Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has spent the last week or so -- nay, the last 25 years -- attempting to circumvent the clearly and repeatedly expressed preferences of a majority of U.S. citizens by allowing oil drilling to take place in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The latest attempt involved attaching drilling to the defense appropriations bill, in effect holding military funding hostage in the middle of an armed conflict.
We have perhaps become numbed by the sheer repetition and persistence of these efforts, but it's worth pausing, stepping back, and noting just how utterly venal and anti-democratic they are. The country would not benefit from Refuge oil. It would be sold on the world market just like any other oil. Oil companies and the state of Alaska would benefit. For that, Stevens is willing to make a mockery of legislative procedure and tradition.
Stevens' latest defeat produced a self-pitying, thumb-sucking tantrum on the floor of the Senate. He said it was the "saddest day of his life." He also threatened his fellow Senators, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) in particular:
"I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done," he told colleagues who voted against the measure. "You've taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new ... I'm sure that the senator from Washington [Cantwell] will enjoy my visits to Washington."
He also, in effect, threatened to quit, saying "It's a day I don't want to remember. I say goodbye to the Senate tonight. Thank you very much." You can watch a little bit of the pathetic performance here (via Atrios).
(It's worth noting that when Refuge drilling came out of the defense bill, so did assistance for low-income people to heat their houses. The LIHEAP program will receive less funding this year than last year, despite record high heating prices. Maybe Stevens should shed a tear over that.)
Energy industry sways Congress with misleading data
Not all green jobs are created equal
Comments
View as Flat
Tom Twigg Posted 8:29 am
22 Dec 2005
Uncle Ted
About seven years ago I met a retired law professor (from Columbia University?) who had gone to law school with Ted Stevens way back when Alaskan statehood was just a glint in some young politian's eye. What he remembered about the young man whom pork hungry Alaskans now affectionately refer to as Uncle Ted was that he talked about going to Alaska after law school, because that was a place where a guy could become powerful.
Well, it seems Ted knew something about Alaska and about becoming powerful. And he did a nice job of passing on his knowledge and moral compass to son Ben.
We might breath a sigh of relief at Uncle Ted's words that he has just about had it with the Senate, but he knows what former Senator Murkowski (R-Alaska, not the new improved Senator Murkowski, the old one... nepitism makes everything so confusing!) knew when he left the senate... Junior is waiting in the wings to take his seat. Ben Stevens is Alaska state Senate President and nicely groomed to take daddy's seat and keep up the relentless efforts to open ANWR. Get ready for more of the same.
If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:45 pm
22 Dec 2005
Typical Alaskans
Unfortunately, most people who move to Alaska do so to make money. All Alaskans receive a yearly check (or is it monthly, I can't remember?) from the oil industry, so there is a standing bribe offered to sell their souls. Perhaps we should start a campaign to get enviros to move to Alaska in droves until they outnumber the oil whores, then throw the bums out!
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
redboat Posted 11:18 pm
22 Dec 2005
pitiful ted
Few political events have ever made me as excited or happy as this week's ANWR vote. The filibuster held! Even colleagues at work were exchanging high-fives and emails to celebrate and spread the news. After work, toasts were amazingly being made to the tundra and the caribou. It really was an event to celebrate.
So many people have worked so hard on this topic. It's too bad though that so much effort has to be spent on ANWR that it takes away from other very important issues.
If Ted Stevens could not win by attaching drilling to the defense budget bill, he probably cannot win at all. He has become a political figure to be pitied. This man is 82 years old and THIS was "the saddest day" of his life?? This is the only issue this man thinks or cares about. Captain Ahab. His blood must have been boiling yesterday. I hardly feel sorry for him though. The Republican bastards had NO business attaching drilling to the defense bill.
To see a great cartoon about Steven' actions click HERE
Here is my plan for ANWR:
In 2006 we elect a new Congress.
In 2007 we get ANWA, the Arctic National Wilderness Area.
eddy out, redboat
Permalink
Tom Twigg Posted 3:03 am
23 Dec 2005
Oil money greases public opinion
There is both truth and error in your comment, but the jist of it is correct I think.
The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) checks that Alaska residents receive every Octoboer does not come directly from oil companies, but from an investment fund that the state set up when it first started realizing the windfall revenues from north slope oil development. The fund is worth billions of dollars and every year a percentage of the fund's growth (actually calculated for a 5 year average) is divided evenly among qualifying Alaska residents, the balance is reinvested in the fund. Payouts have more to do with stock market conditions than the price of oil or new oil development. In 2005 each qualifying resident received approximately $850. The amount has been as high as $1900 in the past.
I think it is true that many Alaskans have had their feelings about oil development tainted by this money -- for many years I did not apply for it myself for this reason. When I went back to school to get a teaching certificate I decided to start taking the money to help pay my expenses. When I had a son, his annual check went into a savings account to help pay for his college tuition some day. In many remote villages this money may represent a large part of a family's annual income.
I know of others who have declined to take the "oil money bribe," and I know of at least one person who takes his family's PFD money every year and donates the entire amount to Alaskan environmental organizations ( ... he writes books you might enjoy... ).
If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.
Permalink
Roland Posted 7:51 am
03 Jan 2006
Not a typical Alaskan
I wanted to respond to some comments posted as "Typical Alaskans" back in Dec. Sorry I've been off line for a while. Anyway, I'd like to let folks know that I don't think there are any typical Alaskans at least not like reported in that comment. In fact we have a very healthy environmental movement in the state. We support a conservation foundation to raise and support that movement. We are no more in control of what our state officals say and do, than we in are control of what Bush and the other scrubs are up to. I move here 30 years ago for the sole purpose of protecting Alaska and helped to draft and pass the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, where we set up this horrible battle. We do receive a permanent fund dividend (PFD), not from the oil companies, but from the state. It is funded from oil revenues, but that is money that doesn't go into building roads, subsidizing mines or other bad things. We set the fund up by constitutional amendment. Think about the state you live in, what if they had set up a fund like that using funds that come to the state from the sale of public resources. I suspect that we would have lower level of poverty in the country. I understand that the PFD is misunderstood, but that is not what is fueling this fight. It is the greed of the oil companies that own our government and the national government. They are the ones who made more in profits in one quarter than the Alaska State Annual Budget. Now if you want to get woundup about something. Think about a state with $28 Billion in the bank, refusing to fund the needs of small rural villages and forcing one third of its cities into bankrupcy.
roland from Alaska
roland from Alaska
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 8:55 am
05 Jan 2006
It may be for the best
If Senator Stevens really plans to retire, it would probably be the best thing, for him, and for the country. His recent acts of desperation are not a healthy sign.
We won, (fortunately), but somebody had to lose. Personally, I can't help feeling sorry for someone who has spent so much of his life fighting for such an unworthy cause.
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 8:56 am
05 Jan 2006
It may be for the best
If Senator Stevens really plans to retire, it would probably be the best thing, for him, and for the country. His recent acts of desperation are not a healthy sign.
We won, (fortunately), but somebody had to lose. Personally, I can't help feeling sorry for someone who has spent so much of his life fighting for such an unworthy cause.
Permalink