President Bush said Tuesday that Congress is blocking his proposals to deal with high gas prices and dragging its feet on other issues to address the nation’s sagging economy. He said he was open to any idea in terms of energy, including a proposal backed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton to suspend gas and diesel taxes this summer.
But, he said, he favored longer-term fixes, such as encouraging new oil production in the United States and the building of new refineries.
Here is the text of the President’s speech this morning:
Thank you. Good morning.
This is a tough time for our economy. Across our country many Americans are understandably anxious about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills. They’re looking to their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, on many of these issues all they’re getting is delay.
Americans are concerned about energy prices, and I can understand why. I think the last time I visited with you it was like — I said it was like a tax increase on the working people. The past 18 months, gas prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. Electricity prices for small business and families are rising, as well.
I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.
They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil — crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices. And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.
Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries.
As electricity prices rise, Congress continues to block provisions needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power. Instead, many of the same people in Congress who complain about high energy costs support legislation that would make energy even more expensive for our consumers and small businesses.
Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants, and increase reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even further. The cost of these actions would be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills.
Instead of increasing costs and increasing new roadblocks to domestic energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.
Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately, Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem. The bill Congress is now considering would fail to eliminate subsidy payments to multi-millionaire farmers. America’s farm economy is thriving, the value of farmland is skyrocketing, and this is the right time to reform our nation’s farm policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies. It’s not the time to ask American families who are already paying more in the check-out line to pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers. Congress can reform our farm programs, and should, by passing a fiscally responsible bill that treats our farmers fairly, and does not impose new burdens on American taxpayers.
Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes, and I don’t blame them. Last year I called on Congress to pass legislation that would help address problems in the housing market. This includes critical legislation that would modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans. Yet they failed to send a single one of these proposals to my desk. Americans should not have to wait any longer for their elected officials to pass legislation to help more families stay in their homes.
Americans are concerned about the availability of student loans. The recent credit crunch makes it uncertain that some students will be able to get the loans they need. My administration is taking action through the Department of Education’s “lender of last resort” program, which works to arrange loans for students who are unable to secure one from a lender on their own. In other words, we’re helping. Congress needs to do more by passing a bill that would temporarily give the federal government greater authority to buy federal student loans. This authority would safeguard student loans without permanently expanding the government’s role in their financing.
In all these issues, the American people are looking to their leaders to come together and act responsibly. I don’t think this is too much to ask even in an election year. My administration will reach out to Congress. We will work to find areas of agreement so that we can deal with the economic pressures that our American taxpayers and American families are feeling. I ask Congress to do its part by sending me sensible and effective bills that I can sign, instead of issuing or sending bills that simply look like political statements. We can work together. We can help Americans weather this difficult period. We can keep our country moving forward.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
Hey Bush, Instead of spending trillions of dollars on a dumb war that was flawed from the get go, invest that money into the US economy. Stop killing innocent people and US troops on a war that keeps on dragging on and on with no end in sight. Shame on you.
You got us into this mess and soon you will leave office and melt away into oblivion and leave the rest of us to suffer while you enjoy the comforts of life and living off your oil wealth.
Mechel – did you make a shehakol before imbibing generously from the moveon.org Koolaid?
Seriously, without rebutting your inane comments, don’t you know one of the first rules of economoics; namely that war is good for the economy? (Yes, I know that the economy is “in der erd” right now, but that is due to a whole other set of events.
Think Straight:
1. “don’t you know one of the first rules of economoics; namely that war is good for the economy?”
I believe you’re oversimplifying it just a bit…
2. And by the way you wrote “but that is due to a whole other set of events.”
Well why don’t you elaborate.
All you’ve done is attacked someone else and thrown out cliches. Why don’t you articulate more thoroughly before commenting.
what does the war have got to do with the economy? Did the war make gas prices go up? Did the war cause the housing slump? President Bush (yes, President. a little bit kovod for malchei umos haolom) did the most logical thing after 9/11, and that is to go after all these radical muslim countrys, that are busy dreaming how they can kill us.
#1 is your pocketbook more important to you than the safety that was gained by our fellow jews in eretz yisrael by the ousting of Sadaam hussein ? b”h Bush ,even if for the wrong reasons decided to go into iraq and eliminated this wacko. the fact that atleast now there is one less threat to worry about is good enough for me , even if what you are saying is true that he ruined the economy. i am willing to suffer a little bit financially if this means that e”y is a bit safer.
Start digging for oil domestically.
Everything gets smuggled in and out of every place it can in USA
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Raphael Moeller wrote:
SMUGGLED BUTTS: THE TERROR TIES – New York Post
THE TERROR TIES
By PETER KING
April 30, 2008 — STATE law-enforcement officials approached me several months ago with some disturbing news: Recent investigations have indicated that cigarette-smug gling rings in New York are funneling large sums of money to overseas terrorist groups. The officials estimated it at millions of dollars a year.
I immediately ordered my staff on the US House Committee on Homeland Security to conduct a full investigation; the results are alarming.
The report, based on interviews with federal, state and local officials, sheds light on two startling issues:
Smugglers send millions a year to Hamas, Hezbollah.
* By failing to enforce its tax laws, New York state has in essence created a safe haven for cigarette smuggling.
* The reports of cigarette smugglers’ sending money to terrorist organizations are true.
New York’s refusal to collect taxes on the resale of untaxed cigarettes by Native American reservations – a policy called “forbearance” – has created an incredible opportunity for criminal enterprises.
Smugglers can buy cartons of brand-name cigarettes from the reservations for as little as $30, attach counterfeit tax stamps and resell them for more than twice what they paid.
Keep in mind that it’s illegal for reservations to resell these cigarettes to non-Native Americans without paying the applicable taxes. But Albany’s policy is to turn the other cheek – simply out of fear of a political backlash.
The profit margins for cigarette smugglers are staggering. In New York City, where cartons must sell for a minimum of $70, a smuggler can make more than $50,000 on a 1,500-carton load. A well-organized ring can generate $200,000 to $300,000 a week.
A 2006 state Department of Health report estimated that New York loses $436 million to $576 million a year in taxes from the sale of untaxed cigarettes alone – a figure that could rise to $800 million-plus this year.
Given the state’s budget shortfall, the hundreds of millions in lost revenue would seem to be more than enough reason to end the “forbearance” policy. But it’s far more than just a matter of revenue – it’s a matter of national security.
Many cigarette-smuggling rings are now sending their profits to overseas terrorist organ- izations, including Hamas and Hezbollah. The report identifies three recent cases where cigarette smugglers had ties to such groups. In one case, convicted butt-smuggler Mohamad Hammoud made more than $8 million from 2000 to 2002 – and funneled at least $100,000 to Hezbollah. Officials estimate that these smugglers are sending millions a year to overseas terror networks.
The $50,000-plus from just one contraband load would be enough to fund as many as 10 USS Cole bombings. In just several weeks of butt-smuggling, a motivated terrorist cell could generate enough to fund another 9/11-style attack (estimated operational cost: $500,000).
New Yorkers, more than anyone else, understand the terrorist threat – and that’s why we must bring the illicit cigarette trade in the state to an immediate end.
Last week, Gov. Paterson indicated a willingness to re-examine the “forbearance” policy; I’ll fully support him in the effort.
New York state must take action to enforce our tax laws – and give law enforcement the support it needs to crack down on cigarette-smuggling rings.
This issue has been ignored for far too long. Given the clear threat to the city, state and nation, we can’t afford to wait another day.
Peter King, a Republican
Defending ourselves and our country costs money.We have to pay for defense and offense,too so that we can survive. Sometimes we must make hard choices and that is what a leader must do. The President has the facts;we don’t. We MUST trust him,and daven that HKB”H gives him the right thoughts to do what is good for us.
Think straight, not, I think you might want to reconsider your idiotic statement. Instead of saying I am a part of moveon.org, why not actually think about the situation. In fact there are plenty of conservatives that think this war is getting the US nowhere and deeper into trouble.
Please explain how war can be good for economics .
#4, I will first answer you question. War has a lot to do with the economy. You see when we are pumping trillions of dollars into an endless war, that money can be better spent at home protecting the borders and for us Americans. Don’t spew that garbage that we had to attack Iraq because of 9/11.Its nonsence. We should of attacked Iran first and formost according to that theory because they are the biggest sponsor of terror and the greatest threat to the world. We went into Iraq to control the oil. We just used Saddam as an exuce but we all know he had nothing to do with 9/11. In the 1980’s the US cozied up to Saddam, we all know that. So stop the garbage that we went in because of 9/11.
Bottom line is the US went into Iraq because of selfish reasons and we are all paying the price for it at home here.
#10, you didn’t answer my question. What does the government spending money on the war have to do with the economic downturn? This that the money could have been ‘better spent at home protecting the borders and for us Americans’, doesn’t mean that it would have helped the economy. Big momtgage companys and wall street firms that are going down have nothing to do with that. Prices of gas, milk, bread etc. has nothing to do with the government spending money. Forclosures on the rise and home vaues plumeting also have nothing to do. And this that we should have attacked Iran, well it’s true, and they still should attak Iran. But that doesn’t mean that Iraq wasn’t a danger too.