Political JUNGLE

Before you blame oil companies for all our economic problems check this:

The U.S. Government takes 15% of each gallon of gasoline.

The oil companies pocket 4%.

Oil companies do all the work to extract, buy, and transport oil from nations all over the world.  The U.S. government does nothing. 

People all over the world use oil, or products directly or indirectly manufactured by oil, or its byproducts. 

In 1995 Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would have allowed drilling in Anwar, substantially increasing our oil supply, and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil today.

The question is, which of the two Presidential candidates will best solve the issue of sky rocketing gas prices? 

The answer is neither. 

They both disagree with any type of drilling in the U.S., or extracting from the areas in Utah, Colorado, and the newly found areas in North Dakota.  These many areas are protected by the environmental fringe, but you pay for at the pump, and also pay more for all products, as gasoline fuels the trucks and planes that deliver our products.

McCain does have some initiates to increase nuclear power, therefore lowering power and utility costs, but how will he fight gas prices?  He won’t, unless he drastically changes his positions.

I am a strong proponent of the environment and working to protect it as mentioned in previous blogs, but drilling in Anwar for example, would only take up a very small portion of the region in Alaska.

The following is an excerpt from George Will’s Column, The Gas Prices We Deserve:
“ANWAR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport.”

In addition he adds, “One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today’s senators — including 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain– have voted to keep ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.”

Drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, and where possible is the short-term solution to our rising gas prices.   Hybrid technology, electric vehicle solutions, and other oil free ideas should continue development as well.

Get more info at: www.anwr.org

For a visual breakdown of the Anwar region go to: http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

Also check out George Will’s article directly at: The Gas Prices We Deserve

The Senate has begun the debate over the global warming phenomenon.  The idea of the proposed legislation would be to enact mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.  Obviously some in the Senate are against these government sanctions, whether they actually believe global warming is happening or not.  

Part of the problem is that many still want to make it about the global warming debate, instead of solutions, and seem to enjoy the political division it brings.  Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, said “its clear that global warming is real,” and congress must act. 

Despite that ongoing debate, you can’t get around the fact that the two parties have different views regarding the role of governement.  Thats one of the foundational differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats believe in government sanctions and policy, whereas the Republicans believe in the free market and less government. 

For example, GM decided they are closing 4 SUV and Truck manufacting plants, two in the U.S., one in Mexico and another in Canada.  The reason;  they are seeing massive reductions in the sales of SUV’s and large trucks, and they have to compete in the market place.  So, to compete they will have over 20 hybrid models in production to be released around 2012.  Not to mention, they plan on presenting the Volt in 2010, a plug-in electric car that can travel up to 40 miles without using any gasoline. Why?  Because the consumer wants it, and because the market place demands it. 

The rising gas prices could end up being a positive for the environment.  It will force the hand of the consumer to look at other options.

As far as government involvement, don’t think all these Senate reccomendations are cheap.  Republican Mitch McConnell called this 500 page bill ”a giant tax on virtually every aspect of the economy.”

What happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” John F. Kennedy, DEMOCRAT.  As mentioned on a popular morning syndicated radio show this morning, the left would call John F. Kennedy a crazy right wing nut if he was saying that today.  Many pundits and politicians are claiming the Republican Party is off track, but what happened to the Democrats?       

In his ongoing strive to tote the line of moderate republican John McCain again voices his concern for the environment.  A Republican speaking out about “Green” efforts has seemed to hurl many prominent conservatives into a further state of disgust with their presumptive nominee.  At the same time it also has liberals complaining that McCain will not be the environmental president that he claims.  

Up until now McCain has basically laid low, hovering below the radar of criticism.  At least now he’s getting back on the bike and taking the chance he might fall.  And he might, but conservative pundits need to just stop.  Stop complaining that McCain’s concern for the environment is just another reason he’s not in stride with the conservative base.  This is part of problem.  The more conservatives endorse this idea that liberals are the only ones that care about the environment the more it just politicizes the issue.  

There is understandable criticism that McCain’s apparent passion on the topic is merely to maintain independents and corral the post Hillary democratic voters.  Pandering is always a part of politics; you just hope it’s not the case with your candidate.   John McCain also talked about his long record of working with environmentally friendly legislation.  Keep in mind he has a long record with everything.  He’s been in senate for over 20 years.   

“We can have a good economy and a good and beautiful environment in this nation,” McCain said.  

As long as he maintains the economy and conservative ideals, while steering clear of scare tactics, this can only be seen as a positive thing.  Global warming theories and skeptics aside, this is about the environment, our health, our well-being and our future.  Not to mention lowering gas and energy prices.   

“You can dictate a lot of things, but you have to unleash the innovative power and entrepreneurship of America in order to achieve these goals, …and I believe the proposal I have is doable,” McCain said in answering questions.  

Using the free market may be McCain’s biggest difference from his big government, lets just use tax dollars, democratic competitors.         

LIBERALISM: “Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.”  Wikipedia.   

When did the environment become a political issue?  Who am I to say that liberals care more about the environment than conservatives?  We should all be concerned, and work to preserve it, whether you’re right, left, loony left or radical right.  Hybrid vehicles are a great technology and a step in the right direction.  But the fraction of a percentage that they bring down the demand of oil is not lowering gas prices any time soon.  You may drive a hybrid, and I understand it makes you feel good about yourself.  But judging someone’s environmental awareness based on the car he or she drives is ludicrous, and definitely not a part of the liberal theory.   Its actually reached the point where driving a Prius has become a status symbol of environmental prowess. 

That judgmental attitude is actually driving self-proclaimed republicans away from hybrids, because they see it as a political move.  The problem is the politicizing of this issue has created havoc on our oil prices.    Democrats, and some republicans for that matter, are so frightened they might upset the fringe environmentalists/liberals that they wont touch the topic of drilling in these protected areas.  This is about tapping into our “NATURAL” resources.  Were not talking about dumping oil into the sea, but taking it out of the ground and in the process becoming less reliable on foreign oil.   

Democrats including Hillary Clinton, as pointed out in the Bill O’Reilly interview, have voted against using our natural resources numerous times.  Now these same politicians are complaining about gas prices, blaming the Bush administration, oil companies, or anyone but themselves.   The obsession with this new found “wimpy” liberalism is actually contradicting its original definition.

Liberalism, as quoted from the Merriam-Webster dictionary is, ” A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, and the self-regulating market…”  Believe it or not liberalism actually does believe in a free market, meaning less government involvement.   Americans want lower gas prices, so help us get it, by not enacting government sanctions/control. 

Democrats wear the “We are all about the middle class” patch on their sleeves, so help the little guy by lowering the price at the pump.     We should take care of the environment, but until concrete proof that drilling in the virtually unpopulated Anwar region is detrimental to our environment, we need to do something.   

GREEN is good, but OIL is not the devil.  Until cars run on water it’s a positive natural resource.   

You can argue the inconsistencies pointed out above are based on “classic liberalism” not “social liberalism” or the newly created “social progressivism.”  Either way, this just shows how off base liberalism has become, and how far left the Democratic Party has traveled.  Or just how flawed it is.   A theory so loosely defined only creates contradiction. 

In theory I agree with the Merriam-Webster definition.  But as referenced above, Wikipedia’s definition of Liberalism includes a “mixed economy.”  Socialism and capitalism under one roof.  That’s not freedom.    

This will segue nicely into a conversation on socialism vs. capitalism.