• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Energy Revolution and Its Discontents

    With all the gloomy economic news coming out of late, one bright spot flew under the radar last week: the United States is poised to be the proverbial center of the energy universe.

    A recent study by Harvard Research Fellow Leonardo Maugeri found that the United States’ incredible shale reserves represent “the most important revolution in the oil sector in decades.”

    Thanks to the technological revolution brought about by the combined use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the U.S. is now exploiting its huge and virtually untouched shale and tight oil fields, whose production – although still in its infancy – is already skyrocketing in North Dakota and Texas.

    Few Americans are more cognizant of this energy revolution’s possibilities than those who live in the towns sitting above the nation’s largest shale formations. The Heritage Foundation traveled to Willison, North Dakota, above the massive Bakken shale, to hear first-hand how the oil boom there has improved residents’ lives.

    But there are forces looking to undermine North Dakota’s oil boom. “The area that we worry the most about would be the federal government and regulations,” explained Willison Mayor Ward Koeser, “specifically the Environmental Protection Agency.”

    Koeser’s concerns are not without merit. The EPA has a history of wrongfully targeting companies using hydraulic fracturing for supposed environmental contamination. When a top EPA official, Region 6 administrator Al Armedariz, compared his enforcement philosophy to Roman crucifixions, the agency’s history of enforcement actions against oil and gas drillers – both use hydraulic fracturing to extract resources from shale – belied Armendariz’s subsequent apology and walk-back.

    Armendariz just took a job at the Sierra Club, a radical environmentalist group that has undertaken a massive campaign against the extraction of natural gas from shale only a few years after it championed natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil.

    The left’s emerging hostility to “fracking” has the potential to derail the amazing economic opportunity that shale presents. So it should come as little surprise that the political consequences of that hostility are bearing themselves out in places like Western Pennsylvania, which sits on huge shale gas reserves.

    Roll Call’s Stuart Rothenberg reported over the weekend that Pennsylvania, which over the past 20 years has moved further left in terms of its voting patterns, is suddenly more competitive. “Western Pennsylvania increasingly looks like West Virginia or southeastern Ohio,” Rothenberg notes.

    Rothenberg, appropriately concerned with the political analysis, did not connect the dots: Western Pennsylvania, Southeastern Ohio, and West Virginia are all major energy-producing states (or parts of states). The Utica, Marcellus, and Devonian shale formations, for instance, represent major economic opportunities in those states.

    From the federal perspective, then, a sensible energy policy would at least refrain from proactively discouraging those opportunities, as Heritage’s Nick Loris has suggested:

    An aggressive energy policy that opens access, provides a timely permitting process as well as environmental and judicial review, and places a freeze on new environmental regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would go a long way to help lower energy prices, create jobs, and bring revenue into the financially strapped government that’s racked up [over] $15 trillion in debt.

    But left-wing environmentalists continue to fight against the country’s natural gas and oil boom. That boom has the potential not just to revitalize parts of the American economy, but to infuse economic vitality into some of the nation’s most economically distressed communities. Don’t be surprised when those communities stand up to regulatory overreach and environmental hysteria.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    62 Responses to Morning Bell: The Energy Revolution and Its Discontents

    1. Terri Scott says:

      Living in North Dakota has gotten vastly more expensive & people are losing their homes from the increased costs since the oil boom & so many people from out of state are coming in, it is affecting all the towns, both large & small. Crime is drastically on the increase as well. I no longer see it as a good thing, as a resident of ND. It is putting a huge amount of pressure on the infrastructure, roads & housing (a huge housing shortage, with people sleeping in their cars & working in the oil fields).

      • JM1 says:

        List sources for your claims or they're bs.

      • toledofan says:

        I doubt, very seriously, that life is really bad in North Dakota, and I'm sure, as time goes on, because of the increased revenues, things will only get better and everybody will prosper. What an opportunity for people to make money and provide a better life for their family. I guess if the folks sleeping in their cars don't have a problem with that, why should you, so, if it's that big of a problem put up some tents and charge them a couple of bucks to stay there. But, it's the same old song and dance, money is bad, prosperity is no good and just look at all the problems that it creates; we should just live like cave dwellers, unbelieveable.

        • Jeanne Stotler says:

          IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, GO THERE. My son woks for an investagative part of oneof the bg 3 Credit bur., on a recent assignment to N.Dak. he had to stay over 100 miles way from his target, he was warned ahead. Economy has spurned crime everywhere, afte all it's cheaper to take what you paid for than to work. WAKE UP AMERICA, take off your rose colored glasses, take a look around you and read the crime sections of your papers, and courthouse/arrest records,you'll see what is really going on and not what MSM wants you to know.

          • ladylibertylvr says:

            It must seem like a nightmare to a native North Dakotan or rural inhabitant to become aware of the scams that people perpetrate. Originally from Ca. (I hate it), I then lived in a rural area in the midwest (before moving further south) where people were not aware of the schemes people concoct; they regularly left their doors and cars unlocked. The midwest is full of wonderful people. But I'm just sayin'–it comes with the population increase that comes with prosperity and population growth. It's much easier to isolate, but we all need to fight back against the moral turpitude and decay that has overcome our great country.

          • Bobbie says:

            I apologize to those doubted but it only makes sense the spur of crimes are handled properly to avoid the national news…

            Hopefully handled to the extent the crimes won't take part again …

          • Wayne Peterkin says:

            For you and all the others who criticize the ND oil boom, I have no doubt that crime has increased since crime generally follows economic booms. That is an issue for law enforcement to deal with for sure. However, whether people want to recognize the fact or not, oil and gas are a large part of our energy future for years to come; simply because there are no economically viable alternatives today or in the near term. My advice is to participate in your communities to deal with the criminal element harshly and help this nation move away from imported oil as we secure a more economical, stable, and independent energy future. Even our national security depends on it.

      • Bobbie says:

        Activist!! opposing with no backing, ignorant to the current news…

      • ThomNJ says:

        My brother lives in North Dakota and has for over thirty years, and I don't get the same story from him. Also of note is that the obama regime has succeeded in driving up prices everywhere. I do the shopping for my family, and I have noted and observed the increase in costs in just about everything whether grocery items or non-grocery – so I am not convinced the cost increases you are seeing are due solely to the oil boom. The argument that people are losing their homes due to increased costs doesn't make sense on its own – do you mean those on fixed incomes that have a mortgage that is perhaps too big for their fixed income or adjustable in some way?

      • Sharon says:

        dont create jobs in your town is what your saying.

      • AD-RtR/OS! says:

        And land-owners who can put up rental housing are doing quite well.
        In a dynamic, growing, capitalistic society/economy, some win and some lose, but a rising tide raises all boats. It helps to rise on the tide if you're not just standing there with your mouth wide open like a baby chick wanting to be fed my Mama.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        How are people losing their homes when they are needing to build MORE just to house workers?

        Sound more like sour grapes. They didn't find oil or natural gas reserves on your property so you wish to help destroy those who they did. Your not getting your "piece of the pie" so you don't want anyone to.
        Truth ALWAYS comes out.

      • LadyLibertyLvr says:

        It makes no sense at all that people would be losing their homes due to the increased costs. Since this is a very recent boom, people who already own homes would be in a good position with their mortgage balances and interest rates from pre-boom times being low, and ample opportunity to earn money. I speak from experience of home-ownership in FL. I bought pre-housing market bubble and therefore was able to hang on to it longer than most, but no jobs to pay even my modest house payment was the end of it all. Shortage of housing and increase in crime I can see, but not losing homes. Writing bad checks might seem pretty bad compared to cow and outhouse-tipping, but I wouldn't mind a little of that growth! LOL!

    2. Ron says:

      Interesting video on North Dakota oilfields. I am a North Dakota resident living far from the oil boom and I am thankful for that. There is also a downside that is not mentioned. People who have their entire working lives invested in the area have been forced to leave because they simply cannot afford to live in a oil boom economy. People on fixed incomes have been seriously hurt economically because of the greed that comes with the oil. Crime is up in that area. I am 100% in favor of the development of ND oil, but it seems to be an uncontrolled growth that is destroying a way of life.

      • Susan says:

        Ron, life constantly changes. Just because in your opinion a way of life is being destroyed, maybe someone who finally has a job and can feed his family because of the oil boom, his life is wonderful. There is always a constant movement in the universe. People that have lived in that part of the state probably have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the boom, if they are willing to look for the opportunity. If they want to cry that things have changed and don't want to work with the change, then they will have to move somewhere else that for the time being is stagnant.

        • Ron says:

          Tell that to senior citizens that can no longer survive in that economy. Tell that to crime victims, if you haven't experienced it don't try acting like an authority on the subject. I have family working in those oil fields and I will take their word over yours. I also have sons in law enforcement that can tell you stories You wouldn't believe. Plenty have seen the opportunity only to realize money can't buy their dreams. There are also many that came hoping to feed a family that are not able to.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        How is it that in Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and other big oil/NG states they don't seem to have such issues?
        Where the population rises there will always be a rise in crime and so forth. Economically, you should be doing better. Taxes drop because of the influx of extra taxing bodies. If that's not what's happening, your quarrel is with your local government for not getting their share.

      • Ken A says:

        If the price of food shot way up in the oil boom area, it is not because the cost of food rose that dramatically, it is because the grocer's are gouging because they can. A cheap little hotel that used to cost $60 a night now charges $200 a night. A rental unit that used to go for $600 a month now goes for $2500. Those people are also gouging because they can. The tax revenue from the oil should allow municipalities to reduce property taxes and make living cost cheaper for those on fixed incomes. Don't blame the oil boom for what gouging the locals are doing!

    3. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Obama is shutting down the coal industry. Obama is making it almost impossible to obtain drilling permits. Obama will not allow drilling on public lands. Do you really expect Obama's EPA and the radical environmentalist NOT to make every attempt to shut-down fracking? It you do, you had better wake up and realize how close Obama is to completing his mission.

    4. kate65 says:

      Fracking – An existential threat to green dogma. http://www.cfact.org/a/2108/Fracking-An-existenti

      Environmentalists – at least 25% of voters – are intent on placing the UN in control of the US. With broad enforcement powers the UN will regulate land ownership, waterway rights, the right to plant crops, where you should live and what you should use for utilities. The cost of food, transportation and utilities is already skyrocketing.

      See democratsagainstunagenda21.com

      • Bobbie says:

        the President of America can't handle his job without the UN indicates he wants impeachment! In salary he gets twice more than Bush at twice less the responsibilities and absolutely no accountability without a fight!! That can't make an honest man of good will feel healthy? Talk about wastes of money! America should observe indications and take the hint.

      • ladylibertylvr says:

        25%–alarming! We must teach our children and grandchildren the meaning of freedom. I homeschooled mine, but even if you can't we must talk to them about God's truth which will set us free. Deuteronomy 11:19 "Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

      • Wayne Peterkin says:

        “The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.
        If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman

      • Brad says:

        Um…

        I'm an environmentalist, most of my friends are, and I've been at the very heart of the movement. I literally don't know anyone who wants to put the UN in control of the US. This is not something that environmentalists want. Why would we? That sounds awful. I like freedom, sovereignty, and don't want some foreign body far away ruling my life. Of course, sometimes it feels like D.C. is such a body! I find that government regulation is often ridiculous. We could scrap at least half of it and be better off. This is actually a really common opinion amongst environmentalists, not just among conservatives. We're not the devil, please don't talk about us like we are! We're just your kids and friends and neighbors!

        When we do want regulation is when someone's trying to get away with dumping poisons on some folks' land or water or air. You shouldn't have to suffer just because some company next door figured out a way to make a quick buck. If there is one thing government SHOULD do, it's to protect you from the big guy who doesn't care about your farm, or your hunting land, or your tapwater. If it could honestly be shown that fracking doesn't contaminate groundwater, I'd be all for it and I think a lot of people who are currently against it would.

        …but that's just not the way the evidence stacks up right now.

    5. Juan Martinez says:

      I think 90% of the hysteria related to new domestic drilling activity relates to the term "fracking" itself. That term evokes an emotional response that is unwarranted by the underlying facts. I feel like common sense and reasoned analysis have lost the war of public opinion just by losing the battle of words. It's almost like the use of the term "partial birth abortion" instead of its medical term "intact dilation and extraction", or the use of the term "Obamacare" instead of "The Affordable Care Act". Reasoned discussion have lost out before it can even begin. Still, the technological advances in hydrocarbon resource recovery is great news for Americans, except, I suppose, the coal industry.

      • ladylibertylvr says:

        ewwwh…linguistic cleansing….

      • agthorn says:

        Fracking means nothing to me as a 'emotional response'. It is a science and I and others are interested in it, and want the truth, not the emotion. Hard to find true information on this technology without finding people presenting it extremely negatively (left) or as absolutely harmless (right). What is the truth?

        You really want to compare 'partial birth abortion' with 'fracking'??? amazing … You can call it 'intact dilation and extraction' if you prefer, but it's still the murder of a life in the 3rd trimester by stabbing the cranium in the back of the skull and sucking its brains out … there, is that 'less emotional' … shesh.

    6. Shale oil is good news for the American economy and American national defense. Can I be the one who tells the Saudi King to take a flying leap? I won't bow, trust me.

    7. yikes says:

      The only trouble with this is that I enjoy access to clean water. After seeing the damage done in Pennsylvania, I'm a bit concerned.

      • ThomNJ says:

        The water issues in PA have to do with enhanced oil recovery NOT fracking. Diesel fuels and the like are NOT used in fracking in PA or other coal-bed methane formations; so the associated contaminations that some claim are not from fracking.

      • Gues says:

        What damage? Do you have any sources of info outside of "Gaslands?"

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        You are aware any water issues would be there with fracking or not. That NG deposit would be there if it was drilled for or not.
        Drilling your water well THROUGH this NG deposit is what would contaminate your drinking water.
        I have three producing oil and natural gas wells on my property and don't have water issues. Whys that if drilling/fracking causes problems?

      • Ken A says:

        What damage? If fracturing a formation had truly caused damage to water sources, it would be front page news. Haven't seen a single instance of water sources having been polluted by fracturing a formation that is thousands of feet below all existing water sources!

      • El Rondo says:

        You're either willfully stupid or a wanton liar. Here's another example hysterical repitition. There has been no scientifically supported proof of fracturing causing any damage to water tables in Pennsylvania. Every case in which litigation was initiated has been thrown out of court because it was demonstrated the contaminated water was existent before the wells were evn drilled or had to do with the forced natural migration of hydrocarbons from one zone to another by subterranean plate movement. In two of the cases it was proven the water wells had been abandoned years before the drilling took place.

    8. yikes says:

      Abundant, cheap energy doesn't do you much good if it destroys your supply of clean water.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        Seems that NG and oil supply was there long before they drilled for it. The problem is you drilling for water through the NG or oil table.
        Just another lie told by the "green guys" to stop America from becoming energy self sufficient.

      • ladylibertylvr says:

        We need to use our sophisticated brains and technology to move forward, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, there needs to be oversight, but not to the extent that we throw our hands up in the air in frustration and throw out the baby…

      • Bobbie says:

        why would you let it destroy your supply of clean water?

      • @vitadMD says:

        To put things into perspective one should read the May 15th "Environmental Impacts During Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts, and Remedies" put out by SRSI. Authors: Timothy Considine/Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy School of Energy Resources/U of Wyoming, Robert Watson/Penn State U, Nicholas Considine/Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy, and John Martin/Shale Resources and Society Institute/State U of NY at Buffalo.

      • Wayne Peterkin says:

        I might agree if your comment had any real bearing on the subject being discussed. Oil and gas production, even by fracking, does NOT destroy your supply of clean water. Every claim otherwise was proven untrue and nothing but fear-mongering.

    9. JMG says:

      I live in southwest PA. It is amusing to me to see complaints about contaminated water when we have lived in the shadow of multitudes of slag dumps along major and minor waterways for years, along with countless coal mines, many abandoned and caving in. A huge amount of the concern with water quality here has arisen only because the gas drilling companies are being pushed to test the water because of the hysteria the hard-core dems here are stirring up. Much of the water that is testing as contaminated is testing that way BEFORE the fracking has even begun, and likely has the previous gutting of the land for coal to blame. It seems that much water here has been contaminated for years and we are only now finding out about it.

    10. Stan says:

      Why not report on the "Alaskan give-away" by Obama?

      WorldNetDaily.com &lt ;http://worldnetdaily.com//. Obama's State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin. The seven islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabed's surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

    11. Doesn't anyone recognize what is going on here. What are the first things that happen when a socialist or communist or dictatorship or any kind of government that wants to control a country and its people? They start taking control of the major industries of which "energy" is usually one of the largest, the financial institutions, the police and military forces and the media. With all these new energy finds and the potential of billions of barrels of oil and natural gas don't you think the present administration would find it to their advantage to quash efforts to develop those energy sources until they can (get control).

    12. ThomNJ says:

      But there are forces looking to undermine North Dakota's oil boom. "The area that we worry the most about would be the federal government and regulations," explained Willison Mayor Ward Koeser, "specifically the Environmental Protection Agency."

      Let me correct that for you:

      But there are forces looking to undermine AMERICA's oil boom. "The area that we worry the most about would be the federal government and regulations," explained Willison Mayor Ward Koeser, "specifically the Environmental Protection Agency."

    13. Bob Ward says:

      The abundance of all of the natural resources we continue to unveil in our country such as the shale-oil formations,are a true blessing from HIM— and I am not talking about the great Imposture-in-Chief in office currently either!! We were gifted such blessings to enable America to continue to carry the torch and light the way for the world to live in freedom and enjoy such God ordained liberties.

    14. Gues says:

      When did the term FRAC become FRACK? FRAC is an abbreviation used from Fracture, in the oil patch. Must be the mass communications/journalism grads' fault.

      We have been using hydraulic fracturing for decades here in Louisiana with no real/lingering bad effects.

    15. Dr. Henry Sinopoli says:

      From health care, to energy, to Israel, to terrorists, to banking, to ect., ect., ect.,…do you ever wonder why the American public does not trust politicians and are getting tired of "experts" feeding us talking points?

      Doesn't matter if you publish this, I really don't want to add to the wasted verbiage. Just good to vent…

    16. Adam Grabiec says:

      Why not? Energy independence is a good thing.

    17. Max Kummerow says:

      Not unlikely that CO2 already added to the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels (which has increased concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm) will increase average temperatures by 10 degrees. Jim Hansen, who has studied climate for 40 years and correctly predicted hotter weather, says he expects a "Venus syndrome" if all the shale oil and tar sands are burned. On Venus, most carbon has burned and temp is 450 C. If temp rises even 10 degrees life will get pretty miserable and coastal cities will be underwater. So shale oil is a "bright spot?"

      • wally says:

        Haven't you heard ? Jim Hansen doesn't know much about climate. Humans produce about 70 million tons of CO2 into the air per day but nature dumps 24, 000 times as much so the amount that humans emit is insignificant. Also, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and has very little effect on global heating. Clouds are the major greenhouse gas but Jim Hansen and many of the man made global warming people don't mention it because it doesn't fit their agenda. In fact water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Think of it this way. If you used CO2 as the insulating media in your attic to contain the heat in your home, you would have one CO2 particle the size of a marble approximately 3 feet apart in an attempt to capture the heat from your home. Do you really think that your house would warm up?

    18. O2BMe says:

      Where there is prosperity there will be crime. There will always be people who would rather steel than work. In the oil fields there are probably a lot of jobs, but that is hard work. However as the taxes from that get into the system there will be money to improve infrastructure and more jobs in other industries will come. If you think crime is bad there take a look at Chicago, Washington DC and other large cities. I am sure more hotels, motels and apartments will be built soon. It takes time to catch up, but where is a need some one will try to fill it.

    19. boberic says:

      There is no question that there will be consequences to increased domestic energy production. There will also be consequences to a decrease in energy production. About 30 to 40 thousand people die each year in auto accidents. Where are all the liberals ? Why aren"t they calling for elliminating all those killer autos and all those killer trucks. Lets get rid of all of them. Dispose of all motor vehicles or the congress will impose a huge penalty (tax). Then we would not need infrastructure at all. Destroy all the roads and bridges. It would save trillions. It would even increase jobs. Think how many jobs we would need to do all that work. We would then have to hire millions of workers to clean up all the horse sh-t. Replace the cars and trucks with horses. Whole new indrustries would be needed. Everything would be green and perfect.

    20. Dr. Henry Sinopoli says:

      Will you identify the 'official' Heritage censor who either posts a comment or drops it in the toilet? Once identified, one can tailor her/his comments to make sure they are Heritage appropriate to see the light-of-day…Sort of how the White House Staff 'spins' information prior to leaking it to the public.

    21. Donald DaCosta says:

      The EPA, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc. have acquired far to much power and influence over the nations economy and their influence is growing, not waning. Environmental concerns are legitimate and vitally important but so is the nations economic vitality and those concerned about clean air, water, diminishing wetlands and wildlife extinctions would be well advised to share the same concern regarding population growth and the industrial growth that will be necessary to sustain it and the promise of prosperity that goes with it. It is irresponsible at best to consider that protecting the environment and developing America's natural energy resources cannot be considered as a joint problem requiring all the scientific, engineering and entrepreneurial resources dedicated to protecting one and exploiting the other. These need not and should not be considered as incompatible and diametrically opposed objectives as they are now and as they have been for a very long time.

      While playing the environmental uber alles, fear game keeps the Environmental movement well funded, the game has become obvious, tiresome and more akin to an obsession than a noble purpose. While U.S politicians, Hollywood and academia wring their hands, pontificate and wail about America's "evil, destructive, Capitalist greed" and environmental irresponsibility, China, Russia, Brazil, our friends in the Middle East and elsewhere are no doubt overjoyed at their good fortune, not having to deal with these self destructive idealists who have a veritable choke collar on America. They belittle the notion of American exceptionalism and do their very their best to make it a self fulfilling prophecy. If this is allowed to continue it will be because the American people allowed it to happen and we will indeed have become quite demonstrably unexceptional.

    22. Doc Hilliard says:

      Before "Harvard" was so-named in exchange for a library of books, ancestors of mine, and others in Congregational churches, trained new Ministers there. Sadly the "Harvard" cache no longer exists; the reverse, in fact, is true. Whatever comes out of Harvard is highly suspect, and rightly so. It doesn't matter if "research", "publications", "faculty", "students", or "graduates" are tainted, or possibly not tainted, but the perception is the school and its output have become 2nd class, at best.

    23. AD-RtR/OS! says:

      The best way to "freeze" EPA regs, are to defund it, and disband it.

    24. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Frack isn't whack.

    25. GreedizGood says:

      Just start buying your water from the grocery store and quit your whining. Your car's gas has to come from somewhere right? If you don't like using gas to drive someplace, get a bicycle. Lighting your tap water on fire is a small price to pay for prosperity.

    26. Bassboat says:

      So once again we allow 3-5% of the population to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives, what we should buy and can't buy and what is good for us. We deserve every last piece of regulation shoved down our throats. Perhaps one day we will awaken and put these types in their place.

    27. Fred says:

      The United States needs new energy sources. Rather than complain, we need to embrace new technology. If there are vast resources of shale oil and gas then let's busy and develop it. However, as seen in Western Pa, so much land and resources were ruined by the Oil, Gas and Coal industries. The problem seems the resolve of the American people to find a sensible solution. I am certain that with good old American inventiveness and hard work, we can solve these problems.
      Of course, if all we want to do is write comments that only insult. Then maybe we aren't good Americans that we profess to be.
      "Someone else" can no longer take the blame for this. As Pogo would say "We have found the enemy and it is us."

    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.

    ×