“Scientific misconduct” within key federal agencies has given rise to regulatory policies that burden an already beleaguered economy and erode the public trust, Sen. David Vitter warns in a letter addressed to the White House.

At issue is a report from the U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that describes how the agency manipulated and altered a 30-day report from the National Academy of Engineers. Sen. Vitter and several House colleagues, including Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), called for the OIG investigation in response to allegations that officials with Interior had deliberately misrepresented scientific opinion on the merits of the deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

“We’ve seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they’ve developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy,” Vitter said. “We want the public to be aware of the administration’s misconduct, but we also want agencies to be transparent and explain their methods.”

The letter from Vitter, co-authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), is addressed to John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.

“The IG investigation showed that not only had Interior violated the Information Quality Act (IQA), but there was direct involvement by the White House, specifically Carol Browner, to manipulate the summary documentation in violation of peer-review protocol,” the letter says. “…The investigation revealed blatant political influence, on what should have been an independent scientific assessment, to inaccurately represent the views of a particular team of scientists.”

In response to the explosion of British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010, Interior declared a moratorium on deepwater drilling, which it extended for six months that following May 27 in tandem with the 30 day report. An engineer who was asked to participate in the peer review process of the report’s recommendations sent a letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Vitter and Sen. Mary Landrieu (R-La.) making it clear that he and his colleagues did not officially endorse the moratorium. The letter was co-signed by other engineers and reads in part as follows:

“A group of those named in the Secretary of Interior’s Report, “INCREASED SAFETY MEASURES FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF” dated May 27, 2010 are concerned that our names are connected with the [deepwater drilling] moratorium as proposed in the executive summary of the report. There is an implication that we have somehow agreed to or “peer reviewed” the main recommendation of that report. This is not the case.” (emphasis is included in the original letter)

Luke Bolar, a spokesman for Vitter, identified White House Climate Change Advisor Carol Browner as a key figure responsible for manipulating and distorting the scientific language.

“Carol Browner is one of the leading voices of junk science,” he said. “She was the one who changed the summary language just hours before the 30 day review was received and added a sentence to make it appear as the engineers endorsed the moratorium when they hadn’t. That’s why we needed the IG investigation.”

Early in his term, Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity” that emphasized the importance of sound science in shaping and directing public policy, Vitter, Inhofe and Issa point out in their letter to the White House.

“Public trust in federal scientific work is waning and the academic community has gone so far as to call the situation a crisis,” the letter says. “Accordingly, we request that you provide us with an accounting of your activities in response to serious questions raised about the quality of science utilized by this Administration.”

The letter concludes with a series of questions put to Holdren.

1.      When this IG report became public, who did you contact at Interior to discuss scientific integrity and allegations that Interior violated peer reviewed protocol?

2.      Did you speak directly with Secretary Salazar or anyone else identified in the IG report?

3.      What was the content of your conversations with the President and Carol Browner, as well as any other White House officials?

4.      What firewalls did you put in place at the White House to prevent future political influence from interfering with an independent scientific report?

5.      What actions were taken at both Interior and the White House, or otherwise government-wide, as a direct result of your efforts following the IG’s findings?

6.      What are your suggestions for strengthening the Information Quality Act in light of this incident specifically?

7.      What are your suggestions for strengthening the Information Quality Act in light of this incident?

Kevin Mooney is the Capitol Bureau Reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at kmooney@pelicaninstitute.org and followed on Twitter.

         

NEW ORLEANS, La. - Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce nullified an $80.6 million grant meant to extend broadband internet access to rural Louisiana.

The Commerce Department rescinded the grant on the grounds that the Louisiana Board of Regents – who originally applied for and received the grant – had an implementation plan that was incomplete and behind schedule.

They also said that the board was unresponsive when repeatedly asked for additional information.

The grant, originally awarded last year through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, would have enhanced the state’s high-speed optical network at schools and libraries in 21 rural parishes and four American Indian reservations.

Upon learning of the Commerce Department’s ruling, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) released a statement claiming that it was “yet another missed opportunity to improve the lives of Louisiana residents, particularly rural Louisianans who are often left out of such initiatives.”

Paul Rainwater, Commissioner of Administration, claims that the plan would undermine private businesses.

Projected Rural Broadband Internet Access from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

“From the start, we’ve always said there were implementation and sustainability problems in the grant that had to do with a top-down, government-heavy approach that would compete with and undermine, rather than partner with, the private sector and locals.”

Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, agrees with Rainwater, and says that subsidies and grants always distort market processes.

“Businesses are there to serve the demands of ordinary Louisianans, while grants tend to go to the politically well-connected.”

Jim Purcell, Board of Regents Commissioner of Higher Education, claims that he became aware of some problems with the plan soon after arriving in Louisiana, and attempted to remedy the situation, but “unfortunately, despite gaining demonstrated support from both our public and private partners, our approach was rejected.”

Both Landrieu and Purcell also say they’ll continue working to improve broadband access in the state despite losing the grant.

“If the state of Louisiana is unable to carry out these types of transformative projects across our state, then I will work even harder to partner with interested local officials, nonprofits and businesses to accomplish the same goals,” Landrieu says.

Harper contends that the best way to spread broadband to rural Louisiana is to lower taxes, leaving more money for Louisianans to spend on what they want.

He also suggests the federal government should release control of the electromagnetic spectrum so “more wireless broadband providers can come to the market and offer Louisianans more high quality broadband options at lower prices.”

Robert Ross is a policy analyst with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at rross@pelicaninstitute.org, and you can follow him on twitter.

The debate over reducing government subsidies to Amtrak intensified last week when House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Florida) labeled the railway a “Soviet-style monopoly.” While the severity of this statement may be questioned, it is a matter of fact that Amtrak continues to run at heavy losses for which the taxpayer is left holding the bill, strengthening the argument that it should be privatized or defunded altogether.

As revealed in a report by the Transportation Committee, the Sunset Limited line connecting New Orleans with Los Angeles operated at a loss of $417.92 per passenger in 2010. Overall, Amtrak’s 15 long-distance routes averaged a loss of $117.84 per passenger. Despite increasing ridership, Amtrak operated at a $506 million loss this past fiscal year, and expects a loss of $616 million next year.

Amtrak’s failings are easily attributable to its poor operating procedures, which Mica accurately terms as “antiquated.” These procedures include expensive ticket prices, extremely long travel times compounded by extended layovers, and limited days of operation- all of which entice potential passengers to use airlines instead. In addition, union friendly labor practices have raised costs considerably at the expense of progress.   

While this would ostensibly indicate a failing business model, Amtrak nonetheless has ardent supporters who contest that the private sector would not fare any better. Proponents such as Mayor Landrieu and Sen. Mary Landrieu argue that Amtrak is indispensable to the local economy because of New Orleans’ dependence on the tourism industry.

While transportation plays a pivotal role in shoring up local tourism, leaving transportation to the private sector seems logical at this point. No viable enterprise would hope to operate at a profit with the extremely inefficient procedures currently used by Amtrak. Furthermore, while a  privately-run line would be more efficient, many commuter rail lines may just simply not be responsive to the market. With the availability of planes, cars, and buses, passenger trains are no longer a practical option to many consumers.

Amtrak can afford to continue with such impractical operating rules because it is being paid for by someone else- taxpayers. Amtrak’s history has been one of consistent financial loss and government bailouts. The tired argument that it needs further subsidizing to be resuscitated is rendered null and void by the fact that Amtrak was dead on arrival.

In a decision sparking heated debate and condemnation, the state has turned down a federal grant opportunity for early learning because it is not adequately organized to administer these funds. While many are expressing outrage over this decision, it raises important questions about the value of federally funded education programs such as Race to the Top.

Under the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge, states can apply for up to $100 million in funds to increase access to quality early education for low income school children. However, Acting State Superintendent of Education Ollie Tyler announced that Louisiana would not compete because the state essentially has its hands too full already in red tape and lacks any “clear governance structure.”  Furthermore, Tyler contested that a federal handout “will not effectively meet the needs of our children.” This admission speaks volumes about the need to downsize consolidated control over education and transition towards local autonomy, efficient spending, and vouchers, rather than relying on arbitrary spending to achieve educational progress.

The efficacy of Race to the Top and similar programs has come under heavy scrutiny, especially since Louisiana was ignored earlier this year when the Obama Administration announced the “winning” states, despite exhibiting progress superior to those winning states. Critics of Race to the Top pointed to the dubious results as evidence that states were being baited with financial incentives to fall in line with uniform federal policies for education, which may potentially be adverse to an individual state’s needs.

What the state should do is replicate the successful formula of public education in New Orleans post-Katrina by increasing autonomy on the local level and reducing the congested, unresponsive control of centralized bureaucracy. School systems should administer early education according to their needs and not be held hostage to the mass confusion referenced by Tyler, nor should they view federal outlays as a prerequisite to progress.

As frustrating as Louisiana’s bureaucratic incompetence is, this ordeal opens up an important dialogue. National standards are not imperative for success, and neither is doling out hundreds of millions of dollars for conforming to the wants of a program with a dubious success record. There is inherent danger in states conditioning their policies to government money, rather than developing self-sustaining programs of their own.

NEW ORLEANS, La. - Louisiana and other states rich with offshore oil and natural gas are fighting to keep more revenues destined for federal coffers.

As new shale gas plays continue to be discovered in Louisiana, the federal government is seeking to take its slice of revenues in order to help plug its $14 trillion budget deficit.

A proposal, backed by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), would allow Louisiana and other producing states to keep a 37.5 percent share of oil and gas revenues that would otherwise fall into federal coffers.

At the moment, nearly all royalties and revenues from energy production in federal waters – about $5 billion to $10 billion annually – goes to the U.S. Treasury Department.

However, according to a 2006 law, Louisiana already retains 37.5 percent of severance tax revenues, but wont see any of the money until 2017. Landrieu feels that if other states were given the same economic incentive, they may be more attracted to offshore drilling.

Federal opposition to the revenue sharing plan is palpable, as Senate Energy and Natural Resource chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) staunchly opposes the proposition.

Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Bingaman, claims that directing money to only a few states “doesn’t make sense,” and that the Treasury cannot withstand additional pressure on its finances.

“With the government at risk of default, how could anyone seriously consider blasting an enormous new hole in the Treasury, to the tune of many, many, many billions of dollars.”

Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association, says he would be in favor of severance tax revenue sharing as it would incentivize states to drill off of their coasts. However, Briggs contends that states would be heavily dependent on Louisiana’s pipeline transportation and infrastructure, thus, “Louisiana should still retain a larger portion of those tax dollars, given our risk position in the Gulf.”

An alternate plan, proposed by Texas oil and gas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, attempts to start a new natural gas program whereby commercial trucks, certain auto fleets and vans are converted from diesel fuel or gasoline to natural gas.

In addition, the plan calls for a $1 trillion investment in wind turbine farms to offset the use of natural gas for power generation.

Pickens claims the conversion would enrich natural gas producers, in addition to diminishing the nation’s dependence on imported oil to the tune of $300 billion per year.

Briggs says as long as Pickens’ plan does not include “unsustainable and uneconomical wind power projects” and instead revolves around cost effective and proven technologies like natural gas, he would endorse the plan.

Unconventional drilling methods, such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, have drastically increased production, which is expected to quadruple by 2040 according to a recent Baker Institute for Public Policy study.

The increased supply of natural gas has reduced prices, after a period of volatility during 2006 and 2008. Natural gas had traded between $4 and $5 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) on the New York Mercantile Exchange in 2011.

Robert Ross is a researcher and social media strategist with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at rross@pelicaninstitute.org, and you can follow him on twitter.

Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rush Holt of New Jersey are determined to repeal 2006’s Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, authored by Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu, which would rob Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas of billions of dollars in mineral revenues in the future.

Markey has filed legislation which would repeal Landrieu’s 2006 triumph, which gives Louisiana and the other coastal states 37.5 percent of offshore oil and gas revenues starting in 2017. According to Markey and Holt, this law unfairly benefits a few states, in turn hurting the majority of the nation. If Markey and Holt succeed, coastal states would lose out on approximately $150 billion over the next 60 years, according to Department of the Interior estimates.

Rep. Markey’s description of the revenue stream as “oil-well welfare” overlooks the environmental risk which  Gulf states expose themselves to in order to provide the rest of the nation energy. This was exemplified by the BP oil disaster, which occurred because the federal agency Mineral Management Service abdicated its duty in safe-checking drilling operations.

It would not be cynical to chalk this effort up to a continuation of the liberal assault on a secure energy policy for the country. The Gulf States, Louisiana included, have continually opposed Washington’s efforts to impose a moratorium, followed by a “permitorium,” on Gulf oil drilling. This has incited oil-state Democrats such as Sen. Landrieu to cross party lines and oppose Obama Administration energy policies.

The losses Louisiana would be looking at transcend mere revenues. As noted by Congressman Jeff Landry, these revenues would be going towards badly-needed coastal restoration. Much coastal erosion has been the man-made result of constructing waterways to facilitate exploration which benefits the rest of the country. If Reps. Markey and Holt win, however, these revenues would disappear into the coffers of the federal government.

This debate is a continuation of the stalemate pitting Gulf coastal states against Washington following the oil spill disaster. Once again, an ever-expanding federal government seeks to usurp the remaining independence of states. The irony, as pointed out by Rep. Doc Hastings, is that if the Obama energy policy continued unfettered, there would be far less oil and gas revenues for Washington to claim as its own.

Jamison Beuerman is a contributing writer and policy analyst at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted via email at jbeuerman@pelicaninstitute.org or followed on twitter @jbeuerman.

NEW ORLEANS. La. – Mayor Mitch Landrieu has requested the limited removal of seniority privileges from consideration in city lay-offs, and the local chapter of the Service Employees International Union is unimpressed.

The “bumping right” in jeopardy is the power employees with seniority have to displace workers in other departments when they lose their own position. This proposal comes in the wake of a March Public Strategies Group report commissioned by the Mayor’s Office – a 29-page “Transformation Plan for City Government.”

Yesterday, in the lead up to Thursday’s Council Chambers hearing on the proposal, SEIU leaders and union members held a press conference and called for “facts, not urban legend” to drive the city’s reform.

The Local 21 LA chapter of the union represents most of the city government’s employees, and Chapter President Helene O’Brien (pictured above) wanted people to know that performance ratings are already the priority in lay-off decisions.

“Seniority is second,” she said. “And yet the kind of change that is being promoted, the argument behind it, is somehow leaving that important fact out.” (Listen to the complete interview below – six minutes.)
Download the MP3.

O’Brien believes the proposed change, to restrict seniority privileges to one department, would not keep the best employees in the New Orleans. However, she resisted an explanation as to why seniority, in and of itself, ought to be a consideration beyond a default position.

“It’s a default, that’s exactly what it is… And also because we all know that we get much better at our job the more we do it.”

The SEIU press release also describes the commissioned report as flawed, due to the small sample size of 60 individuals.

Even with that limitation, though, SEIU sees no connection between the report’s findings and the proposed change. They allege the report does reveal a top heavy bureaucracy and a history of poor management in city government, with lower level employees as victims of the dysfunction.

The public hearing will take place at 10am on Thursday (tomorrow) at the New Orleans Council Chambers.

Fergus Hodgson is the capitol bureau reporter with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy and editor of The Pelican Post. He can be contacted at fhodgson@pelicaninstitute.org, and one can follow him on twitter.
.

Since Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, New Orleans East has been without an operating hospital. Two successive mayors have failed to replace the old Methodist Hospital building.

A report by the Times-Picayune this week provides ample explanation for this inertia. As usual, the responsibility for providing New Orleans with a necessary service has fallen to another unelected, mayoral-appointee board. The New Orleans Hospital District A Board came out of 2006 state legislation to “preside over redeveloping the shuttered Methodist Hospital into a community hospital,” to which it has not come close.

After Mayor Landrieu took office, he quickly dismissed Mayor Nagin’s appointees to this board, backed by a law which essentially left the composition of the board up to the Mayor’s discretion. In response, the Nagin-era board members filed a suit challenging the legality of Landrieu’s actions. The board must now focus on a time and money-consuming lawsuit.

Now, HB 353, authored by Rep. Jeff Arnold (D-Algiers) and backed by Landrieu, seeks to “retool” the appointing process. According to Arnold, his bill would give the public more say over the composition of the board.

The bill, however, misses the point. It would merely reinforce the flawed notion that unelected bureaucrats are qualified to have critical influence over the city’s hospitals and that more boards and commissions are a prerequisite to progress.

The city currently has planned a public-private partnership with the Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System to operate the proposed hospital. However, Hospital Board agreed to this partnership behind closed doors and gave the public no say in the matter. Moreover, the closed-door selection in lieu of an open bidding process meant that the city did not necessarily choose the most fiscally prudent course of action for a hospital which taxpayers will certainly subsidize.

The most practical and responsible way towards achieving a new hospital in the East is taking the reins from the hands of bureaucrats and putting private contractors in the driver’s seat. A competitive, transparent bidding process for a new hospital does not require the oversight of an entirely new board.

The East’s hospital charade is testament to the ineptitude and destructiveness of government interference.  Government, as a business model, is habitually a failure, and something as indispensable as a hospital should be left to health care professionals, not unelected boards.

BATON ROUGE, La – As Louisiana municipalities struggle to mend their financial straits, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu may soon be without one of his most productive, yet controversial revenue generators: automated speed cameras.

Since 2008, Orleans parish officials have depended on an ever-expanding grid of red light and speed cameras to provide revenue for their budget. Currently, the New Orleans program of “Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems” (ATES) is comprised of at least fifty-six high tech optical devices that cast an ever-watchful eye over the city’s streets.

These devices face termination in the current legislative session with Senate Bill 75 and House Bill 347. The former, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Martiny (R – Metairie), would prohibit local municipal authorities from authorizing, installing, using, or enforcing electronic vehicle speed enforcement systems to regulate traffic laws. Here, the key word is speed, meaning that red light camera systems would be unaffected. (Click here for a list New Orleans area traffic cameras.)

The House bill, whose primary author is Rep. Jeffery Arnold (D – New Orleans), would prevent local governing authorities from imposing or collecting fines from both speed and red light infringements. Only a voter approved local referendum could overturn the prohibition.

The cameras under consideration operate as you would imagine: a vehicle traveling through a red light after a predetermined time or exceeding a specified speed limit stimulates an automatic response from the cameras. And, as many of us are all too familiar, the identifying features of the motor vehicle are recorded.

Unfortunately, suspected traffic violators caught in the lens of the cameras face an uphill battle if they choose to contest the matter.

According to Joseph McMahon III, a Metairie attorney, who has been challenging the system for the past three years, says parishes and other municipalities across Louisiana have turned traffic violations, which were previously criminal offenses, into civil matters.

The adjustment, he claims, has deprived citizens of their constitutional rights.

“They have basically altered the system. They have changed the rules in such a way that anyone who gets a ticket is at an absolute disadvantage”.

The Senate Bill’s sponsor, Daniel Martiny, echoes the notion that the burden of proof is on the motorist to prove they weren’t speeding.

“The system ought to lend itself to a fair resolution of dispute, and it doesn’t.”

Martiny also conveyed a common perception shared by opponents of the system “It’s so obvious that it is a money grab by local governments.”

At $145 for a red light violation and between $80 and $240 for speeding tickets, the money quickly adds up. In 2009 and 2010, the revenue in Orleans was more than $13 million and $24 million, respectively. That suggests more than 10,000 tickets every month.

For the 2011 fiscal year, the Mayor’s budget projects $23 million in revenue – around 5 percent of the general fund – though critics suspect even this estimate to be a gross understatement.

The National Motorists Association has publicly voiced its opposition to speed and red-light cameras, with the claim that niether improve safety. In fact, a University of South Florida report claims that red-light cameras “increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections.”

Courtesy of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

To place the safety motive for camera use under further suspicion, six U.S. cities have been convicted of shortening the yellow light so as to catch more people on the red. However, none of those were in Louisiana.

These aren’t the only major complaints against the ATES. Last fall, plaintiffs successfully argued that the current city charter was not amended to give the Department of Public Works, who then administered the program, authority to regulate traffic violations.

Eventually, the issue made its way to the Louisiana Supreme Court which ruled that the city’s management of the program was illegal. Consequently, the use and enforcement of the cameras was temporarily suspended.

After going through a series of appeals, the New Orleans City Council eventually shifted administrative duties away from the Public Works Department to the New Orleans Police Department, on November 4, 2010. Traffic cameras then resumed business as usual.

Not surprising, the transfer of responsibility to the NOPD created its own set of problems. Most recently, a WDSU investigative team uncovered that a private, Jefferson Parish based firm, Anytime Solutions, was delegated the responsibility of reviewing the footage, ultimately determining what instances were ticket-worthy.

Ironically, the company’s vice-president is Police Commander Edwin Hosli. All of the company’s employees are high-ranking city police officers working as “paid” details. According to the same report, Anytime Solutions was paid up $10,000 every two weeks to review the material.

Since making headlines, Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas shifted duties to the motorcycle department of the Traffic Division.

Mayor Landrieu’s office has previously argued that this a crucial revenue source for the city and that the elimination of traffic cameras or red light cameras, in particular, could “impact essential city services and could result in additional furloughs and closing of city facilities.”

Despite repeated invitations, Mayor Landrieu’s office did not release a statement on the latest proposed legislation.

Justin Spittler is a research assistant with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. Spittler studies economics at Loyola University in New Orleans, and you can follow him on twitter.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget would remove tax incentives and subsidies for oil and natural gas production and transfer increased funds to renewable energy projects. The American Petroleum Institute, on behalf of over 450 corporate members, has countered with research that suggests tax increases would impede job creation and, in the long-run, lower government revenue.

The Energy Department estimates that repealing these tax advantages would save $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $46.2 billion over the next decade. However, previous attempts by the Obama Administration to enact such tax increases have proved futile, failing twice in the Senate in the past three years.

Jack Gerard, API’s chief executive, says a renunciation would eliminate thousands of new jobs and that over time, as companies adjust, the losses would only accelerate. He also forecasts a mutually undesirable outcome for the federal government, since higher tax rates could lower revenue “as a result of foregone revenue from projects the tax hikes would prevent going forward.”

API’s statement also disputes the administration’s claim of green job creation. The trade association asserts that from 2000 to 2008 the oil and gas industry invested over $58 billion on low and no-carbon energy technologies, more than government and other private sector industries combined.

Jackie Savitz, senior campaign director for Oceana, the world’s largest ocean conservation organization, isn’t swayed by API’s logic.

“The Industry makes investment decisions based on what will give the best return. Not based on how generous the government was with tax breaks… The industry’s threats are without merit. We have heard them before, and they never turn out to be true.”

Heather Emmert of Environment America, a federation of state-based advocacy organizations, believes concern over reduced production is erroneous. She cites a Treasury Department study.

“Eliminating all subsidies for oil companies would decrease production by ‘less than one half of one percent, even in the long run.’” Emmert also cites Breakthrough Institute research, which reports that the energy industry invests 0.23% of total revenue in research and development – below the 20% of the pharmaceutical industry and less than the 2.6% private industry average.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D – La) has not given her approval and is “very concerned about the president’s attack on the oil and gas industry.” Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R – Ky) shares Landrieu’s opinion. “We don’t really believe you cut spending by raising taxes.”

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D – Or), on the other hand, says “It’s no longer necessary to simply fatten the bottom lines of five of the most profitable corporations the world has ever known.” At least ten Democratic senators have endorsed higher taxes on the oil and gas industry, including senate majority leader Harry Reid (D – Nev).

Democrats and Republicans need to come to a consensus soon since the stopgap-spending bill, which maintains government spending at 2010 levels, expires on March 4th.

Robert Ross is a researcher and social media strategist with the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. He can be contacted at rross@pelicaninstitute.org, and you can follow him on twitter.