Newt for President

[wmbwinn]

He is not running. I was just having fun with the title. Read this article. It makes sense.



http://us.mc562.mail.yahoo.com/mc/sh...OcwbO5i%2BnhW4,


The starting point of any discussion of America's energy future has to be this: Shortsighted politicians have created the current energy crisis.

For decades left-leaning politicians have advocated higher prices and less energy. They were going to save the environment by punishing Americans into driving less and driving smaller cars. Now their policies have succeeded with a vengeance.

The very left wing politicians who favored a policy of no oil and gas exploration, no use of coal, no development of nuclear power, and no aggressive development of new technologies are now panic-stricken that their policies of higher prices have led to higher prices.

And now the same shortsighted, dishonest politicians who created the crisis are blaming everyone but themselves for the crisis. Because they refuse to be honest about the policies which led to this crisis, they can't be honest about the policies that will lead us out of it.

The politicians want scapegoats. The American people just want solutions.

[jefelump]

I heard on the radio today that Bill Clinton vetoed a bill in 1995 that would have allowed for offshore oil drilling. His reason, according to what I heard today, was because "it would have taken 10 years to build and reach full production." Back then oil was roughly $19 per barrel. So if what I heard is true, and if what Clinton used as his justification were true, we would have had these new oil wells in full production 3 years ago. So it makes we wonder what it would cost for a gallon of gasoline if Clinton had signed the bill.

Of course, I haven't researched this... just speculation on what I heard today.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I heard on the radio today that Bill Clinton vetoed a bill in 1995 that would have allowed for offshore oil drilling. His reason, according to what I heard today, was because "it would have taken 10 years to build and reach full production." Back then oil was roughly $19 per barrel. So if what I heard is true, and if what Clinton used as his justification were true, we would have had these new oil wells in full production 3 years ago. So it makes we wonder what it would cost for a gallon of gasoline if Clinton had signed the bill.

Of course, I haven't researched this... just speculation on what I heard today.

What in the hell should government have to do with oil drilling?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

What in the hell should government have to do with oil drilling?

"should" is an interesting word in your question. I can't answer that.

What I can say is that the government is HEAVILY tied into the regulations of the industry and they can and do prevent drilling and other exploration based on their regulations.

That issue is the whole debate.

Read the original link and the multiple links available from that link.

[mcsluggo]

hmmm. Yes it does make sense. In the same way that the following makes sense.

The vast right wing conspiracy's lonstanding policy of devouring the young of america has finally come home to roost. Since a large proportion of America's potential future homegrown leaders have either been consumed outright or sacrificed in ritualistic presentations to the dark lord overseers, there currently are insufficient numbers of native born Americans to use as breeding stock to provide for future rituals. As a result the grand high wizards of the conservative movement have surrupticiously resorted to importing breeding stock from the rest of the western hemisphere, while simultaneusly decrying the loss of "americanism and apple pie" from the infusion of filthy foreigners.

The solution is clear, but politically unattractive. In the future the overlords will be forced to perform their heinous acts abroad, at the breeding sources, but develop technological solutions that will allow them to import only the necessary components of the filthy inferiour barbarian stock: beating hearts, testicles and eyeballs. Karl Rove declined to comment on this article, as he was preoccupied with his new private sector endeavor, grinding up the eyeballs of widows and orphans to make a paste that makes bucket seat leather more supple and vibrant.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

hmmm. Yes it does make sense. In the same way that the following makes sense.

The vast right wing conspiracy's lonstanding policy of devouring the young of america has finally come home to roost. Since a large proportion of America's potential future homegrown leaders have either been consumed outright or sacrificed in ritualistic presentations to the dark lord overseers, there currently are insufficient numbers of native born Americans to use as breeding stock to provide for future rituals. As a result the grand high wizards of the conservative movement have surrupticiously resorted to importing breeding stock from the rest of the western hemisphere, while simultaneusly decrying the loss of "americanism and apple pie" from the infusion of filthy foreigners.

The solution is clear, but politically unattractive. In the future the overlords will be forced to perform their heinous acts abroad, at the breeding sources, but develop technological solutions that will allow them to import only the necessary components of the filthy inferiour barbarian stock: beating hearts, testicles and eyeballs. Karl Rove declined to comment on this article, as he was preoccupied with his new private sector endeavor, grinding up the eyeballs of widows and orphans to make a paste that makes bucket seat leather more supple and vibrant.

All I can determine from your sarcasm is that you don't think the ideas of Newt make any sense. What doesn't make sense? Any specifics here or will you just walk away with saying nothing more?

[mcsluggo]

crap! I typed out a response, and then accidently went back one page and lost it all

so an abrieviated version of what I typed befere (you will have to trust me when I say that THAT response was a flawless piece of beauty, gently weaving together a vast array of far flung information... and that hthis following response is just a pale imitation of the brilliant original trust me!

anyhoo, first off, I can't read the link (is it to a personal mail message?) so I am responding to the blurb you actually cut and pasted to your post...

and THAT blurb seems to me to be little more than shallow political puffery. Howeverr, if you cut through the puffiness, I assume there is a kernal thought in there... I just cant figure out what it is, because the author either purposely or accidently blends together two very seperate and different markets into his rant, the market for electrical power (generation and/or transmission) and the market for oil.

So, it actually doesn't appear to me that the author has any point at all beyond the mundane "Laissez-faire market policy would solve everything in the world..."

[wmbwinn]

The Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday should be a sharp wake up call for Republicans: Either Congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November.

The facts are clear and compelling.

Saturday's loss was in a district that President Bush carried by 19 percentage points in 2004 and that the Republicans have held since 1975.

This defeat follows on the loss of Speaker Hastert's seat in Illinois. That seat had been held by a Republican for 76 years with the single exception of the 1974 Watergate election when the Democrats held it for one term. That same seat had been carried by President Bush 55-44% in 2004.

These two special elections validate a national polling pattern that is bad news for Republicans. According to a New York Times/CBS Poll, Americans disapprove of the President's job performance by 63 to 28 (and he has been below 40% job approval since December 2006, the longest such period for any president in the history of polling).

A separate New York Times/CBS Poll shows that a full 81 percent of Americans believe the economy is on the wrong track.

The current generic ballot for Congress according to the NY Times/CBS poll is 50 to 32 in favor of the Democrats. That is an 18-point margin, reminiscent of the depths of the Watergate disaster.

Congressional Republicans Can't Take Comfort in McCain's Poll Numbers
Senator McCain is currently running ahead of the Republican congressional ballot by about 16 percentage points. But there are two reasons that this extraordinary personal achievement should not comfort congressional Republicans.

First, McCain's lead is a sign of the gap between the McCain brand of independence and the GOP brand. No regular Republican would be tying or slightly beating the Democratic candidates in this atmosphere. It is a sign of how much McCain is a non-traditional Republican that he is sustaining his personal popularity despite his party's collapse.

Second, there is a grave danger for the McCain campaign that if the generic ballot stays at only 32 % for the GOP it will ultimately outweigh McCain's personal appeal and drag his candidacy into defeat.

The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed
The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."

Republicans Have Lost the Advantage on Every Single-Issue Poll
A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.

Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37).

This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans built up over three generations on the deficit, two generations on taxes, and two generations on national security.

House Republicans Should Call an Emergency, Members-Only Conference
Faced with these election results, the House Republicans should hold an emergency members-only meeting. At the meeting, they should pose this stark choice: Real change or certain defeat.

If a majority of the House Republicans vote for real change, they should instruct Republican Leader John Boehner and his team to come back with a new plan by the Wednesday before the Memorial Day recess. This plan should involve real change in legislative, communications, and campaign strategy and involve immediate, real action, including a complete overhaul of the Congressional Campaign Committee. The House Republican Conference would then vote for the plan or insist on its revision.

If a majority of the House Republicans are opposed to acting then the minority who are activists should establish a parallel organization dedicated to real change. This group should focus its energies on creating the changes necessary to survive despite a conference with a minority mindset that accepts defeat rather than fights for real change (which is what we had when I entered Congress in 1978).

Nine Acts of Real Change That Could Restore the GOP Brand
Here are nine acts of real change that would begin to rebuild the American people's confidence that Republicans share their values, understand their worries, and are prepared to act instead of just talk. The Republicans in Congress could get a start on all nine this week if they had the will to do so.

Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending so that the transportation infrastructure trust fund would not be hurt. At a time when, according to The Hill newspaper, Senator Clinton is asking for $2.3billion in earmarks, it should be possible for Republicans to establish a "government spending versus your pocketbook" fight over cutting the gas tax that would resonate with most Americans. Lower taxes and less government spending should be a battle cry most taxpayers and all conservatives could rally behind.


Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market. That oil would lower the price of gasoline an extra 5 to 6 cents per gallon, and its sale would lower the deficit.


Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill which is coming to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks (see my newsletter next week for an outline of a solid pro-economy, pro-national security, pro-environment energy bill). When the American people realize how much the current energy prices are actually a "politicians' energy crisis" they will demand real change in our policies.


Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.


Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically. The recent announcement that the Census Bureau could not build an effective hand-held computer for $1.3 billion and is turning instead to 600,000 temporary workers to do a paper and pencil census in 2010 is an opportunity to slash its budget, shrink its bureaucracy, and turn to entrepreneurial internet-based companies to build an information-age census. This is an absurdity that cries out for bold, decisive reform (see my YouTube video "FedEx versus federal bureaucracy" for an example of what I mean).


Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system. The problems of the Federal Aviation Administration are symptoms of a union-dominated bureaucracy resisting change. If we implemented a space-based GPS-style air traffic system we would get 40% more air travel with one-half the bureaucrats. The union has stopped 200,000,000 passengers from enjoying more reliable air travel to protect 7,000 obsolete jobs. This real change would allow the millions of frustrated travelers to have champions in congress trying to help them get places better, safer, faster.


Declare English the official language of government. This real change is supported by 87% of the American people including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Latinos. It is an issue of national unity that brings Americans together in a red, white, and blue majority.


Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot. The vast majority (around 81%) of Americans believe that American workers have a right to have a secret ballot election before they are forced to join a union. Last year the House Democrats passed a bill that would strip American workers of the secret ballot. A new bill should be introduced reaffirming that right, and it should be brought up again and again until marginal Democrats are forced to vote with the American people against the union power structure.


Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House. This issue has three advantages. It reminds people that judges matter and that a leftwing radical Supreme Court would be bad for the values of most (70 to 90 percent, depending on the issue) Americans. It shows the Democrats are not engaged in fair play. It arouses the activism of those who have been disappointed by Republicans and have forgotten how bad a liberal Democratic Presidency would be.
What Is at Stake
No Republicans should kid themselves. It's time to face up to a stark choice.

Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall.

Without change the Republican Party in the House could revert to the permanent minority status it had from 1930 to 1994.

Without change, the majorities of Americans who support the Republican principle of smaller, more efficient, smarter and fairer government will be in for a rude awakening.

It's time for real change to avoid a real disaster.

The "May Day Massacre": Can Liberals Govern in a Global Economy?
Despite the poor outlook for conservatives in our elections this November, there is encouraging news from across the Atlantic. The conservative wave sweeping Europe hit England last week when the liberal Labor Party suffered its worst local election results in 40 years.

Boris Johnson became the first Conservative Party member elected mayor of London when he defeated Labour candidate "Red" Ken Livingstone. In contests for more than 4,000 local seats across England, Conservatives captured 44 percent of the vote, compared to 25 percent for the Liberal Democrats and just 24 percent for Labour.

This Conservative victory in England comes on the heels of a history-making rout of the Communists and the Greens in parliamentary elections Italy two weeks ago. And the Italian results follow center-right victories in France (Sarkozy) and Germany (Merkel). The countries of so-called "old" Europe are turning away from the liberal high tax, big government policies that have crippled their economies and are turning toward pro-growth, pro-competitive center-right solutions.

All of which raises the question: Can the Left successfully govern in a modern, global economy? The voters of Europe seem to be saying no.

---------------------------

The above is from Newt Gingrich. I now note that the original link was not good. I don't know if this link is any better:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26376

[wmbwinn]

Now, here is the full link I intended this thread to focus on:
__________________________


In this week's Winning the Future I am going to focus on how Washington has created the high energy prices Americans are paying and what we can do to bring them down.

But first, I want to say a few words about last week's newsletter.

A Note on Last Week's Solutions: They Were Just the Beginning
Several commentators have noticed the difference between the scale of the challenge facing the Republican Party that I outlined in last week's newsletter and the relatively small number of proposals for change in that newsletter.

What they did not notice was that I specified in the newsletter that those proposals were just the beginning. There is a lot more to come.

This week's newsletter on energy is another building block toward creating the new, more solution-oriented movement toward real change. Anyone who wants to get a sense of the full scope of the changes I am working on can go to the Center for Health Transformation (healthtransformation.net) and to American Solutions (American Solutions.com).

You will read a lot more bold proposals in this newsletter over the next few months. (And it is encouraging to note that John Boehner and other House Republican Leaders are moving forward with outlining an aggressive agenda for real change of their own.)

We Can Thank Shortsighted Politicians for High Energy Prices
The starting point of any discussion of America's energy future has to be this: Shortsighted politicians have created the current energy crisis.

For decades left-leaning politicians have advocated higher prices and less energy. They were going to save the environment by punishing Americans into driving less and driving smaller cars. Now their policies have succeeded with a vengeance.

The very left wing politicians who favored a policy of no oil and gas exploration, no use of coal, no development of nuclear power, and no aggressive development of new technologies are now panic-stricken that their policies of higher prices have led to higher prices.

And now the same shortsighted, dishonest politicians who created the crisis are blaming everyone but themselves for the crisis. Because they refuse to be honest about the policies which led to this crisis, they can't be honest about the policies that will lead us out of it.

The politicians want scapegoats. The American people just want solutions.

The Solution? A Pro-Investment, Pro-Creativity, Pro-Production Energy Coalition
Politicians with vision -- working with entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers -- could rapidly replace the current shortages and high prices with a flood of new energy at lower prices. And America's current vulnerability to blackmail by foreign dictators could rapidly be turned into virtual independence with a North American energy strategy that includes Canada and Mexico.

The key is to create a new coalition of Americans who favor greater investment, greater discovery, greater creativity, and greater production.

That coalition could lead to a new era of American prosperity with a more prosperous economy, more abundant energy, a healthier environment, and greater national security.

The Current Crisis of High Prices and Limited Supply
The fact is, with leadership that unleashes the potential of the American people, there is no reason why America can't have safe, abundant, and relatively inexpensive energy.

America still has the world's largest supply of fossil fuels. We have more coal than any other country by a huge margin. We have abundant oil and gas reserves. We have the potential for nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels in tremendous quantities.

And, critically, America is still technologically the most advanced nation in the world, despite decades of bad policies. We have the potential for enormous breakthroughs in future technologies such as hydrogen power.

Without Real Change the Energy Problem Will Get Much Worse
The second inescapable fact of America's energy future is this: India and China are realities. As they become more prosperous their people want to have better lives. And having better lives means using more and more energy.

This year Asia bought more cars than the United States for the first time in history. The pressure for more energy on a worldwide basis is going to continue to grow.

The only solutions to the current high prices and scarcity are higher energy supply and/or lower energy demand.

In the long run we will almost certainly find dramatic breakthroughs including electric cars (super hybrids) and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

But in the short and near term, oil is going to remain the primary source of energy for transportation. And any strategy that does not substantially increase the production of oil and the use of coal is a strategy for much higher prices and growing scarcities.

The Left's Strategy is Anti-Oil and Anti-Coal
Yet the current strategy of the left is anti-oil and anti-coal.

It is a recipe for very high prices for Americans who drive.

It is a recipe for higher inflation as the cost of energy is driven through the entire economy.

It is a recipe for growing vulnerability to blackmail by foreign dictatorships.

And it is a recipe for starving poor people in the third world. The price of oil has a much bigger impact on the cost of food than the production of biofuels. Higher oil prices mean higher fertilizer and transportation prices. Combine that with the impact of speculators and really destructive government policies (including the Left's opposition to scientifically improved food production), and you have a formula for starvation for the poorest people.

Americans Support Energy Independence, Innovation, Incentives, and Nuclear Power
At AmericanSolutions.com you can view the Platform of the American People, a collection of 91 planks with the support of the majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

The Platform shows that the American people overwhelmingly agree that we should use our resources to become independent from foreign dictators.

Brazil recently discovered two very large oil fields in the Atlantic Ocean. They are so large that they will make Brazil completely independent from Middle Eastern oil.

This is important because the Minerals Management Service has estimated a mean of 85.9 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil and a mean of 419.9 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. And that estimate does not include any Brazil-size surprise discoveries.

The Platform also shows that Americans believe deeply in the power of technology, incentives, and innovation to develop new sources of energy and new methods of energy conservation. For example:

"We can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation. (79 to 15)


If we use technology and innovation and incentives we do not need to raise taxes to clean up our environment. (68 to 29)"
And Americans also believe in the safety and reliability of nuclear energy.

"We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions. (65 to 28)"
The First Step: Replace Warner-Lieberman with Domenici
In a sign of how out of touch the Congress is with the current realities of the average American, the Senate is planning to bring up the Warner-Lieberman bill. This "tax and trade" bill will be an economic disaster. A better name for it would be "The China and India Full Employment Act" because it is going to raise the costs of doing business in America so dramatically that most future factories will be built outside the United States.

SUMMARY OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN


FINANCIAL COSTS OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN


ESTIMATED JOB LOSS DUE TO WARNER-LIEBERMAN
"Tax and trade" is a more accurate term than "cap and trade" because buried in this bill is a massive tax increase which will lead to a much bigger federal government with much more bureaucracy and a much smaller private sector operating only with the permission of federal bureaucrats.

LEARN MORE ABOUT CAP AND TRADE
At a time when the American driver is already complaining about the cost of gasoline and the American homeowner is beginning to complain about the cost of natural gas and home heating oil, the Warner-Lieberman bill will make those costs much worse.

Instead of turning to Warner-Lieberman, the Senate would send a better signal to the American people by taking up the American Energy Production Act, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R)

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION ACT
Where the Warner-Lieberman bill is one more step toward higher prices, more scarcity, and less production, the Domenici Bill is a first step toward trying to increase production.

If the Senate votes to bring up the Domenici Bill, they are beginning to get the message that we want more energy and lower prices.

The Next Steps to Clean, More Abundant, Lower Cost Domestic Energy
After switching focus from the Warner-Lieberman bill to the Domenici bill, here are the next steps toward an energy abundant American future:

Change federal law to give all states with offshore oil and gas the same share of federal royalties Wyoming gets for land-based resources (48%). Today most states get zero royalties from offshore oil and gas development while states like Wyoming reap 48% of federal royalties for its land-based oil and gas. If Richmond, Tallahassee, and Sacramento suddenly had the potential to find billions of dollars a year in new revenues, their willingness to tolerate new oil and gas development with appropriate environmental safeguards might go up dramatically.


Change federal law to allow those states that want to permit exploration with appropriate safeguards to do so. Companies could be required to post bonds to pay for any environmental problems, and a share of the state and federal revenues from new offshore development could be set aside to finance biodiversity and national park projects.


Allow companies engaged in oil and gas exploration and development to write off their investments in one year by expensing all of it against their tax liabilities. This will lead to an explosion of new exploration and development.


Immediately renegotiate the clean coal (FutureGen) project for Illinois to get it built as rapidly as possible (see the chapter in Real Change for rapid contracting techniques with incentives that can reduce construction time from years to months). It is utterly irrational for the Department of Energy to postpone the most advanced clean coal project in America (LEARN MORE ABOUT DOE'S FAILURE ON FUTURE GEN).


Coal is America's most abundant and lowest-cost energy resource. If clean coal technologies can be demonstrated to produce power with virtually no carbon release, then coal becomes environmentally very acceptable. America IS the Saudi Arabia of coal. We simply must fund the most advanced experiment and get on with using our most abundant resource.

Congress should pass a series of tax-free prizes to accelerate innovation in developing new technologies for using coal. The result will be a better environment, more energy independence, and more energy at lower cost. Eliminate half the Department of Energy bureaucracy and turn the money into paying for prizes. America will get a much bigger, faster return on its investment.


Develop a tax credit for refitting existing coal plants. There are a lot of existing coal plants which are going to be around for a long time. The most efficient way to make them more environmentally acceptable is to create a tax credit for retrofitting them with new methods and new technologies.


Pass a streamlined regulatory regime and a favorable tax regime for building nuclear power plants.


Make the solar power and wind power tax credits permanent to create a large scale industry dedicated to domestically produced renewable fuel. A contractor recently told me about a solar project he had planned for the American southwest that is now being built in Spain because he distrusts the American Congress and is tired of it playing games with short-term tax credits. We have enormous opportunities in solar, wind, and other renewable fuels; and they can be developed with a stable tax policy.


Develop long distance transmission lines to move wind power from the Dakotas to Chicago. The potential is there for an enormous amount of electricity generation, but it is locked up geographically because the neighboring states have no reason to be helpful. The Dakotas can generate the power and Chicago can use the power, but the federal government may have to make the connection possible.


Allow the auto companies to use their tax credits for the cost of flex fuels cars, hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars including necessary retooling for manufacturing. The American auto companies have billions in tax credits, but they have no profits to turn the tax credits into useful money. The federal government could make the tax credits refundable and therefore useful if they were spent on helping solve the energy problem. This would be a win-win strategy of much greater power than the fight over CAFE standards.
Conservation as a Parallel, Co-Equal Strategy with Production
At the same time we work to increase production of energy, we must work to find ways to increase energy conservation. There are a number of steps that can be taken.

Congressman Roy Blunt notes that we currently spend eight times more money on federal subsidies for low income heating than we spend on modernizing homes so they don't use as much energy.

A variety of tax credits should be developed to accelerate maximum efficiency in energy use and to accelerate the replacement of inefficient systems with more modern, more efficient systems.

The Choice is Ours
The time has come for Americans to demand a fundamental change in energy policy.

If we want less expensive gasoline, then we have to demand the policies that will increase the supply of oil and reduce its cost.

If we want a reliable energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign dictatorships, then we have to demand greater use of American resources and American technology.

If we want these changes to come before we are blackmailed or bankrupted by foreign dictatorships, then we must demand that politicians cut through the red tape, change the bureaucracy, and get the job done.

And if our elected officials want to stick with the current scarcity-producing, high price-resulting energy policies, then its time to retire them for leaders who want more production at lower cost.

The choice is ours.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26495&s=rcmp

Again, I don't know if the link works, but the author is Newt Gingrich

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I heard on the radio today that Bill Clinton vetoed a bill in 1995 that would have allowed for offshore oil drilling. His reason, according to what I heard today, was because "it would have taken 10 years to build and reach full production." Back then oil was roughly $19 per barrel. So if what I heard is true, and if what Clinton used as his justification were true, we would have had these new oil wells in full production 3 years ago. So it makes we wonder what it would cost for a gallon of gasoline if Clinton had signed the bill.

Of course, I haven't researched this... just speculation on what I heard today.

I just added Clinton to my "Must kill this person list"

[wmbwinn]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26608

Newt for Prez!!!!! Newt-onian principles!!!

___________________________________
Last week, liberals in Congress voted for the equivalent of a $150 billion tax increase. They voted to make your next trip to the gas station more expensive; to make your next airplane ticket more expensive; to make heating your home more expensive -- even to make feeding your family more expensive.

How did they do it? By voting to block environmentally sound production of U.S. energy in favor of continuing to be held hostage to oil from foreign dictatorships. I'll explain in a minute.

My Dad, Your Dad, and the Importance of History
First, I want to talk about my dad, your dad, and the importance of history.

My dad was a career army officer, and it's no exaggeration to say that he is responsible for the path I've taken in my life. When I was fifteen, Dad took me to visit the battlefield at Verdun, in France. It was the bloodiest battle of World War I, one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th century. As I came to understand the tremendous destructiveness of the battle -- and the distinct possibility that its outcome could have been different -- I knew that I would devote the rest of my life to standing between civilization and the madness of places like Verdun

So in a very real way it's my father that I'm thinking about when I write my novels (with co-author and historian William Forstchen) of "active" or alternative history. My latest, the second in our Pacific War series, entitled Days of Infamy, is now out. As Father's Day approaches and you think about your father, consider a signed Days of Infamy or Pearl Harbor as a gift. They're exciting and informative looks at an important part of our history.

"A Vote That Would Make a Difference in People's Lives"
Who's to blame for our high gas prices? The oil companies? The Saudis? OPEC? The answer, unfortunately, is closer to home: The "No-We-Can't" Left in Congress.

Last Thursday, with oil at $124 a barrel, liberals on the Senate Appropriations committee voted to block environmentally sound development of oil shale in Colorado.

According to the Investors Business Daily there are an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil trapped in shale in the U.S. and Canada. Retrieving just a tenth of it would quadruple our current oil reserves.

But the "No-We-Can't" Left in Congress -- as they're prone to do -- said no, and Americans will pay the price. Colorado Senator Wayne Allard (R) put it best when he said: "If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives."

Saudi Arabia Did More Last Week to Lower Gas Prices Than Congress Did
The Left just doesn't seem to get it. They spent much of last week ridiculing the President for visiting Saudi Arabia in an effort to lower oil prices. Here's what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Friday:

"The president seems to value his friendship with the Saudis more than his obligation to help the American people with gas prices."

But what Senator Schumer doesn't seem to understand is that the Saudis did more last week to lower oil prices than liberals in Congress did.

While liberals were voting to prevent domestic production from oil shale, the Saudis, following President Bush's visit, agreed to boost their oil output by 300,000 barrels a day. It won't fix the problem, but at least it won't make it worse, which is exactly what liberals in Congress did last week.

As Americans, we all need to ask ourselves the following: Which is it -- the Congress or Saudi Arabia -- that has a greater obligation to ease our energy prices? And which is the greater obstacle to energy independence and security?

The Left's Answer: More Pain, Not More Production
As I mentioned, the higher energy prices Americans are paying are the equivalent of a huge tax increase. One economist calculated that the price of oil rising from $80 a barrel to $100 a barrel had the same effect on Americans' pocket books as a $150 billion tax increase -- and the price of oil has risen an additional $27 since then!

So how is it that the liberals in Congress, faced with an opportunity like the one last week to lessen this burden on Americans, could reject it without a second thought?

Once again, the answer seems to boil down to three little words: "No we can't."

Change Jimmy Carter Can Believe In
Campaigning in Oregon last week, Senator Barack Obama seemed to forget his campaign theme of "Yes We Can," telling his fellow Americans that more pain -- not more production -- is the answer. He responded to a question about America's role in reducing global energy consumption like this:

"We can't tell [other countries], don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going to say OK."

I have two reactions to this.

First, I'm used to my doctor telling me I can't eat as much as I want, but it sounds eerie coming from a politician. Is the "No We Can't" Left planning to ban the buffet line as well?

Second, and more importantly, telling the next generation of Americans that they can't have the lifestyle that their parents enjoy is defeatist and wrong. It is a rejection of the energy, optimism and innovation that has made this nation great.

It's also all too similar to President Carter in February of 1977 when he called the energy shortage "permanent" and called on Americans to turn their thermostat down to "65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night."

Of course, the energy shortage was anything but permanent. Just like today, it was an artificial creation of stupid government policies. Ronald Reagan's first official act as President was to deregulate the oil industry. Oil prices dropped soon after.

I guess "Yes We Can" only applies to reenacting the Jimmy Carter presidency.

Americans Can Control Our Own Energy Destiny
Our energy and environment challenges are real. But America has the technological know-how and the entrepreneurial spirit to overcome them. And, as I pointed out last week, Americans overwhelmingly support more domestic production of energy to help ease gas prices.

We -- not the Saudis or the oil companies -- control our energy future. We just need the political will to do so.

High energy prices aren't theoretical, they have real consequences for real people. The answer, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, isn't easy, but it's simple -- so simple it could fit on a bumper sticker:

Drill Here
Drill Now
Pay Less

[jefelump]

from wmbwinn's posting of Newt:
Who's to blame for our high gas prices? The oil companies? The Saudis? OPEC? The answer, unfortunately, is closer to home: The "No-We-Can't" Left in Congress.

Bingo. If the Left hadn't opposed domestic exploration for so long, we would have adequate supply right here at home. And yet for some reason so many people are drooling over themselves at the opportunity to vote for Obama, the most liberal presidential candidate since McGovern. Gas prices aren't as high as they are now because of "Big Oil" (who by the way does NOT control the price of oil... it's a commodities market, much like the stock exchange). Gas prices are as high as they are now, because we're dependent on foreign sources, due to the policies of the Left.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Bingo. If the Left hadn't opposed domestic exploration for so long, we would have adequate supply right here at home. ....

really? wow!

so with 2.2% of the world's oil reserves (that includes the untapped alaskan wilderness..) if the meany old environmentalists would just back off the US could domestically supply its consumption of 25.9% of anual global oil supply...

interesting. How long would this miraculous artesian pump operate? (and do you also know how to turn turds into diamonds, that could be valuable as well)




EVERYTHING you say is surrounded hyperbolic rants with no grounding in reality... it makes it hard to pay attention to whatever kernals of wisdom might actually be in your posts (i take NO STAND on whether or not said kernals actually exist! )

[jefelump]

from mcsluggo:
really? wow!

so with 2.2% of the world's oil reserves (that includes the untapped alaskan wilderness..) if the meany old environmentalists would just back off the US could domestically supply its consumption of 25.9% of anual global oil supply...

interesting. How long would this miraculous artesian pump operate? (and do you also know how to turn turds into diamonds, that could be valuable as well)




EVERYTHING you say is surrounded hyperbolic rants with no grounding in reality... it makes it hard to pay attention to whatever kernals of wisdom might actually be in your posts (i take NO STAND on whether or not said kernals actually exist! )

I'm sure there might be kernel somewhere in all my posts... but then again I'm sure I'm biased... ;-)

The oil execs testified again on capital hill today.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080521/D90Q9U601.html

Keep in mind they testified under oath, so if you believe they are telling lies, then you believe they committed purgery (kinda like Bill Clinton... sorry, couldn't resist that obvious slam....).

So, from the article:

The executives, appearing under oath, cited tight global supplies with scant spare production capacity and the fact that large areas of land and offshore waters remain offlimits to drilling. And they said they're worried Congress was talking of requiring the five companies to pay more taxes.

Again, call them liars if you want, but they were under oath citing exactly what I said.. "large areas of land and offshore waters remain offlimits to drilling." The policies of the Left have caused supply to be tighter than it otherwise could be. So when demand is high and supply is tight, prices go up. If you want to buy stock in company XYZ and everyone else does too, the price goes up. That's the nature of the markets.

Do I like it? Of course not. I would much rather pay $30 to fill my Ford Explorer than $60... But if I take the approach of the Left, I'll sit and watch C-SPAN while being pissed off at "Big Oil" for raping us at the pump. If I take the approach of the Right, I'll discuss ways to alleviate the problem.

As Newt said in the article wmbwinn posted earlier... "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

really? wow!

so with 2.2% of the world's oil reserves (that includes the untapped alaskan wilderness..) if the meany old environmentalists would just back off the US could domestically supply its consumption of 25.9% of anual global oil supply...

interesting. How long would this miraculous artesian pump operate? (and do you also know how to turn turds into diamonds, that could be valuable as well)




EVERYTHING you say is surrounded hyperbolic rants with no grounding in reality... it makes it hard to pay attention to whatever kernals of wisdom might actually be in your posts (i take NO STAND on whether or not said kernals actually exist! )

1)yes, we can turn turds into diamonds. It is done all the time. Cheap, rough diamonds are made from various carbon sources under a lot of heat and pressure. The rough quality diamonds are used to create industrial cutting/blade surfaces.

2)I don't know where you got the figure that we only have access to 2.2% of the world's oil. The estimates for the amount of oil in the "shoals"/sand of Canada is that there is more oil there than the middle east. It is just a low grade oil with a lot of wax in it that is suspended in the shoal/sand and it will be expensive to get it and refine it. But, companies are already seriously looking at it since the upwards force on oil's price doesn't seem to be a short term trend and those companies can make money at the current price.
Apparently this type of oil has also been found in Colorado.

I also don't know if we know how much oil we have access to. We have been prevented from exploring by regulations. We don't know if there is a "Brazil surprise" in our coastal waters or other places.

3)there is still the many other options Newt layed out. There has been a lot of research in using coal to produce liquid fuels. Utah is leading the way in using natural gas to power vehicles. Natural gas powered cars are catching on there in the Rockies where the natural gas has been found. There is a lot of it in Wyoming. Is anyone opposed to expanding wind turbine energy production???

[DirkFTW]

I'm bagging my feces from now on.

Also, I think the Simpsons provided the clear solution: slant drilling. Once we make it past the Atlantic, it's smooth sailing.