Voice of reason in Leonard’s last column
September 11, 2011
Charlie Leonard’s column (“Time to hear from a president, not a campaign,” Sept. 8) is well written, honest, direct and unemotional. Query, can our president and other political leaders copy Mr. Leonard?
Regarding job growth, I was hoping that our president would recommend the immediate elimination of rules and regulations that preclude U.S. companies from extracting oil, natural gas and coal, etc. If this was done, many well-paying jobs would be created overnight without any cost to taxpayers or our governments and would reduce U.S. debt.
Green and clean energy projects can continue in the U.S., provided the U.S. does not subsidize companies that are engaged in such projects so we do not lose another $500,000 million or more, as was recently announced when one such company filed for bankruptcy and more than 1,000 employees were laid off. But instead of paying our U.S. dollars to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada and other foreign countries, we will pay these dollars to U.S. companies and U.S. laborers.
Query: Are there lobbyists who are paid by foreign oil-producing countries or companies to get our politicians to eliminate or restrict extraction of fuels in the U.S.?
Scott Condon’s article, “Carbondale coalition rallies to block gas drilling,” was also published in The Aspen Times on Sept. 8. Members of the audience want to protect the Thompson Divide area so that it will benefit animals and hunters. They do not want to keep employees of SG Interests, which has valid leases for drilling for gas, within the Divide, and this will cause SG Interests not to drill, fire many employees and lose lots of revenues that would also benefit local governments.
Recommended Stories For You
Why kill more jobs when we desperately need U.S. companies to prosper and to create good paying U.S. jobs? Why can’t blocking drilling wait until after our economy has recovered?
The Aspen Times, also on Sept. 8, published John Colson’s article, “Almost $10 million coming to GarCo”. The article sets forth that Colorado received $54.6 million of federal funds that were derived from energy and mineral extraction in Colorado. Out of said proceeds local area governents would receive $9.8 million in fees for energy and mineral extraction activities within Garfield County. That pays a lot of employees too.
If Colorado and/or local governments substantially reduce or eliminate energy and mineral extraction: A) how will the $54.6 million be replaced (i.e. increased taxes); and B) what other damage will it do as a result of loss of jobs and fewer funds to support education and other government programs?