Posted on 02/05/2006 10:38:58 AM PST by CobaltBlue
Louisiana's leaders have made a strong case for getting a larger, fairer share of offshore oil royalties for the state; so far, though, reason and persuasion haven't worked with Congress or the Bush administration.
But Louisiana also has a stick -- the power to oppose the sale of new offshore oil leases -- and Gov. Blanco made the right move by showing that she might use it.
She threatened, in a letter to the Minerals Management Service, to withhold support for an August sale unless Louisiana gets a more substantial piece of the revenue. And she makes the crucial link: Louisiana can't continue to support an industry that takes a real toll on the state's coastline without making sure that its needs are met.
"It is abundantly clear that allowing development to occur where inadequate provisions are made for the protection of that development is irresponsible," she wrote.
That's entirely reasonable. It's also good strategy. Now is the right time to remind Congress and the White House that Louisiana could be less cooperative in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
BTW, if you'd like to know approx how much LA gets just in federal grants, the info's available at the Census Dept's website.
Please enlighten us with your views on Mr. Jindal.
IMHO, he is the only elected official in Louisiana worth a damn.
That's not the case. Read Uncle Sham's post above.
These grants are a waste of money. I am against them.
The Baker bill is what's needed in Louisiana. This what we are arguing for.
Furthermore, I can sure you that we produce more than $18b in oil revenues to the feds.
Ummmm, maybe because if we don't take steps to stop coastal erosion there will be no more state. Kind of hard to create jobs under those circumstances. Louisiana lost hundreds of thousands of jobs because of Katrina and Rita. At some point you have to look at diminishing returns.
Or would you suggest that a state continue activities that might create some jobs in the near future but cost even more in the long run?
Why would this have any effect on federal grant monies being sent to Louisiana? All states receive federal grant money while virtually none of them allow offshore drilling. Please explain.
Vast networks of man-made canals have been dug to allow the movement of people and products needed for offshore drilling in Louisiana. As the canals widen with erosion, Gulf salt water flows into the brackish marshes, upsetting the ecosystem's balance and threatening the health of the oyster and shrimp industries that help drive the local economy.
I was quite sympathetic for Louisiana's plight. Was willing to go along with spending the money needed to try to address all of the problems nature posed to Louisiana.
But the actions of the state's politicians, starting with their demand for $250 billion, along with their unwillingness to take the blame for their failings, has slowly but steadily alienated my support.
Leander Perez, powerful boss of Plaquemines Parish, who built a political and financial empire is to blame. It is his stubborn refusal more than 50 years ago to cut a deal with the Truman administration over sharing offshore oil and gas royalties. None of this maneuvering would be necessary had Perez not scuttled an offer in 1949 by President Truman. Truman offered the state 100 percent of the royalties paid by oil and gas companies up to 3 miles from shore and 37.5 percent for anything farther out.
Perez, whose power stretched far beyond Plaquemines Parish, insisted Louisiana hold out for 100 percent of it all, the 3-mile limit and beyond. Truman withdrew the offer.
Florida is not doing such to shake down the American taxpayer for more money.
I'd be interested in why you oppose Bobby Jindal too. And don't worry about getting started. I've got all day.
Oh, that makes lots of sense. Let's take land that flooded and build more expensive properties on it so the federal taxpayer will have even MORE liability for the next disaster.
The issue of coastal erosion is not new but because of the two storms that has wiped out our coast and severely damaged the state in some places 100 miles inland it is now in the forefront. Besides considering the bitching going on regarding how to pay for the recovery why not use state resources to pay for it instead?
Huh? Exactly how does offshore oil production cause coastal erosion?
A small stick. Louisiana has been getting a lion'
s share of "internal improvement" funds for many years. The problem is the way they pissed it away on useless projects.
You are an idiot. Read the bill before you comment on it. There are provisions for turning the low lying areas into green space.
However, one area destroyed by the federal government's negligence was the Mid City section of New Orleans. Before the storm, property values in this area were very high and it was an attractive area to live. It never floods. But due to a breach in the 17 St. Canal, this area was inundated with water. If people don't want to rebuild, it would be a cash cow for the entire Baker bill as provided the levees were re-built properly, money would flow into this area very quickly.
See post 49 for a good start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.