You are currently browsing the archives for the Energy category.


Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

In the first 4 parts of this series (found here, here, here and here), I focused on different facets of the inadequacies of the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department. I categorized each of the shortcomings and culprits. Most importantly, I identified the opportunities that the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department missed and why.

This article will pull everything together so we can put together a less hostile, more business-friendly set of policies that doesn’t sacrifice the environment. First, we’ll need to streamline the regulatory review process so hostile environmental activists don’t have multiple opportunities to throttle key infrastructure projects. Whether we’re talking about killing the Sandpiper Pipeline project, the constant attempts by the Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness to kill both the Twin Metals and the PolyMet projects or the Public Utilities Commission and the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department, it’s clear that the DFL is openly hostile to major infrastructure projects.

It’s long past time to get the PUC out of the public safety/transportation business. Similarly, it’s time to get the Commerce Department out of the environmental regulatory industry. Public safety and transportation belong in MnDOT’s purview, not the PUC’s. Environmental regulations need to be significantly streamlined, then shipped over to the DNR. There should be a period for fact-finding and public comment. There should be the submitting and approval/disapproval of an Environmental Impact Statement and the submitting and approval/disapproval of an Economic Impact Statement.

Further, laws should be changed so that there’s no longer a requirement to submit an application for a “certificate of need.” In effect, that’s a bureaucratic regulatory veto of major infrastructure projects. That isn’t acceptable. There should be a time limit placed on the bureaucrats, too. They should have to accept or reject applications within a reasonable period of time. That’s because regulators have sometimes used delaying tactics to throttle projects without leaving a paper trail. It’s also been used to deny companies the right to appeal rulings. (If there isn’t a ruling, there isn’t an appeal.)

Third, streamlining the review process limits the opportunities for environmental activists to kill projects like those mentioned above. There’s a reason why it’s called the Commerce Department, not the Department of Endless Delays and Excessive Costs, which is what it’s become. Eliminating the PUC’s oversight responsibilities, especially in terms of approving certificates of need, will eliminate the impact that environmental activists serving on that Board can have in killing or at least delaying major infrastructure projects.

Fourth, it’s important that we bring clarity and consistency to this state’s regulatory regime. The system Minnesota has now breeds uncertainty. That steals jobs from Minnesota because companies attempt to avoid Minnesota entirely whenever possible. While we want to preserve our lakes, rivers and streams, we want to preserve our middle class, too. The environment shouldn’t be put on a pedestal while communities die thanks to a dying middle class.

I’ve seen too often how once-proud parts of Minnesota that have a heavy regulatory burden have seen their middle class essentially disappear. Cities like Virginia and Eveleth come to mind. It’s immoral to give a Twin Cities agency the authority to kill Iron Range communities. That’s literally what’s happening right now.

For the last 7 years, Gov. Dayton has run an administration that’s of, by and for the environmental activist wing of the DFL. If you work in a construction union, you haven’t had a great run. That isn’t right. People who work hard and play by the rules should be able to put a roof over their family’s head, set money aside for their kids’ college education and save for their retirement. For far too many people, that hasn’t happened recently.

The next Republican governor should implement these changes ASAP. It’s time to destroy the Dayton ‘Hostile to business’ sign and replace it with an ‘Open for business’ sign. It’s time to get Minnesota government working for everyone once again.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When the Minnesota Department of Commerce testified that Enbridge hadn’t shown a need for replacing their Line 3 Pipeline, people scratched their heads. That project is a $7,500,000,000 infrastructure project. It’s difficult to picture a pro-commerce Commerce Department rejecting that type of project. There’s an old saying that I learned during the Watergate investigation. It’s called ‘follow the money’.

According to Mike Rothman’s official bio, “Rothman’s top priorities include consumer protection, a clean energy future, and strong financial and energy sectors for Minnesota’s economy.” In an interview with the Clean Energy Resource Team, Rothman made clear that he wasn’t a disinterested bystander in terms of the government financing clean energy projects. CERT started the interview by asking Rothman “Have the tax credits been important for getting Minnesota to where we are today with wind and solar?” Commissioner Rothman replied “From the vantage point of the Commerce Department, we believe these tax credits have really been central pillars supporting wind and solar development in our state. The ITC enabled solar manufacturers to produce at scale and dramatically cut the costs of modules and other components. It also encouraged a growing base of Minnesota solar installation companies to invest in training and certification while expanding their businesses and creating new jobs.”

In other words, without crony capitalism, wind and solar wouldn’t offer competitive prices. The question I’d ask Commissioner Rothman is whether his prioritizing clean energy had anything to do with his department’s heavy-handed testimony against Enbridge. It isn’t a stretch to think that a person that supports tax credits for wind and solar certainly might support eliminating fossil fuels, too.

This is part of the Commerce Department’s website:

Solar Industry Resources

The state of Minnesota is interested in helping Minnesota-based solar businesses expand and attracting new solar businesses to the state.

From solar manufacturers and system developers and installers to the agencies that help finance solar projects, the Minnesota Department of Commerce is here to help build a strong clean energy economy. The solar industry is booming in Minnesota, and it is positioned for continued growth. With solar policies such as the solar electricity standard and programs like the $15 million a year Made in Minnesota Solar incentive Program, Minnesota is committed to the solar industry.

Based on the Commerce Department’s pro-clean energy statements and their hostility towards fossil fuels, I think it’s entirely reasonable to think that Gov. Dayton’s Commerce Department isn’t a neutral arbiter in this fight.

In Part I of this series, I quoted Kate O’Connell, manager of the Energy Regulation and Planning Unit of the Department of Commerce, as saying “In light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built,’ the agency wrote in testimony submitted to the Public Utilities Commission on Monday, Sept. 11.”

It isn’t a stretch to think that environmental activists had a special place in Gov. Dayton’s Commerce Department. The Department’s testimony to the PUC was tilted. The Commerce Department’s personnel indicate a strong pro-clean energy preference. Thanks to the Commerce Department’s anti-pipeline bias, Minnesota is missing out on a major infrastructure project.

Shouldn’t we insist that these types of infrastructure projects get a higher priority? This project would’ve created thousands of jobs. The negative economic impact this rejection will have is disgusting. Stop back Tuesday for more on that aspect of the pipeline.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If people needed a better example of how hostile the Dayton administration is to robust economic growth, they needn’t look further than Gov. Dayton’s Commerce Department. When Gov. Dayton’s Commerce Department testified that the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline wasn’t needed, they testified that they were anti-commerce. When the Commerce Department testified to that, the DFL quietly applauded. They knew that it essentially killed approval of that pipeline’s replacement at least through the end of Gov. Dayton’s administration.

Listen to the certainty of the Commerce Department statement. They said “‘In light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built,’ the agency wrote in testimony submitted to the Public Utilities Commission on Monday, Sept. 11.”

In the next paragraph of the article, it states “The testimony, written by Kate O’Connell, manager of the Energy Regulation and Planning Unit of the Department of Commerce, comes ahead of evidentiary hearings on the oil pipeline replacement that will see the project debated in a trial-like setting in November. A new round of public hearings across the state will kick off at the end of the month.”

It’s time to ask a foundational question. Shouldn’t Minnesotans to expect the state government’s Commerce Department to be pro-commerce? There’s no question that the Dayton/DFL Commerce Department isn’t pro-commerce. Ms. O’Connell’s testimony settled that matter.

Here’s another foundational question Minnesotans should ask: who should have the final say on multi-billion dollar projects? Why should the Public Utilities Commission and the Commerce Department have the final say on whether projects should be approved? Further, what makes the Commerce Department and the PUC experts on things like public safety and transportation?

Those are the only things that government should be involved in. When Gov. Dayton’s Commerce Department testified that there wasn’t a need, they didn’t testify as to whether their testimony hurt public safety. It does from the standpoint of forcing more oil onto oil trains. More oil on more oil trains is already causing cities through which these railroad tracks run to come up with evacuation plans. That costs each of those cities tons of money in their annual operating budget. That, in turn, leads to higher property or sales taxes.

This is a multi-part series. This is a subject that’s too important not to examine in depth.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, Minnesotans should expect DFL anti-pipeline protests to increase. According to the AP’s reporting, “Protests are ratcheting up against Enbridge Energy’s plan to replace its Line 3 crude oil pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin, and against a separate aging Enbridge pipeline under the waterway linking Michigan’s upper and lower peninsulas. Six protesters were arrested this week near Superior, Wisconsin, where Enbridge began work in June on a 12.5-mile (20-kilometer) segment amid plans to eventually replace Line 3, which carries Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta across North Dakota and northern Minnesota to its terminal in Superior. The protesters briefly shut down construction Tuesday. Opponents of both pipelines plan Labor Day weekend actions in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.”

Later in the article, the AP quotes Tara Houska of Honor the Earth as saying “I think we’re seeing things coming to a head, with Enbridge proceeding to construction in Wisconsin and Canada despite lacking approval of the major segment that runs through Minnesota.”

The truth is that the DFL’s anti-pipeline protesters are setting the foundation for a Republican governor in 2018. By attempting to kill the Line 3 pipeline, these DFL protesters are telling construction unions that they aren’t welcome in the DFL anymore. Couple that with Gov. Dayton’s Department of Commerce announcement “that Enbridge hadn’t proved the necessity for replacing Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline” and it’s pretty apparent that the DFL opposes energy infrastructure at a time when the US is becoming a net exporter of energy.

It’s important for union voters to ask a simple question. Why does the political party with Laborer in its name reflexively reject major union construction projects? When the Keystone XL Pipeline project was being proposed, did the Democratic Party fight for those union jobs? Get serious. When the Dakota Access Pipeline, aka DAPL, project was being proposed, where was the DFL? A: They hid. They chose to have Native Americans protest in the hopes of turning public opinion against these pipeline projects. They failed:

As a Republican, I don’t want the protests to end. Each time that the protesters appear on TV, it’s a winning day for the GOP. It’s a winning day because construction unions are realizing that the Democratic party wants their votes, not their agenda.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Emperor Dayton apparently thinks that he doesn’t have to worry what Minnesotans think anymore now that he’s a lame duck. Monday afternoon, Mike Rothman, Dayton’s commissioner for the Department of Commerce, announced that Enbridge hadn’t proved the necessity for replacing Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline.

According to the article’s opening paragraph, “Enbridge Energy has failed to establish the need for its proposal to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota and it might be better to just shut down the existing line, the Minnesota Department of Commerce said Monday.” As stunning a statement as that is, it pales in comparison with the Department of Commerce’s filings with the Public Utilities Commission.

According to the article, it said “In filings with the state Public Utilities Commission on Monday, the agency said refineries in Minnesota and the upper Midwest already have sufficient supplies of crude oil and little capacity for processing more of it. It said Minnesota’s demand for gasoline and other refined petroleum products appears unlikely to increase over the long term. And it said the proposal carries serious environmental and socio-economic risks that outweigh the benefits to Minnesota. ‘In light of the serious risks of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built,’ said a filing by Kate O’Connell, manager of the department’s Energy Regulation and Planning Unit.”

I don’t know what Ms. O’Connell is smoking but it must be the good stuff. Thinking that “Minnesota’s demand for gasoline and other refined petroleum products appears unlikely to increase over the long term” is proof of delusional thinking. Most importantly, it’s proof that the DFL doesn’t care about farmers or construction unions.

Not building the pipeline doesn’t mean that this crude oil won’t make it to a refinery. It simply means it’ll be part of an oil train. Putting it on an oil train hurts Minnesotans 2 different ways. First, it ties up trains so farmers’ products can’t get to market as fast. Next, putting oil on trains creates a safety risk.

Despite the Department of Commerce’s head-in-the-sand statements, the United States is going through an energy revival. We’re becoming energy dominant. We’re becoming a net exporter of oil and other fossil fuels. Despite those indisputable facts, Minnesota’s Department of Commerce wants to cripple Enbridge.

This pipeline project is a $7,500,000,000 project that would create thousands of construction jobs. If the DFL gets its way, it will shortchange construction workers. Isn’t it impossible to be the party of labor if you’re opposing labor’s highest priority projects?

Here’s proof that Emperor Dayton is out-of-touch:

“This document will arouse considerable controversy,” the governor said in a statement. “That discord should be recognized as part of the wisdom of the process.”

Speaker Daudt has a different perspective:

Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt called the filings “yet another example of (Democrats) siding with extreme environmental activists while putting Minnesotans’ jobs and safety at risk.”

There’s no reason to think that the environmental activist wing of the DFL will let any gubernatorial candidate (that includes Tim Walz) do anything to rebuild Minnesota’s energy infrastructure. This is a major project:

Commerce said that if the PUC approves the project, it should require a stronger emergency response plan, thicker pipe and other safety measures, as well as more insurance coverage and other financial assurances for cleaning up major releases and decommissioning the pipeline when it reaches the end of its useful life.

There’s no chance that the PUC will approve this during the Dayton administration. Dayton has filled PUC with environmental activists who hate fossil fuels.

If there’s anything certain besides death and taxes, it’s that environmental activists will fight against each energy infrastructure project in Minnesota. Enbridge’s Line3 is a perfect example of that. At the behest of his allies in the environmental activist community, Gov. Dayton is dragging his feet rather than approving the construction of the Line3 replacement pipeline. In a statement published on August 9, 2017, Gov. Dayton said “In order to provide the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with the best possible information on which to base its decision, I have directed the Commissioner of Commerce to extend the deadline for publishing its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Enbridge’s proposed Line 3 Oil Pipeline. According to my order, the Minnesota Department of Commerce will publish its final EIS on Thursday, August 17, 2017, including its responses to the more than 2,860 public comments the Department has received.”

That pipeline EIS must’ve slipped because legislators along the pipeline’s projected path wrote a letter to Gov. Dayton. According to the article, “In a letter to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and Commissioner Michael Rothman on Aug. 24, a request was made to move the proposed $3 billion Line 3 Replacement Project forward with no further delays. It was signed by 35 state legislatures, including District 10B Representative Dale Lueck, covering all of Aitkin County and part of Crow Wing County.”

Further, it says “The Department of Commerce held 49 public meetings since Enbridge applied for the Line 3 Replacement project in April 2015. In September and October of 2017, another public comment period will take place with 18 more meetings. In addition, Enbridge held more than 1,200 open houses and question-answer sessions along the project’s preferred route, the existing right-of-way, the alternative routes and in the Twin Cities since 2013.”

Clearly, Gov. Dayton and the Public Utilities Commission aren’t acting in the public’s interest. They’ve morphed into puppets doing the Sierra Club’s and MCEA’s bidding. State Rep. Steve Green called out the DFL and the environmental activists in this LTE:

This pipeline shouldn’t be controversial, but Democrats are protesting the project claiming that it is bad for the environment. The problem is, replacing the pipeline is the best thing to do to protect our environment and citizens. If the existing pipe is allowed to corrode, the oil being transported in that pipe is at a greater risk of escaping into the surrounding land. What is more, transporting oil through a pipeline is far safer than transporting by rail.

This video shows the fight that’s continuing:

In the description is this information:

Indigenous Land Defenders from the Urban Warrior Alliance take direct action at an Enbridge pipeline stockpile near Morden Manitoba. 05/06/17 #NoEnbridge #NoPipelines

Let’s be clear about something. Environmental activists have fought every fossil fuel project in Minnesota for a generation. This isn’t just about the environment. It’s about stifling productivity, efficiency and endangering public safety.

Environutters have been with us essentially all my life and probably longer. Right now, energy experts tell us that the United States is becoming “energy dominant.” At that same point in history, environmental activists are becoming more militant towards pipeline projects.

That begs this question: which side are they on? Keep that question in mind the next time you step into a voting booth. The size of your heating bill depends on it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, Energy Transfer Partners, the people building the Dakota Access Pipeline, aka the DAPL, “has just filed suit against Greenpeace and two other protest groups that held up the Dakota Access pipeline project for months last year. The Texas pipeline company has invoked federal racketeering laws to seek damages that could reach $1 billion, according to the AP.”

According to the article, “The company alleges that the groups’ actions interfered with its business, facilitated crimes and acts of terrorism, incited violence, targeted financial institutions that backed the project and violated racketeering and defamation laws. The company seeks a trial and monetary damages, noting that disruptions to construction alone cost it at least $300 million and requesting triple damages.”

Greenpeace’s attorney issued a statement insisting that ETP is just trying to bully its client, saying that the lawsuit is “not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation.” It’s rich that Greenpeace is complaining about “expensive, time-consuming litigation” the minute they get sued but doesn’t hesitate filing lawsuits to prevent the building of pipelines. Rob Port of Say Anything Blog summed things up perfectly:

I suspect the response from apologists for the protesters will start talking about the potential chilling effect this lawsuit could have on 1st amendment rights. And to be sure, every citizen in America has a right to demonstrate for or against pipelines or anything else their hearts desire. Yet, with the #NoDAPL protests, there was a systemic use of illegal tactics. Blocking roads. Vandalism. Trespass. All towards the goal of blocking a project that was permitted and proceeding legally.

Here’s hoping the lawsuit financially decimates Greenpeace for their alleged illegal activities. If Greenpeace wants to peacefully protest against the building of a pipeline, let them. If they’re committing acts of sabotage, which hasn’t been proven yet, though, they need to be punished. If people commit crimes, they need to be held accountable. Putting people’s lives at risk isn’t acceptable behavior.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts explains to FBN’s Liz Claman what tactics were used to protest the pipeline companies:

Authorities will have to provide evidence that Greenpeace activists used the same tactics that were used on the Keystone XL Pipeline. That shouldn’t be difficult.

It’s official. Jim Newberger made it official by announcing his candidacy for the US Senate seat currently held by Amy Klobuchar. There’s no doubt that the media wing of the DFL, aka the Twin Cities Media, will do their best to a) ignore Rep. Newberger and b)promote Sen. Klobuchar’s ‘bipartisan’ accomplishments.

I’ll cut to the chase on this. Sen. Klobuchar’s bipartisan accomplishments are virtually non-existent in terms of major legislation. When it comes to major legislation, Ms. Klobuchar is as partisan as Sen. Franken. Not that she’ll answer this question but I’ll ask it anyway. What has Sen. Klobuchar done to create new, high-paying mining jobs? Here’s another question: Has Sen. Klobuchar fought to increase Minnesota’s pipeline capacity?

The point behind these questions is that Sen. Klobuchar is typical cookie-cutter Metrocrat. She’s never disagreed with Twin Cities environmental activists. The other point behind this is that she’ll never do anything substantive to create lots of high-paying jobs.

Since the start of the Trump administration, she’s voted with Chuck Schumer 100% of the time. She’s voted against every pro-growth economic policy that Republicans have proposed. Before Harry Reid retired, she voted with him 95+ % of the time on major legislation. When Sen. Reid took to the Senate floor to lie about Mitt Romney, a flawed candidate but a thoroughly decent man, Sen. Klobuchar didn’t do a thing to hold Sen. Reid accountable.

Isn’t it interesting that Sen. Klobuchar brags about holding big businesses accountable but she won’t utter a peep when the biggest hitters in her own party lie while disparaging others? There’s no doubt that the Twin Cities Media will protect Sen. Klobuchar from these charges. The question is whether the people will pretend not to notice that Sen. Klobuchar isn’t the moderate she claims to be.

The good news for Minnesotans is that Jim Newberger is a serious legislator that isn’t afraid to tackle the biggest issues. When the North Star Sierra Club announced it would attempt to shut down the Sherco power plants, Jim Newberger didn’t just complain about the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s decision to shut those power plants without a plan to replace them. Jim Newberger got a bill signed into law. Newberger “partnered with Democrats and Gov. Mark Dayton’s administration to give legislative permission for Xcel Energy to convert a coal plant in Sherburne County into a natural gas and renewable energy plant. Dayton, a Democrat, signed the measure into law this year.”

The Sierra Club wanted to shut the Sherco power plants down, which would’ve crippled energy production for Minnesota. Jim Newberger went to work to find a substantive solution. Meanwhile, Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken won the Sierra Club’s support:

Sierra Club has launched a statewide advertising campaign in Minnesota thanking Senators Franken and Klobuchar for sponsoring the “American Energy Innovation Act,” a bill which makes ambitious yet achievable reductions in carbon pollution, repeals centuries-old oil subsidies, and begins to level the playing field for renewable sources of energy. Senators Franken and Klobuchar were key sponsors of the bill, and were joined by many of their Independent and Democratic colleagues in championing the legislation.

In short, Jim Newberger fought for his constituents and energy independence. Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken fought for their special interest contributors.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This article highlights a new ad campaign paid for by the Congressional Leadership Fund. We’re told that the ad campaign features a “33-second ad that includes images of window-smashing and other protester-driven violence surrounding the inauguration. The ad isn’t that imaginative, saying “Radical extremists who destroy buildings, burn cars and divide America. Hollywood celebrities who are blinded by their hatred of the president. Nancy Pelosi and the Washington Democrats answer to them.”

While I don’t have a problem with the ad, I’d take a different direction. I’d show Sen. Schumer saying that Democrats are changing their ways, then asking ‘When did Democrats become fans of increased fracking and oil exploration? When did Democrats become big fans of building pipelines? When did Democrats stop protesting major pipeline projects?’

The point is to highlight the fact that Democrats haven’t changed. They still take orders from the same special interests that’s hurt America’s drive for energy independence. Highlight the fact that Republicans, not Democrats, have championed blue collar mining jobs that help rural America. I’d find a way to use the first part of this video:

I’d highlight the fact that we’re creating good-paying construction jobs under the Trump administration. I’d highlight the fact that the Democrats’ hatred of President Trump won’t let them tell the truth. This op-ed highlights that:

Not a day goes by without another allegation or reckless tweet fueling the dysfunction of a deeply divided Republican Congress that fails to govern while hardworking families across the country are left behind. Mired in controversy, Washington Republicans are unable to uphold the basic bargain they made with the American people when they were elected: to fight to create new good-paying jobs and support sustained economic growth.

Thus far, we’ve had 5 monthly jobs reports during the Trump administration. Thus far, more than 900,000 jobs have been created and the unemployment rate is less than 4.5%. If the economy keeps creating jobs at this pace, the economy will create more than 17,000,000 jobs during President Trump’s time in office.

If Republicans cut taxes and regulations, the economy will create significantly more than 17,000,000 jobs in 8 years.

Let’s not forget that Democrats are the party that loves raising taxes and imposing onerous regulations. In their announcement, Democrats said that they’ll continue to push for a $15/hr. minimum wage. That isn’t how to create jobs.

Democrats haven’t learned anything. Democrats apparently still think that government knows best. Democrats still apparently think that government creates jobs.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chuck Schumer’s op-ed is the Democrats’ old agenda dressed up in new clothes. It’s just another instance of Democrats putting a ton of lipstick on an ugly pig.

Sen. Schumer says that “Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people — and that we stand for three simple things.” Then Sen. Schumer proceeds to tell us that “First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.”

They’re still the same socialists they’ve been since 2001. For instance, Democrats will stand for “increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.” How is that different than what they’ve pushed for years? According to this NPR article, which was published in November of 2015, “fast-food workers … plan to protest at the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee. They want the federal minimum wage boosted to $15.”

Then there’s this:

Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work.

Cities that’ve implemented a $15/hr. minimum wage have gotten hurt. Further, Democrats haven’t said that they’ll push for increased pipeline construction. Noticeably missing from the Democrats’ plan is a commitment for increased oil exploration and coal mining. President Obama once infamously said that “we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.”

It wasn’t just President Obama saying we couldn’t drill our way to cheaper gas prices. Sen. Schumer insisted that Democrats had a better solution:

In June and July, we will be introducing legislation that will promote conservation, that will promote alternative energy and that will do many things to reduce the price.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed for increased fracking and energy independence. Today, we’re on the verge of being energy independent. It’s more than that, though. President Trump proposed increasing natural gas exports to Europe. If a pipeline is built, it’ll deal a crushing blow to Putin.

Democrats aren’t interested in that, though, because Tom Steyer and other Democratic special interests oppose energy independence. Hint to Democrats: you can’t be pro blue collar jobs if you oppose mining and fracking.