Let's suppose that Exxon drills an oil well off shore in the gulf of Mexico about 20 miles south of the Louisiana coast. Right now, the Department of Energy is in charge of issuing permits and obtaining payments from Exxon for royalties generated from the well. Does it make sense to add another 7% royalty on that well with the money being sent to the United Nations? Should America send tens of billions of dollars each year in royalties for activities at sea to the UN for that body to divide up among its members? Do Bulgaria, Sudan, or Iran really have any claim to fees generated by the USA as its companies carry out activities off of American shores?
Clearly, the answer to this question is a resounding NO. But such royalties are just what would come with the so-called Law of the Sea Treaty that the Obamacrats are trying to get through the senate this year. The treaty was signed twenty years ago, and for the last twenty years, the senate has had the good sense to refuse to approve it. After all, why would America charge its own companies this royalty just so that the funds can be sent to other countries? You can be sure that none of the money raised by the royalties would find its way back to the USA. This would just be another money transfer from the USA to other countries.
According to today's news reports, there are now 34 senators who are opposed to the treaty. If that is correct, then there is no way for the treaty to get the two thirds vote in the senate needed for ratification. On the other hand, how many times have we seen senators "opposed" to something vote for it anyway. It is important for people to let their senators know that they are opposed to this treaty. Take the time to write now!
No comments:
Post a Comment