Showing posts with label Gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gas. Show all posts

Friday, September 5, 2008

Blame Dems for Bad Economy

Everyone knows the price of gas has skyrocketed over the last year, raising the price of everything that depends on gas which is, well, everything.

The pain is already widespread and will only get worse.

Higher transportation costs mean all products cost more, not just fuel. Higher prices cause demand to fall, meaning fewer sales and fewer jobs for Americans. The U.S. is already facing high deficits - lower sales mean even lower tax revenues and even higher deficits.

Worst of all, many Americans will be slammed this winter by higher fuel costs like never before. So, we now know that high gas prices mean higher food prices, higher prices overall, less tax revenue, more job layoffs, less income and much higher bills for most Americans.

So, what are Members of Congress doing to lower gas prices?

Peter Welch (D-VT) sponsored H.R. 6022 to stop adding to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Per Welch, “taking 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day”, “could reduce gas prices 5 to 24 cents per gallon”.

Lifting the ban on drilling may yield 2 million barrels per day. Using Welch’s math, 2 million more barrels per day will lower gas prices at least $1.40 per gallon, maybe much more.  Imagine, if Welch’s math is right, lifting the ban may cut gas prices in half!

In an early test of Obama’s leadership in a crisis, Democrats took a 5-week paid vacation!

Huh?? They say a “comprehensive” bill is needed – it’s not! Just lift the ban and work on a long-term energy bill after the election, with the new President.

In the meantime, LIFT THE BAN!

Two million barrels a day means $106 billion a year that doesn’t go overseas, creates millions of new jobs, reduces the trade deficit and increases tax revenues – a win-win-win.

This single act, lifting the ban, may save the great American economy from recession!

Perhaps Democrats are preventing a vote to help Obama get elected? Like Clinton in ‘92, more people will vote for “Change” in a struggling economy, but we can’t wait.  The U.S. economy is too important.

Last year, we produced $13 trillion of goods and services - more than Japan, Germany, China & the U.K. combined! We create most of the world’s food, medicines, software, aircraft, etc. In fact, cheap energy has enabled us to manufacture almost twice as much as China - 70% more goods now than 1992.

Our economy creates lots of wealth, a chunk of which is donated to feed and clothe the world’s poor.

In addition, we’re extremely energy efficient. We can now manufacture goods using 74% less energy than it took in 1972.  In other words, Mr. Obama, we already conserve, have been for years, we just call it being "efficient" and we do it to save our companies and our families money.

Of course, if Democrats never allow a vote on drilling, the great American economy will grind to a halt, threatening everything we contribute to the world.

Imagine that – people all over the world will be hurt because Democrats in the Congress chose to “cling” to their extreme environmentalism rather than help real live people in need.

Where I live, in Vermont, 30 days a year are sub-zero (no global warming here :-).   Fuel to heat our homes will be twice what it was last winter.

It’s going to be very bad for Americans in northern states this winter – except for Members of Congress, who we pay $169,300 per year, or $14,000 per month – they should be just fine.

However, a Congressional salary of $14,000 a month, adjusted for any inflation caused by higher gas prices, will make this winter, and future winters, painless.

Too bad; maybe if they “felt some of our pain”, they’d lift the ban.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Hey Obama - Lift the Ban!

I just read that Obama may be OK with drilling after all, "under certain conditions".  I'll believe that after he actually votes for it.  Until then, it's just the latest example of Barack trying to appeal to the largest possible audience.

There's no there there, is there?.

The story is at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/01/obama-may-back-off-opposition-to-offshore-drilling.  Here's a quote from that story to highlight the irony of Obama's latest "adjustment" to a policy position:

His staunch opposition to offshore drilling has not polled well but he has stood by the issue and has used it as a symbol to highlight that he does not base every decision on what is politically popular.

I submitted this comment in response to the article:

On Friday, the Obama-led Democratic Party went on vacation without passing a comprehensive energy bill that includes lifting the ban on offshore drilling.

For months, Obama has mocked efforts to lift the ban as a “scheme by oil companies”. Now that his lead over McCain has evaporated to dead even and polls show over 60% of Americans want offshore drilling, Barack indicates he would be OK with it.

Better late than never, I guess, but why won’t Obama ask Pelosi and Reid to keep Congress in session until it gets done? Isn’t he their leader? Doesn’t he care about families hurting from the high price of gas and everything else??

Sacrificing all that America offers the world, holding fast to extreme environmentalism when American families are suffering, seems to me a huge mistake.

Comment by Look2theWest - August 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM .

So, let's hear it Obama.  If your Democrat party really wants to lift the ban on offshore drilling, have them get their butts back to D.C.!  If you really want to help American families, that are struggling this summer and worried about this winter, then stop flying around on your air-conditioned private jet, get your Democratic friends to allow a vote on lifting the ban and ...vote for it!

It's urgent and it's important. 

You can read more of my thoughts on a comprehensive energy plan @ http://look2thewest.blogspot.com/2008/08/quick-read-energy-plan.html.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

My Questions for Hillary

I recently watched a Major Garrett interview of Senator Clinton @

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/hillary-clinton-its-not-over-till-its-over/#comment-2844

It was a rigorous discussion of inside-the-beltway issues like whether Michigan and Florida should be seated and isn't the recent tide of super delegates to come out for Obama a sign Obama's the presumptive nominee?  As interesting as those topics are for political junkies, like myself, I can't help but wonder why aren't more questions asked that would really help voters make up their minds?

For example:

  1. To really reduce the price of gas for those WV nurses (who can't see certain patients because of gas prices), what about drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, with strict environment-protecting controls, and releasing some of the SPR until those new wells come online?  This would really lower the price of gas for average Americans, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve our trade deficit.  The Dems have really limited domestic drilling - which has kept domestic supply down.  If Democrats don't go along with it now, why shouldn't those nurses, and everyone else, blame the Democrats for high gas prices?
  2. Isn't it true, Senator Clinton, that the booming 90s economy, you keep taking credit for, actually began in March, 1991 - a full 21 months before your husband took office?  Isn't it also true that the 1994 Republican's fiscal discipline and the Bush 41 recovery have more to do with the late 1990s surpluses than anything your husband did?  If so, why should Americans trust you with our economy?  In fact, given the Dem majorities, isn't it more likely a Hillary economy would be more like Carter's economy than the one your husband inherited?
  3. Lastly, and far more important, are questions about Rwanda - most media has been afraid to ask the Clintons about Rwanda – until now.  After the Holocaust, we promised “never again” at the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.  In 1994, over 50,000 blacks per week were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide.  To avoid our UN obligation, President Clinton tried to convince the world it wasn’t technically “genocide”.   Incredibly, the world believed President Clinton and, for 14 long weeks, the slaughter continued until over 800,000 blacks died.  Senator Clinton - As someone who has fought for women and children for 35 years, why didn’t you speak out publicly against your husband when you saw the news footage of the Kagera River, red with the blood of victims and clogged with the bloated & hacked body parts of women and children?  You call yourself a feminist and yet you remained silent while hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.  Why did you remain silent?
  4. Do you believe your husband’s apologies are enough given that over 800,000 blacks lost their lives on his watch?  Recent reports indicate your husband and V.P. Gore may have been aware as early as week three that a horrific genocide was happening, but did not acknowledge it publicly. 
  5. By week three, the Hutus had slaughtered over 100,000 Tutsis.  When did you begin to think it was genocide?  If early on, why not speak out publicly to save lives?  If not until later, why should America trust you to be President if you failed to see such a significant human disaster was unfolding and that urgent action was needed? 

I know these questions are a little rough but the subject matter is rough.  I truly believe journalists have a solemn obligation to hold leaders accountable, even if questions are difficult.