The “Greener” Side of Inglis – Why It Hurts
Can someone tell me who Congressman Bob Inglis is Representing?
I continue to be utterly surprised by the bases acceptance of Mr. Inglis’ “green” values. Conservation is good but there should be a fine line in the means that are taken to “change” the system. That means should be one that does not adversely affect your constituency. Yet his “green” values are infringing on the traditional values of less tax, less spending, and open markets.
– Memorial Day, 2008
At a Memorial Day Let’s Talk, Bob was discussing energy with approximately nine people at Wades Restaurant in Spartanburg. At one point Mr. Inglis was challenged about his policy on ANWR. Facts were presented that if we had begun drilling when he was in Congress the first time, we could have almost replaced the oil we were importing from Saudi Arabia (ANWR could produce 1M barrels/day, Saudi imports = 1.4M barrels/day in 2006). If we were about energy independence why are we not drilling (ANWR or elsewhere)?
The Congressman responded stating that if we had increased our production, OPEC would cut their production and nothing would be accomplished. Prices would remain as high as they are now. I countered stating “Why can we not do two things at one time, drill more to reduce our foreign dependence and still develop the alternative fuels”.
Inglis replied if we drill more, prices will drop and the initiative to develop alternatives would be delayed.
Isn’t this a contradiction of his earlier statements? I confronted the Congressman on the issue. Mr. Inglis stated that he was contradicting himself but he never provided what he believed the result of increased production would be.
– June 9th, 2008
Congressman Inglis held a conference call and for the first time he admitted that the problem with oil is the weak dollar. Yet, neither he nor Congress seems willing to take on the problem of the fledging dollar.
– June 23rd, 2008
I took the opportunity to ask the Congressman to elaborate further on his statements from the conference call concerning the falling dollar on oil. Inglis proceeded to defer the question to an economic specialist who stated that the dollar was partly at fault. I challenged further to see a balanced budget to no avail.
I followed up this question with one concerning the new mileage standards passed earlier in the year. I questioned whether or not the standards were based on traditional gasoline or on the less efficient ethanol blends. He responded by stating they were based on traditional gasoline. Understand that the ethanol blends are less efficient resulting in a tank of gas not going as far. Whose pockets are being lined by this law?
And the tipping point for me on Monday was when Mr. Inglis stated that he supported the Lieberman/Warner Cap and Trade policy as long as China and India were included. In Mr. Inglis’ green world now campaign, he wants to place a tax on industries that have a carbon footprint. It would put a tax on everything around the world coming into America. So what does that do to the price of gasoline? Exactly, increases your cost. It is estimated that the bill would increase your gas costs 13 cents within 4 years. Not to mention the costs on other products that will be passed down to the consumer.
In my additional research, this isn’t the first time Mr. Inglis has expressed these views. He has been a supporter of a cap-and-trade policy for a few years now. Just do a search for “bob inglis cap-and-trade”.
When will Mr. Inglis begin to realize that his policy is pointing us in the wrong direction? It appears that he does not care about the pocket book of the citizens of America, much less those in Upstate, SC. I agree, we must get off of our foreign dependence, but by taxing and regulating, which stifles the economy, is not the solution.
A quick review of Inglis’ positions
- Regulation – Inglis supports the Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs that cost more and requires special cleaning when one fails due to mercury
- Regulation & Taxation – Cap and trade policy as long as it includes China and India.
- Taxation – Would not declare that he would fight and work for a balanced budget