• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Get Ready for the Left's Annual Appeasement to Hugo Chavez

    The New York Times has a front page story out today blaring “Home Energy Prices Are Expected to Soar” that reports:

    Amid a slowing economy, high energy costs are weighing heavily on pocketbooks, and have become a major political issue. …But Democrats and Republicans are deeply split about how to respond. The deadlock in Washington was apparent last month when the Senate failed to pass a bill to double energy assistance to low-income households because Republicans insisted on including measures to allow for more offshore drilling.

    For liberals, the response to high energy prices is tax and spend. Liberals are dead set against increasing domestic energy supplies, especially if that supply comes from American lands and creates American jobs. On the other hand, if leftist dictators like Hugo Chavez are supplying the energy, then that is great.

    According to the Times, former Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) is “urging Congress to provide more money for the federal energy assistance program, which helps poor households pay their energy bills.” And when Kennedy is not looking for more money from Congress, he is appearing in commercials promoting Venezuelan dictator Chavez’s oil giveaways.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Get Ready for the Left's Annual Appeasement to Hugo Chavez

    1. Dave, laguna niguel, says:

      Just exactly how much longer will the American people allow the current crop of democrats to run this country aground and drive up the cost of food and energy to the point only the rich can afford to eat and drive? Its all in our hands to do something about it. The original Boston tea party will look like kids play when "tea party number two" begins. And we are talking days, not months. The working Americans have had enough and quite frankly refuse to take any more from the America-hating left. Our backs are now against the wall and its either take back our country or roll over and become a large Venezuela.

    2. Thomas Gray, South, says:

      We can have the least expensive electricity available from nuclear and really clean the air and help ourselves or we can keep giving false hope to wind and solar which are far too costly and fluctuating to be used. No power grid can have more than 10% wind or solar because they cannot handle the fluctuations. Both sources of power ,,,,,,,require ,,,,,,,100% back-up by conventional,,,,,,, fueled plants that have to cycle up and down very quickly to accomodate the fluctuations.

      . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      I wish all this was not true and we could depend on wind, soalr or hydrogen for power. It is not and we need,,,,,,, real,,,,,, solutions not solutions that sound nice and don't meet our needs.

      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      ,,,,democrats say they do not support drilling for oil becouse it will slow the advancement of wind and solor,,,,, WHAT ??? without oil there will BE no advancement of,,,,,,, ANYTHING,,,,,.

      Since nuclear plants are 90% ? efficient compared to the 25% ?of wind the actual output figure is 21 to 28 times the actual power output of wind.

      The protesters are out protesting the president???,,,I didn't hear anything about him stopping democrats from doing anything before they all went home after doing WHAT??? BLOCKING,,,,,,??? DRILLING??? The oil companys MUST pay whatever the market price IS for oil ,,,,,, it's kinda like california if you don't pay for the fuel to make electricity you don't GET any.

      We burn 1.1 billion ?. tons of coal each year mostly to generate electricity.,,,,,,,, Nuclear is the only way to reduce this,,,,,,,,,. Of course this is objected to because of safety worries. 1.1 billion tons of coal is ok because we are afraid of nuclear. The tens of thousand of people who have died mining coal over the last 30 to 40 years and the many hundreds of thousands with Black Lung Disease is OK, the epidemic of Asthma and other respiratory diseases is OK but we are afraid of nuclear because someone spilled some material in France that has not harmed one person.

      This is a remarkable conclusion. We should spend trillions on old failed technology that, has not, does not and cannot work and reject the only current solution possible.

      Not only do modern reactors have containment buildings but also the design of modern reactors is such that they can now be safely shut down very quickly if they have a operating problem.

      I understand we must find and use sustainable energy sources but if we do not ,,,,,,,maintain,,,,, our current energy sources it simply ,,,,,,,,,,,,will not be possable to do.

      Think of energy in this way,,,,as cups of water,,,,each cup ,,,oil,,,NG ,,,coal,,,,hydro,,,,atom,,,,solor,,,,wind,,,,ect,,,,,are being poured into another cup simultainisly and this other cup has a hole in it that is quiet large,,,,,the biggest cup oil is starting to become empty and so the others,,,,MUST,,,,increase I'm sure you all understand what I mean…

      Tom

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×