Current Gaylord Weather
PhoneGuide
Search the PhoneGuide:
Directory
Archives
Calendar
Classifieds
Search Gaylord Herald Times Classifieds:
1st Congressional race heating up; Casperson, Stupak begin sparring
By Noah Fowle, PNR Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:30 PM EDT
PETOSKEY — The race for the 1st Congressional District is on.
Shortly after shoring up the Republican party’s nomination, Rep. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, trained his sights on his November opponent, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, and cited the country’s energy crisis as one of the chief issues for the two to spar over.
Casperson spoke up with the rest of the GOP and called for Congress to return from its summer vacation to vote on domestic drilling. Casperson attributed Stupak’s recent vote to adjourn for the summer recess to his successful primary campaign — in which he defeated fellow Upper Peninsula candidates Linda Goldthorpe and Don Hooper last week. He offered a temporary break to his campaigning under the unlikely condition that Stupak pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Congress to return to session and vote.
“I will suspend my campaign to allow him to focus his undivided attention on the vote to secure energy reform,” said Casperson.
Stupak, who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and has held six hearings since 2006 on rising gas prices, shot back that Casperson should educate himself on the issues further.
Shortly after shoring up the Republican party’s nomination, Rep. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, trained his sights on his November opponent, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, and cited the country’s energy crisis as one of the chief issues for the two to spar over.
Casperson spoke up with the rest of the GOP and called for Congress to return from its summer vacation to vote on domestic drilling. Casperson attributed Stupak’s recent vote to adjourn for the summer recess to his successful primary campaign — in which he defeated fellow Upper Peninsula candidates Linda Goldthorpe and Don Hooper last week. He offered a temporary break to his campaigning under the unlikely condition that Stupak pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Congress to return to session and vote.
“I will suspend my campaign to allow him to focus his undivided attention on the vote to secure energy reform,” said Casperson.
Stupak, who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and has held six hearings since 2006 on rising gas prices, shot back that Casperson should educate himself on the issues further.
- Advertisement -
“Five times in the past five weeks, the House considered bills to address energy costs in the short and long term, but House Republicans voted to kill them,” Stupak said. “I suspect Tom Casperson would do as he’s done in Lansing for the past six years and back the Republican leadership over what’s best for his constituents.”
Casperson said the rising price of energy has been one of the top concerns brought to his attention on the campaign trail and Congress must address it soon.
“The consequence of energy prices necessitates us to put politics aside and focus on good sound policy,” he said. “Congress has an opportunity to take immediate action and help ease the pain at the pump by allowing for offshore energy exploration.”
However, Stupak explained that rising energy prices must be addressed from two fronts and that to a certain extent, there is little Congress can do to control the volatility of oil markets. He pointed to the passage of the recent PUMP Act to help stabilize prices and end speculation as a short term solution, and the creation of the first biodiesel fuel plant in his district in the Upper Peninsula as a long-term solution to develop alternative energies.
“Let’s be honest with the American people — none of us has within our power the ability to lower gas prices today or tomorrow,” Stupak said.
Contact Noah Fowle at 231-439-9374 or nfowle@petoskeynews.com.
Casperson said the rising price of energy has been one of the top concerns brought to his attention on the campaign trail and Congress must address it soon.
“The consequence of energy prices necessitates us to put politics aside and focus on good sound policy,” he said. “Congress has an opportunity to take immediate action and help ease the pain at the pump by allowing for offshore energy exploration.”
However, Stupak explained that rising energy prices must be addressed from two fronts and that to a certain extent, there is little Congress can do to control the volatility of oil markets. He pointed to the passage of the recent PUMP Act to help stabilize prices and end speculation as a short term solution, and the creation of the first biodiesel fuel plant in his district in the Upper Peninsula as a long-term solution to develop alternative energies.
“Let’s be honest with the American people — none of us has within our power the ability to lower gas prices today or tomorrow,” Stupak said.
Contact Noah Fowle at 231-439-9374 or nfowle@petoskeynews.com.
3 comment(s)
MikeHeath wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:50 AM:
" Golden Hornet - re your comment that the Dems don't have an energy policy. Actually they do; it is:
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/
Also, I would be interested in your explanation on how off-shore drilling will have a significant and positive impact on our energy prices and our energy independence given the level of reserves relative to current and trending global demand for oil. In order that you don’t waste your time, I studied economics pretty intensely at an under-grad level with some of the best econ profs in the country and therefore believe I have a solid understanding of the effects of pricing given increased supply in a micro-economy which is how the GOP is making their case, but that reality doesn’t exist since oil companies and the market operates in a global economy. So please don’t waste your time with a response if all the ammunition you have are simplistic GOP talking points that their increased supply model will solve pricing and independence issues where they ignore the elasticity values of supply and demand in a global market given alternative energy and conservation solutions that impact those elasticity values. My question to you is how the incremental increase in supply would impact energy prices given competitors who can reduce their supply if we increase ours, coupled with the fact that demand is increasing in an inelastic manner in some countries while we have the capability to make demand pricing elastic in this country. Given those elasticity values, why is off-shore drilling such a high priority if the effects are minimal according even to the Bush administration? Could we be getting played for an ulterior purpose?
The GOP talking points ignores the elasticity values of oil supply and oil demand given alternative solutions, both short-term and long-term. The GOP talking points are not meant to even increase drilling short-term, we currently have capacity issues in both raw materials to drill along with oil refinery limitations, the latter the oil companies refuse to address since they can increase their marginal profits by restricting supply of gas without taking the long-term risk of added investment in gas refineries (a risk that is real if America switched from oil to other sources of energy). Instead, the GOP is taking advantage of high oil prices to help their financial constituents book new reserves on the asset side of their balance sheet at economical prices in a political environment that’s perfect for getting support to do so (high oil prices, unstable Middle East, an aggressive Russia). While this is helpful to American oil companies, whose profits I applaud, I’ve seen zero quantitative models that show drilling off-shore having a significant impact on either oil prices or energy independence given how OPEC controls supply as a reaction to new supply coming online by their competitors, India and China’s continually increasing demand, and other options available to developed regions of the world.
I am not anti-off-shore drilling and I’m certainly pro-American business. I am anti-stupid. So if you have a cogent argument to make, make it. As a Republican, I find the current GOP argument is embarrassing. Maybe you have a lucid argument given the certainty you claim for your position in your original argument. My training tells me that the Democratic plan, with a mixture of T. Boone Picken’s plan, is the most rational plan out there since it addresses the elasticity of the oil market both short- and long-term.
BTW, I agree with you on biofuels. If we’d listened to the experts, we’d have ignored corn or using up farmland for biofuels until we come up with a biofuel solution that makes sense, which has yet to occur though some plants look promising. The biofuel fiasco buttresses my argument. We need to ignore jingoistic talking points by politicians and listen to the functional experts. From my perspective, the Dem energy plan is doing this more than the GOP plan even though I’m a Republican. "
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/
Also, I would be interested in your explanation on how off-shore drilling will have a significant and positive impact on our energy prices and our energy independence given the level of reserves relative to current and trending global demand for oil. In order that you don’t waste your time, I studied economics pretty intensely at an under-grad level with some of the best econ profs in the country and therefore believe I have a solid understanding of the effects of pricing given increased supply in a micro-economy which is how the GOP is making their case, but that reality doesn’t exist since oil companies and the market operates in a global economy. So please don’t waste your time with a response if all the ammunition you have are simplistic GOP talking points that their increased supply model will solve pricing and independence issues where they ignore the elasticity values of supply and demand in a global market given alternative energy and conservation solutions that impact those elasticity values. My question to you is how the incremental increase in supply would impact energy prices given competitors who can reduce their supply if we increase ours, coupled with the fact that demand is increasing in an inelastic manner in some countries while we have the capability to make demand pricing elastic in this country. Given those elasticity values, why is off-shore drilling such a high priority if the effects are minimal according even to the Bush administration? Could we be getting played for an ulterior purpose?
The GOP talking points ignores the elasticity values of oil supply and oil demand given alternative solutions, both short-term and long-term. The GOP talking points are not meant to even increase drilling short-term, we currently have capacity issues in both raw materials to drill along with oil refinery limitations, the latter the oil companies refuse to address since they can increase their marginal profits by restricting supply of gas without taking the long-term risk of added investment in gas refineries (a risk that is real if America switched from oil to other sources of energy). Instead, the GOP is taking advantage of high oil prices to help their financial constituents book new reserves on the asset side of their balance sheet at economical prices in a political environment that’s perfect for getting support to do so (high oil prices, unstable Middle East, an aggressive Russia). While this is helpful to American oil companies, whose profits I applaud, I’ve seen zero quantitative models that show drilling off-shore having a significant impact on either oil prices or energy independence given how OPEC controls supply as a reaction to new supply coming online by their competitors, India and China’s continually increasing demand, and other options available to developed regions of the world.
I am not anti-off-shore drilling and I’m certainly pro-American business. I am anti-stupid. So if you have a cogent argument to make, make it. As a Republican, I find the current GOP argument is embarrassing. Maybe you have a lucid argument given the certainty you claim for your position in your original argument. My training tells me that the Democratic plan, with a mixture of T. Boone Picken’s plan, is the most rational plan out there since it addresses the elasticity of the oil market both short- and long-term.
BTW, I agree with you on biofuels. If we’d listened to the experts, we’d have ignored corn or using up farmland for biofuels until we come up with a biofuel solution that makes sense, which has yet to occur though some plants look promising. The biofuel fiasco buttresses my argument. We need to ignore jingoistic talking points by politicians and listen to the functional experts. From my perspective, the Dem energy plan is doing this more than the GOP plan even though I’m a Republican. "
The Golden Hornet wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:57 AM:
" Stupak is merely spouting the Democratic line concerning energy policy (they don't have one) and oil exploration and production. (they are agin it) Most folks are beginning to see -- and feel -- the false promise of bio-fuels.
Stupak has had his shot (he missed) at glory in the house, now it's time for someone new. "
Stupak has had his shot (he missed) at glory in the house, now it's time for someone new. "
If you have registered, enter your Member ID/Password to comment.
You must agree to the Terms of Use and registerwith a valid email address to post comments.
CUTTY wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:43 AM:
Second, the mere mention of the possibility of off shore drilling has changed the anticipation of future supplies (however limited) and hence the prices on the spot market have declined.
In both instances its the commodity speculators who are influencing about half the energy costs in this nation and the industrialized world. Its the speculators who need to be reigned in. I do applaud Stupak for his efforts in this regard.
However I disagree with you on several other points. First the issue of refineries. Oil companies need to build more refineries but excessive environmental restrictions have increased the costs and uncertainties to the point where its not economical to do so.
This nation hasnt had a new refinery built since 1978. Thirty years is an awfully long time, too long if we wish to maintain an adequate supply of any commodity. Sure the oil giants have taken advantage of this in terms of a big profit squeeze on the consumer, but if one were truly honest (and not totally in sync with the politically correct environmentalists), you would have to acknowledge that environmental restrictions on the construction of new refineries has not been helpful.
Second, I believe in term limits. Stupak has been in office for about 16 years. He has done a lot of good, but public service shouldnt be a lifetime job. Senator Carl Levin has been in office since 1978. Hes a good man and a great senator as well.
Speaking as a democrat, but more as an American, I believe its time both were replaced.
Unfortunately we have an electorate which is largely brain dead concerning any type of election. They automatically re elect incumbents in a very unthinking manner. Unless an incumbent is either facing a terminal illness or under indictment, he or she will get re elected for life.
In the end, whether its energy costs or elections, the American voting public has to take its share of the blame for the mess we are in.
Sure the greedly oil companies and speculators are part of the problem. They are however allowed to flourish when voters simply dont give a rip about politics, other than to complain about it. "