Newt Gingrich on Keystone XL Pipeline, global warming

Newt Gingrich correctly identified global warming as one reason why environmentalists oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline, but did not say how he would address this concern in a speech to voters gathered at a December 28, 2011 town hall meeting Southbridge Mall in Mason City, Iowa.

Transcript of Gingrich’s remarks:

Take the XL Keystone Pipeline.

20,000 jobs immediately.

Billions of dollars of oil gone through Houston, which is the largest refinery complex in the world.

A generation of money coming into the U.S. from Canadian oil on the way to worldwide distribution.

The President postpones it, doesn’t want to make a decision.

Why? Because his environmental extremists are against building a pipeline for a very abstract reason. 

It’s not because they’re worried about pipelines.

We build pipelines all the time.

They don’t want Canadian oil on the market because of the indirect byproduct that they see in terms of global warming.

Therefore they are trying to keep Canadian oil in Canada. 

Now here’s the problem.

It’s one thing if you have an administration that can’t play chess. 

It’s another thing if you have an administration that can’t play checkers.

But if you have an administration that can’t play tic-tac-toe, you’re in deep trouble.

The Canadians are not trapped by Barack Obama.

The Canadians can take Chinese money to build the very same pipeline straight west across the Rockies, put it in Vancouver.

Not a penny will come to the United States.

Not a job will be created in the United States. 

The environmentalists will lose because the oil is going to be used by the Chinese.

And that’s what the President’s faced with.

And I don’t think he understands it.

So he goes to Brazil and he says to the Brazilians, “I really want to be your best customer.”

He praises the Brazilians for drilling offshore, which he stops us from doing.

He tells them how glad he is we can guarantee $2 billion in equipment for a George Soros invested company.

And then he praises them and says, “I’d like to be your best customer.”

This is exactly backward and every Iowa farmer knows this.

We do not want the President of the United States to be a purchasing agent for foreign countries.

We want the President of the United States to be salesman for American products. 

If we don’t sell American agricultural products worldwide, we will have depression in farm country. 

So we need a President who goes out and opens up markets for American agricultural products because we produce more than we use at home.

A complete video of Newt Gingrich's town hall meeting in Mason City, Iowa is available on C-Span.

Photo of Newt Gingrich by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons

Huckabee Presidential Forum: Newt Gingrich on climate change

Newt Gingrich discussed his views on climate change and cap and trade at the Huckabee Presidential Forum, which aired on Fox News on December 3, 2011:

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia Attorney General: Mr. Speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and small government -- smaller government – yet you’ve supported individual mandates for health insurance, joined Nancy Pelosi with respect to climate change, advocated for a significant role for the federal government in education, and had close ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why should limited government conservatives like me trust that a President Gingrich will not advance these sorts of big government approaches when you are President?

Newt Gingrich: …I’ve said publicly, sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi is the dumbest single thing I’ve done in the last few years.

But if you notice, I never favored cap and trade. 

In fact, I actively testified against it. 

I was at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee the same day Al Gore was there to testify for it. 

I testified against it. 

And through American Solutions we actively fought it in the Senate. 

And I think we played a major role in defeating it.

The former House Speaker and 2012 Republican presidential candidate also reiterated his desire to eliminate the EPA as we know it today:

Scott Pruit, Oklahoma Attorney General: President Obama seems to think Washington has all the answers to our national problems, but as you know all national problems don’t require national solutions.

Can you name some national problems that neither the President nor Congress should solve?

Newt Gingrich: … I want to develop an Environmental Solutions Agency to replace the EPA with an agency which has to have economic rationality, has to look for innovation and entrepreneurship, and has to collaborate rather than dictate to state and local governments. 

Later in the evening, Newt Gingrich answered a follow up question about his 2006 television ad with Nancy Pelosi:

Scott Pruit: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up a little bit on the appearance with Nancy Pelosi.

Newt Gingrich: Yes.

Scott Pruit: … and climate change. You’ve said and you said earlier this evening that was the dumbest thing you’ve ever done.

Newt Gingrich: Well, in recent years. I don’t want to run my whole career through it. 

Scott Pruit: Was it done because it was bad politics or done because it was bad policy?

Newt Gingrich: Well, first of all what I said there I think was accurate, which was that you need innovation and you need to look at positive ways of solving things.

I was trying to make a case about a conservative environmentalism, which is the reason I am for an Environmental Solutions Agency to replace the EPA.

It was largely done because, frankly, she became so radioactive that it was impossible for any conservative to be in the same set and not have everybody go, “That’s crazy!” and so they never heard your message.

I wrote a book with Terry Maple called Contract with the Earth and it was an effort to argue that there were sound, promarket science and technology innovations that would lead to a better environment, actually a more improved environment than you get out of lawyers and regulators and the EPA. 

Watch full video of the Huckabee Presidential Forum below. Newt Gingrich's remarks on climate change start at 2:41; on the EPA at 6:30; follow up question on Nancy Pelosi ad at 10:10.

Rick Perry's energy speech (Video)

Rick Perry laid out his plan for making America energy independent and creating jobs in a speech delivered at a U.S. Steel factory in Pittsburgh, PA on October 14, 2011.

Watch the video here or on C-Span: http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/302089-1

Yucca Mountain a focus of Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, NV

The question of what to do with the nation’s nuclear waste popped up at the October 18, 2011 CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada.

“My question for you is, do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?” asked a member of the audience.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich provided a vague, non-answer, despite the best efforts of moderator Anderson Cooper:

Gingrich: Look, we -- we worked on this when I was speaker. I think that it has to be looked at scientifically. But I think at some point we have to find a safe method of taking care of nuclear waste. And today, because this has been caught up in a political fight, we have small units of nuclear waste all over this country in a way that is vastly more dangerous to the United States than finding a method of keeping it in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 and 30,000 years of geological safety. 



Cooper: Is Yucca Mountain that place? 



Gingrich: I'm not a scientist. I mean, Yucca Mountain certainly was picked by the scientific community as one of the safest places in the United States. It has always had very deep opposition here in Nevada. And, frankly...


Cooper: You were for opening it in Congress, right? 



Gingrich: Huh?



Cooper: When you were in the Congress, you were... 


Gingrich: When I was in Congress, frankly, I worked with the Nevada delegation to make sure that there was time for scientific studies. But we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place, and most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is that.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul delivered a straightforward response, opposing the idea of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain:

Paul: Yes. Yes, I've -- I've opposed this. We've had votes in the Congress. There was a time when I voted with two other individuals, the two congressmen from Nevada. And I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong. 



But I think it's very serious. I think it's very serious. But quite frankly, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then they assume this responsibility. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved in this. And then we get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage. 


So I would say, the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved. 



Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney concurred with Ron Paul:

Romney: Congressman Paul was right on that. 



I don't always agree with him, but I do on that. The -- the idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, "We want to give you our nuclear waste," doesn't make a lot of sense. I think the people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want that, and my guess is that for them to say yes to something like that, someone's going to have to offer them a pretty good deal, as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat.

And by the way, if -- if Nevada says, "Look, we don't want it," then let other states make bids and say, hey, look, we'll take it. Here's a geological site that we've evaluated. Here's the compensation we want for taking it. We want you electric companies around the country that are using nuclear fuel to compensate us a certain amount per kilowatt hour, a certain amount per ton of this stuff that comes. 


Let -- let the free market work. And on that basis, the places that are geologically safe, according to science, and where the people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this stuff. That's the right course for America.

Rick Perry also opposed the idea of storing the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain:

Perry: You know, from time to time, Mitt and I don't agree. But on this one, he's hit it, the nail, right on the head. And I'll just add that when you think about France, who gets over 70 percent of their energy from nuclear power, the idea that they deal with this issue, that their glassification, and that the innovation -- and, Congressman Paul, you're correct when it comes to allowing the states to compete with each other. That is the answer to this. 



We need to have a -- a -- a discussion in -- in this country about our 10th Amendment and the appropriateness of it, as it's been eroded by Washington, D.C., for all these many years, whether it's health care, whether it's education, or whether it's dealing with energy. We don't need to be subsidizing energy in any form or fashion, allow the states to make the decision. And some state out there will see the economic issue, and they will have it in their state.

Federal government photo of Yucca Mountain

A transcript of the October 18, 2011 CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada is now available online:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/18/se.05.html

Rick Perry talks global warming in Hampton, NH (Video and Transcript)

Rick Perry fielded yet another question about his position on global warming at a Town Hall Meeting in Hampton, NH this morning.

“You repute the National Academy of Science’s findings that fossil fuels contribute to global warming,” a voter reminded Perry. “I’m wondering where you are getting your science, apart from Nobel laureates who are electrical engineers.”

Here is a video and transcript of Rick Perry's response:

There is a substantial group of scientists out there who are skeptical about the ‘incontrovertible’ statements that global warming is due mainly to man’s involvement. What is true is that our temperatures have gone up and down for millennium. 

And the issue is this – should American jeopardize its economy with a cap and trade type of legislation and base it on science that is still not settled. 

Now I know there are a lot of scientists out there who say, “Oh, yes it is.” But when you have Nobel laureates who stand up along with other scientists and say, “You know, let’s not rush into this.” Because the fact is, China is going to be out there not involved in any agreement at all. India’s involved in no agreement at all from the standpoint of limiting those CO2 greenhouse gases. And we live in a big ball. And that emissions are going to impact the world. 

The issue is, are we as an America going to jeopardize the future of this country by putting into place a program that there are still enough skeptics in my book to stand with them and say, “You know what, I don’t believe that manmade global warming is settled in science enough for us to justify a economic impact on this country that could be devastating to the future.”

The question was a follow up to a similar one posed by a voter at Perry’s first Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire, held in Derry on Friday. Perry mentioned, but did not identify by name, a Nobel laureate who supposedly shares his skepticism on climate. L.A. Times reporter Paul West writes that the Nobel prize winner in question is Ivar Giaver, who won the award in 1973 for his work on superconductors.

Chris Christie: Climate change is real (Video)

New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie is said to be seriously considering running for president, so where does he stand on climate change? For the answer, let’s take a look back at Christie’s May 26, 2011 speech announcing his state’s withdrawal from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI):

Morning everybody. Thank you for coming. First, a couple of preliminary things. In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state. There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. This decade average temperatures have been rising, temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate. In order to best deal with climate change we have to understand its causes. That was the root of the question that I was asking at the time of my town hall meetings and it’s gotten a lot of attention. So in the last number of months since that time I’ve taken some time to develop a better understanding of the role that humans play in global warming and what impact human activity has on our climate. The last few months I’ve sat down with experts both inside the government and outside the administration in academia and other places, to discuss the issue in depth. I’ve also done some reading on my own on the topic as well. I’m certainly not a scientist which is the first problem. 

So, I can’t claim to fully understand all of this. Certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90% of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role it’s time to defer to the experts. Climate science is complex though and we’re just beginning to have a fuller understanding of humans’ role in all of this. But we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem. So looking forward, we need to work to put policies in place that act at reducing those contributing factors.

Now, after extensive review with the DEP and others in my administration, our analysis of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI reveals that this program is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future.

First, RGGI allowances were never expensive enough to change behavior as they were intended to and ultimately fuel different choices. When RGGI began the industry projected that the cost of allowances would eventually be as high as twenty to thirty dollars a ton compared to the current price of less than $2 per ton, at which point the cost would have been sufficient to affect a decision of energy producers to choose lower carbon fuels or more efficient production technologies. This is not the case. It has not happened. Trends indicate the cost of the allowance will continue to be at the floor reserve price and there will be no significant secondary market for allowances. In other words, the whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It’s a failure. 

Second, New Jersey’s carbon emissions from a report the DEP will release today are already below the goals for 2020 set out in New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act, the legislation that permitted the state to participate in RGGI. According to this most recent report which was conducted before RGGI was implemented, greenhouse gas emissions are down in New Jersey. Reduced emissions have been due to increased use of natural gas, and the decreased use of coal. We’re seeing that the market and not RGGI has created incentives to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels.

Third, given that we now have laws that provide significant market incentives for wind, solar, and instate natural gas generation, any benefits that the RGGI tax may have had are miniscule. In fact fourteen laws have been passed since the Global Warming Response Act was passed authorizing us to join RGGI. These fourteen laws all accomplish the goals of promoting clean energy without the need to participate in RGGI at all. RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions. We’re looking for broader results that benefit all ratepayers and all citizens.

Finally and importantly, RGGI does nothing more than tax electricity, tax our citizens, tax our businesses, with no discernable or measurable impact upon our environment. Because states such as Pennsylvania are not RGGI members it’s just possible that by making the cap too stringent clean New Jersey plants would be forced to close only to be replaced by power from dirty Pennsylvania coal plants. It doesn’t make any sense environmentally or economically and the continuation of this tax makes no sense for my efforts and the Lieutenant Governor’s continued efforts to make New Jersey a more business-friendly environment and a place where private sector jobs can continue to be created.

So, we will withdraw from RGGI in an orderly fashion by year’s end. This also corresponds with the end of the first compliance period when compliance entities must true up, match their allowances to their emissions. By giving them this notice we are confident that the market and the participants will be able to adjust to our withdrawal from RGGI.

So, to be clear, our commitment continues to combating climate change and looking for new clean and cleaner energy sources for New Jersey. We’re committed to putting in place policies that actively work to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and achieve the 22 ½% renewable portfolio standard target by 2021. The future for New Jersey is in green energy and already we’ve put in place policies to broaden our access to renewable sources of energy, cleaner natural gas generation and ending our reliance on coal generation.

Let me start there. One of the things that I’m announcing today is that there will be no new coal permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal-based generation of energy in New Jersey is over. We know that coal is a major source of CO2 emissions. We will no longer accept coal as a new source of power in the state and we will work to shut down older dirtier, peaker and intermediate plants that emit high greenhouse gases. We need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past. We’re going to work to make New Jersey number one in offshore wind production. Last year I signed the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act to provide financial assistance and tax credits to businesses that construct, manufacture, and assemble water access facilities that support offshore wind products. The DEP has completed the first of its kind, two-year baseline study that identifies optimal sites for offshore wind turbines. This study combined with the strong policies I’ve spoken about is going to be instrumental and has been instrumental at the Department of the Interior recognizing New Jersey in its Smart from the Start program as a wind energy area. That provides us the opportunity for expedited federal permitting in this area, and we’re going to try to take advantage of it. We’ve joined with the federal government and other East Coast states to establish the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium to promote commercial wind development on the outer continental shelf. And we’ve accelerated the development of offshore wind projects by working closely with Interior and the Bureau of Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement to speed the implementation of 1100 MW of wind turbines. Since the call for interest last month we will be receiving applications for more than 3,000 MW of projects within the next two weeks.

So the interest in New Jersey in wind power is significant, because of the laws that this administration has helped to put into place and we are going to continue to pursue that.

Second, we are going to go further with solar energy. Last year, I signed legislation exempting solar projects from certain land uses restrictions, recognizing that solar energy development is an important land use that is protective of our environment. Currently, 9000 solar- voltaic projects totaling 330 megawatts are in use statewide as of April 30th of this year. We are focusing on expanding solar on brown fields and landfills. We talked about this during the campaign, we believe that we can re- duel environmental and economic benefits by promoting remediation

We’re focusing on expanding solar on ground fields and landfills, we talked about this during the campaign, We believe we can reap dual environmental and economic benefits by promoting remediation of sites otherwise lacking in value, and returning them to beneficial use. Specifically, the Meadowlands Commission has now re-zoned portions of the closed landfill sites in the Meadowlands for use as solar fields. This is exactly the type of thing we talked about in the campaign, and I’m happy that the Meadowlands Commission has moved forward with the re-zoning and now we can work towards increasing solar energy in the Meadowlands. Solar is increasing, as you know, in both the residential and commercial sectors, and that trend is likely to continue with the reduction in solar installation costs and the expectation of continued technological advancements in solar.

Next, we’re encouraging in-state energy generation, which is cleaner. We joined the legislature in a bi-partisan fashion to create the LCAPP program to encourage the construction of natural gas power plants within New Jersey dedicated to serving New Jersey customers. This program will bring new generation into the state and safeguard electric reliability and reduce New Jersey’s dependence on environmentally harmful coal resources for both inside and outside of our state. This is going to provide a mechanism for up to 2,000 new megawatts of generation. Awards were given to three strategically located natural gas projects, we’ve appealed the FERC ruling that says that we can’t move forward with this, and separately, the BPU is proceeding to expand our in-state natural gas generation on their own. 78% of New Jersey’s electric resources come from in-state sources and more than half of our electricity is carbon-free, coming from either nuclear or renewable sources. Part of our long term plan will look to see whether additional nuclear units in the state make sense as well. The 22% of electricity we do import accounts for 50% of New Jersey’s carbon emissions, which is why our focus is on home-grown generation and going after power plants that are outside of New Jersey and polluting our state, like the Pennsylvania coal-firing plants we’re battling under section 126, for the Cortland, Pennsylvania plant, and in court, for 4 western Pennsylvania plants, which are polluting the environment here in New Jersey. 

Lastly, it’s this administration’s belief that the cleanest energy is the energy that we don’t use, and the State has to lead in terms of conservation. And so we’re going to lead by example on energy efficiency and I have established today a State Energy Savings Initiative Oversight Committee which will be chaired by the Treasurer and by Commissioner Martin. And they’re going to design a framework for a successful program that will take the New Jersey Energy Savings Improvement Programs Act, which enables the state to improve facilities, thereby lowering operating costs without upfront capital costs. The cost savings of the energy improvement measures will pay for the Capitol improvements and provide additional savings to the state in terms of lower utility bills, and just as important, reduce the state’s use of energy, and reduce the effect that the use of that energy has on our environment.

But we see that this is happening already on a large scale at the Empire State Building. They began renovations last summer, expected to reduce their energy use by 38% a year by 2013 and an annual savings of $4.4 million dollars. By reducing energy use, the Retrofit Plan envisions cutting down the pollution the Empire State Building produces by 105,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year. New Jersey is going to strive to bring the same type of energy efficiencies to our public buildings through this oversight committee that we’re establishing and the utilization of existing legislation and statutes in the state.

So, we remain completely committed to the idea that we have as a responsibility as a state to make the environment of our state and of the world better. We have an obligation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and we’re going to do it in the concrete ways that I’ve laid out here today. We’re not going to do it by participating in gimmicky programs that haven’t worked. And, you know, in the end, our view is it’s better to do things the right way than to do things the politically correct way. The fact is, we’ve looked at this program, we’ve spent 16 months looking at it, and it simply doesn’t work. And we’re not going to participate anymore in something that doesn’t work, but that is not abandonment of our commitment to continue to work towards more renewable energy and, for those energies that are not renewable, the cleanest possible energy we can use, including natural gas and nuclear. So, I want to thank both Commissioner Martin and BPU President Solomon for their hard work on this portion of the issue. We’ll have more to say in the next week or two regarding the overall Energy Master Plan, which we’ll be announcing and putting even more specifics on the outline that I gave to you here. But New Jersey continues to be committed to being a responsible user of energy and a responsible steward of our environment, and we’re going to do it in the way we think the facts prove can be done the best way. 

Barack Obama talks climate change, energy efficiency at Clinton Global Initiative

President Barack Obama talked about energy efficiency and climate change in a speech delivered at the Clinton Global Initiative on September 21, 2011 in New York City.

“He also is one of those Americans who believes climate change is real and deserves a real response,” former President Bill Clinton said while introducing Obama.

“It is technically difficult to figure out how we are going to deal with climate change -- not impossible, but difficult,” President Obama noted in his speech.

The President went on to discuss two ways to curb global warming pollution by saving energy and fuel:

We talk about climate change -- something that, obviously, people here are deeply concerned about.  Talking to the CEO of Southwest Airlines, they estimate that if we put in the new generation of GPS air traffic control, we would save 15 percent in fuel costs.  “Reduce fuel consumption by 15 percent, Mr. President.”  And think about what that would do, not only to potentially lower the cost of a ticket -- maybe they could start giving out peanuts again. But think what it would do in terms of taking those pollutants out of our air. 

        ..................................................................................................................                          

Earlier this year, I announced a Better Buildings Initiative to rehire construction workers to make our buildings more energy-efficient.  And I asked President Clinton and my Jobs Council to challenge private companies to join us.  In June, at CGI America, we announced a commitment to upgrade 300 million square feet of space, from military housing to college campuses.  Some of these projects are breaking ground this month, putting people to work right now.  Later this year, we’ll announce more commitments that will create jobs, while saving billions for businesses on energy bills and cutting down on our pollution. 

Herman Cain on the EPA

Businessman and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain called for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency at the Google/Fox News debate, which took place in Orlando, Florida on September 22, 2011.

Question: My question is, if you were forced to eliminate one department from the federal government, which one would you eliminate and why? Thank you.

Herman Cain: The first - the first department, if I were forced to eliminate a department, I would start with the EPA and start all over.

It's out of control.

Now, I know that makes some people nervous, but the EPA has gone wild. The fact that they have a regulation that goes into effect January 1, 2012, to regulate dust says that they've gone too far.

So rather than try to fix it, eliminate all of the things that they have right now and then start rebuilding a responsible EPA.

In advance of the Google/Fox News debate, the League of Conservation Voters released a new public opinion poll demonstrating strong bipartisan support for EPA action to curb global warming pollution:

Support for "the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requiring reductions in carbon emissions from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming pollution" is wide-spread and broad-based.  Majorities of a wide range of key voter sub-groups support this, including:

Among Republicans (55 percent support), Independents (72 percent support), and Democrats (89 percent support); and

Among viewers of CNN (87 percent support), MSNBC (86 percent support), ABC/CBS/NBC (81 percent support), and Fox News (49 percent support).

Fox News also asked viewers at home to respond to the question, “If you had to cut a government department, what would you cut?” Only 12 percent of viewers said they would cut the EPA. 

Ovide Lamontagne on climate change, energy policy

The 2012 New Hampshire Governor’s race got off to an early start this week, with Republican Ovide Lamontagne announcing that he will seek to replace the retiring John Lynch in next year’s election. Where does Lamontagne stand on energy and climate change?

It turns out Ovide Lamontagne answered that very question during his 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate, in response to a questionnaire circulated by the Raymond Area Tea Party:

What is your solution to the energy crisis?

Our energy crisis is also a national security crisis, in that we depend far too much on foreign sources of oil. We need to fully develop and explore all of our domestic energyresources including coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. I also support drilling in ANWR, and believe we need to increase our oil refining capacity.

Do you believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to stop global warming?

No, I have signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge and will oppose any legislation regarding climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.

2011 CNN Tea Party GOP Debate: Energy Roundup

Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney all sounded off on energy issues during the September 12, 2011 CNN Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate in Tampa, Florida.

Herman Cain on the EPA

Question: The United States has an abundance of coal, oil, natural gas and uranium. The American people have been told for decades that energy independence is a top priority. What will you do in your first 100 days in office to assure the American people that energy independence will finally become reality.

Herman Cain: The first thing that I would do in order to assure that we get on the road to energy independence, and I do believe that we can because we do have the natural resources to do so, we've got to remove some of those barriers out of the way that are being created by the federal government. I would start with an EPA that's gone wild. That's where we start.

I would put together a regulatory reduction commission for every agency starting with the EPA. This regulatory reduction commission -- one of my guiding principles is if you want to solve a problem go to the source closest to the problem. So the people that I would appoint to that commission will be people who have been abused by the EPA. That would be the commission that would straighten out the regulatory burden.

Newt Gingrich on tax breaks for oil companies

Wolf Bitzer: Speaker Gingrich, some of the biggest companies in the United States, the oil companies, they got -- I guess some would call government handouts in the form of tax breaks, tax exemptions, loopholes. They're making billions and billions of dollars. Is that fair? 


Newt Gingrich: You know, I thought for a second, you were going to refer to General Electric, which has paid no taxes.

You know, I… I was… I was astonished the other night to have the president there in the joint session with the head of G.E. sitting up there and the president talking about taking care of loopholes. And I thought to myself, doesn't he realize that every green tax credit is a loophole...


... that everything he wants… everything General Electric is doing is a loophole? Now, why did we get to breaks for ethanol, breaks for oil and gas, et cetera? We got to them because of this idea, which the young man just represented. If we make you… if we make it possible for you to keep more of your own money, you will do more of it. 



We have a simple choice. We can depend on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or we can encourage development in the United States of manufacturing, as Rick said. We can encourage development of oil and gas. We can do it by saying we're going to let you keep more of your money if you create more of what we want. I'm for an energy- independent America, and that means I favor people who create energy.

Ron Paul on the DOE:

What we need to do is cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and all these departments, and get rid of them.

Jon Huntsman on energy independence:

... this country needs to wean itself from its heroin-like addiction to foreign oil. We need energy independence desperately in this country.

Mitt Romney on energy security

We're an energy rich nation. We're living like an energy poor nation.

And if we're going to get this economy going, we've got to… have energy security in this country by developing our energy resources.

Visit CNN.com for rush transcripts of tonight's debate:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2011.09.12.html

Michele Bachmann on climate change and green jobs

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann revisited the issue of climate change while answering a question about her comments on drilling in the Everglades during the September 7, 2011 GOP Presidential Debate. The debate was hosted by MSNBC and Politico at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.

Brian Williams, NBC News: Congresswoman Bachmann, a question about energy, back to that subject for a moment. Were you quoted correctly… and do you stand by it… as wanting to drill in the Everglades in Florida?

Michele Bachmann: The question was asked of me about that. And what I said is we have American energy resources all across this nation. And, of course, we would do it responsibly. That was my response at the time.

And on this issue on human… human activity as being the cause of climate change, I think it's important to note that the president recognized how devastating the EPA has been in their rulemaking, so much so that the president had to suspend current EPA rules that would have led to the shutting down of potentially 20 percent of all of America's coal plants.

Coal is the source that brings 45 percent of America's electricity. What we're seeing is that a political agenda is being advanced instead of a scientific agenda. And this is leading to the… to massive numbers of jobs being lost.

The president told us he wanted to be like Spain when it came to green job creation, and yet Spain has one of the highest levels of unemployment. The president is bringing that here in the United States. And I think tomorrow night, when the nation tunes in to the president, I'm afraid that we won't be seeing permanent solution. I'm afraid what we'll be seeing are temporary gimmicks and more of the same that he's given before.

Photo of Michele Bachmann courtesy of Gage Skidmore

Jon Huntsman: GOP can't run from science

The science of climate change was a topic of debate at the September 7, 2011 Republican Presidential Debate held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. Jon Huntsman, the former Governor of Utah and U.S.  Ambassador to China, told fellow Republicans that “we can’t run from science” and win in 2012.

John Harris, Politico: You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti- science. Who on this stage is anti-science?

Jon Huntsman: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy. We've got to win voters.

We've got to do what I did as governor, when I was re-elected. We reached out and we brought in independents. I got independents. I got conservative Democrats. If we're going to win in 2012, we've got to make sure that we have somebody who can win based upon numbers of the math that will get us there. And by making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.

Number two, we've got to have somebody who can lead. This president was successful in getting elected. He can't lead this country. He can't even lead his own party.

I'm here to tell you: I can get elected. I can bring the numbers together to make this successful in 2012. And I can lead based upon where I've been as governor.

Buddy Roemer talks energy independence in New Hampshire

Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer focused on the issue of energy independence during his speech at last Friday's Belknap Republican Committee fundraiser aboard the M/S Mount Washington. Watch video of Roemer's full speech or read his comments on energy below:

Buddy Roemer's comments on energy independence:

Number two Mr. President, let’s be energy independent. Aren’t you embarrassed that American has to beg China for credit and is addicted to oil from the Middle East? Here’s my plan: let’s drill. We have new technology. We have clean technology. We have one accident in the Gulf of Mexico. If a plane goes down, we don’t quit flyin’, do we? Well, we quit drilling for one year. It’s disgraceful. The price of gasoline has doubled under this president. It can go back to $1.86. Let’s be independent and free.

And I’ll tell you what I’ll do specifically. I’ll put a tariff on Middle Eastern oil. They will quit sending their oil to America. We’ll drill and find it here. We’ll use clean coal. We’ll use safe nuclear. We’ll use natural gas. We’ll use solar. We’ll use geothermal. We will be energy free by the end of the decade. You know what that does?

That’s 5 million new jobs that pay $35 per hour. How’d you like one them, people who can’t find work?”

That’s $500 billion we’ll quit sending to the Middle East. That is the sum total of our international trade deficit - $500 billion. We’d wipe it out like that.

We would increase the value of the dollar and as it increases the price of gas will go down. And we’ll quit sending our money to nations that slip it on the side to terrorists. And we’ll quit sending Marines for oil duty in the Middle East.

By god, we will be free again and it will start with energy.

Ron Paul at UNH Today - Live Blog

Ron Paul kicks off a two day visit to New Hampshire today with an appearance at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Doors open at 3:00 PM at the Memorial Union Building, Granite State Room. The event is being hosted by the Young Americans for Liberty at UNH. More information is available on Facebook

This is a great opportunity for any New Hampshire citizen to make their voice heard! Attend this event and ask Ron Paul to weigh in on the issues that matter most to you.

I'll be posting live from this event later today... Stay tuned!

Update

354 people have signed up on Facebook to attend Ron Paul's speech in Durham today. Recommend arriving early to get a good place in line!

Update 1:30 PM


Scratch that. Just arrived outside the Granite State Room - no line. In fact, there is no one here at all. A student sitting at a table outside the door laughed when I asked if he was manning the Ron Paul event and remarked, "I'm just doing homework." Keep your nose in the books my friend!

Not too surprising given that Ron Paul has yet too officially launch his presidential campaign, meaning no infrastructure is in place to rally supporters. I just found out about the event today.

Still, I'm reminded of Barack Obama's early visit to the University of New Hampshire back in January of 2007, which I covered for Gather.com. Students were lined up outside the Field House two hours before the door opened. Apparently Ron Paul hasn't attained that kind of rock star status.

Update 1:45 PM

A little background. This is Ron Paul's first visit to New Hampshire since 2008, according to CNN. That year, he finished 5th place with 8 percent of the vote in the Granite State's first-in-the-nation presidential primary. It was not his best showing of the election. He won 24 percent of the vote in Idaho and broke the 10% mark in a number of other states.

Update 2:08 PM 


A few folks have lined up outside the door of the Granite State room, awaiting Ron Paul's speech at 3:00.

Update 2:15 PM


I'm interested to see what Ron Paul has to say about key issues like education and collective bargaining. You've probably been hearing some Tea Party enthusiasts calling for the abolition of the Department of Education. It's an idea that can be traced directly back to Paul.

In Iowa yesterday, the Texas Congressman took the DOE to task for indoctrinating kids instead of educating them. He basically dodged a question about the issue of collective bargaining during a recent interview with radio talk show host Rebecca Costa.

Just yesterday, the Republican-dominated Finance Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives approved a budget amendment that would kill collective bargaining rights for 70,000 public employees, including firefighters and teachers. In a move reminiscent of the secret committee vote that enabled passage of union busting legislation in Wisconsin, the amendment was introduced without prior notice by Rep. Neal
Kurk late last night and voted on without any public comment period or hearing.

While Concord probably won't become the next Madison, there have been a number of well attended rallies in solidarity with Wisconsin workers in the Granite State. The progressive movement that helped President Barack Obama win here in 2008 is waking up to the harsh realities of Republican rule. Activists will likely be attending GOP campaign events, confronting GOP presidential candidates with tough questions about issues like collective bargaining. Not exactly the kind of political climate the GOP was hoping for in 2012.

Update 3:09 PM


I was just handed an invite to "Porc Fest 2011", a Free State Project sponsored event that sounds kind of like Woodstock for Libertarians. Check it out at www.porcfest.com

... not to be confused with the Live Free or Die Rally, another event being promoted by flier here today.

Update 3:17 PM


Still no Ron Paul, but the room is now close to capacity. I'd estimate around 200 people gathered here today. Maybe he is a rock star? Worth noting that I overheard one student on a cell phone say, "I'm waiting to hear Ron Paul. He's running for president. I think he's a Democrat!" In other words, crowd size should not be used as a measure of support.

Update 8:00 PM


Got some great video at today's event and will be posting here at newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com ASAP.

Michele Bachmann Tea Bags New Hampshire (Video)

Granitegrok posted this video of Rep. Michele Bachmann addressing a GOP fundraiser in Nashua, NH on Saturday, March 12, 2011. Bachmann is not only the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, she is also openly considering running for president in 2012.

The Minnesota Congresswoman also made stops in Manchester and Barrington.

"I brought a tea bag today and wondered if anyone cared for tea," Bachmann joked at Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC fundraiser in Barrington, while holding a tea bag out in front of the crowd.

Meanwhile, a major gaffe Bachmann made during her trip to the Granite State has left her political opponents in stitches.

"What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty," she said. "Your the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord."

Bachmann was apparently referring to the Battle of Concord and Lexington, which marked the start of the Revolutionary War. This battle actually took place in Massachusetts, a fact taught at every elementary school in New England. The gaffe is making headlines on news sites across the web today, from Real Clear Politics to The Economist.

Tim Palwenty in New Hampshire Today

MANCHESTER, NH: Granite Oath PAC has confirmed that on Thursday, March 10th, 2011, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will participate in the second of its 2011 Presidential Series house parties, beginning at 5:30pm.

The event will be held at the home of PAC Chairman and former candidate for U.S. Senate Ovide Lamontagne and his wife Bettie, and will be open to the media.

Details
Thursday, March 10th, 2011
Granite Oath PAC Event with Governor Tim Pawlenty
Home of Ovide and Bettie Lamontagne
172 Young Street
Manchester, NH 03103

This will be the second in a series of events that Granite Oath PAC seeks to hold with the major prospective Republican candidates for President in New Hampshire’s upcoming First in the Nation primary. The first event was held with former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum on January 11th, with an overflow crowd of over 150 activists attending from throughout New Hampshire.

President Barack Obama's Boston Visit - Video and Transcripts

President Barack Obama was in Boston yesterday, where he talked about the future of education in America and attended a $5,000 dollar a plate fundraiser at the Museum of Fine Arts.

"As a nation, we have a moral and economic imperative to give every child the chance to succeed," Obama said during his visit to TechBoston Academy in Dorchester.

The MFA fundraiser was expected to raise more than $1 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to the Boston Globe.



Transcript of President Obama's education speech in Boston:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 08, 2011

Remarks by the President on Winning the Future in Education in Boston, Massachusetts

TechBoston Academy

Boston, Massachusetts
 
     THE PRESIDENT:  Hey!  (Applause.)  Hello, TechBoston!  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you, everybody.  Everybody please have a seat.  Everybody please have a seat.
 
We are thrilled to see especially the students here today.  (Applause.)  I am grateful for the presence of a few other outstanding leaders.  First of all, the great mayor of Boston Tom Menino is in the house.  There he is over there.  (Applause.)  Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here.  Where’s Tim?  (Applause.)  Tim, good to see you.  The outstanding Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is in the house.  (Applause.)  
 
To all of you who are contributing to the outstanding education of these young people, I could not be prouder to be here.  It is wonderful to be back in Massachusetts.  Some of you may know I spent some time in school here myself.  I was much younger.  I had no gray hair.  (Laughter.)  There were definitely no SmartBoards back then.  (Laughter.)  The most exciting new technology was an electric pencil sharpener.  (Laughter.)  So times have changed.  You remember those?  (Laughter.)  Do you know what pencils are?  Do you guys use pencils?
 
I am so grateful to have Melinda Gates joining us here today.  Of course, we all know Melinda’s husband Bill, who couldn’t hack it at school here, dropped out.  (Laughter.)  Then he started a modest -- modestly successful computer company.  That was a joke, guys.  (Laughter.)  Bill Gates actually created a really big company.  (Laughter.)  But Melinda is a force in her own right -- she is one of the world’s most generous but also effective philanthropists, successful businesswoman, and most important for today, she has been an extraordinary leader when it comes to education reform.  Microsoft and the Gates Foundation have been partners with TechBoston since it got started, and we are very grateful for their support.  Proud of them.  (Applause.)  
 
Melinda is absolutely right, by the way.  One of the things that I’ve benefited from in this effort to make sure our schools are working for every young person is my Secretary of Education.  Some of you might have known that Arne used to play professional basketball in Australia.  He was on the Harvard basketball team; was a star there.  Just the other week, he was in a celebrity basketball tournament where he was outscored by Justin Bieber.  (Laughter.)  I’m just saying.  (Laughter.)  Justin is, like, about 5’2” -- (laughter) -- so please give him a hard time for that if you get a chance.  
 
Now, we’re in the middle of what we’re calling Education Month at the White House, and I wanted to come to TechBoston so that the rest of America can see how it’s done.  You guys are a model for what’s happening all across the country.  (Applause.)  And obviously at the helm is Mary Skipper, who is doing unbelievable work.  (Applause.)  
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Skip!
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Love you, Skip!  (Laughter.)  But also the extraordinarily talented teaching staff that is working here.  I had a chance to meet a couple of the teachers, and you could just tell that they are passionate about the work that they do.  So they deserve a huge round of applause.  (Applause.)  
 
Every day, TechBoston is proving that no matter who you are, or what you look like, or where you come from, every child can learn.  Every child can succeed.  And every child deserves that chance.  
 
Getting the best possible education has never been more important than it is right now.  And that’s because in today’s world, a good job requires a good education.  I travel all across the country, I go into factories, I go into companies.  And it doesn’t matter where you are working -- if you do not have a good education you are not going to be able to succeed.  And that includes being on the factory floor these days, because most of the equipment is highly technical.
 
Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require a level of education beyond a high school degree.  Which means, obviously, first of all, you can’t drop out of TechBoston.  That’s not allowed.  All right?  You can’t even think about dropping out.  (Applause.)  But -- can’t even think about it.  But even after you graduate, you’re going to need some additional education.  And I know that TechBoston is doing an outstanding job of making sure that every student is prepared to go to college.  
 
Unfortunately, the reality is too many students are not prepared across our country.  Too many leave school without the skills they need to get a job that pays.  Today, as many as a quarter of American students are not finishing high school -- a quarter.  The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations.  And America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree.  We used to be number one, and we’re now number nine.  That’s not acceptable.  
 
The most effective way to create jobs in this country is to change those statistics.  There’s no better economic policy than one that produces more graduates with the skills they need to succeed -- to start their own businesses, to create their own Microsoft, to create new industries.  And that’s why reforming education is the responsibility of every single American -– every parent, every teacher, every business leader, every public official, and yes, every student.  
 
Now, it used to be that we weren’t sure how to turn around failing schools.  We weren’t sure what worked to help struggling students.  There were some folks in Washington who said all it took was more money, and if we just poured more money into the school everything would better.  Then there were others who said, no, you just got to blow up these schools, they can’t work.  A lot of people thought we should just give up on places like Dorchester, and they assume that some kids just can’t learn, or they’ve got too many disadvantages.  There are always some excuses for why our young people couldn’t succeed.  
 
But after awhile, parents and teachers and education reformers started to realize that maybe Washington didn’t have all the answers.  And I can promise you after being there for a few years, they’re on to something there.  (Laughter.)  People started realizing that what’s needed is not either/or, it’s not either more money or more reform, it’s both/and -- both more money and more reform.  That’s what’s needed.  (Applause.)
 
What’s needed is higher standards and higher expectations; more time in the classroom and greater focus on subjects like math and science.  What’s needed are outstanding teachers and leaders like Skip who get more flexibility.  I just like that name.  I’m going call you Skip now.  (Laughter and applause.)  But education leaders who get more flexibility in exchange for more accountability.
 
And all those ingredients are present here at TechBoston.  The students here, they get their own laptop when they walk through the door.  That costs money, but it opens up a window for learning.  You’re required to take four years of math, science and technology classes -- classes like web development and entrepreneurship and even forensic science.  I didn’t even know what forensic science was in high school.  (Laughter.)  I’m not sure I do now.  (Laughter.)  But that’s part of the requirement that makes this school outstanding.
 
The school days are longer.  Classes are 60 minutes so that young people have time to actually focus and absorb the information that’s being provided.  And many students go to school in July and August.  I usually don’t get much applause from students when I point that out.  (Laughter.)  Because this is a pilot school, Mary had the ability to hire her own staff, and the teachers here are offered training and constant support.          
 
So those are the ingredients, and the results have been powerful.  The students here come from some tough neighborhoods -- am I right?  Yes.  And yet the graduation rate is almost 20 points higher than the rest of the city -- 20 points higher.  (Applause.)  Ninety-four percent of the most recent graduating class went to college.  Eighty-five percent of those students were the first in their family to do so.  (Applause.)  Your math and science scores are consistently higher than other Boston schools, and the attendance rate here is 94 percent.
 
So it’s working.  What’s happening here is working.  We know what works.  What’s required, then, to get results from any school is no longer a mystery.  And that means there can’t be any more excuses -- from anybody.  As a nation, we have a moral and economic imperative to give every child the chance to succeed.  And that’s why I set a goal when I took office, that by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.  We will be number one again.  (Applause.)
 
Now, to achieve this goal, everybody is going to need to do their part.  We need the help of philanthropists like Melinda Gates.  We’ll need the help of the businesses that are partnering with TechBoston.  We need citizens and parents to get involved, because nothing we do in school with make much of a difference unless we instill in our kids the self-confidence and the self-discipline and the work ethic that are at the heart of success not just in school but in life.
 
So some of you may have come from a tough neighborhood, but you’ve got some parents at home, you’ve got somebody at home who’s nagging you and staying on top of you and saying you can succeed.  And I’m assuming somebody who’s also turning off the TV set once in a while and saying, put away the video games and do your homework.  That has to be a critical ingredient in success.  
 
We need to recognize that the true path to reform has to involve partnerships between teachers and school administrators and communities.  And we’ll need a national education policy that tries to figure out how do we replicate success stories like TechBoston all across the country.  
 
So that’s what Arne Duncan’s job is, and that’s what he’s been doing so well over the last few years.  Instead of pouring money into a broken system, under Arne’s leadership, what we’ve done is we’ve launched a competition.  We call it Race to the Top.  (Applause.)  We call it Race to the Top, and it’s basically a challenge to states and school districts, prove to us that you’re serious about reform.  We’ve said to all 50 states, if you show us the most innovative plans for improving teacher quality and improving student achievement, then we’ll show you the money.  And for less than 1 percent of what America spends on education each year, Race to the Top has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning -- standards, by the way, that were developed not in Washington but by Republican and Democratic governors all across the country.  
 
So at the grassroots level, at the state level, standards were developed.  And we said, show us how you’re going to meet these standards.  The more innovative you are, the more money you can get for your schools.   And that’s the kind of bottom-up approach that we need to follow.  This year we’re going to have to work with Congress to fix No Child Left Behind, and we’re going to have to replace it with a law that does a better job focusing on responsibility and reform and, most of all, results.  (Applause.)
 
We’re also trying to give school districts more flexibility to open charter schools and pilot schools like TechBoston, so that they have the flexibility, the autonomy, to do what’s best for students.  We’re working to make sure every school has a 21st-century curriculum like you do.  And in the same way that we invested in the science and research that led to the breakthroughs like the Internet, I’m calling for investments in educational technology that will help create digital tutors that are as effective as personal tutors, and educational software that’s as compelling as the best video game.  I want you guys to be stuck on a video game that’s teaching you something other than just blowing something up.  (Applause.)
 
And because we know that the single most important factor in a student’s success after their parent is the person standing at the front of the classroom, we are looking to make teaching one of the most honored professions in our society.  (Applause.)  In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.”  That’s what they’re -- that’s how they’re described.  Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect.  (Applause.)  We’ve got to lift up teachers.  We’ve got to reward good teachers.  First, we also have to stop making excuses for bad teachers.  We’re also working to give educators the support and the preparation that they need, and I know that some of the teachers here have benefited from our investment in these programs, such as the teacher preparation partnership you have with the Boston Teachers Residency and with UMass Boston.  
 
And with so many baby boomers retiring from teaching over the next few years, we intend to recruit and prepare a new generation of teachers, including 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next decade.  And I hope that some of you will end up going into the teaching profession and pass on all the knowledge that you’ve gotten here at TechBoston.  (Applause.)
 
Now, I’ve talked about how much we can improve student achievement through various reforms -- setting higher standards, higher expectations; giving schools and teachers more flexibility in exchange for greater accountability.  But it’s also true that fixing our schools will cost some money.  Recruiting and rewarding the best teachers costs money.  Making it possible for families to send their kids to college costs money.  Making sure that some of the state-of-the-art equipment that all of you are working on when I walked into Mr. Louis’s classroom today, that costs money.  
 
Making these investments in education is going to be absolutely critical, but it’s tough to do after decades of deficits.  I understand that.  For too long, the government has been spending more money than it’s been taking in.  So we’re going to have to get serious about cutting whatever spending we don’t need, which means I’ve already called for a five-year freeze in our annual domestic budget.  That’s a freeze that would cut the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and it would bring such spending to a lower share of our economy than it’s been in 50 years.  And I’ve proposed cutting or eliminating more than 200 federal programs that aren’t working as well as they should.  We’re freezing the salaries of hardworking civil servants for two years.  And I’m willing to do more to get our deficits under control.  And that’s why the White House is leading bipartisan meetings with members of Congress, because we need to come up with a budget that forces government to live within its means.
 
But -- and I want everybody to pay attention -- even as we find ways to cut spending, we cannot cut back on job-creating investments like education.  We cannot cut back on the very investments that will help our economy grow and our nation compete and make sure that these young people succeed.  (Applause.)  There’s nothing responsible about that.  There’s nothing responsible about cutting back on our investment in these young people.
 
I mean, think about what happens in your own family.  If you have a family member that loses a job or you have an illness in the family and you’ve got to cut back, where do you start?  You maybe give up a vacation.  You go out to eat less often.  Maybe you don’t buy that new coat you thought was sharp, or the new car that you thought you needed.  But the last thing you do is give up saving on your child’s education, because you know that’s the key to that child’s success in life.  
 
Well, what’s true for a family has to be true for the larger American family.  A budget that sacrifices our commitment to education is a budget that sacrifices our country’s future.  It is a budget that sacrifices our children’s future, and I will not let it happen.  (Applause.)  I will not let it happen.  We’re not going to give up on any school in America or any child in America.  
 
We can’t forget that every year, schools like TechBoston have to hold a lottery, because there just aren’t enough spaces for all the students who want to go here.  The reason they want to go here is because they know that if they go to some of the other schools in the area, they won’t do as well.  They know that they might drop out.  They might not get the same reinforcement that they need.  There might not be that same culture of excellence and performance.  That means they may not go to college, and they know they may not succeed.  
 
All of that shouldn’t depend on a lottery.  That can’t be the system of education we settle for in America.  No child’s chance in life should be determined by the luck of a lottery.  Not in this country.  This is a place where everyone gets the chance to succeed, where everybody should have a chance to make it.  The motto of this school is, “We rise and fall together.”  Well, that is true for America as well.  (Applause.)  That’s true for America as well.
 
If we want to prosper in the 21st century, and if we want to keep the American Dream alive in our time, then we’re going to rise together.  We’ve all got to come together.  We’ve got to give our children the same world-class education that you are getting right here at TechBoston.  And as long as I am President, that’s what I’m going to be fighting for right alongside you.  
 
Thank you so much, everybody.  (Applause.)  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.