging ideologies and support and vote for the best choice for my state and my country. As we stand at the fulcrum of the failed policies of the past eight years and the innovative promise of the future, that choice is Barack Obama.

Rodney A Hopper II,

Waxahachie

Letter: Responding to Hopper letter
Published: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:52 AM CDT
To the Editor,

In his letter to the editor (WDL, Aug. 17) Mr. Rodney A. Hopper II seems to want to have it both ways. He states that more drilling isn’t the answer and will not lower the price of gasoline because our refineries are running at capacity. Than when he is reciting Mr. Obama’s great energy plan, the first thing on his list is that Obama will sell “70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, a move that has historically dropped prices within a few weeks.” Mr. Hopper needs to decide which of his statements are true. Our nation is consuming approximately 21 million barrels of oil per day. But, according to Mr. Hopper an additional 3-1/2 day supply will lower prices. If that statement is true, why not drill and increase supplies from now on and really lower the price of crude oil? The laws of supply and demand dictate that the more raw product available, the cheaper the refined product will be. In this case, the more crude oil available, the cheaper the refineries can buy it, and the cheaper they can sell the refined product, gasoline. Mr. Hopper also questions the lack of gasoline refining capacity. Perhaps we would have more refining capacity if the Democrats in Congress had not blocked a bill written by Congressman Joe Barton to expedite the EPA permitting process required to build a refinery. Seventy-three percent of the American public want increased drilling and yet Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi, the left wing radical Speaker of the House from San Francisco, stand steadfast against it.

It always amazes me how the left is so against our capitalist society. Parroting the Democrat party line, Mr. Hopper comes down on oil companies as the sole recipient of wealth if allowed to drill offshore and in ANWR. The Democrats like to beat up Exxon-Mobil as a greedy demon in our country, but I wonder if Mr. Hopper knows that Exxon-Mobil had $138 billion in revenue last quarter or if he knows that they made $11.7 billion in profit after taxes last quarter which equates to $1,485 per second? Everyone knows that. Our so-called national media keeps telling us those facts over and over again. But, does he know that Exxon-Mobil paid $32.3 billion in taxes last quarter? That’s $4,114 per second they paid in taxes! While Exxon-Mobil’s profit was 8.4 percent, their tax bill was 23 percent, almost four times. (News-Busters, July 31, 2008 Media Near-Secret.) Exxon-Mobil paid almost $65 billion dollars in taxes in the first half of this year alone. Mr. Hopper, as well as the rest of us, could not drive down the street if it weren’t for Exxon-Mobil and other oil companies like them. By the way, the federal government’s budget is in the neighborhood of 2.9 trillion dollars, that equates to $91,958 a second. Where on earth do you think they get that money?

Lastly, I have to say that Mr. Hopper’s letter was disingenuous at best when he talks about Senator McCain’s energy policy. All you have to do is go to www.JohnMcCain.com and the McCain plan is laid out for you. Increase drilling for oil and natural gas. Research for new battery technology for hybrids and fully electric automobiles. More research on flex-fuel vehicles.More research on clean coal technologies. Construction of 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. Advancing wind, hydro and solar power.

The ban on offshore drilling expires on Sept. 30, it’s going to be real interesting to see how our Democrat lead congress handles that. Maybe they will be rested and ready to do some work for the taxpayer after their five week vacation.

John G. Tabor,

Waxahachie