E!! The True Conservative Story™

K-Lo just posted this, from Jim DeMint’s office:

We’ve just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America’s West is estimated to hold be between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.

Here is the text of Reid’s proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a “stimulus” package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.

Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:

SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.

“(Sarah Palin) brought down Alaska’s governor, attorney general, and state Republican chairman. She killed the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ She used increased tax revenues from high oil prices to give Alaskans a rebate. She slashed government spending. She took on the biggest industry in Alaska, the oil companies, to work out an equitable deal on building a new gas pipeline. Obama can’t match even one of these accomplishments.”

- Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 8/30/08

Here it is in all it’s non-splendor.

Annoying how the Dems keep selectively quoting their new favorite oil man, T. Boone Pickens.  Reid quipped, ”T. Boone Pickens said it right: ‘We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.’” 

Pickens did say that:  because all our energy ills cannot be cured solely by drilling.  But Pickens doesn’t say drilling is not a big part of a comprehensive solution.  That’s why he also says we have to “drill, drill, drill.” 

Dontgomovement.com has a “Caption It” graphic challenge up today.  Check it out and give it your best shot!

There’s one in every crowd.  Or in this case, five…Republicans, that is, who are muddying the waters of the clearest issue facing the GOP this fall:  energy and offshore drilling.  In response to voter discontent over high gas prices and polling near 80% in favor of offshore drilling, the majority of GOP has (wisely) gone after the Dem anti-drillers in the House.  Enthusiasm for the cause has given new life to conservative candidates who were losing oxygen in tight races.

Enter Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Isakson (R-GA) who, along with five Senate Democrats, have announced that their ”Gang of 10″ wants a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break the ”stalemate.”  Sounds good, right? 

Not really.  The bill says new production on offshore federal lands would be left to the state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hoops and hurdles are huge.  The bill prohibits drilling within 50 miles of the coast — keeping some of our most potentially productive areas closed.  ANWR would still be  a no-go. AND the plan contains $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and handouts for alternative fuels and renewables…to be paid for (drum roll) by raising taxes on oil companies!

Boys, we’ve been over this umpteen times:  we need to open up all lands in all coastal states, keep the red tape to a minimum, drill wherever the oil is, tap ANWR, and get it straight that raising taxes on oil companies means raising the price of gas for consumers, because Big Oil will just pass the hikes down to the man at the pump.

These five Republicans need to re-think their agenda and quick, before November voters hit the ballot booths.  If you wish to express your thoughts and feelings to any of the senators, here are links to their contact pages:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

The Las Vegas Sun says Jon Porter’s (R-NV) recent energy petition is less about his tightly contested race with Democratic challenger Dina Titus and more about an overall Republican strategy to insert GOP-backed energy proposals into the House floor schedule over the past 7 weeks. 

Not sure the Sun has it quite right.  It’s a political axiom that the more birds you can kill with one stone, the better.  

The Sun quotes a Republican strategist stating that “making energy No. 1 was a no-brainer.”  So was having Porter push forward one of the petitions.  It achieved the GOP’s agenda in D.C. and sent a message to Nevada voters that Porter is on the right side of the issue.  Hope it’s enough to save Porter’s butt because – although he’s not as conservative as some of us would like – Dina Titus is an incurable taxaholic.  Nevada does not need her in Washington.

!!

Did anyone else feel the urge to choke the living daylights out of Chuck Schumer this week?  If not, you must have missed the Senate floor speech in which he re-opined the tired line that if only the Saudis would produce “half a million barrels more oil a day, the price [of oil] would come down a very significant amount.” 

Why does this statement make my blood pressure rise and my fingers twitch?

Because the tiny impact area within ANWR – a size ratio equivalent to a dime on a 4 x 8’ table – is projected to produce ONE MILLION barrels a day, every day, if only we would drill.  And because Schumer’s (true) statement that a greater immediate supply would reduce prices falls short of saying what is also true:  that even the ANTICIPATION of a greater FUTURE supply would decrease prices in the Now.

Schumer’s other infuriating comment – that more drilling would “stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil” – also missed the proverbial mark.  Speculators wouldn’t “stop” if the Saudis drilled more, because speculation in free markets never stops.

Instead, speculators (also known as investors, also known as buyers and sellers, also known as people trying to earn money for their families and futures) would anticipate the increased oil supply, begin to sell for less, continue to drop prices as volume increased, and thus reverse the current market trend of charging a per barrel premium for what is currently a too-scarce commodity. 

Perhaps  “speculation” would then stop being a dirty word and be seen as what it really is:  the natural response of the market to the forces of supply and demand.  

For those not convinced that these tenets of ECON 101 are true, please note that we’ve already seen the evidence.  As Larry Kudlow reported the other day on NRO, oil prices dropped $9 per barrel the day after the offshore drilling moratorium was lifted by the president.  This is no coincidence.  It is case-and-point and perfectly illustrates what speculation really IS – not a crime against humanity, but the market doing what markets tend to do:  try to anticipate the future and adjust.

It is maddening that the same people who want to spend billions on economy-choking “climate change” measures that might (MIGHT!) reduce temperatures by one quarter degree over the next one-half century cannot see the wisdom of opening a tiny piece of ANWR in return for a sure thing over the next one to ten years.

Each summer the ancient Greeks would sacrifice a brown dog to appease Sirius, the Dog Star, believing it to be the source of the hot, oppressive weather.  Known as caniculares dies or “days of the dogs,” high summer was thought to be a time of evil when the “seas boiled, wine turned sour, dogs grew mad, and all creatures became languid, causing to man burning fevers, hysterics, and phrensies” (Brady’s Clavis Calendarium, 1813). 

Though animal sacrifices to imaginary gods are no longer in vogue, it seems we are still prone to blaming far-away stars for our troubles.  The pains of the current energy shortage have been attributed to OPEC, international futures traders who conspired to drive up oil prices, and foreign forces driving down the U.S. dollar.

The true cause of our decline can be found much closer to home:  in the stagnating halls of Congress.  Our Legislators have failed to open domestic lands and seas to energy exploration, drilling, and new refineries and so billions of barrels of domestic oil are being kept off the market.  As a result, gas has now reached $5 a gallon in some parts of the country.

Arguments that it would take ten years to bring new supplies online sound hauntingly familiar.  Hm…  Oh yes:  it’s exactly what was said ten years ago when the nation last debated this issue.  The short-term thinkers won the last round; will they do so again now?

Critics also argue that we should be focusing on renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and bio-fuels.  Fine, yes, good.  But solar power and windmills can’t take the place of oil in the U.S. economy, and the ”encouragement” (mandates and massive subsides) of bio-fuels has driven up food prices so that we are now paying more at the grocery store as well as the gas station.

Increased domestic oil production is part of the answer.  Our technology enables us to drill with very little impact on the environment (and certainly in more ecologically friendly ways than many of the nations from whom we’re currently buying oil).  Let’s do it, then, while also developing techonologies that might one day enable us to power our nation without oil.

As for the cap-and-trade and windfall profits tax bills the Democrats tried to push through the Senate, we can thank our lucky stars they didn’t pass.  What worries me is what may happen when the dog days of summer are gone and the cool winds of November come a blowin’. 

If the GOP loses contested Senate seats and we elect a president who favors the artificial rationing of energy despite current shortages and high prices, we may well find ourselves wishing on a star for the good ol’ days of $5 a gallon gas.