August 16, 2008
Aug 16 00:09 From Hoax to Acceptable Policy to Hoax Again Aug 16 06:44 Bachmann Strikes a Nerve? Aug 16 07:35 The Democrats' Oil Flim-Flam Aug 16 13:07 Same Democrats, Same Bag of Tricks Aug 16 17:34 GOP Leadership, Sen. McCain, President Bush Say No New Taxes
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
From Hoax to Acceptable Policy to Hoax Again
When the energy debate got intense, Speaker Pelosi spoke for the Democrats, calling drilling a hoax on the American people. Just three days ago, when the American people told pollsters in strong majorities that they favored drilling, Democrat Pelosi told Larry King that she's open to voting on drilling...sorta . It's a different day and a different tweak of her policy :
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday firmly rejected the idea of a House vote solely on the issue of offshore oil drilling, calling it "a hoax on the American people" backed by oil companies.Let's first stipulate that Democrats aren't dealing from a position of strength here. They've seen the polling. They've seen that the majority of independents and conservatives favor drilling. They've seen the polling that shows almost 60 percent of the people said that they'd vote for someone who is pro-drilling instead of those that don't favor drilling.
Instead, she said, she wants Congress to tackle a compromise comprehensive energy plan that would include alternative energy sources and curtailing tax breaks for oil companies.
"You want to drill? We want the royalties for the American people, and we want that to pay for renewable energy resources," the San Francisco Democrat said in an interview for KQED television's weekly news show, "This Week in Northern California." "We want to connect all that together."
Let's further stipulated that most people reject the Democrats' limited drilling in a couple tiny areas. They want legislation passed that includes robust drilling provisions in it. Not only that but they want real conservation measures in this legislation, conservation that's based on improved efficiency vehicles, appliances and homes. They want a robust R & D provision in it, too, so that politicians aren't telling us that the alternative fuel is grain-based ethanol. They want the scientists to figure out something that's actually efficient.
Ms. Pelosi insists on her provisions. Or does she? I'm betting that her interview was pure bluster, a politician's equivalent to a poker player's bluff. I'm betting that alot of her freshmen are telling her that they're history if Pelosi's Democratic majority don't change their position.
Just before last year's August recess, Harry Reid hinted that Republicans would return from the break chastened and willing to vote for an Iraq supplemental with timetables in it. In September, 2007, Democrats returned chastened. After Gen. Petraeus' and Crocker's testimony, Democrats quickly caved on the timetables issue.
This year, here's how Pelosi's spokesman Nadeam Elshami shot his mouth off :
"Republicans are too scared to go home to face their constituents after voting against bills to force Big Oil companies to use it or lose it, demand that the president free our oil from the government stockpile and crack down on speculators," Elshami said. "In a week where Exxon Mobil made the largest quarterly profits by a U.S. corporation, Republicans are staying in Washington to argue that Big Oil deserves more taxpayer lands."Something tells me that Mr. Elshami's version of events didn't materialize. Instead, I'm betting that it's Democrats that wish they hadn't returned to their districts. Instead, I'm betting that it's Democrats that wish they didn't have to face their angry constituents all month long.
Pelosi said she wants to end what she called the failed energy policies supported by "two oilmen in the White House," referring to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, former oil company executives.Ms. Pelosi's spin isn't helping Democrats. She insists that President Bush wants to do more of the same. That's where most people are. Part of President Bush's existing policy is to drill. Ms. Pelosi is correct that President Bush and the House and Senate Republicans want more drilling. That's the point. Increasing domestic energy production is what's required to drop prices, though a strengthening dollar helps, too.
"They want us to do more of the same," she said. "So they've come up with this gimmick, this hoax" that says if drilling is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore, "it's going to bring down the price at the pump."
"Ten years, 2 cents," Pelosi said, arguing that 10 years would be the time needed to reap a small benefit to most Americans. "Even the president has said it isn't a quick fix...I can't allow a hoax to come to the floor."
I'm getting sick of Pelosi's "10 years, 2 cents" blather. Here's the key sentence from the Energy Journal's rejection letter to Prof. Morris Coats:
Although the referees, and I, are in agreement with your basic argument, I regret to say that we will not be able to publish this work. Basically, your main result (the present impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee).Ms. Pelosi and her puppets are insisting that significantly increasing oil production won't have an impact on energy prices. The economists at the Energy Journal insist otherwise. Personally, I'll trust an economist who's studied commodity markets over a spinning politician anytime.
If House and Senate Democrats don't cave this September, they'll be toast this November. People are hurting each time they pull into a station. No amount of Democrats' spin will change what people know: that gas prices are putting people on fixed incomes, whether they're retired or the single mom who's just been laid off.
If Ms. Pelosi maintains her belligerent position, she'll make history by being the only 1 term female Speaker in United States' history.
Posted Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 16-Aug-08 08:26 AM
Part of the stupidity in Nancy's quote was I wish we were doing less of the same policy. I'm mean I wish we were drilling in ANWR, but we're not because of policy. I wish we were drilling offshore, but we're not because of policy. I wish we had more oil refineries, but we don't because of policy.
Sounds like that policy you support Nancy has lots of flaws.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Bachmann Strikes a Nerve?
According to this Strib article ,Michele Bachmann, my representative, ruffled some feathers Friday in her speech on the House floor. Here's what she said:
Rep. Michele Bachmann riled Democrats during Friday's GOP drilling revolt on the House floor, saying the Democratic-controlled Congress is "the only thing keeping us from having a robust economy."Based on this response by the DCCC, it's obvious that struck a nerve with Democrats:
"If she was serious about doing something about gas prices, she would have voted for the Drill Act and cracking down on speculators rather than participating in election year theatrics in Washington," said Carrie James, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.I know it's Ms. James' job to defend Democrats but defending them by reminding people of that disastrous legislation isn't defending Democrats; it's hurting them.
Considering high gas prices' impact on everything from inflation on food to limiting tourism to extra money spent on the weekly commute to work to additional expenses for OTR truckers, it's obvious that the Democrats' inaction is having an impact.
This tactic isn't working either:
The daily activities in the dimmed House have been criticized by Democrats, who have accused the Republicans of staging an "Olympics of meaningless rhetoric" while ignoring constituents in their districts.In editorial after editorial, in quote after quote, constituents are telling their representatives that they want Congress in session fixing this crisis. How is doing what the constituents' want akin to "ignoring constituents in their districts"?
Ms. Pelosi's spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, made the ridiculous statement that Republicans were afraid to face their constituents:
"Republicans are too scared to go home to face their constituents after voting against bills to force Big Oil companies to use it or lose it, demand that the president free our oil from the government stockpile and crack down on speculators," Elshami said. "In a week where Exxon Mobil made the largest quarterly profits by a U.S. corporation, Republicans are staying in Washington to argue that Big Oil deserves more taxpayer lands."When Congress' August recess ends, I suspect that they'll be sufficiently chastened. They'll do what the people want and what the Republicans have been calling for. Democrats will cave on yet another issue and do what Republicans and the people want.
If they don't, they'll find themselves in difficult races this November.
Posted Saturday, August 16, 2008 6:48 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Aug-08 08:45 AM
I hope you are wrong. I WANT Democrats "facing difficult races in November." I want the problem solved, so forcing the Democrats to allow drilling today, and expecting them not to stop drilling again right after the election, is the height of folly and fratricide. Let's just give the Congress back to the Republicans, and then let them deliver.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-08 01:37 PM
Jerry, oil is just the vehicle. Democrats have shown that they put K Street ahead of Main Street. If they cave on oil, then we beat them over the head by saying that the GOP plan was the plan that everyone rallied around. Why keep a Democratic majority when the GOP is the Solutions Party?
The Democrats' Oil Flim-Flam
Writing for FamilySecurityMatters.org, Joel Himmelfarb has written a great article exposing Democrats' inaction. Here's the key section of the article:
On Capitol Hill, the House Republican Whip's office has been distributing a chart titled "What was the Democrat Congress Voting on as Gas Prices Skyrocketed?" The chart shows that while the Democrat Leadership in both houses has done everything possible to block Congress from voting on expanded drilling for oil, it has had plenty of time to spend on feel-good resolutions and trivial measures that do nothing to alleviate the hardships caused by soaring energy prices.This is unconscionable. The Democratic leadership (I'm using the term loosely) has ignored the will of the people. They've left for a 5-week long vacation. What's worse is that they didn't a thing while gas prices skyrocketed.
For example, on January 29, 2007, when gas was $2.22 per gallon, Congress voted on "Congratulating the U.C. Santa Barbara Soccer Team." On September 5, 2007, when the price had risen to $2.84, "it was "National Passport Month." By February 6, 2008, ($3.03), Congress was voting on "Commending the Houston Dynamo Soccer Team." On May 14th, the issue was "National Train Day," ($3.77) and on May 20th it was "Great Cats and Rare Canids Act" ($3.84). By June 10th, with the price at $4.09, Congress was considering the "International Year of Sanitation" and by June 17th, having pushed the price up to $4.14, the great change agents on Capitol Hill were discussing the "Monkey Safety Act."
Awhile back, I coined the 110th Congress, under the Democrats' leadership, the No Solutions Congress. This graph highlights the Democrats' irresponsible behavior. Pelosi's behavior, along with her puppets' behavior, is inexcusable.
Mr. Himmelfarb hasn't been a blind proponent of the GOP, either:
Regular readers of this column know that I have been critical of Republicans' performance on many issues. But on energy today, the GOP on Capitol Hill has shown that it understands that oil supply must be increased, and lately it has been indefatigable in working to make this a reality. Even John McCain, a longtime advocate of costly, job-destroying legislation on climate change, is supporting offshore drilling and demanding that the Democrat leadership bring Congress back to Washington right away to debate energy. The Democrat Party, by contrast, is controlled by elitists who think they can profit politically by demagoguing against oil companies and commodities traders and making empty threats to induce OPEC to produce more. In reality, their policies would ensure that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and corrupt government officials and pipeline saboteurs in Nigeria cement their power to send American energy prices sky-high.With the turmoil in Georgia, the American people must ask themselves if they'll demand a robust increase in domestic energy production or if they're willing to be held hostage by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Russia's Vladimir Putin. I'm betting they're tired of being robbed at the pump. I'm betting that the overwhelming majority want a robust increase in domestic energy production.
The question for the Democratic majority is whether they prefer the majority or if they demand ideological purity. Talk won't cut it, either. I said here that talk is cheap . That's still the benchmark because We The People demand actions, not words .
Another question for the American people is whether they want the Democrats' innefective leadership . Let's remember that it's little more than half a year since enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Since enacting this bill, prices have skyrocketed. Democrats heralded this as the bill that would change the course of energy history by making the United States independent of foreign oil. It's apparent it fell far short of meeting that benchmark.
Rep. John McHugh sums things up with this statement:
"I represent the 23rd District of New York. It's 15,000 square miles. I have the Adirondack Park,the biggest in the nation. Needless to say, there's no subway. I've been all over the district the last few days and I have never in my life have people been more concerned about an issue-gas prices-like they are today. When you live in place like I do, where people live an hour from school, or an hour and a half from work,your ONLY option is getting into a car. And in some parts of my district there is snow 8 months out of the year. Not using heating oil is not an option. But on this critical issue, where is Congress? On vacation."Thus far, it's difficult to prove that Democrats haven't been about pulling on a sweater and conserving our way to a lower standard of living while living with exhorbitant gas prices. That isn't acceptable. That approach must change.
"When the Founding Fathers built this great country, they wanted this House to discuss the great issues. But yet the Speaker has decided the House should go on a five week vacation. I would say to the Speaker, who is on a book tour, when you were elected Speaker, it wasn't about having a portrait to hang out in the Speaker's Lobby. It was about being the first in line to solve big problem facing the nation. say call this Congress back! I personally-and I'm willing to say many of my colleagues would as well-I will personally buy 100 copies of the Speaker's new book, if that what she's worried about and if that what it takes to call back Congress."
Isn't it time for a worthwhile new direction? Isn't it time to reject the Democrats' promised New Direction? Ask yourself whether you're better off now than you were before Democrats took control of the House and Senate.
Based on the chart Republicans put together on where the Democrats' priorities are, I'm betting that people are considering the possibility that it's time for a change.
Posted Saturday, August 16, 2008 7:41 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 16-Aug-08 11:18 AM
Please keep in mind -- Putting on a circus act for an empty house is a bit short of statesmanship.
If your point is that BOTH parties have been irresponsibly playing electioneering games and being buffoonish while there are real problems such as the strain that will be put on Social Security if the program is not simply folded by the politicians because baby-boomer retirement cannot be handled that way; such as lack of universal health coverage; such as reproductive freedom; such as families struggling - two income working poor families; then I agree.
Also, posturing about distractions besides how a vertically integrated oligopolistic industry has been manipulating things to gouge consumers at the gas pump, looking elsewhere without first admitting that truth, is myopic, and intentional myopia, isn't it?
Yes, Pelosi and the majority has been ineffective in terms of leadership and statesmanship, and more focused on fodder for the election; but this GOP freak show going on now with the house in recess - it dwarfs the stupidity measure of anything the Dems have done. It is pure circus, while both parties ignore true issues and true reform.
Ross Perot said all that years ago concerning NAFTA and GATT.
Wellstone said it.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-08 01:35 PM
If your point is that BOTH parties have been irresponsibly playing electioneering games and being buffoonish while there are real problems such as the strain that will be put on Social Security if the program is not simply folded by the politicians because baby-boomer retirement cannot be handled that way; such as lack of universal health coverage; such as reproductive freedom; such as families struggling - two income working poor families; then I agree.
That isn't my point at all. As for this being a "bit short of statesmanship", so what? This is a vitally impotant issue. I'll use whatever tools are at my avail to reach a satisfactory conclusion. If that means playing hardball & doing something that attracts attention, so be it.
Same Democrats, Same Bag of Tricks
Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority are playing games again. This is getting REALLY TIRESOME. This morning, Ms. Pelosi used the Democrats' weekly radio address to announce that the Democrat majority would vote on more offshore drilling . The minute I read it, I knew there'd be a catch. I was wrong. There were three catches:
In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Pelosi of California said expanding drilling areas would be part of a broader bill which addresses other energy issues. "It will consider opening portions of the (offshore) Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil," she said.TRANSLATION: Require oil companies to pay billions of dollars in drilling royalties = major tax increase. That, in turn, means higher prices at the pump.
Pelosi said the legislation would require oil companies to pay billions of dollars in drilling royalties , which would be invested in clean energy resources.
Democrats also want to release supplies from the U.S. emergency oil stockpile to help lower gasoline prices, increase drilling in an Alaskan oil reserve that is already open to exploration and require utilities to generate a portion of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind energy.
In addition, Pelosi said, the legislation would seek to rein in excessive energy market speculation that many U.S. lawmakers blame for running up crude oil and gasoline prices.
TRANSLATION II: "Without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil" = Another major tax increase to oil companies. That also means higher prices at the pump.
TRANSLATION III: "Require utilities to generate a portion of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind energy" = House Democrats pick the winners, not the marketplace. ADDITIONAL: That also means a guaranteed return on Speaker Pelosi's investment in T. Boone Pickens' wind farm project.
This legislation isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's loaded with major tax increases. It also sounds like it's got a provision in it that sets a standard for how much energy must be generation will be generated by wind and solar. It's also troubling in what isn't mentioned. What isn't mentioned is increased generation of electricity by nuclear power plants.
It calls for drilling in NPR-A, which is already open to drilling. In other words, this is DRILL Act II, with the only difference being a little more drilling on the OCS and two tax increases instead of one tax increase.
Republicans from John McCain on down should reject this package ASAP as unacceptable. I suspect it will be rejected because of this information :
In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position--to one that endorses drilling in ANWR. "I continue to examine it," he said. So does his staff. McCain's campaign has been quietly studying the ANWR issue and discussing the potential consequences--good and bad--of a policy change.These are the GOP's marching orders. I agree with Captain Ed . I don't believe that McCain's serious about drilling in ANWR. I agree that this sends a message that Republicans shouldn't compromise on a weak bill like the Gang of 10 disaster. I'm betting that McCain senses that Democrats are ripe for rolling. I'm betting that Sen. McCain knows that the public is clearly on the GOP's side on this, which gives them greater latitude.
But in our conversation on August 13, McCain added a new wrinkle. When I asked him if he had consulted Palin about ANWR, he said that he had not yet done so. He added, "I probably should," he said. "I will."
So I called Palin to ask what McCain can expect to hear. The answer is that Palin, who has been mentioned as a possible McCain running mate but has not been vetted, will make a straightforward case for drilling in ANWR. She says McCain's willingness to take another look at ANWR is "very encouraging."
"It bodes well for him as a pragmatic and wise and experienced statesman," says Palin. "What he's doing here is he's calling an audible when conditions on the field are changing. And that's what you do if you want to win the game here. One of the pieces of a solution is allowing exploration on that little 2,000 acre plot of land out of the 20 million acres up there in the coastal plain."
The Democrats' drilling plan isn't the robust drilling plan that Americans want. The Democrats' comprehensive energy package isn't about significantly increasing America's energy supply. It's about tax increases on Big Oil, currently the Democrats' favorite boogeyman.
The next important step for the GOP is to get behind the American Energy Act. I(t's time to start campaigning loudly on the bill because I suspect that Americans would look it over and say that that's their type of energy bill. It's robust in its energy production. It includes a provision for building additional nuclear power plants.
Right now, people don't know that Republicans have something solid on the table. Until they know that the Republicans' plan is exactly what they're looking for, their support for Republicans will remain tentative. The minute the AEA becomes the centerpiece of the GOP's energy policy is the minute the public's support of the GOP solidifies.
Knocking aside Ms. Pelosi's plan is a great first step. Replacing the Democrats' tax increase plan with a robust energy-increasing plan like the AEA is the knockout punch.
UPDATE: Call it the Rapid Response Rejection . It didn't take long for Republicans to reject Nancy Pelosi's proposals outlined in this morning's Democratic radio address. Here's the money quote in rejecting Ms. Pelosi's proposal:
Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-FL) added, "There is no better, more qualified spokesperson for the Democratic Party's failed energy policies than Speaker Nancy Pelosi."I couldn't agree more. If Ms. Pelosi cared more about people's wallets than she cares about saving the planet, the House would be in session and voting for our energy solutions.
Jeb Hensarling's quote is good reading, too:
"Madame Speaker, we ask you to work with us to help Americans feeling pain at the pump by developing more American energy," said Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). "If you refuse, we simply ask you get out of the way and allow us to help the people that sent us here.They understand how flawed and out of touch your caucus is on energy issues, and so do we."
Posted Saturday, August 16, 2008 3:21 PM
No comments.
GOP Leadership, Sen. McCain, President Bush Say No New Taxes
It's becoming obvious that Democrats are getting hit hard on the energy issue. It's becoming equally obvious that Republicans are stepping up the pressure on Ms. Pelosi. This WSJ article highlights how Republicans are attacking the issue.
In her attempt to outmaneuver Republicans, Ms. Pelosi may be using some of the same tools that Mr. Reid used in the recent Senate energy bill debate. Before the August recess, the majority leader offered the Republicans a vote on drilling, but conditioned it on Republican support for renewable energy tax credits, and the chamber failed to pass any energy legislation. Neither side appears to want to actually reach a compromise, but are simply using energy as an election-year bat with which to beat their opponents.I said here that tax increases of any sort should be immediately rejected. Much to my delight, they've been rejected faster than I'd expected. Here's what President Bush said:
" Raising taxes will ultimately hurt consumers by forcing them to pay even higher gas prices, and Republicans will oppose them ," Kevin Smith, spokesman for House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said in an email.
Mr. Smith said Ms. Pelosi's plan was "largely more of the same failed proposals they've been trotting out for months," and is "designed to give political cover to vulnerable Democrats who are losing ground," he said.
"The Democratic leadership should bring up a clean bill, give the members a chance to vote up or down on whether or not we should proceed with offshore drilling, and not insert any legislative poison pills," Mr. Bush said earlier this week after Pelosi indicated she would allow a vote on drilling. "Those would be provisions that they know will never be enacted and are added only for the purpose of killing the effort to open up the...Outer Continental Shelf to drilling," Mr. Bush said.Democrats will try loading their bill with a ton of poison pills. That means President Bush and Sen. McCain should take them to task on the massive tax increases. The figure Democrats cite on the existing tax breaks for oil companies is $11 billion. That's before we start talking about Ms. Pelosi's royalties provision.
I said here that Republicans should demand, as a sign of good faith, that Democrats either pass a CR that lifts the existing moratoria or a stand alone bill that lifts the moratoria. Until that happens, Republicans should play hardball. I suspect that Democrats won't relent on that, which means that they'll stay on the wrong side of this issue. The longer majority Democrats hold that position, the more their rank-and-file squirm, the more their rank-and-file sink in the polls.
Let's remember that this is a zero sum game. If Republicans are pushing a popular idea and Democrats are resisting the will of the American people, it isn't a stretch to say that Democrats lose while the American people and Republicans win.
Rep. John Peterson, (R-PA), one of the House leaders of this fight, issued a statement through his spokesman. Here's that statement:
Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for Rep. John Peterson, R-Penn., a key drilling proponent in the House, said the the plan "rehashes washed-up garbage that didn't have the ability to pass this House , and they're going to try to couple that with limited offshore production."Let's also take time to notice that Republicans have done something that activists have been waiting for 3-4 years to do. They've grown a spine. They're going on offense. Best of all, they're doing these things for the right reasons. They're fighting the good fight because it's important to knock oil prices down so that families aren't hit hard.
When Democrats argue with Republicans on this, more than anything else, they're fighting against the will of the American people. If Democrats want to continue doing that on the most important issue of the day, that's their right.
Who am I to say that they don't have the right to commit political suicide?
Posted Saturday, August 16, 2008 5:35 PM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 16-Aug-08 05:50 PM
Same WAPO you quote from. And, my word, it is of such pivotal importance to those playing the charade, it should keep the boss off the links, you'd think.
One pundit said, "As for this being a 'bit short of statesmanship', so what? This is a vitally impotant issue. I'll use whatever tools are at my avail to reach a satisfactory conclusion. If that means playing hardball & doing something that attracts attention, so be it." And "whatever tools" include the driver, sand wedge, and putter? As long as the result is satisfactory, and that little dimpled ball, it is hard, no doubt, no doubt.
Come on Gary, it's the same old, same old, admit it. Not that both sides don't "Same old" us to where the mute button on the TV control is what's vital.
I think the Credit card bill of rights will resonate more than the half-tank charade.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-08 07:25 PM
I think the Credit card bill of rights will resonate more than the half-tank charade.
I wouldn't bet on that, Eric. I wouldn't bet on that at all.
BTW, statesmanship only works when there's statesmen on both sides. If there isn't, then statesmanship isn't a viable option.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 16-Aug-08 11:33 PM
Eric I got an idea. If you think the price of gasoline isn't high enough why don't you pay for my gas and everybody else who thinks the price is too high.
You sound rich enough to afford it and you don't care how people are hurting to keep their cars working.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
