Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline

The Keystone XL Pipeline bill would have authorized a 1,179-mile pipeline. The debate is a hot topic for environmentalists and North America's energy industry. The Keystone Pipeline has been under review for the past six years. Just this past Tuesday, Obama promised to veto the approval. ________

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 1, the "Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act."  Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.

The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously.  But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people.  And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto.

BARACK OBAMA

_______________________________

Related article: KEYSTONE XL PIPELINES BIGGEST OPPONENT IS ITS MISGUIDED PUBLIC PERCEPTION

Journalist Amy Harder and Colleen McCain Nelson explain in detail;

"Mr. Obama vetoed the legislation, not the pipeline itself. The administration retains the ultimate authority over the pipeline, and the veto doesn’t affect the review, which is in its final stage.

The move prompted immediate criticism from Republicans, who have described the TransCanada Corp. project as a jobs and infrastructure measure. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday that the chamber plans to hold a vote to override the veto by next Tuesday, although neither the Senate nor the House appears to have the requisite two-thirds of votes for an override.

MORE IN CAPITAL JOURNAL

Keystone Veto to Test Whether Obama, GOP Can Move Forward Barack Obama Has Issued Fewer Vetoes Than 75% of Presidents Tuesday’s veto was Mr. Obama’s third since he became president in 2009. His other two vetoes were on relatively minor bills: one involving legislation dealing with the notarization of mortgages, and the second rejecting a spending bill for technical reasons.

Many Democrats oppose the project, saying it wouldn’t create many permanent jobs and citing environmental risks that come with pipelines, including spills.

While the rejection of the Keystone legislation was no surprise, it will test whether the White House and Republicans can push forward on some shared interests while undertaking battles on other issues. Mr. Obama has threatened to veto several other Republican bills, among them legislation to alter the Affordable Care Act and to impose new sanctions on Iran.

The Keystone action also comes as a standoff over funding the Department of Homeland Security escalates, with Republicans trying to use the issue as leverage to block the president’s executive actions on immigration.

Republican leaders in Congress and Mr. Obama have pledged in recent weeks to work together on areas such as easing trade deals and overhauling tax laws. But Tuesday’s veto, along with other emerging conflicts, has brought into focus the divisions that could impede efforts for a Democratic president and Republican-controlled Congress to forge deals.

“President Obama has rejected our attempt to work together,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) said in a statement.

White House officials repeatedly have said that disagreements over one issue shouldn’t become obstacles to agreement on any other issue. The skirmish over Keystone could test that aspiration.

“The question is whether Congress and the administration will be able to pursue a two-track relationship, where they disagree where they must and agree where they can,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton.

In a message to Congress, Mr. Obama cited the continuing State Department review as the reason for his veto, saying that the legislation “conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety and environment.”

Asked if the Obama administration might eventually approve the pipeline after the State Department review is complete, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday: “That possibility still does exist. This is an ongoing review.” Yet, Mr. Obama has spoken skeptically of the pipeline in recent months.

As proposed, the Keystone XL pipeline would move as many as 830,000 barrels of oil a day, mostly from Canada’s oil sands to Steele City, Neb., where it would connect with existing pipelines to Gulf Coast refineries. As many as 100,000 barrels of that oil could come from North Dakota’s booming oil fields.

If completed, the pipeline system would span 1,700 miles and cross six U.S. states. TransCanada already has spent $3 billion on the project, and the total cost could surpass $10 billion—more than twice an initial estimate—if it is ever built.

On its website Tuesday, TransCanada, based in Calgary, Alberta, said it “remains fully committed” to its project, despite Mr. Obama’s veto."

Be skeptical of government-owned broadband networks

Vastly expanding the reach of taxpayer-funded broadband networks, and overriding common-sense state technology laws — as President Obama recently proposed — is the perfect example of the old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Colorado businesses and taxpayers must turn a skeptical eye toward municipal or government-owned networks (GONs) and, fortunately, our state laws allow local citizens to vote before such an expensive investment is foisted on them. The robust and excessively rosy claims for GONs — which the president echoed in his announcement — are centered on assertions that that they work well and cost taxpayers nothing. These claims simply don't stand up to long-term scrutiny, as demonstrated by the experience in cities around the country.

Expect this debate to heat up fast nationally and here in Colorado. In fact some local government advocates are proposing to eliminate your right to vote on GONs, hoping to duck the in-depth scrutiny that comes along with a local election.

Consider these basic facts that some government advocates don't want you to know:

Look at history. GONs routinely disappoint consumers and taxpayers. Many municipal networks are more expensive to consumers than services offered by private network providers. In fact, advocates often say that there is no cost to taxpayers at all, despite ample evidence to the contrary. And when things go awry, local taxpayers foot the bill - which results in higher taxes, precious local funds diverted from other priorities, or both.

Consider the costs. Local governments routinely tell their citizens that budgets are often too tight to adequately fund public safety, transportation or education, to name just three essential government functions. Adding GONs to the mix is one more (and very expensive) demand on local tax dollars.

Can the private sector do it better? The past troubles that GONs have had are public record and well-documented. A solution that reduces the risk to taxpayers and local budgets is to partner with the private sector to bring cutting-edge broadband services to more Colorado communities. Effective routes to do this include providing tax incentives to build out networks, updating ordinances to reflect ever-changing technologies and speeding up permitting processes. Companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Colorado over the past three years — including Comcast's WiFi investment for downtown Denver, and the gigabit network CenturyLink is deploying in Denver and Colorado Springs. Sustainable broadband deployment is assured when the private sector can respond to changing technologies and provide state-of-the-art service — a level of agility that government just doesn't have.

The desire here in Colorado — and across the country — for high-speed, low-priced broadband access is understandable and we applaud President Obama for drawing attention to this issue. But as with every major taxpayer investment, the risks and rewards must be weighed by taxpayers and local elected officials. Local governments can and should aggressively advocate for the rollout of broadband in their communities, but it's clear that government is not best suited to build, subsidize, manage and maintain its own network.

That's why a robust local dialogue leading to an up-or-down vote is the best route to ensure that taxpayers know what they're being asked to buy — and, potentially, bail out. Coloradans should push back hard against a Washington-designed solution being sold as a broadband panacea.

Jeff Wasden is president of the Colorado Business Roundtable.

Originally published at the Denver Post.

Star Spangled Perfection?

This isn't the first time there's been a bit of a scandal over lip-syncing or the performance of the National Anthem. Personally, I didn't bother to watch the inauguration, since I had to work, but before the end of the day I caught on to the buzz that Beyonce Knowles possibly lip-synced her performance of the Star Spangled Banner.  Can't say I was terribly alarmed or concerned, until I heard a report that the Marine Corps Band had play-synced (or pre-recorded) their performance and possibly, Beyonce was singing along to that.

From the Huffington Post:  Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Gregory Wolf said that because there was no opportunity for Beyonce to rehearse with the Marine Band, it was determined that a live performance by the band was ill advised. Instead they used a pre-recorded track for the band's portion of the song.

That's what put another ding in my faith in humanity. Perfection is now required. Our society has no tolerance for mistakes.  Is it because we have instant and immediate access to YouTube, and can replay and replay any error AND mock it in the comments section?

If Beyonce's voice cracked in the cold weather - a crush of reporters would rush to criticize her - never mind that they can't sing a note half as well themselves. It would become the top story for full week and millions of hits on YouTube, compounded questioning and quite frankly wasted hours of speculation on something that wouldn't matter much if our society would just allow for mistakes.

When will we learn that humans aren't perfect? Can't be perfect? Why does our society want to make gods of men and women? We have no room for error for someone who sings well - to deal with variables like 19-degree temperatures or even the common cold.

Granted, Mid-January weather in Washington DC is not ideal for vocal or instrumental performances. Not good for the instruments, not good for the pipes. So why even bother with the illusion? If what we want, or demand, are flawless performances - why not just play the recording without the pomp and circumstance? Would the spectacle of an inauguration be less impressive without a band in place? Because why coordinate to bring the Marine Corps Band in at all? And all those instruments? Hotel rooms? Shuttle buses?  What matters more, the performance or the illusion of the performance?

Oh, but the whole thing is a show anyway. Mr. Obama was sworn into office on January 20th - as specified in the 20th amendment of the constitution.

I certainly don't blame a renowned singer for wanting to protect her instrument in cold weather - but if that was so important, why couldn't she wear a coat?

But I'm a bit suspicious that there was no opportunity for Ms. Knowles and the Marine Corps Band to practice... in a month and half, that couldn't happen? I think that says more about our priorities than anything else. We demand perfection, but don't expect to work for it.

source:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/marine-band-beyonce-lip-sync_n_2529293.html

EPA Seeks 30 Percent CO2 Cut by 2030

Coal is responsible for 74% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S., according to 2012 data.  The Environmental Protection Agency is now proposing state-specific emissions standards for existing and reconstructed power plants.  The impact is expected to be a 30 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. The EPA will be accepting comments on the proposed rules for 120 days. While optimistic reactions have been enthusiastic, some others have been defensive and claim the proposal would cause damages. Still others, such as The Onion, responded skeptically:

New EPA Regulations Would Force Power Plants To Find 30% More Loopholes By 2030 http://t.co/W001fh9v3X pic.twitter.com/Qoqod8mZdm

— The Onion (@TheOnion) June 2, 2014

UPDATE: Just today, China has followed the U.S. and announced their commitment to cap CO2 emissions. Previously in stalemated negotiations, these two global leaders appear to have both made a serious commitment to reducing carbon pollution. This comes just before a UN-sponsored global meeting on climate change in Germany. Starting Wednesday, representatives from 190 nations will begin setting the stage for the next global climate change talks in December 2015.  The objective of the conference is to achieve a universal agreement from all nations of the world.

What do you think of the potential impacts for the world's economy and environment?