E!! The True Conservative Story™

Malkin has a post.

Blurb from WaPo:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, according to sources informed on the decision.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

Quick note:  The Republican Party has not moved “far to the right.”  The Democratic Party has moved to the left and has very deftly and craftily dragged ”the Center” to the left as well.  And they’ve been helped by people like Arlen Specter who have apparently forgotten what Ronald Reagan actually believed and stood for.

Future piece:  “The New Center:  How Liberals Moved the Middle to the Left in American Politics” (0r something like that)

To read this NYT piece on the estate tax, you’d think its biggest problems are that conservative spin-meisters dubbed it “the death tax” as it came out of the gate – and that they “portray [it] as the Internal Revenue Service reaching beyond on the grave.”  (How dare they tell the truth like that?!)  The article’s obviously biased author, Carl Hulse, argues:  “Studies show that the tax hits merely a sliver of wealthy American families.”  Well, ok then.  As long as we are only raking a few people over the proverbial coals, why should we get excited?

Because the tax is unfair and ought to be illegal.  It amounts to double-taxation since those who have accumulated wealth have already paid taxes on their income throughout their lifetime.  The sums of money are not the issue.  Whether you are worth $10 million or $1 million or a nickel ninety-eight, you should not have to stop off for a last visit to the tax man on your way to the grave.

Harry Reid doesn’t think so, though.  Evidenced by the bulging of his veins during a recent Senate floor debate.  The issue?  A proposed amendment to permanently cut the death tax rate to 35% and to exempt estates worth less than $10 million per couple and $5 million for a single taxpayer.  (Obama and his minions want a 45% rate with a $7 million exemption.)

Every Republican voted for the lower rate, as did 10 Democrats.  But according to this piece in the WSG, Harry Reid called the amendment by Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) “outrageous,” a “stunning act of hypocrisy,” and a tax cut for those “at the very top of the food chain.”  And then (quote and comment from the WSJ):

“We can only turn the page from recession to recovery if we watch every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in their budget.”  We’d say Mr. Reid was being deliberately ironic, but Harry doesn’t do irony.  He’s an outrage man.  And speaking of which, he was at that very moment working to pass a 2010 budget outline that includes record spending and trillions of dollars in new debt.

Yeah, we all know Reid is on board with unprecendented federal spending and national debt.

But let me get this other part straight.  Harry Reid equates your family income and budget with the federal government’s.  This might seem like a reasonable comparison at first glance, but it’s faulty to the core. Your household income is likely fixed at its current rate.  You have to (or should) limit your spending to what you take in.  You cannot demand more income from your employer.  And you probably aren’t borrowing large sums of money in order to “invest” in questionable and unproven endeavors.

The federal government’s revenue stream, on the other hand, is not fixed.  Legislators can increase the government’s revenue anytime by voting to create or raise taxes. They don’t play by the same rules and live within the same limits we do; they make the rules and set the limits (or lack thereof).  They can – and do – vote to spend whatever they wish, for whichever “stimulus” effort they want.  Evidenced by the current budget and tax talk on The Hill.  In short, there is no valid comparison.  Harry Reid and friends know this, or should.

But back to the death tax.  Bottom line:  there shouldn’t be one.  At all.

And the bottom line on Harry Reid and all those who support fleecing “a small sliver” of America’s wealthy as they draw their last breath?  To quote that king of outrage himself, they are engaged in “a stunning act of hypocrisy.”

Hat tip for the WSJ/Reid portion:  Veronique de Rugy @ The Corner

UPDATE:  A reader emails, and another comments, on something I think a lot of people don’t realize:  the estate tax applies to the recipient of the inheritance no matter the size of the gift.  So, if a benefactor who exceeds the exempted limit leaves you, say, $100,000 in his will, it is you who will owe the IRS $35,000. 

So much for only a small “sliver” of Americans being subject to this tax.  The very wealthy often make numerous bequests of varying sizes to relatives and other people who are not particularly wealthy (otherwise the bequest wouldn’t mean much), and all these recipients, however poor, are subject to the 35% tax rate.  Imagine a single mother living at or near poverty level who pays no (or next-to-no) income tax.  She receives $50,000 from a rich auntie and must then write the IRS a check for $17,500.  To her, that sum could mean a down payment on a small house, or cash payment for a decent new car, or a good start on a college education for her child…but instead, it will go to the federal government, to redistribute as it sees fit. 

Does this seem just to to anyone?  A suspicious mind might wonder if there is a deliberate intent to make sure the money doesn’t go to the descendants and/or friends of productive and successful people.

And Obama wants to raise the tax rate to 45%.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

RedState lists a few things the Senate plans to add to the Stimulus anti-Stimulus bill.

Because Americans are calling for “More pork, please!”

of what the Senate is up to. 

Jonah weighs in.  I might not have linked up but he said Harry Reid wasn’t the “brightest crayon in the box” (and other funny things) so brownie points are awarded.

Wow.

Where is the national media on reporting this?

Hat Tip: Obsidian Wings via John Schwenkler.

Kim Strassel @ the WSJ reports a general lack of Senatorial enthusiasm for Big Labor’s card check proposal.  Nice to see most reasonable Dems are willing to curtail the unions – and preserve the integrity of elections via the secret ballot.

Hat Tip:  Cranky Hermit

This morning Megyn Kelly on Fox News reported that Norm Coleman was protesting the counting of absentee ballots in the recount for his senate race with Al Franken.  I couldn’t imagine how Coleman could object if the ballots were valid so assumed they had already been rejected for one reason or another

I now have a more detailed report in my Inbox saying the Hennepin County Canvassing Board unanimously rejected Franken’s demands that absentee ballots which had been previously invalidated/rejected now be validated and counted. 

Cullen Sheehan, a staffer in Norm Coleman’s MN campaign, also sent out this brief release:

“The Al Franken campaign today tried to stuff new ballots into the ballot box in a brazen, last minute act of desperation.  We have raised concerns repeatedly about these types of tactics by the Franken campaign.  Today is further evidence of their intent to use whatever means necessary to counter the decision of the people of Minnesota.  We applaud the actions of the Hennepin County Canvassing Board in rejecting this blatant, desperate act.”

I’ve said it before, though not on this blog: 

It is amazing to me that the MN senate race was/is so close considering what a snarky, dishonest tax-evading louse Al has proven himself to be.  Even worse, he was a terrible talk radio host during his brief stint with the short-stinted Air America.  (Memo from E!! to Franken and Friends:  Nasty is never funny.) 

From William Katz:

Here’s Obama in his own words to the Chicago Sun-Times on November 4, 2004: “I was elected yesterday. . . . I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. . . . I am not running for president in 2008.”

Four years later, we may be on the verge of electing this man POTUS.  Unbelieveable.

 If you are a District 6 voter, or just interested in looking in on one of Nevada’s hotly contested state senate races, be sure to see this E!! exclusive “mock debate” featuring a Q & A with incumbent Senator Bob Beers and Democrat candidate Allison Copening.

Copening has been widely criticized for refusing to debate Senator Beers after an initial appearance on Face to Face early in the political season.  Producer Dana Gentry made no bones about her views on the matter, snarking about ”political candidates who are woefully unprepared for the office to which they aspire” and “even worse…who put their name on the ballot and then disappear, refusing to address the very citizens they hope to represent. 

E!! is therefore delighted to be able to present a “mock debate” in which Senator Beers and Ms. Copening will be answering a series of questions pertaining to public policy in Nevada.  Both candidates were given identical sets of questions, and both returned their answers to me without seeing their opponent’s responses.

Enjoy ~ and please feel free to contact me with questions or leave your comments below.

The sky’s been falling on Wall Street, and now hell is officially freezing over: Harry Reid is defending the same tax cuts that he once opposed and blasted as being “for the rich.”

So says Susan Jones of CNS News, who is reporting on the Senate debates of the “rescue bill” (still an Obama-ism, still smacks of false victimology, still hate it).

In an attempt to grease the Senate wheels on this bill, Reid now says he supports an Alternative Minimum Tax relief: $8 billion for natural disaster victims, and $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extended tax breaks.

Reid’s commentary included statements like “we’ve got to get this done” and “it would be a blight on this Congress not to pass these tax extenders” and “tens of thousands of jobs will be created.”

How wonderful that liberal Democrat Harry Reid has finally admitted that tax cuts help businesses and create middle class jobs.

Pigs, commence flight.

Update:  George reminds us that Obama had a revelation on taxation also:  when he said that as president he would delay rolling back the Bush tax cuts if the economy was weak…essentially acknowledging that tax hikes hurt the economy.

I’m borrowing my post header from P.J. O’Rourke.  (VERY funny book if you have never enjoyed it.)

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”

I’m reading accounts that Senator Chris Dodd’s weighty remarks and swelling ego nearly crushed a few innocent bystanders this morning as he bemoaned the Wall Street greed that got us into this mess.

The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee uttered not one peep, though, re: his acceptance of $165K in contributions from failing Fannie and Freddie (presumably as payback for his opposition to properly overseeing and regulating them).

No mention either, that he benefitted from VIP insider discounted loans from the (now defunct) Countrywide Financial.

Well, with Nevada’s state senate head count sitting at 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this campaign season is becoming increasingly unscrupulous.  The Dems want that majority so they can rule supreme in the next legislative session.  And apparently they are willing to lie, cheat, smear, and steal the victory if necessary.

Earlier this week we read about attempts to smear Senator Bob Beers via malicious and misleading bright yellow billboards.  Now the Las Vegas Sun reports that we have a flurry of expensive glossy mail pieces snowing down on District 5’s Republican state Senator Joe Heck.

The colorful mailers feature a series of vivid images of suffering cancer patients and say that Heck, a Nevada doctor, voted against requiring insurance companies to include cervical cancer screenings in their basic coverage, while simultaneously accepting campaign donations from those very insurance companies.

That claim is false.

Insurance companies have been required by the state of Nevada to cover screenings for cervical cancer since 1989.

The mailers don’t include any citations (of course!) but are reported to refer to legislation from 2007. 

Heck did vote against a 2007 bill that required some insurance companies to cover Gardasil, the vaccine for the human papilloma virus, which has been proven in clinical studies to be a precursor to cervical cancer…and was criticized by some for doing so, but Heck says he opposes new mandates on insurance companies because they increase the cost of coverage.

Interestingly, the multi-colored mailings don’t say a peep about Heck’s opponent, retired Clark County School District administrator Shirley Breeden, who had little to say about the mailers.  She told the Sun, “The tone, to me, is exactly how he voted. Times are tough and people want a change.”

The TONE [of the mailers]…is exactly how Heck voted?  What does that mean? 

Heck either voted Yes or No on this bill, and these mailers either Lie or do not Lie.  Talking about their “tone” is meaningless and has no bearing on the facts.  I am so tired of this kind of verbal sidestepping from some of these Dems as they speak loftily of the “tone,” “mood,” “feeling,” and “nuance” of issues.

These touchy-feely terms evade the stark truth and help candidates wiggle out of calling a spade a Spade:  these shiny, brightly colored mailers are lying about Heck’s voting record!! 

Shirley Breeden’s comment about how well their “tone” goes with the pitch, timbre, and tint of (this darkly dishonest campaign against) Heck should tell Nevada’s voters all they need to know about her. 

And let’s not overlook this little political tidbit:  Not only are the Dems champing at the bit to control the state Senate, they are also Quite concerned because (it is rumored that) Heck, a well respected doctor and colonel in the Army Reserve, may challenge Harry Reid in 2010.

AND Heck’s name has been thrown in the hat as a possible candidate for future governor. And in that case, he could wind up facing off against another Reid — Harry’s son Rory, current chairman of the Clark County Commission.

Is the shade, hue, and color of these Democratic paint-by-numbers smear projects starting to look like something to voters now…?

UPDATE:  A reader rightly points out that campaign seasons cannot be unscrupulous (see my first sentence).  Political seasons aren’t unprincipled, and the age is not corrupt.  It’s people who are dishonest, dodgy, and devious.

Anne of Valley County, Idaho writes to inform me of a story in today’s Idaho Statesman re: legislation to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. 

A Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming to approve federal matching money for state trust funds that pay ranchers for those losses.

The Bush administration has objected to the bill, saying the payments should be a state responsibility.

But Anne says Idaho didn’t have a say (vote to) have the wolves “re-introduced.” 

And she puts that in quotes because the Feds didn’t bring in their native little red wolf, but the larger grey – which never roamed those parts to begin with.

So, this was and is a federal program.

As an aside, Anne notes that two weeks ago, one of their ranchers lost three calves in one day, all of them senselessly slaughtered (i.e., not eaten). 

Hospital nurse Jill Stanek – the woman who held that late-term Downs Syndrome baby in her arms for 45 minutes as it suffered and took its last breath and then later testified before the Illinois state Senate and Congress – was on Hannity & Colmes last night. 

She said that in her experience, babies survive 10 to 20% of all late term abortions and could survive if given the proper medical care.

And she said that even after hearing her detailed testimony about what had gone on in this hospital, Obama still spoke out against the Born-Alive law in no uncertain terms.

Obama stated (and I heard the sound byte played this morning, exactly as she represented it) that having another doctor come in to evalute and save a born-alive baby after a botched abortion is “too cumbersome because…it burdens the original decision” i.e. it overrides the mother’s decision to abort.

In other words, Obama knew exactly what had happened – and would happen again – without the passage of the Born-Alive Act and he still voted against it when not one other member of the Senate did.

Obama has given us (at least) four explanations for his vote and still has not admitted the truth.  Clearly, he realizes that what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did what he did is so unthinkable to the average person that it is basically political suicide to admit it. 

Focus group studies on this issue have shown that even people who are “pro-choice” are repulsed and sickened by the thought of someone standing by and doing nothing while a living, breathing baby dies.  The average person possesses a primary, deep-seated instinct to help a suffering, dying creature and cannot understand or relate to someone who would not do so if given the chance.

Obama once said his definition of “sin” was to be “out of alignment with my own values.”  This past Sunday at Saddelback, he lamented that we do not do enough to live out the value of doing well unto “the least of these.”  (As you have done unto the least of these, so you have done unto Me.”  Matthew 25:40)

When all this has passed, I hope Obama contemplates his present failures and the grave errors which preceded them, that he feels the sting of shame and remorse, and that he begs mercy from the Maker he says he believes in…for doing nothing to stop the suffering and dying of “the least of these.”  For who is more powerless and helpless than a tiny baby unwanted and abandoned by its own mother?

Asked on CBN about his past opposition to an Illinois bill protecting babies born after surviving botched abortions, Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Someone IS lying, but is it “folks” or is it Obama?  Here are the facts:

In 2000, when Congress took up legislation clarifying that infants born alive after abortions are Persons under the law, the bill passed the House 380 to 15…yet in 2001, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he verbally opposed and then voted “present” – effectively a ”no” – on a similar bill. 

(Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a “no” vote because only “yes” votes count toward the passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of reasons, including making it harder for political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.)

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” saying it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill unanimously passed the House and Senate and was signed into law…yet in 2003, back in Illinois, Obama still opposed the state version of the law.

Obama has been saying he voted against that bill because it didn’t include the same “neutrality clause” as the federal form – but the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has now found documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted against it anyway.

Confronted about this, Obama said the NRLC was lying…but his campaign has since admitted Obama is “mistaken.”  Once again, Obama either doesn’t know his own record or is so comfortable lying that falsehoods roll off his tongue with ease.

When asked by Pastor Rick Warren @ Saddelback when a baby has rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.”  Apparently Obama’s predictable equivocating is exceeded only by his ability to state the obvious with all the seriousness of a self-styled Socrates. 

In that same forum at Saddleback, Obama said that deciding when a baby gets the rights of Personhood is “above his pay grade.”  But shouldn’t our chief executive have an opinion about the legal definition of a Person…especially if he says he is willing to permit abortions in ANY circumstance? 

Put another way, what kind of morally bankrupt and moronic person says he realizes there is a serious ethical aspect to an issue, and then says it is beyond the scope of his capabilities to decide the matter, but then goes ahead and makes a choice anyway?  I mean, doesn’t any sane and reasonable person stay neutral on issues of which he is unsure?

One would think so, but in 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation he’d sign into law as our president. The act would end ALL current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions.

I usually avoid name-calling here on E!! but today I make an exception.

Barack Obama is either an Idiot or Pathological Liar or Both.  I cannot think of any candidate in recent times who was/is less deserving of the presidency.

Not sure if anyone else caught Laura Ingraham’s interview with Danielle Bologna on her radio talk show last week?  This is the San Francisco woman whose husband and two sons were brutally murdered last month by Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.  Thanks to the policies of America’s most famous “Sanctuary City,” authorities failed to place an immigration hold on Ramos despite TWO prior convictions on gang-related FELONIES…AND an arrest on gun charges in March.

Click here to contact San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome’s office and let him know what you think about this!  You can also contact your Senator and/or Congressman with your thoughts about illegal immigration.

My three cents:  ALL illegal immigrants – not just those who violate ADDITIONAL laws after breaking our immigration laws to get here - should be reported and deported on “first contact” with a U.S. citizen and/or our authorities.  Our immigration laws are not (and should not be treated as if) they are casual suggestions. 

For an example of the proper care and handling of illegal immigrants, see this story re: a major raid and dozens of arrests in northern Nevada last fall and this follow up story describing the consequences for a company’s failure to comply with immigration law:  a Reno McDonald’s franchise owner was ordered to pay $1M in fines for knowingly employing illegal immigrants.

A couple of Nevada lawmakers are trying to get a bill passed that will do something about illegal immigration in Nevada – but unfortunately there does not seem to be wide support in the Nevada Assembly.

The Hill is reporting that the Senate just passed the 2008 Fannie & Freddie Prop Up bill (72-13).  The monster housing bill will now go to the White House for W’s Johnny Hancock.  For what it’s worth, all 13 ’no’ votes were GOP-ers.  Senator DeMint (R-SC) had delayed the bill over objections to F & F lobby rights, but in the end the R’s struck a deal with the Dems and passed it.  

The bill will allow re-fi’s of up to $300 billion in distressed mortgages, give tax breaks galore in order to help the market, tighten future oversight of F & F – and (this is the real kicker) give the Treasury temporary authority to approve an unlimited line of credit for F & F.  Now isn’t that sweet?!  We, the taxpayers, are going to foot the bill for a bottomless pile of cash for two government-sponsored enterprises being run by people of questionable judgment.

If you wish to see this in a positive light, just read the first paragraph of today’s Washington Post story which says, “In a rare weekend session, the Senate today ended months of legislative wrangling and gave final approval to a sprawling housing bill that seeks to halt the steepest slide in home prices in a generation, rescue hundreds of thousands of families from foreclosure and restore confidence in the nation’s largest mortgage finance firms.”

(GAG!!)

Why-oh-why is it the job of Congress to interfere with the natural forces of the market, rescue people from foreclosure because they financed over-priced houses with adjusable-rate mortgages they now cannot afford, and restore confidence in two companies that probably deserve to fail due to poor management?  Where in the Constitution does it say that the State is responsible for protecting its citizens from the natural consequences of their own poor judgment?!!

The Nanny State gets fatter while our dependence upon her grows…

!!

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.       

In the interest of letting Senator Ensign speak for himself on his energy-efficiency tax credit amendment, you can click here for the full text of his Senate Floor Speech (given Thursday).

For those of you who don’t have time to read all 1,216 words, here’s the sum-up:

Ensign refers to the high cost of energy and says we need smart policy for both our economic and national security.  He claims his amendment offers tax credits that will encourage more development of alternative, renewable energy (solar, wind, and geothermal).

In answer to those who say his bill has nothing to do with housing, Ensign claims his bill will help create between 100,000 and 200,00 jobs and encourage billions of dollars worth of investment, which will strengthen the economy including the housing market.

Ensign also says the tax credits will reward people who produce their own electricity by going solar, who build or buy an energy-efficient home, or who buy energy efficient appliances…and says these are all related to housing.

In re: to the “not paid for” objection, he claims there are “$2.4 billion in tax-related items that are not paid for in [the housing] bill” and that he therefore challenges the Democratic leadership’s claim that his energy amendment won’t pass in the House. 

Ensign asks how the Democrats expect their “not paid for” housing bill to pass if the House is truly not accepting bills that aren’t paid for.  (Indeed!) 

Finally, Ensign says he is pushing for this now because (1) the private financing of solar, geothermal, and wind power projects is critical to their development, (2) his proposed tax credits will allow private businesses to predict and rely on their return on investment, and therefore (c) investor confidence will immediately rise and more clean/renewable energy projects will happen sooner.