House GOP: Not Geldings After All

Finally, someone in the GOP is pounding Pelosi and the Democrats over the ban on drilling. I was beginning to question their intelligence and genitalia.

No Time Left For You

Nancy Pelosi has no time to entertain Republican proposals to end the congressional ban on off shore drilling because she's "trying to save the planet". How arrogant can you get? If Republicans don't fall over each other to get to a camera, then we're pretty much doomed. If we don't take this and run with it, then we're too stupid to run the country anyway.

The Democrats weren't elected by the American people to "save the planet" by keeping oil supply low. If Mrs. Pelosi wants to make that case, I say be my guest. I'd love to hear a different Republican every day lambaste the Democrats over oil prices. This is our issue. Its their fault that we aren't exploiting domestic sources of oil. (Well, we can also blame George H. W. Bush, but then again we can blame him for a lot) There's a reason that Congressional approval is in the teens. If only Republicans would grow a set and go on the attack.

Pelosi is completely inept. She thinks she still represents San Francisco. I hope it isn't news to House Republicans that most Americans don't want to become San Francisco. I shudder to think of even setting foot in that God forsaken place.

If Nancy Pelosi Blocks Off Shore Drilling, and No One Says Anything, Did it Ever Really Happen?

Nancy Pelosi has made it a point to stop bills that ease restrictions on drilling from reaching the floor for a vote. If Republicans had any brains/balls, they'd be hammering the Democrats on this, its a gift issue. With Congress' approval rating at 14%, now is the perfect time to explain to the American people who is keeping gas prices up by pandering to the environmental left. Alas, most of the elected GOP in congress lack brains/balls, and we never see any real leadership from the White House. Maybe John McCain will. . . wait, no. He doesn't want to openly advocate a position that will upset the New York Times.

John McCain Should Read This

Anything you need to know about economics, you can learn from Walter Williams. The man's brilliant. Read his defense of speculation. Do it. Do it right now. I will drive to your house and punch your dog, click on the link.

Thomas Sowell ain't too bad either.

Will the Real John McCain Please Stand Up?

Barack Obama is certainly a presidential candidate in the mold of Jimmy Carter, and its nice to see McCain pointing that out. Speaking in Houston yesterday, McCain said this:

"He supports new taxes on oil producers. He wants a windfall-profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big-idea tool - and a lot of good it did us. I'm all for recycling - but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s."

This is a topic that Republicans need to hammer Obama on. His energy policy is insane. He resembles Carter on issues from energy to national defense. However, McCain seems to think we're too stupid to remember what he said last week:

"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits"

In the same interview he said that oil companies should "absolutely" return some of their profits. Is this not a call for a "windfall profits tax"? McCain's position on oil profits sounds a lot like Obama's to me. Which McCain is the real McCain? The one bashing Obama's Carteresque energy policy in Houston or the one espousing the same policies in an NBC interview? Why did we nominate this guy again?

McCain Briefly Pretends to Understand Economics

Finally John McCain has said something I can support. It is definitely time to begin drilling for oil off the coasts. If China and Cuba can do it, I don't see why we can't. Senator McCain plans to say this in a speech today:

"we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

Great to hear him seemingly support market driven solutions to this problem, but sadly, it couldn't last. Lest conservatives actually begin to believe he had a sane grasp on the concepts of economics and the workings of the market, he also plans to say this about oil speculation:

"Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk,"

Every time I try to grab his olive branch, he hits me in the face with the tree. Let's take a look and the Senator's complete ineptitude when it comes to the principles of a free(ish) market. This "reckless wagering" is actually a risk taken by speculators on the future price of oil. Not only is this done perfectly legally with all sorts of other commodities, it helps protect supply. Why do prices go up? High demand or low supply, in this situation a combination of both. When someone speculates on a barrel of oil, they are betting that the price will be higher in the future. They are betting that demand will be higher and/or the supply will be lower. At a future time, they plan on introducing the oil they have purchased back into the market when prices are higher. While this may drive up price now, it drives down price later. Contrary to the Senator's statements, this is absolutely "productive commerce". It doesn't "distort the market", it protects supply by holding reserves until they are most needed. There are no "rational limits" in a free market, there are the laws of supply and demand. They may be harsh, but they work for a reason, and when the government tries to control them, the problem is exacerbated. The good Senator is right to advocate increasing the supply, (as soon as the government even announces that restrictions on drilling will be lifted speculators will begin hedging their bets and selling, thus increasing supply and driving down cost) but punishing speculators will only hurt America in the long run.

Everything Is Worth What John McCain Says It Is

"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits."

Thus said John McCain this morning on the "Today Show". That sound you hear is the last of his conservative supporters cringing. Why, pray tell, Senator, do oil companies have to be more "participatory in alternate energy"? Shouldn't oil companies be concerned with oil? Shouldn't their business be finding, pumping, refining, and selling more oil? What gives you the right to tell any privately owned company what they "have got to be" doing? The government is going to force the oil companies to develop the technology that will put them out of business? Has the Republican party descended back into the days of Teddy Roosevelt? Are we going to go Trust busting? Aren't you the supposed conservative candidate from the supposed conservative party? Now we advocate "sharing profits"? Sounds an awful lot like socialism. There's more:

Although the GOP presidential candidate didn't address the question of raising taxes on oil companies, he said the companies "absolutely" should return some profits to consumers. "And they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," he said.

He's basically advocating price fixing without actually fixing the price. Oil companies can charge whatever they want to, but then they've got to return excess profits to consumers. Who decides what amount of profit is too much? In the past the market has dictated this. A business charges whatever it can up to a point where demand starts falling. This is why apartment complexes strive for 5% vacancy instead of 0%. They want to balance on the line between maximum profit and pricing themselves out of the market. This is not only good business, it protects supply. Artificially lowering prices leads to shortages. Just look at the results of rent control in major cities.

Why should oil companies worry about reducing our dependence on foreign oil? This isn't their job. Their job is get the stuff out of the ground and to the consumer. If we would let them do what they're best at - exploiting oil fields - they would reduce our supply on foreign oil. Unfortunately they are unable to do so because our government stands in the way. If he truly cared about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the good Senator would be addressing this instead of telling the media exactly what they want to hear.

A part of me wants the oil companies to call Washington's bluff. "Screw you! You say we're evil, money grubbing, unpatriotic, fine. We're shutting down American operations and moving Corporate HQ to the Bahamas. Good luck." I wonder if that is what it would take for America to see the wisdom of Publilius Syrus: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it"

About.........Damn............Time

Bortscheller, president of the Elk Point City Council, had invited about 250 supporters to an outdoor barbecue Tuesday to await the returns for arguably the most important election in Union County's history. The big crowd didn't leave disappointed.

As midnight approached, they popped the champagne corks, celebrating a hard-fought victory that keeps alive the county's chances of landing the nation's first all-new oil refinery in 32 years.

Exxon Mobil Flips the Bird to the Greens.

Kudos to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson facing down the Rockefellers at the shareholders meeting yesterday. Though I hope his comment on "corporate social responsibility" was just posturing to the press. Supplying the world with fossil fuels is good business and will provide a profit for your shareholders, to whom you actually owe your responsibility. But beyond that he said that Exxon Mobil plans to push ahead with an "$8-billion Kearl oilsands project in Alberta" despite court challenges by environmentalist. This got me thinking, why is Canada allowed to use her natural resources, but the United States is not? Why isn't Exxon Mobil pushing ahead with projects off the Florida coast or in Alaska? If Canada can keep a leash on their wackjob anti-capitalist greens in order to obtain the commodity that fuels the world, why can't the U.S.? How have we let the greenies gain such power here that our environmental restrictions on exploiting our natural resources are more liberal than quasi socialist Canada? Just some food for thought as I fill my truck up with $3.77 a gallon gas.