111th United States Congress [Archive]

Midnightsfire

June 12th, 2008, 4:43 pm

No, that money is the income taxes paid by the companies, not the sales tax collected from consumers. The sales taxes collected from consumers are a liability and show up on the balance sheet, not the income statement.

However, the income tax the oil and gas companies pay is passed along to consumers as higher prices. That's why a windfall profits tax to somehow punish the oil and gas companies is so poorly thought out. That additional tax would be passed along to us consumers as price increases - not only would it do nothing to drop energy prices, the windfall profits tax would actually increase prices.

No...no.no. Their taxes have always been passed on to the consumer. It has always been that way.

Since this is devolving off-topic (I suspect there is another thread somehwere about fuel) I'll let this be my last rebuttal:

Perhaps 60% of price is pure speculation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878)

The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price.

------------------------------------------

Pretty much the reason why when Bush politley asked Saudia Arabia to increase production they responded just as politely but with a flip of the bird.

-----------------------------------------------

Why Exxon won't produce more oil (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/WhyExxonWontProduceMore.aspx)
The energy giant is being managed to achieve an acceptable investment return for shareholders, not for the benefit of consumers. Less supply of crude oil means higher prices -- and record profits.

Germany in call for ban on oil speculation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/26/cnoil126.xml)
German leaders are to propose a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators, blaming the latest spike in crude prices on manipulation by hedge funds.
It is the most drastic proposal to date amid escalating calls from Europe, the US and Asia for controls on market forces, underscoring the profound shift in the political climate since the credit crunch began. India has already suspended futures trading of five commodities.

Speculators are split, with some betting that oil will fall

Uwe Beckmeyer, transport chief for Germany's Social Democrats, said his party would call for joint measures by the G8 powers to prohibit leveraged trading on energy contracts. "It's an extreme step but it has to be done," he told the Berlin media.
Mr Beckmeyer said the last 25pc rise in the price of oil to $135 a barrel had nothing to do with underlying supply and demand. “It’s pure speculation,” he said.

----------------------------------------------------

And so when will US congress get in line and realize that speculation has a way of feeding on itself and ruining the actual supply/demand relationship. You're speculating with speculators who are speculating on speculation, and suddenly you're paying 60% more for things that aren't really worth it.

No worries though, since one can generally pass on whatever overblown premiums this kind of gambling is forcing on you down to your consumers who don't really have a choice whether or not they're going to buy food or gas.

How exactly does that work? US companies are prohibited from drilling offshore because acts passed by Congress but foreign governments, which are not held to US environmental regulations, go ahead and drill.

Oh so lets do as they do regardless of enviromental concerns? One can look no further than Russia (http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_russianoutlook.html) to see what happens (http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm) when you ignore the environment.
The tap water in many countries is undrinkable. That sad fact should make anyone wary about safe drinking water.

The net effect - less domestically produced oil and increased dependence on foreign oil, and dirty water. Dirty water? Only for other nations since they don't have our regulations.

Imagine the impact were US companies, who are held to clean water and environmental regulations were allowed to drill. More domestically produced oil, decreased dependence on foreign oil, more tax revenue to the federal coffers, and less environmental contamination because of US companies following US mandated clean drilling techniques.
And too many coastal states disagree with you. (Or as it is usually put, "All it takes is one accident." And anyone imagining that the "one accident" will never happen is someone who is quite naive. That's why they are called "accidents.")

Bear in mind that US companies don't follow US regulations on foreign soil.
:relax:

monster_mom

June 12th, 2008, 5:35 pm

No...no.no. Their taxes have always been passed on to the consumer. It has always been that way.

That's what I said and why a windfall profits tax would accomplish nothing other than raising prices more.

The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price.

So since the majority of the oil we use comes from sources outside the US then if we were increase our production we'd have more control and possibly be able to bring prices down.

The energy giant is being managed to achieve an acceptable investment return for shareholders, not for the benefit of consumers. Less supply of crude oil means higher prices -- and record profits.

Bu the quote you linked above just said that it wasn't and issue of supply and demand but of control. Since we don't control the loins share of the worlds oil (or aren't willing to go after what we have available in our country and therefore don't control the lions share of the oil) we don't control the price.

And so when will US congress get in line and realize that speculation has a way of feeding on itself and ruining the actual supply/demand relationship.

Oil and gas companies or brokerage houses? Unless the oil and gas companies are somehow backing the brokerage houses and their speculative efforts then they've got nothing to do with it.

Oh so lets do as they do regardless of enviromental concerns?

I didn't say that. I said we have tougher environmental laws than some foreign countries, countries which are dilling for oil just offshore from the US. Our oil and gas companies, which have to follow our environmental laws, are prohibited from drilling there by Congress. Kind of seems to defeat the purpose of environmental concern to prohibit the cleaner drilling operations knowing full well that the dirtier operations will fill the void.

One can look no further than Russia to see what happens when you ignore the environment. The tap water in many countries is undrinkable. That sad fact should make anyone wary about safe drinking water.

Russia's environmental woes are due to problems that go well beyond oil and gas exploration.

And too many coastal states disagree with you. (Or as it is usually put, "All it takes is one accident." And anyone imagining that the "one accident" will never happen is someone who is quite naive. That's why they are called "accidents.")

Alaskans don't. Close to 75% of them support drilling in ANWAR.

http://www.anwr.org/People/Alaskans-Support-Development.php

Bear in mind that US companies don't follow US regulations on foreign soil.

But we're not talking about US companies drilling in other countries. We're talking about US oil and gas companies drilling here, in the US. In ANWAR. In the oil shale deposits. 50 - 100 miles offshore. US companies, US "land", US rules.

As the quote in the first article you linked stated, its all about control. I'd like to see the US with more control over oil and gas instead of less.

flimseycauldron

June 12th, 2008, 6:25 pm

So since the majority of the oil we use comes from sources outside the US then if we were increase our production we'd have more control and possibly be able to bring prices down.

A bit of a crossover here from the economy thread so I'll be brief. What exactly is speculation on the stock exchange? It's really hard to define. But basically current supply/demand has nothing to do with it. I really want to drive that in there. Whether we drilled in Alaska. Took over Iraq's oil production or struck oil behind the Whitehouse it doesn't matter how much we have. The more we find the demand will fill it. There would be a temporary drop and then it would all level out. The big oils companies control the market on energy futures. The mere thought of a disruption in supply sends the prices soaring, when in actuality, half the worlds supply would have to dry up overnight to really effect the average citizen in the day to day usage.

Conservatives should be having a field day with this. Not just in the Congress but in the Senate as well, right up through the President. The mantra from the Republican right is "Market based" incentives and plans. A true supply and demand system
from everything like schools/education, to health care, to energy. If these markets were in their purest form all of these issues would level out and there would be no dramatic price shifts. But the stock market allows people to "project" worst case scenarios so as to drive the market up.

I'll repost this in the conomy thread as it is much longer than I intended. And getting waaaaaay of topic.

monster_mom

June 12th, 2008, 6:36 pm

A bit of a crossover here from the economy thread so I'll be brief. What exactly is speculation on the stock exchange? It's really hard to define.

I think I need a stock market 101 class cause I don't get it! Gator, you're the finance guy, Helppppppp!!

lindaluna

June 13th, 2008, 9:50 pm

48th Congressional District Update

I'm from 48th Congressional District in CA. My area is very Red but Steve Young is running & I'm going to help him.

No...no.no. Their taxes have always been passed on to the consumer. It has always been that way.

Since this is devolving off-topic (I suspect there is another thread somehwere about fuel) I'll let this be my last rebuttal:

Perhaps 60% of price is pure speculation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878)

That is what is so scary !

Further, while prices have been rising, supply has been going down and refinery capacity has been going down. I mean, I feel ... manipulated.

purplehawk

June 14th, 2008, 4:30 am

Further, while prices have been rising, supply has been going down and refinery capacity has been going down. I mean, I feel ... manipulated.

Well, you are being manipulated.

Whatever you want to call it - supply side, trickle down, Reaganomics - it doesn't work except for the wealthiest 1% or 2% of Americans. George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics" and I think he had it right.

lindaluna

June 14th, 2008, 9:07 pm

Virginia Senate Race update.

It will be 2 former Governors against each other.

Mark Warner has accepted Democratic Nomination for Senate race & is out of Veepstakes.

HAMPTON, Va. — Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner has accepted the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate and taken himself out of the mix as a possible running mate for Barack Obama.

Warner made his announcement Saturday at the state Democratic Convention in Hampton after accepting the nomination.

Warner said, “I have not sought and I will not accept any other opportunity.”

Warner has been among three Virginians frequently mentioned as potential running mates for Obama. The others are Senator Jim Webb and Warner’s successor, Governor Tim Kaine.

Former Governor Jim Gilmore is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate.

Warner and Gilmore hope to succeed Republican Sen. John Warner.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/14/warner-accepts-dem-senate-nomination-takes-himself-out-of-vp-running/

I think Mark Warner has the edge because his name is the same as the previous incumbent. There will be many that go to the polls who don't know the candidate & party have changed.

Minnesota Senate Race Update

It will be Al Franken, Democrat vs Incumbent Republican-former-Democrat Norm Coleman.

Mr Franken has never run for office before, at least not in the real world. He did once produce a satire, “Why Not Me?”, in which he was elected president on the single issue of cutting ATM fees, and then went mad and plotted to kill Saddam Hussein by beating him with a plaque reading “the world's greatest granddad”.

Al Franken
Lighten up

Jun 12th 2008
From The Economist print edition
A comedic Senate campaign

AP Not so funny now

AN IMPLAUSIBLE politician has just become somewhat less so. On June 7th Al Franken, a former comedian on “Saturday Night Live”, radio commentator and author of books such as “Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”, won the endorsement of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labour party (DFL) for the post of senator.

In an era in which presidential candidates compete on comedy shows, it may not be surprising that a former comedian fancies himself a politician. But comedians have an unfortunate habit of making jokes. Mr Franken's path to the DFL nomination was fraught, thanks in part to “Porn-O-Rama!”, a fantasy he wrote for Playboy in 2000. Defeating the Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman, will be even more harrowing.

Mr Franken has never run for office before, at least not in the real world. He did once produce a satire, “Why Not Me?”, in which he was elected president on the single issue of cutting ATM fees, and then went mad and plotted to kill Saddam Hussein by beating him with a plaque reading “the world's greatest granddad”.

His Senate campaign is, for better or worse, more demure. A main task has been to convince Minnesotans that he is one of them—he grew up there, but spent much of his adult life in New York. It helps that he has traversed the state campaigning for other DFLers. At a recent DFL dinner in Mankato, in southern Minnesota, he chatted comfortably about the flaws of their Republican governor and the merits of Minnesotans' egg coffee, made with both the yolk and the shell.

The harder job is to prove that he is serious enough for the Senate. Like many others trying to unseat a Republican, Mr Franken is fond of hyphens, blaming various “Bush-Coleman” policies for America's predicament. But he can also be wonky, and speaks soberly about universal health care and support for war veterans.

Nevertheless, few candidates could inspire enemies to such gleeful moustache twirling. A Republican blogger helped lead Mr Franken to admit in April that he owed $70,000 in taxes—he had paid taxes on his income, but not in all the right states. Worse news came in May, when state Republicans merrily re-presented “Porn-O-Rama!”. Then, just before the DFL's convention, the party unveiled an article from New York magazine in 1995 that describes Mr Franken joking about rape. Mr Franken has apologised, but the resurrection of Sexbots from “Porn-O-Rama!” was hardly ideal for the founder of a “midwest values” political committee.

Despite all this, Mr Franken managed to defeat his opponent, an academic, and win the DFL's endorsement. He has tempered his rowdy sense of humour and is trying to direct attention to his policies. But his work as a comedian is a bottomless treasure chest for Republicans. Expect more Sexbots.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11551751
I've seen Sen. Coleman in action on C-Span, and he seems copmpetent to me (from NY, Jewish). Also, clearly, centrist since he went from Democrat to Republican. On the other hand, Franken is clearly Progressive, it is a change year, and he's well known nationally, so this may balance "incumbent" factor. But this is one time you don't want the politician telling jokes !

thagrimreaper

June 15th, 2008, 7:45 am

Virginia Senate Race update.

It will be 2 former Governors against each other.

Mark Warner has accepted Democratic Nomination for Senate race & is out of Veepstakes.

I think Mark Warner has the edge because his name is the same as the previous incumbent. There will be many that go to the polls who don't know the candidate & party have changed.

Considering Warner had around 80% approval ratings as Governor of Virginia, I'd say he's the shoo-in regardless of whoever his opponent is.

As of right now I see very likely Democratic pickups in Virginia, Colorado, & New Hampshire, & New Mexico (note how they are three swing states this time around). Alaska, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon should have the GOP running scared. Heck even McConnell was polling behind his challenger in a recent poll. The only realistic chance the GOP has of picking up a currently Democratic-held seat is Landrieu's in Louisiana. With cash not flowing into the coffers, dissatisfaction with the party at an all-time high, and party identification trends swinging heavily towards the Democrats, and Obama's expectation of bringing out millions of new voters, I can only agree with Tom Davis when he says:

"the Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."

Of course, this could all change in a few months - remember George Allen was polling 20 points ahead of Jim Webb at this point in time in '06.

lindaluna

June 16th, 2008, 4:55 am

Senator Ensign (R) picks toss up Senate Races.

In order for Republicans to be effective in the Senate, he said, to moderate Democratic policies, the G.O.P. can’t afford to lose four seats or more. To slip down four seats or more, below 45, would cripple the ability of Senate Republicans to threaten a filibuster.

Among the Senate races Mr. Ensign views as most competitive are Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

Alaska
Colorado
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
Virginia

Highly Vulnerable Republicans (12)
Illinois 11 (Open Seat) – Weller managed a 10 point victory in 2006, but his retirement opens up this key swing district in north-central Illinois big time for the Democrats. Debbie Halvorson, the Majority Leader of the Illinois State Senate will be the Democrat favored to win.

Michigan 07 (Walberg) – As a freshman Republican already having trouble with the press in this southern Michigan district, Walberg is now far more vulnerable than when he ran the first time. He faces a much stronger and well-financed Democratic challenger in 2008 in State Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer.

Nevada 03 (Porter) – Every two years this Southern Nevada district seems to have more Democrats move into town. Porter barely won last time, and has to convince a new round of voters that he is their best representative. Now he faces 2006 Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Dana Titus.

New Jersey 03 (Open Seat) – While not the closest race in 2006, this remains a Democratic-leaning district. Saxton’s retirement provides a great opportunity for Democrat pick up by Democratic candidate, State Senator John Adler. He will face Medford Township Councilman Chris Myers.

New Jersey 07 (Open Seat) – Republican Rep. Mike Ferguson barely won re-election in 2006, and with his retirement, this seat is wide open for the Democrats to take it over. The Democrat is 2006 challenger, State Assemblywoman Linda Stender. The Republican is Leonard Lance, the Fmr. State Senate Minority Leader.

New Mexico 01 (Open Seat) – The Democrats have a good chance to take this seat, with Albuquerque Councilor Martin Heinrich facing Republican Bernalillo County Sheriff & Ex-State Secretary of Public Safety, Darren White.

New York 13 (Open Seat) – With a DUI and other issues plaguing him, the only Republican serving a New York City district has retired. Vito Fossella was likely a strong candidate for re-election if he didn’t slip, but that is no longer the case. The Democrats mounted a decent challenge in 2006, and are well positioned to take this seat, which has a strong margin of Democratic registration, despite going big for Bush in 2004. A primary will decide the Democratic and Republican challengers in September.

New York 25 (Open Seat) – This was a tight race in 2006 in this Democratic-leaning district. With Republican Jim Walsh retiring and the Republicans not yet able to put up a strong candidate as his successor, it is likely that 2006 challenger Dan Maffei will be a strong favorite in this district covering Syracuse.

New York 26 (Open Seat) – Tom Reynolds retirement offers a strong pick-up opportunity for the Democrats in Western New York State. Republican State Senator George Maziarz appeared to be a strong candidate to keep this seat in GOP hands, but he decided not to run. The Democrats will have a primary in September to decide whether popular challenger Iraq war veteran, Jon Powers will be take on the Republicans for this seat. Powers first has to defeat perennial Democratic candidate Jack Davis, the 2006 candidate.

Ohio 15 (Open Seat) – Deborah Pryce eked out a 1,000 vote victory in 2006 in this district covering parts of Columbus and its western suburbs. Her retirement leaves the GOP in hot water to defend this seat with Republican State Senator Steve Stivers facing Pryce’s 2006 challenger, Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy.

Ohio 16 (Open Seat) – Due to the retirement of Ralph Regula, this northern Ohio seat will be an open race for the first time in over three decades. Early signs indicate that this race is a strong pick-up opportunity for the Democrats. State Senator and Air Force Reserve Major John Boccieri will be the Democrat facing Republican State Senator Kirk Schuring.

Virginia 11 (Open Seat) – Tom Davis’ retirement opens the door for the Democratic takeover many have been waiting for in Fairfax and throughout the DC suburbs that make up Virginia’s 11th district. Tim Kaine won big here in 2005 in the Governor’s race, and Jim Webb won big here in the Senate race in 2006. The Democrats have a high profile candidate in Gerry Connolly, who will face Republican businessman, Keith Fimian.

Vulnerable Republicans (17)
Alabama 02 (Open Seat) – Although a red district, the retirement of Terry Everett and emergence of Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright as the Democratic candidate creates a real buzz in this southeastern Alabama district. His challenger will be decided in July.

Alaska at large (Young) – Don Young has represented Alaska for a long time, and as such he appears to have been corrupted by it. He faces a strong primary challenge in August. That leaves an opening for Ethan Berkowitz, former leader of the Democrats in the Alaska legislature and from personal experience he is an all-around nice guy. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich was rumored to be challenging for the house seat, but instead he is running for Senate, where he should finally give Ted Stevens a good run.

Arizona 01 (Open Seat) – Rick Renzi’s retirement opens up this seat, Arizona’s largest geographically, which hosted a worthwhile challenge by Ellen Simon in 2006 against the incumbent Republican. Renzi’s indictment makes it even tougher for the Republican candidate, who’ll have to distance himself or herself from Renzi. McCain will likely help the GOP candidate a lot, however. Democratic and Republican primaries will take place on September 2nd.

Colorado 04 (Musgrave) – Musgrave pulled out a 3-point victory in 2006 and this seat remains up for grabs in a district covering Eastern Colorado and Fort Collins. Betsy Markey, Musgrave’s 2008 opponent had a poll come out recently putting her ahead by 7 points. She has been campaigning since the fall of 2007 and has racked up impressive fundraising numbers.

Connecticut 04 (Shays) – Shays has threatened to retire if not given a ranking committee assignment. If he leaves, this Democratic-leaning seat could be an easy pick up. However, even if he stays, this seat cannot be ruled out because he has only won by two or three points in each of the last two elections.

Florida 13 (Buchanan) – Katherine Harris’ old seat became a battleground when she left to run her hilariously terrible Senate race in 2006. Democrat Christine Jennings faced off with Republican Vern Buchanan in what became one of the closest House races ever. Jennings lost by only 369 votes, and afterwards raised questions about accurate vote-counting. Will this coastal district in West Florida be as close this time? That remains to be seen. However, you cannot discount a race that close, and assume Vern Buchanan will have an easier time in 2008.

Illinois 10 (Kirk) – Moderate Republican Mark Kirk survived in this Democratic majority district in 2006 in the Chicago suburbs, but he remains vulnerable in 2008, and will face Dan Seals, his challenger in 2006.

Louisiana 04 (Open Seat) – With Republican Jim McCrery retiring, this seat may be a compelling pick-up opportunity for Democrats in this emerging swing district in Western Louisiana. Democratic and Republican primaries will take place on September 6th.

Michigan 09 (Knollenberg) – Joe Knollenberg’s 6-point victory may be enough to convince Democrats to spend some real money in this southeastern Michigan district in 2008. Former State Lottery Commissioner and Fmr. State Senator Gary Peters will be his Democratic challenger in 2008.

Minnesota 03 (Open Seat) – With the retirement of popular GOP incumbent Jim Ramstad, this swing district in the Minneapolis suburbs becomes a potential pick up for the Democrats. Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia will face Republican state representative Erik Paulsen.

Missouri 06 (Graves) – This seat in Missouri’s Northwest corner will present a unique pick-up opportunity with the Democrats running former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes. Graves ran a commercial with Nancy Pelosi, techno music, and what he intended to look like people from the gay community dancing in leather. Barnes countered with a commercial about economic issues claiming that Graves only ran the commercial because had no record to stand on. Will this commercial blowing up in the NRCC’s face squelch future Republican attempts to scare voters with gay marriage and the word ‘liberal’ or will they too have to take on a more populist message?

New York 29 (Kuhl) – Kuhl has had close races in the last two elections. There is no reason to expect anything different this time, even in rural southwest New York State. He will face his 2006 opponent, Navy Veteran Eric Massa, whom he beat that year by only 6,000 votes.

North Carolina 08 (Hayes) – In 2006, Robin Hayes struggled to keep his seat east of Charlotte, winning by only a few hundred votes against a relatively unknown challenger, Larry Kissell, who he will face again in 2008.

Ohio 01 (Chabot) – Chabot’s 6-point victory in 2006 shows that beating him will be tough in this district in Ohio’s southwestern corner, but in 2008 he faces a much stronger challenger in minority whip of the Ohio state House, Steve Driehaus.

Ohio 02 (Schmidt) – Jean Schmidt faces Victoria Wulsin once again in 2008. This should be another horse race in this conservative southern Ohio district.

Pennsylvania 06 (Gerlach) – Jim Gerlach pulled out tight victories the last two elections in this swing district northwest of Philadelphia, and he may face another tight contest this time. His Democratic opponent is Bob Roggio, retired businessman and Democratic Activist.

Washington 08 (Reichert) – A tight race in 2006 is likely to be tight in 2008 in this Democratic-leaning district in suburban Seattle. 2006 candidate Darcy Burner is likely to be the Democratic nominee once again.

Slightly Vulnerable Republicans (13)

California 04 (Open Seat) – With an ongoing FBI investigation of he and his wife, John Doolittle retired, fearing a loss in this heavily Republican District in California’s Northeastern corner. Challenger Charlie Brown got close in 2006, and may still have a shot if the Republicans aren’t able to stray from Doolittle’s ethical issues. Still, Republican State Senator Tom McClintock will be a formidable opponent here.

Florida 08 (Keller) – This seat was more competitive in 2006 than many expected, and despite being in Central Florida, has a Cook rating of R+3. The August 26th primary will determine who will be the Democratic challenger.

Florida 24 (Feeney) – As an ethically challenged Republican, Tom Feeney may be a target in 2008. He received 58% of the vote in 2006, in a race that was pretty much ignored in Florida’s eastern coast. In 2006, Feeney faced a man who accused him of fixing his first election. Feeney was one of the characters featured in the HBO movie "Recount" about the 2000 Presidential Election, when he was the incoming Speaker of Florida House. In 2008, the August 26th primary will determine whom Feeney will face this time. He has become a DCCC target, more for his ethics than for his vulnerability.

Idaho 01 (Sali) – Sali angered a lot of Republicans in his time in the Idaho legislature, but still won this seat by 5 points despite GOP defects in the State Party. Given his knack for saying the wrong thing, Sali could slip up and give the Democrats another shot. He faces businessman Walt Minnick.

Michigan 11 (McCotter) – Despite a strong victory 11-point victory in 2006, McCotter remains a potential target in this district northwest of Detroit. Not to give him advice, but Thaddeus would be wise not to call people "the Devil" just because they disagree with his vote against expanding health care for children. I think that is more like something Jesus would do. His Democratic challenger will be decided in August 5th.

Minnesota 06 (Bachmann) – Bachmann’s strong victory in 2006 in this district northwest of Minneapolis may scare off some Democrats, but her far right conservatism may also scare off some voters. Here Democratic challenger is Elwyn Tinklenberg, a former Mayor of Blaine and the Commissioner of Transportation under Governor Jesse Ventura.

Missouri 09 (Open Seat) – Another open seat has been created by Kenny Hulshof running for Governor, this district covering northeastern Missouri may have some potential with former Missouri Democratic House Speaker Steve Gaw in the Democratic primary race. The Republican and Democratic primaries will be decided for this race on August 5th.

Nevada 02 (Heller) – Heller’s 6 point victory in 2006 was strong, but it does not change the fact that growth in Northern Nevada will keep this a swing seat in 2008.

Ohio 14 (LaTourette) – LaTourette won with 58% of the vote in 2006 in this district covering Ohio’s northeastern corner, yet this is still a swing district for 2008. Cook rating is R+2. LaTourette will face Appeals Court Judge William O'Neill, as his Democratic challenger.

Virginia 02 (Drake) – Despite losing in the polls with only a few weeks remaining until election day, Drake was able to keep her seat in southeastern Virginia by pulling out a decades old scandal on Democratic challenger Phil Kellam. The Democrats have another strong candidate to face her in 2008 in former diplomat Glenn Nye.

Virginia 10 (Wolf) – Despite a strong victory in 2006, Wolf faces a district in Northern Virginia that is trending more and more Democratic. He will face his 2006 opponent, Georgetown Professor, Judy Feder.

West Virginia 02 (Capito) – Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito won 57% to 43% in 2006, yet this race still remains a target for the Democratic Party. In 2008, Capito will face Former State Director for US Senator Byrd, Anne Barth.

Wyoming at-large (Open Seat) – The Republicans are clearly better off without Barbara Cubin running, since she only won by 1,000 votes in 2006 in this very conservative state. However, Gary Trauner ran a strong campaign in 2006, and could still be a tough challenge for whoever the Republican is that runs for this seat. The Republican primary will take place on August 19th.

10 Other Republican races to watch
Arizona 03 (Shadegg), Florida 15 (Open Seat), Illinois 06 (Roskam), Illinois 18 (Open Seat), Maryland 01 (Open Seat), Minnesota 02 (Kline), New Mexico 02 (Open Seat), Pennsylvania 03 (English), Pennsylvania 18 (Murphy), Virginia 05 (Goode)

Highly Vulnerable Democrats (9)
Alabama 05 (Open) – The retirement of Bud Cramer in this very "red" district encompassing the northern part of Alabama is a strong pick up opportunity for the GOP.

California 11 (McNerney) – Pombo’s defeat in 2006 appeared to be a great step for this district east of San Francisco, but its conservative voters may still change their minds. McNerney’s best hope is that his strong clean energy stance will help validate him with the high costs of oil. He faces a reasonably strong challenger in 2008 in Fmr. State Assemblyman Dean Andal.

Florida 16 (Mahoney) – Tim Mahoney may be fortunate that he probably won’t face a big name Republican in 2008, but this remains a tough district for Democrats. The August 26th primary will determine who will be his Republican challenger.

Georgia 08 (Marshall) – Jim Marshall faced a tough contest in this conservative central Georgia district in 2006. He may face an even tougher challenge in 2008 against his likely opponent, Retired Air Force Major General Rick Goddard.

Kansas 02 (Boyda) – Was Boyda’s victory in 2006 a fling for moderate-conservative voters, or will it be a lasting relationship? Jim Ryun appears to be up for a rematch. Too bad for him they aren’t competing in the Mile run. This district covers most of the Eastern Kansas border with Missouri, with the exception of Kansas City, Kansas and part of the college town of Lawrence.

Oregon 05 (Open Seat) – Darlene Hooley’s retirements opens up this seat for the Republicans. This seat covers the relatively-conservative state capital of Salem and Hooley won over 55% of the vote only once during her tenure. Democrats are running State Senator Kurt Schrader against the 2006 GOP nominee Mike Erickson.

Pennsylvania 10 (Carney) – This year, Chris Carney doesn’t have the luxury of running against a man embroiled in a sex scandal involving choking. This seat in Pennsylvania’s northeastern corner is strong Republican-leaning, and Carney faces a much tougher challenger this time out.

Texas 22 (Lampson) – Lampson had a lot on his side in 2006 in Tom Delay’s old seat south of Houston. Former aide to Senator Phil Gramm & US Navy Reserve Officer Pete Olson will be the Republican challenger. This would be a great victory if the Democrats can somehow hang on here.

Wisconsin 08 (Kagen) – Steve Kagen is a freshman Democrat in a Republican-leaning district in northeastern Wisconsin. He will face John Gard, Republican Speaker of the State Assembly and his challenger in 2006.

Vulnerable Democrats (6)
Arizona 08 (Giffords) – Although she had a strong victory to gain her seat in southeastern Arizona in 2006, Giffords now faces the President of the Arizona state Senate, Tim Bee. This should be an interesting race to see if she can still mount a big win in 2008.

Indiana 09 (Hill) – Former and current Congressman Baron Hill won back his seat in southeastern Indiana in 2006, but it was the closest of the three Democratic victories in Indiana that year.

Mississippi 01 (Childers) –Travis Childers victory over Greg Davis on May 13th made this the 3rd Republican Congressional loss in 2008. This remains a heavily GOP district, but after two successful victories, the 2nd by 8 points, Childers chances to retain his seat in Northern Mississippi may be better than previously thought.

New Hampshire 01 (Shea-Porter) – Shea-Porter pulled off a surprising victory in 2006 against heavily favored Jeb Bradley. If he wins the primary in September, Bradley will likely challenge her again to get his seat back.

New York 20 (Gillibrand) – In 2008, Kirsten Gillibrand will face some decent GOP opposition in Sandy Treadwell, former chairman of the New York State Republican Party. She had a large upset victory of ethically challenged John Sweeney in 2006 in this swing district in upstate New York.

Pennsylvania 04 (Altmire) – As a freshman, Altmire is likely to face a tough challenge for re-election against former Congresswoman Melissa Hart, who he beat in 2006 in this swing district northwest of Pittsburgh.

Slightly Vulnerable Democrats (12)
Arizona 05 (Mitchell) – While his victory was strong in 2006, the GOP could still mount a strong candidate against Harry Mitchell in 2008. This district in the Phoenix suburbs remains a swing district. In fact, there is presently a crowded Republican field vying for the opportunity. The Republican primary will be on September 2nd.

Georgia 12 (Barrow) – John Barrow remains a vulnerable Democratic incumbent, who may have kept his seat in 2006 only due to the Democratic wave. However, he does not appear to have as strong a Republican challenger in 2008 in this district in Eastern Georgia. Still, he faces a primary challenge from his own Party. Georgia Congressional primaries take place on July 15th.

Illinois 08 (Bean) – Melissa Bean survived a strong challenge in 2006 owed in part to the Democratic wave in this district covering the northeast corner of Illinois. She will have her work cut out for her to retain her seat again. She faces wealthy businessman Steve Greenberg in 2008.

Illinois 14 (Foster) – After Denny Hastert left office early, Democrat Bill Foster won the district’s special election 53-47 over Republican dairyman Jim Oberweis. This seat will remain slightly vulnerable for him as he enters Congress at a crazy time in this Republican-leaning seat in northern Illinois.

Louisiana 06 (Open) – Although this seat adds to the list of slightly vulnerable Democrats, do not fret. It was a Republican seat until May 3rd! That was until Democratic State Representative Don Cazayoux won the Special Election and took this seat from the Republicans. He will have to run again in November. The question is will he still take on former State Representative Woody Jenkins? The district covers Baton Rouge and remains a swing district.

Kentucky 03 (Yarmuth) – We have a rematch in the battle for Louisville between freshman John Yarmuth and Anne Northrup, the former Congresswoman he defeated in 2006. Although he defeated her soundly in 2006, that doesn’t mean facing this well-known candidate is an easy victory.

Minnesota 01 (Walz) – Walz pulled out a surprising victory in 2006 in this rural district covering southern Minnesota, but will likely face tough opposition in 2008. The Republican primary will take place on September 9th.

New Hampshire 02 (Hodes) – Freshman Democrat Paul Hodes may face a strong challenge for the seat he picked up in 2006. There is a crowded primary on the Republican side to be decided in September.

New York 19 (Hall) – Perhaps catapulted by his appearance on the Colbert Report, Hall’s surprise victory in 2006 had many in the GOP scratching their heads. He may be able to skirt trouble in 2008 if the GOP can’t get it together to mount a decent challenge in this district. The Republican primary is in September.

Ohio 18 (Space) – This conservative-leaning district east of Columbus was ripe for a
GOP comeback against the fortunate freshman Democrat who rode the Bob Ney corruption/resignation wave to his seat in 2006. Yet the GOP has not been able to secure a strong challenger for this contest.

Pennsylvania 11 (Kanjorski) – While not competitive in the last few elections, the decision by Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta to run for this seat may result in a close race in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Texas 23 (Rodriguez) – Democrats had to wait until December before Ciro Rodriguez could claim victory in this recently rearranged district in West Texas. He is likely to defend his seat this time, but remains somewhat vulnerable. He will face Republican Bexar County Commissioner Lyle Larson in the general election.

5 Other Democratic races to watch
Connecticut 02 (Courtney), Iowa 03 (Boswell), New York 24 (Arcuri), North Carolina 11 (Shuler), Pennsylvania 08 (Murphy)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/14/205334/712

purplehawk

June 17th, 2008, 7:59 pm

Talk about cowboy fantasies! Yuck!

Check out Senator John Cornyn's reelection ad (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/17/12252/4866/29/536965).

I can't find a YouTube.

WarriorEowyn

June 21st, 2008, 7:16 am

'Pears the Republicans have been right about one thing: the Democrats are a load of pansies. With a majority in both houses of Congress, they passed Bush's bill to give immunity to phone companies involved in the wiretap scheme and the one for more Iraq funds. For people elected substantially on the issues of ending the Iraq War and reining in executive overreach, that's fairly wimpy.

The Republicans have spend seven plus years muffing things up, but with a record like this, it's questionable whether the Dems deserve to win Congress in November.

That is what is so scary!

Further, while prices have been rising, supply has been going down and refinery capacity has been going down. I mean, I feel ... manipulated.
Excuse me if I'm being thick, but don't "decreasing supplies" and "increasing prices" normally go together?

Purp is right about trickle-down economics, though - since basically the whole world took a right turn in the '80s, living standards for much of the population have declined. This (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/07/17/united-states-income-inequality-map/) is a fascinating map of income inequality - the difference between the incomes of rich and poor - across the US: the areas with greatest income inequality, in other words the ones that are getting screwed the worst by supply-side economic policies, are the ones that tend to vote Republican, particularly the Southeast. The Republicans have conned millions of people in voting directly contrary to their own good; they've got a unique talent for it.

lindaluna

June 21st, 2008, 7:32 am

Excuse me if I'm being thick, but don't "decreasing supplies" and "increasing prices" normally go together?

No, I think it's a deliberate refusal to pump to push prices up because RESERVES are at an all time high (not national - corporate). Reserves = gas in storage.

Further, they've been doing revolving refinery "repairs" like they did with the electricity during Enron.

WarriorEowyn

June 21st, 2008, 7:36 am

No, I think it's a deliberate refusal to pump to push prices up because RESERVES are at an all time high (not national - corporate). Reserves = gas in storage.

Further, they've been doing revolving refinery "repairs" like they did with the electricity during Enron.
Hmm. That's possible. It makes economic sense - everyone knows that oil is a limited resource, so in order to get your best value the goal is to make as much as possible per barrel.

lindaluna

June 21st, 2008, 7:38 am

Apparently the "Enron loophole" that permitted speculation on energy futures, is closed/closing. It was closed in the Farm Bill, that Bush vetoed & McCain opposed (opposed!). It was submitted again, vetoed & passed by house & senate on June 19, 2008. So maybe ... I wish I knew more. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/washington/19farm.html?ref=us

I think something got tied into that bill. I'm not sure if it was the GI Bill (which McCain also opposed) or FISA, ie they let the telecoms off so they could get the energy traders.

Here's Info about US refining capacity.

The Saudis themselves have suggested that part of the run-up in prices is insufficient refining capacity in the United States. If American refineries can’t handle the amount of oil that’s already on the markets, how would more oil on the market help? they ask.

That question irks Charles Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the trade group for U.S. refiners.

"Is refining capacity tight? Absolutely. Are we awash in gasoline? Absolutely. There is not a problem in the supply of gasoline," he said in an interview.
http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2008_06_20_What_will_come_of_Saudi_summit__words_o r_cheaper_oil_and_gas_/srvc=home&position=recent

WarriorEowyn

June 21st, 2008, 8:09 am

I don't understand the farm bill either. I've heard that it's full of pork, which would be par for the course for agriculture legislation, and even Bush is saying it's a handout to the rich, which is a departure from his usual tone. Most farm subsides go to the big players, not "family farms".

lindaluna

June 21st, 2008, 8:27 am

Yes, when Bush says it's mostly pork for the rich I'm really scratching my head.

monster_mom

June 23rd, 2008, 5:58 am

Considering Warner had around 80% approval ratings as Governor of Virginia, I'd say he's the shoo-in regardless of whoever his opponent is.

Both Warner and Gilmore were popular Governor's and both have seen their "stars", if you will, tarnish a bit in VA since they left office. Warner seems to have the edge organizationally right now but Gilmore's scrappy and has a record of cutting taxes in VA so it should be interesting to see what happens.

There's also the run in VA's 11th Congressional District. Tom Davis (whom you quoted), a Republican who has long held the position, isn't running for re-election. The district is considered one of the wealthiest in the nation, George Bush only narrowly defeated Kerry and Jim Webb defeated George Allen hands down there, so it should be an interesting one to watch as well. It looks like the race will be Gerry Connelly (D) v/s Keith Fimian (R). Illegal immigration seems like a hot topic in that election.

lindaluna

June 24th, 2008, 2:44 am

Oregon Congressional Race gets interesting. Pro-Life candidate drove his girlfriend to abortion clinic 7 years ago & paid for her abortion.

Oregon City woman details abortion, relationship with Mike Erickson
Now a "pro-life" congressional candidate, he gave her $300 and took her to the clinic in Northeast Portland, Tawnya says

Monday, June 23, 2008
JANIE HAR and STEVE MAYES
The Oregonian Staff

An Oregon City woman who dated congressional candidate Mike Erickson seven years ago said she asked him directly whether he wanted to have a baby. He shook his head no, she said, and paid for her abortion.

In interviews with The Oregonian, the woman said she met Erickson in September 2000, and she had the abortion in January 2001. They saw each other afterward, she said, even going on a trip to Mexico in March, before the relationship ended. She spoke on the condition that only her first name, Tawnya, be used.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1214184327223290.xml&coll=7

Erickson is running in Oregon's 5th Congressional District. His website says:

It's clear to me that if respect for Congress is going to be restored, Congress is going to need some new faces and fresh ideas.
http://ericksonforcongress.org/

purplehawk

June 24th, 2008, 3:35 am

HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/mitch-mcconnells-senate-s_n_108642.html) (and quite a few others) say that Mitch McConnell's seat is now also in jeopardy this fall. The latest SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=93512353-3e37-43d5-ac76-42386ebf0a37) poll has the race at 50-46, which is a statistical tie.

lindaluna

June 24th, 2008, 7:05 am

Oh darn it - I was just about to post that.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was never expected to be challenged for his seat. A four-term incumbent from a deeply red state, his favorability ratings in Kentucky have stayed steadily over the 50 percent mark for much of the past year. But with the rapid disintegration of the Republican brand and with several self-made political missteps, McConnell now finds himself drawn into an electoral match-up once deemed an afterthought. A recent Survey USA poll had him beating his challenger Bruce Lunsford by a scant four percentage points: 50 percent to 46 percent.

Le Declin de l'Empire Republicain

Midnightsfire

June 24th, 2008, 4:55 pm

A quick post and run...(My boss is getting tired of me being late. And I don't think taking time for a thorough post is going to be an excuse he'll accept)

Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could-fall-2-if/story.aspx?guid={2673C102-68E0-41D9-9C9A-10EE2E723948}&dist=msr_13)
The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.
Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.
Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.
Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets.
"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."
Futures trading in London has not been a major factor in rising oil prices, testified Sir Bob Reid, chairman of the Chairman of London-based ICE Futures Europe. Rising prices are largely a function of fundamental supply and demand, not manipulation or speculation, he said.
"Energy speculation has become a growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the full committee. "We need to consider a full range of options to counter this rapacious speculation." It was Dingell's strongest statement yet on the role of speculators.
Dingell introduced a bill on June 11 that would ask the Energy Department to gather the facts on energy prices, including the role played by speculators.
There are two kinds of speculators in the futures markets, Masters said. Traditional speculators are those who need to hedge because they actually take physical possession of the commodities. Index speculators, on the other hand, are merely allocating a portion of their portfolio to commodity futures.
Index speculation damages price-discovery mechanisms provided by futures markets, Masters added
The committee will likely consider legislation that would rein in index speculation by imposing higher-margin requirements; setting position limits for speculators; requiring more disclosure of positions; and preventing pension funds and investment banks from owning commodities.
------------------------------------------------------

If this were to be the bandage on the bleeding prices (i.e. temporary fix) congress might actually become popular in a positive way.:p

lindaluna

June 25th, 2008, 12:52 am

Ending the Enron Loophole (which Phil Gramm, now with McCain's Campaign, helped write).

purplehawk

June 25th, 2008, 2:59 am

IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers, and the wounding of 30,000 more to make Iraq safe for Exxon. It is the inescapable open question since the reasons given by President Bush for the invasion and occupation did not exist, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

That's the first paragraph of an opinion piece (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/24/big_oil_and_the_war_in_iraq/) that appeared today in the Boston Globe. You can read the rest of it below the fold.

IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers, and the wounding of 30,000 more to make Iraq safe for Exxon. It is the inescapable open question since the reasons given by President Bush for the invasion and occupation did not exist, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported last week that several Western oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, BP, and Chevron, are about to sign no-bid contracts with the Iraqi government. Western oil had a significant stake in Iraqi oil for much of the last century until the government nationalized the industry in 1972. The Associated Press quoted Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit as saying he believed the contracts were a first step toward production-sharing agreements. "These companies are in it for the money, not to make friends," Gheit said.

This of course blows a hole in another ancient Bush fallacy, the one in which former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "the oil wells belong to the Iraqi people" and former secretary of State Colin Powell seconded him by saying Iraqi oil "will be held in trust for the Iraqi people." Former Deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz once claimed there was so much oil in Iraq that "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government."

No, all that is really happening is that while the American taxpayer is being turned inside out by the war, and while families bury the brave, the corporate colonialists get all the resources. Halliburton, the oil services company which Vice President Dick Cheney once led, last year reported a 49 percent rise in profits, to $3.5 billion.

KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary that provides food, shelter, and laundry services to soldiers, last year reported record profits and is about to share in a new 10-year, $150 billion contract. The controversial North Carolina-based private security firm Blackwater, whose guards shot and killed 17 Iraqis in one incident last year, has crossed the billion-dollar mark in government contracts, charging, according to the Raleigh News and Observer, $1,221 a day for security guards who are actually paid $500 a day.

This is despite repeated charges of waste, overcharging and recklessness, and a degree of patriotism that verges on betrayal. As many veterans were being treated amid appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Halliburton CEO Dave Lesar last year moved from Texas to Dubai. The Globe last March reported on how KBR has avoided paying perhaps half a billion dollars in Social Security and Medicare taxes since the start of the invasion by hiring employees through shell companies in the Cayman Islands.

Now comes Big Oil itself, which is already basking in record profits. Its interest in Iraq, which has the world's third-largest oil reserves according to the federal government, is utterly transparent. A decade ago, then-Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr said "I'd love Chevron to have access to" the Iraqi oil reserves. A Los Angeles Times news account just before the invasion said, "Maybe it's a coincidence, but American and British oil companies would be long-term beneficiaries of a successful military offensive . . . Industry officials say Hussein's ouster would help level the playing field . . . a bonanza for the US-dominated oil-services industry."

Who will stop the bonanza or at least ensure that it is not an utter windfall for CEOs as US soldiers risk their lives keeping the peace and as Iraqis continue to struggle out of the rubble of the invasion? That is unclear. Of the two presumptive nominees for president, Democrat Barack Obama makes the most noise against oil profiteering and indeed, Republican John McCain has received more money overall from Big Oil. But Obama has received enough campaign contributions to leave it an open question as to how much leadership he would exert. We know Big Oil is in this for the money. Nothing says it is returning to Iraq in the name of the people.

ETA:

Question of the Week IMO: What about the FISA bill?

Most of you are aware, of course, that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer pulled a major capitulation on the one non-negotiable provision of the reauthorization of this bill: that of retroactive immunity for the telcoms that acceded to Bush's request that, essentially, they break the law governing wiretaps of American citizens.

By the time the bill shot out of the House late last week and landed in the Senate today, the left and center-left had mounted a tsunami of criticism aimed squarely at their senators.

Senator Russ Feingold and Senator Chris Dodd (http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_fisaamendments.html) came out strongly against passage.

"This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

"If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation."

Sen. Ron Wyden announced that he will oppose cloture for wiretapping bill (http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=299642&):

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, announced today that he would oppose new legislation amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) due to his continued opposition to a provision that would grant blanket retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program.

"This is not the first time that the President has pressured Congress into interfering in federal court cases to cover-up his attempts to secretly rewrite the law. Congress’s previous attempts to bail-out the President—from the Detainee Treatment Act to the Military Commissions Act—have not only failed to solve the legal mess, but have often provided cover for the Administration’s failed counterterrorism policies," said Wyden.

"I see no reason for Congress to grant blanket immunity to companies that went along with the President’s wiretapping program for the better part of six years, even as it became increasingly clear that the legal foundation for this program was built on sand," Wyden continued. "It is not the role of Congress to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the courts. And while this bill offers the illusion of a fair judicial process, in reality, as the House Republican Leadership has noted, this is a mere ‘formality.’" ...

Senator Barbara Boxer took her peeve to the Senate floor (http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=299645):

I know that many of my colleagues in the Senate think we know enough about this program.

But we do not know enough. The Bush Administration trampled on the Constitution, and we are not doing anything in this bill to provide accountability.

This bill goes along with the premise that we hold up the Constitution when it suits us, and we set it aside when it hinders what we want to do.

Simply put, this bill is a fig leaf that attempts to hide the truth about the warrantless surveillance program at the expense of the rights of our citizens.

And if we vote for it today, we are perpetuating a cover-up.

I want to be clear – I support giving our government every tool necessary to track down terrorists and protect our citizens.

I voted to go after al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I believe it is the responsibility of the Congress to provide all of the tools necessary to fight terrorism and protect the American people.

But we have another responsibility, I believe, of equal importance; and that is our responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rights of our citizens....

We can and must do better, and therefore I oppose this bill.

And Harry Reid jumped off the fence... finally (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/06/24/feingold-dodd-to-fight-fisa/):

"Unfortunately, the FISA compromise bill establishes a process where the likely outcome is immunity to the telecommunications carriers who participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Reid remains opposed to retroactive immunity, which undermines efforts to hold the Bush Administration accountable for violating the law. Thus, he will cosponsor the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Feingold to strip out the immunity provision, and support their efforts to strip immunity on the floor."

And Senator Obama is on record: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml).

Needless to say, I'm encouraged by these developments.

WarriorEowyn

June 25th, 2008, 3:17 am

If it passed the House, it will go through the Seante no problem. All it needs is the support of the Republicans and Lieberman, which it should get. The Democrats chickened out on this one, no two ways about it.

As for limiting speculation in the energy futures market, it's a good idea but suggesting it will cut oil prices by more than half ignores the fact that energy is a global commodity and nothing's stopping non-Americans from speculating on it.

purplehawk

June 25th, 2008, 3:35 am

lindaluna

June 25th, 2008, 4:59 am

If it passed the House, it will go through the Senate no problem. All it needs is the support of the Republicans and Lieberman, which it should get.

There may be moderate Republicans or Republicans who won't show for the vote who make a difference. But I know what you mean.

I don't understand the farm bill either. I've heard that it's full of pork, which would be par for the course for agriculture legislation, and even Bush is saying it's a handout to the rich, which is a departure from his usual tone. Most farm subsides go to the big players, not "family farms".

Obama says part of the "pork" McCain was complaining about was for levee repair.

purplehawk

June 26th, 2008, 1:57 am

Wow! Just wow!

Senator Chris Dodd gave a behind-kickin' speech on FISA in the Senate last night. Here's a YouTube of about four minutes of the speech, but I urge you to go to the Senator's website and listen to, or read, the entire thing (http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476).

ooRHHTqAva0

Harper's poses the relevant question on this make-or-break FISA debate: Will the National Surveillance State Prevail Again? (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003151)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I've gotta tell you: My personal liberties and rights are too important to me to sit back quietly and let this happen again. I hope Dodd and Feingold prevail on this one.

monster_mom

June 26th, 2008, 2:36 am

Well, Eowyn, I have to hope not. Republicans in the Senate have stopped some good legislation and then turned around and complained that "Democrats can't get anything done." Maybe they'll cobble together some procedural moves that can stop this one.

Tactics which were also utilized by the Democrats against the Republican majority with similar complaints. In other words, same ol same ol.

Obama says part of the "pork" McCain was complaining about was for levee repair.

Not all pork is bad pork - it's just that how it got into the bill makes it pork. Pork is essentially anything that's stuck in a bill without being subjected to debate.

As for limiting speculation in the energy futures market, it's a good idea but suggesting it will cut oil prices by more than half ignores the fact that energy is a global commodity and nothing's stopping non-Americans from speculating on it.

Exactly.

purplehawk

June 26th, 2008, 2:57 am

Tactics which were also utilized by the Democrats against the Republican majority with similar complaints. In other words, same ol same ol.

Of course! I just remember the (literal) on-camera spitting and snarling from former Majority Leader Bill Frist when the then-minority Democrats exercised the filibuster before taking their slim majority in 2006. Reid has at least been realitively civil about it. I think it takes a lot of chutzpah, though, for the GOP to complain now considering their actions in the previous six years.

What do you think about FISA?

monster_mom

June 26th, 2008, 3:31 am

Of course! I just remember the (literal) on-camera spitting and snarling from former Majority Leader Bill Frist when the then-minority Democrats exercised the filibuster before taking their slim majority in 2006. Reid has at least been realitively civil about it. I think it takes a lot of chutzpah, though, for the GOP to complain now considering their actions in the previous six years.

Same ol same ol. The majority party tries to enact legislation supporting it's point of view, the minority party does everything in it's power to stop the legislation (if they disagree with it - surprisingly the parties agree on lots of issues we never hear about), and then both parties try to claim that the other steamrolled them.

What do you think about FISA?

Haven't had much time to think about or research it. FISA clearly needs updating as our technological capabilities have changed significantly since the late 70's when it was enacted. Whether FISA is or was ever intended to cover surveillance of conversations in foreign countries (but carried on US based networks) is something Congress should determine.

From my very limited research into the issue, immunity for telcos lies at the heart of the debate. Again, based on my limited research on Wikipedia the telcos are prohibited from disclosing in court the justifications and methods employed by security agencies to obtain data for security reasons because knowing how the data is obtained would allow suspected bad guys to get around the surveillance. Since they can't disclose the methods and justifications in court, the telcos are unable to defend themselves against violations of right to privacy suits brought by people concerned that their communications might have been intercepted and reviewed.

From what I gather, the immunity provisions in FISA would protect participating telcos from those privacy lawsuits. That seems entirely reasonable to me considering it is the government which prohibits the telcos from disclosing information which might be vital to defending themselves.

That's just my take on it from my extremely limited research. I'm sure there's more to it that I haven't discovered yet (especially if I look beyond Wikipedia:lol:) but I haven't had the time to look into it.

purplehawk

June 26th, 2008, 3:40 am

I'm having the same trouble getting a clean understanding of what's going on with that bill. My gut instinct is to oppose it for reasons I've stated before.

monster_mom

June 26th, 2008, 4:30 pm

I'm having the same trouble getting a clean understanding of what's going on with that bill. My gut instinct is to oppose it for reasons I've stated before.

:lol: It does seem complicated, doesn't it? I had to read the Wikipedia entry several times just to have a very limited understanding of the issue.

It seems like politics (from both sides) kind of got in the way of good sense here with both parties painting to other party into a corner and neither really addressing the issue.

Again, based on my EXTREMELY limited research, it seems like FISA was enacted in the late 70's to address the process the government needed to initiate electronic surveillance of US citizens (generally by tapping into their phone lines). Because phone lines are physical structures, that could be accomplished easily and the technology used to tap into a phone line could be maintained and controlled by the government entity. Bad guys (for lack of a better word) could get around the surveillance by using a different phone at a different location (like a pay phone or a neighbors phone).

Technology has changed, cell phones abound, and email is a huge means of communication and email doesn't have to originate from the same physical structure or terminate at the same physical structure. You can send email from anywhere and receive it anywhere. Just like airports crisscross the world and you may have to go to Pittsburgh to get to Miami from DC, email frequently travels a long distance between the sender and a recipient even when the two may be physically located within one mile of one another, and the "hub" the email is carried across is sometimes located in the US.

Enter FISA and the debate. FISA was always intended for domestic surveillance (within the US). The problematic emails are ones the government wants to look at from senders and recipients located outside the US but are carried across US servers. From what I gathered from the Wikipedia article, the debate surrounds the fact that the data is gathered off the US based servers because those same servers carry email traffic from domestically based and internationally based senders and receivers.

I may be totally screwing this up because it's just what I understood from the Wikipedia article, but that's what seems to be the underlying problem. If government agencies grab an bundle of data from the US servers they could pick up domestic and international communications, and the rules regarding intercepting domestic communications are governed by FISA.

The government's assertion is that they are only interested in the foreign correspondence and any domestic correspondence is discarded so FISA doesn't apply while privacy advocates say it's an invasion of privacy, constitutes "warrentless wiretapping", and violates FISA. Since the government can't be sued for financial damages privacy advocacy groups want to be able to sue the telcos which provided the bundles of data.

This is just what I gathered from the Wikipedia articles on the issues. My understanding is very basic and I may have gotten the whole thing confused, so please, anyone, feel free to correct me where I got it wrong !

purplehawk

June 26th, 2008, 7:47 pm

I've just been briefed on it, but I'm not at liberty to speak for the Obama campaign.

ETA:

I've just found this: I’ll See Your Wiretap and Raise you Weapons of Mass Destruction: FISA 2008 Analysis (http://technosailor.com/2008/06/22/ill-see-your-wiretap-and-raise-you-weapons-of-mass-destruction-fisa-2008-analysis/). It's written by a lefty blogger named Aaron Brazell, but it offers a clear, concise, lay person's view of the differences between FISA1978 and FISA2008. You'all may disagree with his conclusions, certainly, but he's done a fine job in laying it out for the Average Joe.

monster_mom

June 26th, 2008, 10:26 pm

lindaluna

June 28th, 2008, 10:18 am

Minnesota Senate Race ~ Coleman (R-Incumbent) 52%, Franken (D-Challenger) 40%
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_al_franken_way_behind_in.php

purplehawk

June 30th, 2008, 9:48 pm

Geez Louise, this is great. The "Swing State Project" has put together the ultimate chronology entitled: The Modern Republican Party: A Compendium of Catastrophe (http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2303). This thing is shadenfreuderrific if you're a Democrat. Beginning in January 2007, right after the GOP lost control of both Houses of Congress, it lists each uh-oh in every race, in every state and local government in which the GOP has taken a hit. We all know things aren't looking good for them this year, but I think we sometimes forget just how bad things really are.

Another great resource is this Daily Kos story: Rebuilding From the Ground Up (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/30/105713/195/7/544090)

monster_mom

July 1st, 2008, 2:32 am

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Strange question for the Congress thread, but still pertinent. A few months ago Congress passed a chunk of legislation which included, among other things, a requirement that incandescent light bulbs be phased out by 2011 and replaced with compact florescent bulbs (CFL). The problem, CFL's contain mercury and are considered a hazardous material by the EPA. The EPA actually has a rather long and very explicit set of instructions we're supposed to follow should and CFL break in our homes.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

Well, this bill passed with little fanfare and, in a few short years we'll be crossing the border to Canada to buy incandescent bulbs much like we do to buy toilets that actually flush. Congress, being Congress, actually debated the CFL's and here's a clip of one such speech. The speech itself is mildly entertaining, but check out Rep Tancredo's reaction (Tancredo is the man sitting behind the speaker). Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

purplehawk

July 1st, 2008, 4:29 am

Oh.my.God. :lol:

That was hilarious!

I hate those light bulbs with a passion. Not just for the mercury, but they don't work with my lamps!

monster_mom

July 1st, 2008, 4:18 pm

Oh.my.God. :lol:

That was hilarious!

I hate those light bulbs with a passion. Not just for the mercury, but they don't work with my lamps!

I loved watchign Rep Tancreado's reaction. He was getting quite chuckle out of the outher guy's speech!

I made the mistake of buying some that supposedly crated an "outdoor like" glow. Yea. They make everyone look blue.

purplehawk

July 1st, 2008, 4:52 pm

I have to admit, in all seriousness, that I've been stocking up on light bulbs for a while now. Our local Sam's Club doesn't even sell incandescent bulbs any more, so I buy a few dozen boxes every time I go to the grocery store.

God, I remind myself of my grandmother! She stored an incredible amount of canned food, bottled water, and dried beans for years in case of a nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War. I still remember the awful hassle of cleaning out her shelter after she died, and here I am hoarding eight different wattages of light bulbs. :whistle:

monster_mom

July 1st, 2008, 5:23 pm

I have to admit, in all seriousness, that I've been stocking up on light bulbs for a while now. Our local Sam's Club doesn't even sell incandescent bulbs any more, so I buy a few dozen boxes every time I go to the grocery store.

I've been doing the same thing! My husband thought I was insane until he saw the blue lights. Now he stocks up every time he goes out.

lindaluna

July 3rd, 2008, 10:54 am

I like them (you can get different shades you know ! ) You put them in and you never change, for like 2 years. And they are not always broken as soon as you get them out of the box.

monster_mom

July 4th, 2008, 4:03 pm

It is being widely reported that Jessie Helms has passed away.

purplehawk

July 4th, 2008, 5:07 pm

It is being widely reported that Jessie Helms has passed away.

Yeah. Former Republican N.C. Sen. Jesse Helms dies at 86 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_re_us/obit_helms_13)

I can't say I'm at all sorry.

monster_mom

July 4th, 2008, 10:50 pm

Yeah. Former Republican N.C. Sen. Jesse Helms dies at 86 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_re_us/obit_helms_13)

I can't say I'm at all sorry.

Whether you agree with his opinions or not, the man served the country to the best of his ability for a long long time and deserves more than disdain.

purplehawk

July 4th, 2008, 11:08 pm

the man served the country to the best of his ability for a long long time.

He shamed this country.

... and deserves more than disdain.

I can offer contempt, if you like.

Hes

July 4th, 2008, 11:20 pm

I can offer contempt, if you like.

But you and me both know we are not going down this road.

Discuss the man's contributions to US politics, but do not get personal and show the dead a little respect or post about a different topic.

purplehawk

July 8th, 2008, 4:06 am

WaPo has two opinions on Helms this morning:

The Jesse Helms You Should Remember (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070601767.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), written by Marc Thiessen, chief White House speechwriter and Foreign Relations Committee spokesman for Helms from 1995 to 2001.

The second, Jesse Helms, White Racist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602321.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) was written by David Broder on August 29, 2001 after Helms' retirement from the U.S. Senate and has been republished in its entirety.

Politicians are really pretty amazing when you think about it. Last week, we had the spectacle of presidential candidate John McCain trying to take credit for Jim Webb's G.I. Bill (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/27/141036/548/141/542955) after vigorously opposing it. Then, to add insult to injury, George Bush followed suit (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080619-11.html). Now we have Mike Turner (Republican from Ohio), who voted against the Webb bill (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll330.xml), claiming support and credit for its passage (http://www.timesgazette.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=154959&TM=34178.53). I honestly don't know how they can do things like this with a straight face. :lol::lol::lol:

GOP Rep Claims He "Was Proud to Support" G.I. Bill That He Voted Against (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/07/turner-flips-gi-bill/)

I've already fired off a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper.

WarriorEowyn

July 8th, 2008, 4:12 am

Whether you agree with his opinions or not, the man served the country to the best of his ability for a long long time and deserves more than disdain.
monster_mom, the man supported terrorism.

purp, the stuff on the GI bill is truly ridiculous. Do they really think people have that short of memories?

purplehawk

July 8th, 2008, 4:32 am

monster_mom, the man supported terrorism.

He sure did. At home, as well as abroad.

purp, the stuff on the GI bill is truly ridiculous. Do they really think people have that short of memories?

I guess they do. :no: Pretty amazing, actually.

Politico (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E4449B51-3048-5C12-0072614BA4046DE6) has a great piece on the so-called Obamacon phenomenon. If nothing else, it points up the fact Republicans are finding their path to reelection to be increasingly difficult. This sentence in the piece really stood out:

"There are two main strains to the Obamacan phenomenon: people who are inspired by Obama's post-partisanship, and those who want a complete blood transfusion for the GOP brand after the days of President Bush, Karl Rove and Tom DeLay."

Republican Senator Gordon Smith has adopted the time-honored position of aligning himself a presidential candidate in his reelection campaign. The only trouble is the candidate he chose is Barack Obama! I can't tell you what a hoot this was among the local office staff! See for yourself:

ZGDJijGCeO4

purplehawk

July 9th, 2008, 4:47 pm

Matt Drudge was first to blast the headline: "Congressional Approval Rating Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever," and within minutes Freedom’s Watch was blasting the news out to reporters. And by afternoon, Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida - the No. 3 Republican in the House - had welded it into a cudgel with which to beat Democrats over the head.

What none of these esteemed folks "got" about the Rassmussen poll is that the numbers weren't reflecting congressional approval ratings, even if Rasmussen’s own headline described them as such.

Rasmussen didn’t ask respondents whether they approved or disapproved of Congress; it asked respondents to rank Congress’ job performance as excellent, good, fair or poor.

Just 2 percent rated the performance as excellent, and 7 percent rated it as good.

Add those up, and you get 9 percent.

But 36 percent of Rasmussen’s respondents said they consider Congress’ job performance to be fair. Is that approval or disapproval?

Single digit approval? Not exactly (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11617.html)

monster_mom

July 9th, 2008, 7:40 pm

Seems the Democrats in Congress want to curtail the right of members of Congress to post to interest sites.

The Committee on House Administration, according to a release by House Republican Leader John Boehner, is considering adopting rules which would "require outside websites such as YouTube to comply with House regulations before Members of Congress could post videos on them." The Committee is also seeking to establish rules which would prohibit members of Congress from posting reports, videos, or commentary on websites that are not “approved” by the Committee on House Administration.

http://culberson.house.gov/news.aspx?A=441

http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/07-09-08_lettertopelosioninternetfreedom.pdf

lindaluna

July 9th, 2008, 8:08 pm

Matt Drudge was first to blast the headline: "Congressional Approval Rating Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever,"

I think Pelosi needs to understand how upset people are with FISA.
She seems to be taking stances that lose support but don't gain any.

Jesse Ventura may enter Minnesota Senate Race.
http://blog.politicslaw.org/2008/07/jesse-senator-ventura.html

Against Norm Coleman (who he beat for Governor) and Al Franken.

http://www.drudgereport.com/afv.jpg

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/jesse-ventura-t.html

Filing deadline is Tuesday July 15th (next Tuesday).

purplehawk

July 12th, 2008, 12:33 am

I think Pelosi needs to understand how upset people are with FISA. She seems to be taking stances that lose support but don't gain any.

Sadly, I think the point is to protect down-ticket Democrats from being lambasted as "soft on terror" by the right. I wouldn't be surprised if FISA, as presently constructed, survives the first six months of an Obama presidency.

This is just my opinion, of course.

monster_mom

July 12th, 2008, 5:08 pm

Sadly, I think the point is to protect down-ticket Democrats from being lambasted as "soft on terror" by the right.

Or it could be that they're trying to show that they are capable of negotiating and compromising on difficult issues with the Republicans. Unfortunately the counter argument, which seems to be coming from their own party, is that they shouldn't compromise on issues which they believe could undermine our civil liberties.

purplehawk

July 12th, 2008, 7:03 pm

I agree with the counter-argument, though. I think it was wrong, wrong, wrong for them to let this one get by.

lindaluna

July 19th, 2008, 10:56 am

Al Franken is going to get some help, Eric Schultz.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/edwards_vet_heads_to_help_fran.html

At least he dodged the Ventura bullet.

Or it could be that they're trying to show that they are capable of negotiating and compromising on difficult issues with the Republicans. Unfortunately the counter argument, which seems to be coming from their own party, is that they shouldn't compromise on issues which they believe could undermine our civil liberties.

I wonder if FISA was part of a bigger deal. Ie Medicare Bill passed and overcame Bush veto.

monster_mom

July 19th, 2008, 4:20 pm

I wonder if FISA was part of a bigger deal. Ie Medicare Bill passed and overcame Bush veto.

Don't know.

I see the decision to support FISA as political calculation. To me, it's an election year and the Democrats don't want to be painted as soft of terror so they voted for FISA thinking that that one vote would invalidate the soft of terror charge. They also wanted to be viewed as above partisanship so they voted for FISA to demonstrate that they could work with the Republicans to get difficult legislation passed. They knew the base would react negatively to the vote but figured that the election was a long way away and the base would either forget, forgive them, or make lots of noise but not change their votes anyway.

monster_mom

July 21st, 2008, 7:03 pm

Ever the party poopers, just as oil prices are dropping (they're down almost 10% in one week), Congress, specifically Representative Oberstar (D-Minn), is considering raising the gas tax another 6 cents per gallon (from 18 centes currently to about 24 cents). The increase in needed, according to Oberstar, to cover an expected shortfall in funding for transportation initiatives because American's are driving less and using fewer gallons of gasoline.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386643,00.html

flimseycauldron

July 21st, 2008, 9:44 pm

monster_mom

July 22nd, 2008, 4:42 pm

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I couldn't decide either! As long as gas prices are as high as they are, people are going to curtail discretionary spending (on things like vacations, eating out, and home electronics) to cover purchasing gas and food and back to school supplies (whose prices are also going up in part because transportation costs are rising). And it's only goign to get worse in the coming months when people purchase home heating oil and have to turn on their heaters.

What's most interesting is that the transportation committee was considering raising the gas tax by about 6 - 8 cents per gallon before this small drop in prices. It was the drop in purchasing that brought about the need to raise the tax since the tax is assessed per gallon purchased not on the total charged. There's even talk (within the same committee) to change the tax from a per gallon tax to a sales tax. And the bill to raise taxes has been killed twice before.

I still can't decide whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunately, sewing my money into my mattress won't work.......

Midnightsfire

July 22nd, 2008, 5:20 pm

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

There's more to this than was posted.

The term "transportation initiatives" is a dubious term that really means things related to not only roads, but bridges as well. Oberstar is from Minnesota, where they had a terrible bridge collapse.

Condition of US Bridge (http://www.bts.gov/current_topics/2007_08_02_bridge_data/html/bridges_us.html)

US Bridges (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=22) report card:

Much of the US Infrastructure is either too old or deficient.

Oberstar's bill won't get passed, unless another bridge collpases:

Gas Tax May hit some political potholes (http://www.startribune.com/local/11552161.html)

Republican Sen. Norm Coleman suggested that addressing the nation's infrastructure is not a question of money, but of making it a priority. "I'm not yet prepared to accept a gas tax increase as the solution," he said.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, suggested other remedies first. "We should look at closing lucrative loopholes for the big oil companies and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for people making over $336,000 per year before adding another burden on the middle class," she said.

Some analysts say it is far from clear that Oberstar, counting on the emotion of the Interstate 35W bridge tragedy, will get the new highway money he has so long sought.

"The senior leaders of the Transportation Committee have been dreaming about raising the gas tax for years," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit government watchdog group in Washington.
Ashdown, who coined the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" two years ago to deride the now-infamous $223 million bridge proposal for Alaska's barren Gravina Island, remains a skeptic. "I get really nervous when lawmakers say spend, spend, spend, and we'll all be OK," he said.

Some interested parties, such as T. Peter Ruane of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, have lauded Oberstar's plan as a break from "business as usual."

The American Society of Civil Engineers has also endorsed Oberstar's plan.
But others, like oil industry spokesman Frank Maisano, take note of the popular opposition -- including a recent Survey USA and KSTP-TV poll showing 57 percent of Minnesotans opposed.

"As you continue to put additional burdens on consumers, they tend not to be interested in the cost of those burdens," Maisano said.

monster_mom

July 22nd, 2008, 5:48 pm

There's more to this than was posted.

The term "transportation initiatives" is a dubious term that really means things related to not only roads, but bridges as well. Oberstar is from Minnesota, where they had a terrible bridge collapse.

Condition of US Bridge (http://www.bts.gov/current_topics/2007_08_02_bridge_data/html/bridges_us.html)

US Bridges (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=22) report card:

Much of the US Infrastructure is either too old or deficient.

Oberstar's bill won't get passed, unless another bridge collpases:

Gas Tax May hit some political potholes (http://www.startribune.com/local/11552161.html)

Republican Sen. Norm Coleman suggested that addressing the nation's infrastructure is not a question of money, but of making it a priority. "I'm not yet prepared to accept a gas tax increase as the solution," he said.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, suggested other remedies first. "We should look at closing lucrative loopholes for the big oil companies and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for people making over $336,000 per year before adding another burden on the middle class," she said.

Some analysts say it is far from clear that Oberstar, counting on the emotion of the Interstate 35W bridge tragedy, will get the new highway money he has so long sought.

"The senior leaders of the Transportation Committee have been dreaming about raising the gas tax for years," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit government watchdog group in Washington.
Ashdown, who coined the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" two years ago to deride the now-infamous $223 million bridge proposal for Alaska's barren Gravina Island, remains a skeptic. "I get really nervous when lawmakers say spend, spend, spend, and we'll all be OK," he said.

Some interested parties, such as T. Peter Ruane of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, have lauded Oberstar's plan as a break from "business as usual."

The American Society of Civil Engineers has also endorsed Oberstar's plan.
But others, like oil industry spokesman Frank Maisano, take note of the popular opposition -- including a recent Survey USA and KSTP-TV poll showing 57 percent of Minnesotans opposed.

"As you continue to put additional burdens on consumers, they tend not to be interested in the cost of those burdens," Maisano said.

If addressing infrastructure concerns was really what was driving the effort then wouldn't it be reasonable to adjust your spending priorities to reflect that concern? As it is, the transportation initiaties include more than 12% of pork projects for biking and hiking paths and peace gardens.

Total spending on transportation "earmarks" next year is likely to be about $8 billion, when legislative projects from a previously approved, five-year highway bill are factored in. A newly released report by the Department of Transportation's inspector general identified 8,056 earmarks totaling $8.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended in October, or 13.5% of the Transportation Department's $63 billion spending plan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-12-earmarks_N.htm

And that's from the 2007 Highway Bill which was proposed just a few weeks after the bridge collapse. All that pork makes we wonder whether Oberstar is really as concerned about infrastructure as he says he is.

WarriorEowyn

July 23rd, 2008, 2:59 am

If addressing infrastructure concerns was really what was driving the effort then wouldn't it be reasonable to adjust your spending priorities to reflect that concern? As it is, the transportation initiaties include more than 12% of pork projects for biking and hiking paths and peace gardens.
I would dispute that biking and hiking paths are "pork". Make bike trails, and bike lanes on roads, and people are encouraged to bicycle rather than drive. Bike and hike trails also provide enjoyable opportunities for exercise, while is a good idea considering the high proportion of overweight and obese people in the US. Along with transit, bike routes should be big priorities for the Transportation ministry - if you want to discourage people from driving you need to give them feasible alternatives as well as increasing the cost of gas.

A gas tax right now seems fairly ridiculous - people are already discouraged from buying it by the high cost. Taxing virtually anything else would be a better idea.

monster_mom

July 23rd, 2008, 3:38 am

I would dispute that biking and hiking paths are "pork". Make bike trails, and bike lanes on roads, and people are encouraged to bicycle rather than drive. Bike and hike trails also provide enjoyable opportunities for exercise, while is a good idea considering the high proportion of overweight and obese people in the US. Along with transit, bike routes should be big priorities for the Transportation ministry - if you want to discourage people from driving you need to give them feasible alternatives as well as increasing the cost of gas.

A gas tax right now seems fairly ridiculous - people are already discouraged from buying it by the high cost. Taxing virtually anything else would be a better idea.

But we're talking about the National Transportation Trust, not transportation initiatives for state or local governments. If I and my neighbors want to fund a bike path to the local commuter rail station then I and my neighbors should pony up the cash to pay for it. I shouldn't ask some poor guy struggling to make ends meet in Omaha to pay for my bike path.

Federal transportation projects are supposed to be those that affect inter-state transit, not those which are purely local. And when times are tough and the economy is struggling, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes. Especially taxes which hit hard working people the hardest.

******

Seems Congress is trying to take the easy way out on doing nothing. Today, Senator Byrd (D-WV) canceled a markup meeting of the appropriations committee. The committee was scheduled to mark up three bills, including an interior spending measure which Republicans were expected to offer an amendment calling for increased domestic oil drilling. Byrd stated that, "Given the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor, I have decided to postpone the July 24th appropriations markups at this time. It is my understanding that the Senate Democratic Leadership is committed to bringing up the second emergency supplemental appropriations bill in the Senate in September that will provide critical infrastructure funding and respond to national disasters, such as the California wildfires, the Midwest floods, and Hurricane Katrina.”

(bolding mine - that would be the bill raising gas taxes by about 6 - 8 cents per gallon).

According to The Hill, House Minority Leader John Boehner stressed that there are “clear majorities” in both chambers of Congress to support greater energy exploration, but blamed Democratic leadership for preventing votes on such issues.

So we've got really high gas prices that are affecting the economy in a big way and the Democrats response, in an election year, is to raise the gas tax.:no:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-says-energy-will-help-gop-in-the-fall-2008-07-22.html

WarriorEowyn

July 23rd, 2008, 4:38 am

And when times are tough and the economy is struggling, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes. Especially taxes which hit hard working people the hardest.
Why does the gas tax hit "hard-working people" the hardest? It seems to me it would hit people who don't use transit and had SUVs and the like with poor mileage the hardest. That's not to say the middle class won't be hurt by an increased gas tax, but the statement is pure spin.

Given the nature of the economic crisis, you're right that raising taxes on the middle, particularly lower-middle, class is the last thing that should be done. It's not like most bubbles that hurt mainly investors at first; fuel, food, and housing, basic needs, are the ones that are being hit. If the debt's going to be cut in any way there will need to be more taxes - but things like estate and capital gains would be much better than the gas tax.

purplehawk

July 23rd, 2008, 8:59 pm

There are occasions when I sincerely wonder if GOP candidates aren't losing their bearings this year. Case in point: Republican candidate Chris Myers, who gives us a splendid demonstration of the Twilight Zone of fake outrage stories with this press release (http://www.politickernj.com/kantonello/21694/myers-demands-adler-apologize-troops-veterans-military-families-web-video-comments).

Myers is demanding that his Democratic opponent, John Adler, apologize to "Troops, Veterans, Military Families" for "admiringly" referring to "radical liberal bloggers" from the Daily Kos and other liberal blog sites as "the new citizen soldiers." Referring to bloggers as "street soldiers" is, apparently, an insult to "Troops, Veterans" and "Military Families."

Here's the video that unhinged Myers:

-veLCjvWzQM

I wish I could say "Now I've heard it all!" with this story, but I have a feeling it's going to get worse as we get closer to November.

monster_mom

July 23rd, 2008, 9:43 pm

Why does the gas tax hit "hard-working people" the hardest? It seems to me it would hit people who don't use transit and had SUVs and the like with poor mileage the hardest. That's not to say the middle class won't be hurt by an increased gas tax, but the statement is pure spin.

If you live in a metropolitan area you can adapt -you can take public transit or car pool. But what about people who live outside metropolitan areas, whose jobs depend on them driving from point a to point b or operating gas powered machinery?

Despite high fuel prices, farmers still need to harvest their crops and ship them to market. Truck drivers still need to ship goods from one place to another. These are people for whom public transit isn't the answer and SUV's are 20 year old station wagons. These are the hard-working people hit hardest by increases in gas prices because they can't adapt their lifestyles based on high fuel prices.

Given the nature of the economic crisis, you're right that raising taxes on the middle, particularly lower-middle, class is the last thing that should be done. It's not like most bubbles that hurt mainly investors at first; fuel, food, and housing, basic needs, are the ones that are being hit. If the debt's going to be cut in any way there will need to be more taxes - but things like estate and capital gains would be much better than the gas tax.

But the tax increase we've been discussing isn't about cutting the debt - it's about raising the tax per gallon of gas to pay for transportation initiatives, of which more than 12% are pure pork. They should get rid of the pork first before they ask taxpayers to pay more.

WarriorEowyn

July 24th, 2008, 2:11 am

But the tax increase we've been discussing isn't about cutting the debt - it's about raising the tax per gallon of gas to pay for transportation initiatives, of which more than 12% are pure pork. They should get rid of the pork first before they ask taxpayers to pay more.
True. BTW, how do you assess what's "pure pork" and what isn't? I thought it was to some degree a matter of opinion.

EDIT:My point on the "hard-working Americans" comment was that it implies that the people hit hard by the tax are somehow harder-working than the rest of Americans, which just comes across as silly.

monster_mom

July 24th, 2008, 7:27 pm

True. BTW, how do you assess what's "pure pork" and what isn't? I thought it was to some degree a matter of opinion.

The estimate of the amount of pork comes from the US Dept. of Transportation Inspector General's Report on the effects of Congressional earmarks on transportation funding initiatives (what a title!). It is their estimate of projects unrelated to transportation infrastructure - like peace gardens and bike paths and hiking trails. There is no doubt that bike paths and hiking trails and peace gardens are nice to haves, but, to me, in difficult economic times the government ought to cut those nice to haves out and focus on the must haves before raising taxes.

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11008

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8902

Note: I tried to link the IG's report, but it's rather long and clicking on it caused my computer to crash (which is depending on dial-up today because cable was knocked out in storms last night). These two links are to CAGW reports on the amount of "pork" in the highway bill - in particular, the highway bill submitted just after the I-35 bridge collapse.

********

Apparently Congressional Republicans are promising filibuster any bills not pertaining to energy until the Senate votes on removing the remaining restrictions on off-shore drilling. A few days ago Senator Reid had curtailed discussion on energy because of concers about the rising tide of support for lifting the ban on off-shore drilling.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-gop-hands-dems-oil-ultimatum-2008-07-23.html

purplehawk

July 25th, 2008, 4:48 am

monster_mom

July 26th, 2008, 2:54 am

I'm glad I'm not a Republican in Missouri.

Asked to name his (or her) favorite from among the Founding Fathers, one of them responded "Abraham Lincoln."

The last candidate to respond said: "Ronald Reagan."

Oh.

My.

Gawd!

My four-year-old grandson can name all the Founding Fathers, their home states, and which ones became president.

I can only guess that he said that because Reagan is considered to be the founding father of modern conservativism.

******

The Washington Post had a scathing editorial today about Congressional Democrats (speaker Pelosi in particular) refusing to allow debate on offshore drilling.

WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor.

Good questions. Wonder if we'll get an answer?

purplehawk

July 26th, 2008, 3:49 am

Good questions. Wonder if we'll get an answer?

I saw that earlier today and almost posted it myself.

This is sheer election-year politicking in my opinion. Republicans are playing to the public's fury about gas prices and have developed a "drill-drill-drill" catchphrase they consider to be a winner. They want the American voters to believe that the only way out of this mess is to continue beating our heads against the same wall that's already given us an economic and national security debacle.

Case in point: the GOP used a procedural maneuver in the House today to defeat the Democrats' plan to release 10% of light sweet crude stored by the the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over a period of six months. That would give us a tangible, right-now effect at the pumps, and, more critically, relief from backbreaking heating oil prices this winter.

Republicans killed that initiative to (a) protect their talking point to the folks back home who will determine their futures in November; and (b) to protect oil company profits. Releasing that 10% would negatively impact the bottom line of companies like Exxon Mobile.

In short, your neighborhood Republican congressman wants you to continue paying high prices at the pump in order to protect oil company profits and to make sure they themselves are reelected so they can do this to you again in a few years. They are using the national security argument as the reason for foiling the Democratic plan.

Another point: ANWR is a part of this drilling bill they want.

Finally: Bush released a portion of the federal reserves in 2005 when his party was looking at an unfriendly electorate with the 2006 midterm elections already on the near horizon.

Oil Prices Gain After Defeat Of U.S. Reserve Bill (http://www.rttnews.com/Content/TopStories.aspx?Node=B1&Id=664428&Category=Top%20Stories)

You read that headline correctly. Gas prices spiked as soon as the Dems' bill was defeated, after dropping over the past two days.

ETA:

There's also this story: GOP threatens to block adjournment (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-threatens-to-block-adjournment-2008-07-25.html). Meaning, of course, they plan to prevent the House from adjourning unless they get a vote on their off-shore drilling bill.

monster_mom

July 26th, 2008, 4:11 am

I saw that earlier today and almost posted it myself.

This is sheer election-year politicking in my opinion. Republicans are playing to the public's fury about gas prices and have developed a "drill-drill-drill" catchphrase they consider to be a winner. They want the American voters to believe that the only way out of this mess is to continue beating our heads against the same wall that's already given us an economic and national security debacle.

On both sides. Democrats want to aviod a vote they have a strong possibility of losing. They don't want to face the wrath of their base for having failed to protect the ban on offshore drilling and don't want to face criticism from their constituents for voting against releasing the ban. Deferign debate is a win-win for them (and a lose-lose for legislative responsibility, as the WaPo editorial indicated).

Case in point: the GOP used a procedural maneuver in the House today to defeat the Democrats' plan to release 10% of light sweet crude stored by the the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over a period of six months. That would give us a tangible, right-now effect at the pumps, and, more critically, relief from backbreaking heating oil prices this winter.

It woudl reduce gas prices for a few months, but prices would rebound the moment the government began refilling those reserves. The reserves would have to be refilled a few months from now which would spike prices just before Halloween - just in time for those cold winter months.

In short, your neighborhood Republican congressman wants you to continue paying high prices at the pump in order to protect oil company profits and to make sure they themselves are reelected so they can do this to you again in a few years.

And the proof that they're doing this to protect oil company profits is where?

They are using the national security argument as the reason for foiling the Democratic plan.

And how is not addressing or increasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil in our national interest?

There's also this story: GOP threatens to block adjournment (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-threatens-to-block-adjournment-2008-07-25.html). Meaning, of course, they plan to prevent the House from adjourning unless they get a vote on their off-shore drilling bill.

As they should. It's not like they're blocking adjournment to get the vote to go their way - they just want a debate and a vote. Energy independence is one of the most important issues facing this country. It affects virtually everythign we do. Our legislators failing to open the issue to debate and refusing to vote on it is shameful!

Midnightsfire

July 26th, 2008, 5:35 am

As they should. It's not like they're blocking adjournment to get the vote to go their way - they just want a debate and a vote. Energy independence is one of the most important issues facing this country. It affects virtually everythign we do. Our legislators failing to open the issue to debate and refusing to vote on it is shameful!

Debate? Where does it say that? :lol:

In a memo circulated to the GOP caucus, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) implored his members to vote against adjournment for the August recess if the minority cannot secure a vote on offshore drilling or their “all of the above” energy plan.

Translation: Vote our way or we'll vote against adjournment.

Not a single word about debate.

purplehawk

July 26th, 2008, 3:51 pm

It woudl reduce gas prices for a few months, but prices would rebound the moment the government began refilling those reserves. The reserves would have to be refilled a few months from now which would spike prices just before Halloween - just in time for those cold winter months.

The Democratic plan is to draw from the federal reserves over a period of six months. That takes us into 2009, not Halloween 2008.

And the proof that they're doing this to protect oil company profits is where?

Um, the financial condition of the oil companies compared to that of most of the American people?

My opinion on this off-shore drilling/ANWR debate is pretty much the same. The oil giants already have rights to 80% of the off-shore opportunities the country has to offer. They've done nothing with them. Their record profits are going straight into their shareholders' and executives' pockets, rather than reinvesting them into drilling.

I think the only reason we're even discussing the remaining 20% and ANWR is because someone stands to make a pile of money if the restrictions are lifted.

monster_mom

July 26th, 2008, 4:38 pm

Debate? Where does it say that? :lol:

That's part of what they do when they give their speeches and yell at one annother on the floor - they cite the points which are important to them to justify their votes. At a minimum the American people deserve to hear their members of Congress explain how they stand on the issue and why and deserve to have them vote accordingly. Especially as polls show that more than 75% of American's support lifting the ban.

In a memo circulated to the GOP caucus, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) implored his members to vote against adjournment for the August recess if the minority cannot secure a vote on offshore drilling or their “all of the above” energy plan.

Translation: Vote our way or we'll vote against adjournment.

Not a single word about debate.

Not a single word about which direction the vote should go or whether delaying adjuurnment should be continued until they obtain a vote in their favor. It just says they should delay adjournment until there is a vote. Which, last time I checked, is what Members of Congress are elected to do.

The Democratic plan is to draw from the federal reserves over a period of six months. That takes us into 2009, not Halloween 2008.

Oh - even better. That sets the hike smack dab in the middle of winter.

Um, the financial condition of the oil companies compared to that of most of the American people?

Yes, but what evidence is there that the Republican's in Congress voted against releasing oil from the strategic reserves to protect the oil companies profits?

My opinion on this off-shore drilling/ANWR debate is pretty much the same. The oil giants already have rights to 80% of the off-shore opportunities the country has to offer. They've done nothing with them. Their record profits are going straight into their shareholders' and executives' pockets, rather than reinvesting them into drilling.

I think the only reason we're even discussing the remaining 20% and ANWR is because someone stands to make a pile of money if the restrictions are lifted.

In my opinion the drilling debate gets to the fundamental understanding of what keeps our economy running and foreign policy which. as far as I can tell, the Democrats either don't understand or don't care about.

Case in point:

Price of oil when Bush took office - $29

Price of oil when Democrats took over Congress - $51

Price of oil a few days ago - $145

Price of gasoline when Bush took office - $1.60

Price of gasoline when Democrats took over Congress - $2.34

Price of a gallon of gas today, when I put some in my car - $3.85

So, during Bush and Republicans tenure the per barrel price of oil rise by $22 and the price per gallon rose by about 94 cents. But, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress the price per barrel of oil has risen by $94, and the price per gallon of gas has risen by $1.51.

One could argue that the increase is due to the speculators, not Congress and that it's the Bush Administration's inability to manage speculation which has caused the problem. That argument would be partially correct - it is the speculators who have driven prices up. They've driven prices up because they know that if the Democrats control Congress and the White House, the supply of domestic oil won't increase and our dependence on foreign oil will continue to increase.

One could argue that if the oil and gas companies would take advantage of the leases they have now there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, that's not entirely ture. The oil compaines are using the current leases and they're hitting dry hole after dry hole. Here are some points which run counter to the argument that it's the oil and gas companies who are sucking us dry:

CLAIM:Oil and natural gas companies are given leases by the government and purposely don’t produce from them to increase prices.

FACT: Companies pay billions of dollars for the right to explore on federal lands. If the company does not produce within the lease term, it must give the lease back to the government, and the company does not recover the billions of dollars it may have invested.

CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them

FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market -- obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production -- is a long and complicated one.

CLAIM: If the lease doesn’t contain oil or natural gas, then the company shouldn’t have bought it.

FACT: There are tremendous risks and challenges involved in finding and producing oil and natural gas. There is no guarantee that a lease will even contain hydrocarbons. It is not unusual for a company to spend in excess of $100 million only to drill a dry hole. A company usually has only has limited knowledge of resource potential when it buys a lease. Only after the lease is acquired, will the company be in the position to evaluate it, usually with a very costly seismic survey followed by an exploration well.

CLAIM: There’s absolutely no reason for a company not to produce if it finds oil or gas on the lease.

FACT: If the company finds resources in commercial quantities, it will produce the lease. But there can sometimes be delays – often as long as seven to 10 years – for environmental and engineering studies, to acquire permits, install production facilities (or platforms for offshore leases) and build the necessary infrastructure to bring the resources to market. Litigation, landowner disputes and regulatory hurdles can also delay the process.

CLAIM: The vast majority of federal and gas resources are already available for development.

FACT: In the Lower 48 states, about 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and 67 percent of onshore federal lands are off-limits or facing significant restrictions to development. There is no way, at this stage, to determine exactly the extent of the resources off-limits because many of these areas have not been subject to inventory studies in decades.

CLAIM: Non-producing leases could provide a major source of new supplies.

FACT: Many of these leases will provide a major source of new domestic supply once they are developed. Companies are actively developing the leases, and in addition to paying for the lease, they must also pay rent to the government while they conduct development and exploration efforts. But this process takes time. Reducing the time companies have to develop a lease or increasing the costs imposed by government will not increase supply for American consumers. Nor will denying access to areas of oil and natural gas potential like the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.

CLAIM: Increased domestic drilling activity has not led to lower gasoline prices, and more leases and drilling won’t help either.

FACT: Our nation needs more supplies of all forms of energy, including domestic oil and natural gas, to meet its growing energy demand. Increased drilling has helped the United States offset the natural declines in domestic oil and natural gas production from older fields. Greater drilling activity tends to produce more supply. Fundamental economics suggest that additional supplies put downward pressure on prices.

CLAIM: Companies should be penalized for not producing from their leases.

FACT: Oil and gas companies take all the risk with federal leases. Not only do they pay billions to obtain leases, they pay to hold them while they are spending even more capital to determine if these leases contain resources. Penalties on leaseholders on top of those fees would only discourage U.S. exploration and production, at a time when the United States needs all the energy it can get.

purplehawk

July 26th, 2008, 5:05 pm

Oh - even better. That sets the hike smack dab in the middle of winter.

But long after the utility companies have purchased oil at lower prices. So the effect would be good for winter heating costs.

Yes, but what evidence is there that the Republican's in Congress voted against releasing oil from the strategic reserves to protect the oil companies profits?

*sigh*

I've already stated it as my opinion, but I'm basing it on eight solid years of "boom" economic conditions for the oil giants. That much is indisputable and I don't believe it happened by accident.

Your figures seem aimed at supporting the GOP's phoney argument that high gas prices are attributable to Democrats, but the price of oil first spiked when Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/congress.oil/index.html) began his campaign to launch the Iraq War. Prices have climbed steadily ever since (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg). Adding a "price after Democrats took over Congress" is disingenuous at best.

We would also do well to reflect on bin Laden's demand (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/) from ten years ago that a barrel of oil should cost $144. Looks like our disastrous war played right into his hand.

monster_mom

July 26th, 2008, 5:21 pm

But long after the utility companies have purchased oil at lower prices. So the effect would be good for winter heating costs.

My gas company bases what it charges per CCF (whatever the heck that is) on average fuel prices during the billed time period. That means that when the government begin s refilling the strategic reserves in January or February my per CCF price will spike and I'll still have 3 or 4 months of heating - and I live in Virginia.

I've already stated it as my opinion, but I'm basing it on eight solid years of "boom" economic conditions for the oil giants. That much is indisputable and I don't believe it happened by accident.

The big boom hit when the Democrats took over Congress. If the 6 prior years can be attributed to Republican efforts to line the pockets of their oil company friends, what are the last 2 years attributed to?

Your figures seem aimed at supporting the GOP's phoney argument that high gas prices are attributable to Democrats, but the price of oil first spiked when Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/congress.oil/index.html) began his campaign to launch the Iraq War. Prices have climbed steadily ever since (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg). Adding a "price after Democrats took over Congress" is disingenuous at best.

Why? It's what the actual prices are, and the prices at my local cheap gas station are lower than the national average so the impact appeared lower.

Prices may have begun to rise after the Iraq war, but they didn't spike until the Democrats took office.

We would also do well to reflect on bin Laden's demand (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/) from ten years ago that a barrel of oil should cost $144. Looks like our disastrous war played right into his hand.

Bin Laden was a businessman before he became a murderer and a despot. He knew that if oil was $144 a barrel we'd look to domestic production instead of relying on oil from the Saudi's and the Middle East and be more likely to leave the land of Mecca and Medina. He was right - we should never have allowed ourselves to become so dependent on foreign sources of oil for energy.

Chris

July 26th, 2008, 5:27 pm

Mom - what's the source of the claim / fact on the leasing issue?

I was also under the impression that a large part of the problem for gas prices was not necessarily the supply (though it can look good to the American public that Congress tries to increase the supply), but the refining capacity. Can the current or future (2008 elected congress - the topic of this thread) do anything about the lack of refining capacity?

purplehawk

July 26th, 2008, 5:57 pm

The big boom hit when the Democrats took over Congress. If the 6 prior years can be attributed to Republican efforts to line the pockets of their oil company friends, what are the last 2 years attributed to?

Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004-2006).

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/oilprices.jpg

If you have something on which to lay the last two years on Democrats, I'd like to see it. My guess is that the deteriorating economic conditions here in the United States are the reason, but the fault for that lies with Bush and the Republicans... and, again, Iraq.

monster_mom

July 26th, 2008, 6:39 pm

Mom - what's the source of the claim / fact on the leasing issue?

The American Petroleum Institute. I forgot to put the link in - sorry!

http://www.energytomorrow.com/energy/Facts_about_Non_Producing_Leases.aspx

I was also under the impression that a large part of the problem for gas prices was not necessarily the supply (though it can look good to the American public that Congress tries to increase the supply), but the refining capacity. Can the current or future (2008 elected congress - the topic of this thread) do anything about the lack of refining capacity?

My understanding is that the problem is caused by a multitude of factors, including refining capacity, supply, and speculation.

Refining capacity in the US is down proportionately from where it was 35 years ago. A number of factors have played into that including increased environmental regulation making it prohibitively costly to open new refineries and decreased competition from the large oil and gas companies driving out smaller refiners. Congress can help with this by streamlining (not scrapping or undermining but streamlining) the application and review process, by investigating the anti-competitive practices of the large oil and gas companies in refining operations, and developing programs to encourage investment in oil and gas refineries in the US.

Supply is pretty straightforward (from what I can tell). The United States is one of only a few countries in the world which prohibits oil and gas exploration by locally domiciled companies on their own land. Congress can control the supply of oil by granting leases to the suspected offshore oil and gas fields. They don't have to do all of them at once - they can phase the release of leases and and monitor operations to ensure that the most environmentally sensitive areas aren't compromised; they can open the leases to the oil shale in the Rockies which would eliminate or reduce the risk of tanker spills; they can keep ANWAR and release the other area; or they can release ANWAR and continue to restrict the other areas. Congress holds the strings on supply here.

But increasing access to oil and gas fields and refining capacity here in the US is just one of many steps. Congress can also develop programs to increase investment in economically feasible, reliable, renewable alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Congress can insist on stricter fuel efficiency standards and develop incentives to encourage companies to allow employees to work from home instead of in an office many miles away. And Congress can investigate why the US lags so far behind the rest of the world in nuclear and coal power and figure out how to facilitate investment in nuclear and clean coal plants.

Rampant speculation in the commodities market is part of the problem as well. I'm just not well verse enough in the intricacies of the market to speculate about what Congress could or should do to control this - especially since oil and gas are traded on exchanges outside the US and not subject to Congressional restrictions.

Midnightsfire

July 26th, 2008, 8:14 pm

That's part of what they do when they give their speeches and yell at one annother on the floor - they cite the points which are important to them to justify their votes.
Hmm....is that what that said? http://www.kurts-smilies.de/gruebel.gif Doesn't look that way to me.
Seems to be an attempt to reinterpret the article to mean what you want it to, instead of what it actually says.
At a minimum the American people deserve to hear their members of Congress explain how they stand on the issue and why and deserve to have them vote accordingly.
We've already hashed and rehashed this issue for at least as long as this current presidential administration. (Actually far longer than that.)
It just says they should delay adjournment until there is a vote. Which, last time I checked, is what Members of Congress are elected to do.
Didn't you read the article? Or at least what I quoted in the article?
Here, lets try it again:
It says "vote against adjournment for the August recess if the minority cannot secure a vote on offshore drilling or their “all of the above” energy plan.

This doesn't say "delay adjournment until there is a vote."

Case in point:
Price of oil when Bush took office - $29
So, during Bush and Republicans tenure the per barrel price of oil rise by $22 and the price per gallon rose by about 94 cents. But, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress the price per barrel of oil has risen by $94, and the price per gallon of gas has risen by $1.51.

This seems to condemn the current presidential administration even more so.

The oil compaines are using the current leases and they're hitting dry hole after dry hole. Here are some points which run counter to the argument that it's the oil and gas companies who are sucking us dry:
Unsupported assertion. Ergo, opinion.
(No. That corporate sponsored link is meaningless. I mean really. What else would they want us to hear?)

Interesting. The Alaskan Inter-Tribal Council (http://aitc.org/node/23) is againt drilling.

Latest polls:

Congressional Republicans (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm) 25% approval versus 69% disapproval rating
Congressional Democrats (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm) 35% approval versus 57% disapproval

purplehawk

July 27th, 2008, 12:04 am

Midnightsfire

July 27th, 2008, 12:45 am

Midnight, do you have a link to the latest polls on which party Americans favor to handle the biggest issues? The last time I looked, Rassmussen had one in which Democrats (or Obama) was favored in every issue but national security, and McCain's edge there was a thin one.

Lets see...

The most recent one I have is this: Where the Race for the White House Stands Right Now (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/where_the_race_for_the_white_h.html)

For months, even for years, the national news has been bad, so it's not surprising that voters want change. All of the numbers strongly suggest that Americans see the Democratic Party as the better vehicle for bringing about change than the Republican Party.

In spite of some better news from Iraq, most Americans think the war was a mistake and the administration's performance inept. Perhaps it's a sign of Republicans' problems that most GOP officeholders and strategists would rather talk about the war than about domestic issues.

The economy has sputtered along for a while, but the most recent news has been much worse. Increased unemployment, continuing problems in the nation's financial sector and much higher fuel costs and commodity prices (and therefore inflationary pressures) have further eroded consumer confidence and pulled the rug out from under stocks.

There is simply no reason to believe that the news will improve measurably between now and late October, which means that there is no reason to believe that the American public's underlying mood will turn up dramatically.

HouseStark

July 27th, 2008, 12:58 am

There's no point in offshore drilling. Even if the ban is lifted, drillers won't find the oil for 5 years, and won't have any meaningful production for 7-10 years. So this won't have any effect on oil prices until at least 2015, by then, hopefully we'll have found a more permanent solution to oil being ridiculously expensive and inefficient than "uhhh lets git more oil".

Also, once these wonderful offshore drilling facilities are up and running after 2015, the estimated amount of oil in US territories is 7 to 15 billion barrels, at current consumption rates of 20 million barrels a day, that's enough to fuel the country for 1 to 2 years.

And the Republicans are convinced this is the solution to the energy crisis? Ugh

purplehawk

July 27th, 2008, 1:57 am

And the Republicans are convinced this is the solution to the energy crisis? Ugh

I think many people now realize what a shell game this is. Probably not enough of us, mind you, but a fair number. Most people just want the pump price to come down, to have the cost of gasoline and heating oil not take up such a disproportionate share of their income.

The GOP can't depend on their electorate to fund their reelection campaigns, so they are bound to the big bucks donations from big oil and other corporate interests. Thus the concerns of those groups are going to carry loads more weight with GOP legislators than those of the constituents they serve.

Democratic candidates are doing much better. The 50-state strategy helps them, as do activist groups like MoveOn and ActBlue (http://www.actblue.com/), a PAC that solicits donations from everyday folks like us and distributes it to progressive candidates. I've been giving to this PAC all year and I can't tell you how many candidates I've heard from - some write just to say thanks, others to share news about their campaigns and their opponents. These are men and women I'd never heard of before! The best news is that three of them have already defeated their Republican opponents in special elections this year.

ETA:

I just caught this story at The Financial Times, which more or less answers the question Mom asked of me:

Curbs on US energy speculators halted (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e223dcc-5a95-11dd-bf96-000077b07658.html)

A US Senate proposal designed to curb speculation and increase transparency in the energy markets was blocked by Republican legislators on Friday.

The move frustrates Democratic efforts to show the party is taking action on record petrol prices. The Stop Excessive Speculation Act, sponsored by Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, fell 10 votes short of clearing a procedural hurdle. ...

The vote marks a victory for the futures industry and Wall Street banks, such as Goldman Sachs, which lobbied heavily against Mr Reid’s proposal, and is a setback for the airline and trucking industries, which strongly supported it.

monster_mom

July 28th, 2008, 12:07 am

Hmm....is that what that said? http://www.kurts-smilies.de/gruebel.gif Doesn't look that way to me.
Seems to be an attempt to reinterpret the article to mean what you want it to, instead of what it actually says.

...snip...

Didn't you read the article? Or at least what I quoted in the article?
Here, lets try it again:
It says "vote against adjournment for the August recess if the minority cannot secure a vote on offshore drilling or their “all of the above” energy plan.

This doesn't say "delay adjournment until there is a vote."

You are absolutely correct - it doesn't say delay adjournment until there is a vote - it says if the minority cannot secure a vote on offshore drilling. In that context, secure a vote means have a vote on drilling - not force Congress to vote their way or else they'll make everyone stay in DC in August (your translation) - but actually have an up or down vote.

Representative Boehner (R-OH) said the following (which can be found close to the end of the article you referenced and quoted that purp linked several posts back:whistle:)

“If the Democratic majority refuses to allow a vote next week on the American Energy Act, a vote for the adjournment resolution will be a vote against the American people and a vote against American energy independence,” he continued. ”The House should not adjourn for the August District Work Period until a vote has taken place on the energy reforms the American people want.”

Please note that he hasn't said that the vote must go one way or another, just that there must be a vote. So, as you can see, I took him at his word and interpreted his statement to mean exactly what he said.

Unsupported assertion. Ergo, opinion.
(No. That corporate sponsored link is meaningless. I mean really. What else would they want us to hear?)

Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. The Alaskan Inter-Tribal Council (http://aitc.org/node/23) is againt drilling.

They also oppose commercial fishing of herring and salmon by non-natives and commercial whaling by Japanese and Russian fleets.

It is worth noting that the majority of Alaskans - close to 75% - support drilling in ANWR.

http://www.juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml

http://www.anwr.org/People/Alaskans-Support-Development.php

As do the Inuit - another native Alaskan tribe.

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010131/nvt10119_10.html

And many other Alaskans.

http://www.anwr.org/People/Former-Alaska-State-Senator-Al-Adams-Favors-Oil-Development.php

http://www.anwr.org/People/Former-North-Slope-Borough-Mayor-Benjamin-P.-Nageak-on-ANWR-Development.php

There's no point in offshore drilling. Even if the ban is lifted, drillers won't find the oil for 5 years, and won't have any meaningful production for 7-10 years. So this won't have any effect on oil prices until at least 2015, by then, hopefully we'll have found a more permanent solution to oil being ridiculously expensive and inefficient than "uhhh lets git more oil".

You're absolutely correct - the majority of the new wells won't reach peak production for a number of years, although they could begin producing within 2 years (assuming the leases are granted in an efficient manner). What will happen once the prohibited areas are released is what we saw the past 2 weeks. The moment the bans on offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR are dropped the speculators, who have rushed to buy oil because they know domestic supplies won't be increased under a Democratic Congress, will jump ship and the price of oil will come down. So "gittin' mor oyl" won't even have to happen for there to be an effect on prices.

Yes, we will still be dependent on foreign oil for the next few years. But we will finally have undone 30 + years of neglect and be taking our first step towards energy independence.

Also, once these wonderful offshore drilling facilities are up and running after 2015, the estimated amount of oil in US territories is 7 to 15 billion barrels, at current consumption rates of 20 million barrels a day, that's enough to fuel the country for 1 to 2 years.

The 1998 USGS study determined that approximately 7.7 billion barrels of oil was recoverable from ANWR (that's the mean the range was 4 - 16 billion). Another study estimated a mean of 11 billion off California.

In 2006 oil and gas companies struck what they estimated to be 3 - 15 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to the DOE in 2007 the US consumed approximately 6.6 billion (billion with a B) barrels of oil of which approximately 66% came from outside the US (a net deficit of about 4.4 billion barrels). Assuming peak production and 0 imports, we'd have about 2 1/2 years of oil available from California and ANWR.

But that doesn't factor in the the oil shales in the Rockies which are estimated to contain about 2 trillion (yes, trillion with a T) barrels of oil shale. Even if we're only able to extract and use 25% of those deposits, by my math that gives us well more than 10 more years of oil at current rates of consumption with no imports (by my math it gives us closer to 1000 years at present consumption rates, but that's just too far out and fuzzy to predict anything).

http://www.sibelle.info/orig/usgs.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/business/worldbusiness/06oil.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

And the Republicans are convinced this is the solution to the energy crisis? Ugh

Not in it's entirety, no. From Representative Boehner's interview with NPR on the issue, the Republican "all of the above" plan is (bolding mine).

“I think, if we were to have votes in the House and Senate on opening up the Outer Continental Shelf or issues such as ANWR, we’d send a real clear message to the speculators in the oil market, and it could have a very dramatic effect. I remember in 1995, when both the House and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, sent the ANWR legislation opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil production. Bill Clinton, the president in 1995, vetoed that bill. Today, we’d have some ten – or about a billion barrels – a million barrels of oil per day if that bill would have been signed into law. And so the sooner we get started, the sooner we’re going to have more production. But we know, if we’re going to be serious about having energy independence in America, that we need to do all of the above. We need to conserve more; we need biofuels; we need to develop alternative fuels. I think we need to get real serious about nuclear energy. And, yes, we can drill for new oil and gas in the United States in an environmentally safe way.”

http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=94871

Contrast that with the Ddemocrats plan which is to raise taxes on the per gallon price we pay at the pump and buy a sweater.

purplehawk

July 28th, 2008, 12:16 am

monster_mom

July 28th, 2008, 2:02 am

I want to know what is so special about this bill to allow drilling in the 20% of America in which the oil companies don't already have drilling rights established.

Why is the remaining 20% so much more desirable than the 80% they have rights to - and have ignored for years on end?

Perhaps because the leases they have now are running dry. Unless you're suggesting that it would be in the national interest to increase our dependence on foreign oil?

I'd be willing to bet big money that some Republicans stand to make a lot of money if the bill passes. The American people will get nothing out of this, other than a lot of dead polar bears.

There aren't "a lot" of polar bears in ANWR. The area slated for oil and gas exploration is barren and home to very little widllife, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act protect the polar bears, as this editorial from Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska states:

The Marine Mammals Protection Act takes care of the polar bear in the existing oil fields--and would do the same on the coastal plain.

What do these protections mean to the oil workers in Prudhoe Bay? They are not allowed to harm a polar bear. There are steel cages around many of the doors of the facilities in Prudhoe. That way, workers can look off into the distance for bears before they venture out. No polar bear has been injured or killed as a result of extracting oil in Prudhoe Bay.

http://www.anwr.org/features/lessrefuge.htm

purplehawk

July 28th, 2008, 2:52 am

Perhaps because the leases they have now are running dry. Unless you're suggesting that it would be in the national interest to increase our dependence on foreign oil?

Not at all. Just that this gimmick does nothing to solve the underlying problem. I'll have to be convinced the leases they have now are running dry, as the last I heard - and we discussed in this thread - was that the 80% now available for drilling hasn't been touched.

And there's that little white lie the GOP was floating (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16084.html) about China drilling off-shore around Cuba when American companies could not.

I seriously question why anyone would buy into a Republican argument on something like this.

There aren't "a lot" of polar bears in ANWR. The area slated for oil and gas exploration is barren and home to very little widllife, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act protect the polar bears, as this editorial from Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska states:

The Marine Mammals Protection Act takes care of the polar bear in the existing oil fields--and would do the same on the coastal plain.

What do these protections mean to the oil workers in Prudhoe Bay? They are not allowed to harm a polar bear. There are steel cages around many of the doors of the facilities in Prudhoe. That way, workers can look off into the distance for bears before they venture out. No polar bear has been injured or killed as a result of extracting oil in Prudhoe Bay.

http://www.anwr.org/features/lessrefuge.htm

He isn't a senator, is he? Last I heard he was the one-term incumbent governor of Alaska who lost the Republican primary in 2006. In any case, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Murkowski):

During his time in the Senate, he was most notable as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee from 1995 to 2001. As chair, he argued and attempted unsuccessfully to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

He was elected governor on November 5, 2002, defeating his Democratic opponent, Fran Ulmer, 56%-41%. He succeeded retiring Democrat Tony Knowles and took office on December 2, 2002.

Upon his inauguration, he resigned his Senate seat and appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, the Majority Leader-designate of the Alaska House of Representatives, in his place. This led his opponents to accuse him of nepotism; as a result, a ballot measure passed in 2004 stripped governors of the power to appoint U.S. Senators, making Alaska one of only three states to do so.

Toward the end of his administration he brokered a deal for a gas pipeline that was never considered, in final form, by the legislature. Murkowski threatened to sign the deal without legislative approval, but the legislature successfully brought a lawsuit to enjoin him from doing so.

Governor Murkowski ran for re-election in 2006, but lost to former Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and Fairbanks businessman John Binkley in the Republican primary election on August 22, 2006 (Palin winning with 51% and Binkley taking second with 30% to Murkowski's 19%).[2] Most polls had predicted this result.

On March 4, 2008, Murkowski's former chief-of-staff, Jim Clark, pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy after federal investigators discovered Clark had asked oil-field company Veco to illegally pay $68,550 on polls for Murkowski's failed 2006 re-election campaign. Murkowski, Clark's indictment noted, was the only candidate who supported an oil tax and gas pipeline plan that Veco backed. Murkowski has not been charged in the Alaska political corruption probe.

Emphasis mine.

I'm really going to put a lot credence in what this guy says. :no:

Midnightsfire

July 28th, 2008, 3:41 am

Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I already have. And the US Geological Survey trumps any corporate special interest.
But then, a short while ago, the USGS were worried they were going to muzzled by the Bush Admin (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16193443/) since their info doesn't support their close connections to the oil industry. (Which is already common knowledge).

They also oppose commercial fishing of herring and salmon by non-natives and commercial whaling by Japanese and Russian fleets.
Not relevant to the oil problem. (Although the lack of links to support your assertions are noted)

It is worth noting that the majority of Alaskans - close to 75% - support drilling in ANWR.
Because money is the issue.
your link says it all (http://www.juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml):
To understand why so many of Alaska's 626,932 residents support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration, Americans in the Lower 48 should look to the industry's economic impact in the 49th state.

"I'm not aware of any state, that its revenue is dominated so much by one industry," said Larry Persily, deputy commissioner of revenue.
The oil and gas industry "is critically important to Alaska," said Dave Dittman, an Anchorage pollster. "It's Alaska's industry."
In 2000, oil and gas activity supported 33,573 jobs, or 12 percent of private sector employment in Alaska, and $1.4 billion of payroll, or 20 percent of non-government wages, according to an industry-sponsored study conducted by two research firms.
Even that understates the impact of petroleum in the 49th state.
In the state fiscal year that ended June 30, the oil industry's contribution to the state general fund in corporate income taxes, severance taxes, property taxes and royalties was $1.95 billion, according to Persily. The state general fund for the year was $2.37 billion, making oil's contribution 82.3 percent. To date, the industry has pumped $48.37 billion into the general fund, not including lawsuit settlements of about $5.5 billion going into a separate reserve fund that has been used to balance the budget.
In the same fiscal year, an additional $310 million from oil production went into the Alaska Permanent Fund, which pays annual dividends to residents who have lived in the state for more than one calendar year, regardless of age. Last year's payout was a record $1,963.86 per person. In 24 years, oil has contributed about $9.7 billion to the permanent fund. Although the fund was established in the 1970s to ensure stability in state government operations once oil production declined, the dividend is now considered an entitlement by most Alaskans.

Furthermore as your link:

In February, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund did a more specific poll. Alaskans were asked to choose between not drilling because ANWR is "a national treasure" and because the oil that could be recovered is only a small portion of U.S. consumption, or drilling because oil deposits could reduce gas prices, while drilling will affect only 2,000 acres of 19 million in the refuge. Fifty percent said drilling should be allowed while 38 percent said it should not.

And many other Alaskans.
http://www.anwr.org/People/Former-Alaska-State-Senator-Al-Adams-Favors-Oil-Development.php

http://www.anwr.org/People/Former-North-Slope-Borough-Mayor-Benjamin-P.-Nageak-on-ANWR-Development.php

Corporate sponsored links aren't convincing. (Really, just who are you trying to convince?)

You're absolutely correct - the majority of the new wells won't reach peak production for a number of years...
Need not go any further.

As you so adequately put, nothing about this rather funny drilling business will do a damn thing about prices now. And for that matter, nor will they do anything about it later.

Yes, we will still be dependent on foreign oil for the next few years. But we will finally have undone 30 + years of neglect and be taking our first step towards energy independence.
How droll. As my above link to the USGS has it, any oil in ANWR would only have about a few years max before the wells dry out.

Considering that the US uses over 400 billion gallons of gas every year...

In 2006 oil and gas companies struck what they estimated to be 3 - 15 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico.
Most of which is currently leased by oil compnaies...(nothing to see here. Except for the shameful fact that none of the oil companies have yet to drill in the available areas there)

According to the DOE in 2007 the US consumed approximately 6.6 billion (billion with a B) barrels of oil of which approximately 66% came from outside the US (a net deficit of about 4.4 billion barrels). Assuming peak production and 0 imports, we'd have about 2 1/2 years of oil available from California and ANWR.
I'm sorry, but how does that..as you put it, make us "energy independent?"

But that doesn't factor in the the oil shales in the Rockies which are estimated to contain about 2 trillion (yes, trillion with a T) barrels of oil shale. Even if we're only able to extract and use 25% of those deposits, by my math that gives us well more than 10 more years of oil at current rates of consumption with no imports (by my math it gives us closer to 1000 years at present consumption rates, but that's just too far out and fuzzy to predict anything).

That will never happen. Colorado and Wyoming already told Bush to shove it (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25282295/). (And according to the link, the technology just doesn't readily exist yet. And then there are the residents. Wyoming (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/07/21/news/wyoming/da662aeaf6aec8b48725748c00210db4.txt) residents, Colorado (http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20080623/NEWS/61677951) residents, just off the cuff)

The more I read about this Boehner character the less credible he becomes. (The same guy who said that the loss of our soldiers in Iraq was acceptable)

Americans Don't Believe Bush, Industry Claims on Gas Prices, Poll Shows (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080724/pl_usnw/americans_don_t_believe_bush__industry_claims_on_g as_prices__poll_shows)

:lol:

Despite a well-funded campaign to convince lawmakers to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the offshore waters of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, and to allow new oil shale projects in the Rocky Mountain West, a majority (54%) of Americans do not see more drilling as a solution to high gas prices. Instead, the public overwhelmingly believes (76% to 19%) that policymakers should focus on investing in new energy technologies including renewable fuels and more efficient vehicles rather than expanding exploration and drilling for more oil. These findings were reported in a national poll conducted over the past week by Belden Russonello and Stewart, and released today.

A significant majority of Americans (63%) said that the Presidents proposal to open up public lands to oil and gas drilling is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers. A substantial majority (66%) said that the small percentage of public lands still protected from oil drilling should remain off limits because they are valuable natural resources that cannot be replaced.

When asked the question, Do you think that allowing oil companies to drill in public lands and offshore areas that are currently off limits to drilling will result in lower gas prices for American consumers or not?, 54% of poll respondents said they did not believe more drilling would lower gas prices. Although Americans were initially divided on a general question of opening protected public lands and offshore areas to drilling, with a slight majority (53%) in favor, and 41% opposed, the poll found that support for drilling weakened significantly when those polled were presented with other energy policy options.

When asked the question: Looking to the future, which one of the following do you think should be a more important priority for government: Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles, or expanding exploration and drilling for more oil?, more than three-quarters (76%) of respondents favored new technology and renewables, and only a small number (19%) favored expanded oil drilling.

:relax:

Diverged a bit into off-topic land...but there ya go.

Congress needs to do something. They have two chances at the moment to do something about oil speculation which would have had an almost immediate impact. Republicans blocked the one effort. And that is the sort of thing that will hurt them in November.

purplehawk

July 28th, 2008, 4:58 am

Congress needs to do something. They have two chances at the moment to do something about oil speculation which would have had an almost immediate impact. Republicans blocked the one effort. And that is the sort of thing that will hurt them in November.

Congress needs to do the right thing. Boehner and his GOP cohorts are never going to do that. You don't know how badly I wish our state Party had been able to come up with a candidate who could take him out! We're going to get Jean Schmidt (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/17/schmidt-china-drilling/) in OH-02, though. Thank God!

ETA:

McClatchy has the story on another reason the people of Alaska are so gung-ho to open up ANWR for drilling: Why might Alaskans favor Arctic drilling? A $2,000 check (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/45714.html).

This year's Permanent Fund dividend check — what Alaskans receive each year from the state's oil-revenue investment fund — is likely to be more than $2,000, the first time since the state began making the payments in 1982 that the dividend has topped two grand.

The biggest previous dividend was $1963.86 in 2000. Last year's was $1,654.

The dividend spins off the Alaska Permanent Fund, the state's $37 billion oil wealth savings account.

Although oil prices have hit record highs recently, it's not the price of oil that determines the size of the dividend. Rather, it's the profits Permanent Fund managers generate by investing in stocks, bonds, real estate and other things.

The dividend is based on an average of the fund's profits over the past five years.

Using the latest figures from the Permanent Fund, and factoring in some assumptions such as how many residents will qualify for a check, the Anchorage Daily News estimates this fall's dividend will be $2,080 to $2,100.

If that proves accurate, a family of four would receive dividends totaling at least $8,320.

Dividends are scheduled to start going out in early October as either direct bank deposits or as paper checks, with more than 600,000 residents — men, women and children who lived in the state for all of 2007 — expected to receive a payment.

I've often wondered why Alaskans are so eco-unfriendly. Now I understand: they're paid to be.

HouseStark

July 28th, 2008, 6:24 pm

You're absolutely correct - the majority of the new wells won't reach peak production for a number of years, although they could begin producing within 2 years (assuming the leases are granted in an efficient manner). What will happen once the prohibited areas are released is what we saw the past 2 weeks. The moment the bans on offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR are dropped the speculators, who have rushed to buy oil because they know domestic supplies won't be increased under a Democratic Congress, will jump ship and the price of oil will come down. So "gittin' mor oyl" won't even have to happen for there to be an effect on prices.

Yes, we will still be dependent on foreign oil for the next few years. But we will finally have undone 30 + years of neglect and be taking our first step towards energy independence.

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that more drilling is the answer to the energy crisis. I'm not talking about high gas prices, I'm talking about the fact that oil is not a long term solution for the world's energy, and once oil production starts dropping due to lack of it being easily available for drilling, the prices are going to shoot up permanently. The answer is clean renewable energy. Every home in America should have a solar panel on their roof and every state in the midwest should be investing millions in wind power. Texas(for once), is on the right track on this issue

In what is purported to be the largest investment in clean, renewable energy in US history, Texas has been given preliminary approval for a $4.9 billion plan to build transmission lines to carry wind power from West Texas to urban areas such as Dallas.

Texas is already the national leader in wind power, but the new transmission lines will make sure wind energy is used to its fullest potential, since most of Texas’ wind power is produced in windy West Texas. The new plan won’t directly create new turbines, but it will add enough transmission lines to move 18,000 megawatts. That’s enough energy to power 4 million homes.

monster_mom

July 28th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Not at all. Just that this gimmick does nothing to solve the underlying problem.

The underlying problem being what?

I'll have to be convinced the leases they have now are running dry, as the last I heard - and we discussed in this thread - was that the 80% now available for drilling hasn't been touched.

We may have discussed it, but you presented no evidence to the contrary. I presented evidence before that rejected the claims that the leases aren't being utilized or that the oil companies are intentionally stockpiling leases.

Energy companies cannot “stockpile” leases (even the ones that are found to contain no oil or gas) in order to drive up prices:

The Mineral Leasing Act (for onshore production): Section 17(e) stipulates that an oil company must have a producing well within 10 years or surrender the leases. Source: 30 U.S.C. 226(e)

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: (for offshore production): Stipulates that an oil company must produce energy between 5 to 10 years (in the government’s discretion) or surrender the lease. Source: 43 U.S.C. 1337(b)

There's more at the link below.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/06/25/truth-about-ocs/

And there's that little white lie the GOP was floating (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16084.html) about China drilling off-shore around Cuba when American companies could not.

Um, within moments of Cheney making hte statement Mel Martinez (a Republican) reported that the China - Cuba connection was false. The VP's office corrected the statement about the China - Cuba connection less than 24 hours later. What was confirmed is that Cuba holds leases on lands about 60 miles from the coast of Florida. Cuba can drill in waters US firms are prohibited from drilling in.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40994.html

He isn't a senator, is he? Last I heard he was the one-term incumbent governor of Alaska who lost the Republican primary in 2006.

He was when he wrote the editorial.

Would you like to present evidence that there are "lots" of polar bears in the area? That those polar bears would die as a result of the operations in ANWR when no polar bears have ever died as a result of drilling on the North Slope? That the Marine Mammals Protections Act, which protects the polar bears, would somehow cease to apply in ANWR?

I already have. And the US Geological Survey trumps any corporate special interest. But then, a short while ago, the USGS were worried they were going to muzzled by the Bush Admin since their info doesn't support their close connections to the oil industry. (Which is already common knowledge).

Seems the USGS takes a slightly different view to the assessments that it's reports were being "muzzled" by the Bush Administration.

Recent news reports suggesting the Bush administration is trying to muzzle scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by placing new controls on approval and release of research plans and products are off base and misinformed about the intent of the changes being formalized at the agency. Speaking as the senior biologist at the USGS, I am deeply concerned that longstanding legitimate scientific peer review processes that have been the basis of scientific practices at the USGS and other scientific agencies and organizations have been mischaracterized as inappropriate political controls on research. Peer review is the bedrock of processes in any credible science organization that ensures scientific conclusions or findings are robust, independent and objective.

The USGS has had such processes in place for many years. As with any science enterprise, policies are periodically reviewed and updated to keep pace with changes in the organization. Our recently revised policy is an effort to do just that and has been developed by scientists and science managers (not political appointees) in an effort to coordinate existing review processes.

Research supervisors in the review chain are simply charged with ensuring all USGS information products have addressed peer comments and are in compliance with USGS procedures with regard to the review and release of scientific information. Furthermore, the notion that senior leadership in an organization should not be alerted to significant findings that will directly impact policy development and decision-making is disturbing. Under current policy this information is transferred to policy makers as it is released to the public.

Characterizing these reviews as an attempt by the Bush administration to control and censor scientific findings is inaccurate, is a disservice to those scientists who developed those processes in the spirit of continually improving our commitment to excellent science and undermines the bedrock of the peer review process as an arbiter of the credibility of individual science products and facilitator of science progress and discussion.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1588

Not relevant to the oil problem. (Although the lack of links to support your assertions are noted)

Simply reporting everything that was in the declaration.

Because money is the issue.

Heck yea it is! You don't think people decide to work in the oil fields for free, becasue it's fun and outdoors, do you? In subzero temperatures where exposed extremities can freeze in a moment? In jobs that are highly dangerous?

Heck yes money's the issue! The Alaskan's surveyed know what's at stake and what the risks are. They also know what the benefits are and they've weighed the risks and the benefits and want the oil fields opened up.

As you so adequately put, nothing about this rather funny drilling business will do a damn thing about prices now. And for that matter, nor will they do anything about it later.

Except for those darn pesky speculators who are betting that the Democratically controlled Congress won't do a darn thing to increase oil supplies and are buying oil commodities and driving up oil prices. Allow increased development and all of the sudden that future guarantee isn't there and prices will come down. We saw that just that last week when oil prices came down in respone to the Bush Administration voiding the executive ban on offshore drilling.

How droll. As my above link to the USGS has it, any oil in ANWR would only have about a few years max before the wells dry out.

So doing nothing, increasing our dependence on foreign oil is preferable?

Most of which is currently leased by oil compnaies...(nothing to see here. Except for the shameful fact that none of the oil companies have yet to drill in the available areas there)

No. Those are the oil and gas deposits in areas off-limits to drilling.

I'm sorry, but how does that..as you put it, make us "energy independent?"

Keep reading the post and you'll find out :)

Congress needs to do something. They have two chances at the moment to do something about oil speculation which would have had an almost immediate impact. Republicans blocked the one effort. And that is the sort of thing that will hurt them in November.

I'd say our do nothing Congress has a lot of explaining to do. They need to address all of the above - not just speculation - not just opening up the prohibited areas - not just alternative fuels - not just renewable energy - not just nuclear - all of it. And htey need to do it ASAP. They've had over 30 years afterall........

purplehawk

July 28th, 2008, 11:31 pm

The underlying problem being what?

Our dependence on oil.

ETA:

Speaking of oil, the Kentucky newspapers have picked up on native son Mitch McConnell's high octane distortions (http://www.kentucky.com/591/story/467845.html) of the Senate Minority leader's take on how to combat high gas prices.

McConnell's commercial is essentially dishonest.

But that's not the worst of it.

He's confusing an already perplexing picture at a time when the country desperately needs to hear the truth. We need campaigns that illuminate the nation's challenges, and energy is at the top of that list. Until we understand where we are and how we got here, we can't build a more secure future.

McConnell's misleading ad isn't unexpected. Manipulation has long been his strong suit, and the senior senator must be very pleased with the way his ad uses Lunsford's own words against him.

But this dishonesty from McConnell is disappointing all the same. It's a discredit to his lofty position and an insult to the people who have kept him in Washington for 24 years.

The Herald-Ledger's take on this is encouraging to me. The GOP's argument on off-shore drilling is, in fact, a deliberate deception as the newspaper notes. It's high time the electorate called them on it. It's good to see the home court press signalling the truth.

monster_mom

July 29th, 2008, 1:24 am

Our dependence on oil.

The Republican's have proposed a multifaceted strategy to reduce our dependence on oil. The want to:

House Republicans will increase the production of American-made energy in an environmentally-safe way. This includes the exploration of next generation oil, natural gas, and coal and the production of advanced alternative fuels like cellulosic and clean coal-to-liquids – all while protecting our natural resources for future generations. House Republicans will also:
• Support actions that reduce America’s dependence on energy from unstable foreign governments and dictatorships by increasing environmentally-safe production of oil and natural gas in areas such as the arctic coastal plain and in deep ocean energy resources; and
• Promote unconventional fuels such as coal-to-liquids technology and recovering our vast oil shale reserves by:
• Increasing access for environmentally responsible development of conventional and unconventional domestic oil and natural gas production;
• Providing coal-to-liquids financing and tax incentives;
• Unlocking two trillion barrels of shale oil on government-owned land in the American West. This access alone would supply Americans gasoline needs and make America totally independent from foreign oil for 200 years.

House Republicans will promote new, clean, and reliable sources of energy like advanced nuclear and next generation coal, while promoting clean power from renewable energy such as wind and hydroelectric power. Nuclear energy has proven itself as a safe, carbon-free and environmentally friendly alternative, with France relying on it for nearly 80 percent of its electricity needs, compared to just 19 percent in America. House Republicans will also:

Encourage more production of environmentally-safe energy to increase the use of our vast domestic supply, reduce emissions, and keep coal-dependent communities strong; and
Expand emissions-free nuclear power, including long term nuclear waste storage solutions and recycling spent fuel by:
Providing production and investment tax credits for all new base-load electricity projects such as advanced nuclear power and clean coal; and
Allowing immediate expensing for new renewable or zero emission power .

House Republicans are committed to cutting red tape and increasing the supply of American-made fuel and energy. Limiting the construction of new oil refineries and bureaucratic regulations mandating the use of exotic fuels have decreased supply and increased the Pelosi Premium. House Republicans will also:

Expedite permitting for enhanced oil recovery projects, including CO2 delivery and injection, as well as permitting for new refining capacity;
Improve environmental review and permitting to encourage the deployment of technologies which increase the efficiency of existing power plants; and
End ill-advised policies that have led to the proliferation of unique gasoline and diesel fuel formulations known as “boutique fuels,” which have fragmented our motor fuels distribution system, choked off supply, and exacerbated the already-painful Pelosi Premium.

House Republicans will encourage greater energy efficiency by offering conservation tax incentives to Americans who make their home, car, and business more energy efficient. House Republicans will also:
• Support technologies to help increase energy efficiency in all sectors of the American economy, including removing bureaucratic regulatory barriers that prevent businesses from upgrading their facilities with newer, more efficient energy technologies, by:
• Making home energy efficiency upgrades tax deductable;
• Providing incentives for home builders and homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient;
• Offering investment expensing for industrial and commercial building efficiency upgrades;
• Extending the residential and business solar and fuel cell investment tax credits, with enhancements to the residential solar credit ($2,000 per ½ kw installed);
• Extending the fiber-optic distributed sunlight investment tax credit; and
• Increasing the energy efficiency of government-owned buildings.

To that end they have introduced the American Energy Act, the text of which is linked below:

http://www.gop.gov/energy/americanenergyact/

Democrats have proposed the following:

:whistle: (that sound you hear is crickets chirping)

purplehawk

July 29th, 2008, 4:39 am

New Energy for America (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/)

Energy Independence Agenda (http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/)

And... We have this guy on our side:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/gore.jpg

monster_mom

July 29th, 2008, 5:13 pm

New Energy for America (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/)

This is Obama's plan. Obama's running for President, and his plan, to date, has not been adopted or proposed by Congressional Democrats. I deliberately chose to exclude McCain's plan from this thread for that very reason. However, since you posted Obama's plan, here is McCain's plan - The Lexington Project (http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm)

Energy Independence Agenda (http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/)

The extent of that plan is these three paragraphs.

We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

Energy independence puts America in the driver's seat to pursue affordable and efficient energy solutions that will benefit all Americans, improve America's security, reduce the burden on American families, and help clean our environment.

American families should not have to pay the price for a failed national energy policy. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American workers. By clearing the pathways to innovation, investing in our workers and infrastructure, and providing American consumers with broader, more responsible choices, the Democratic plan will provide the tools to help move America forward, toward real energy security for the 21st century.

I'd like to see something a bit more specific. Perhaps a bill or two. Maybe even a vote. There are 18 days left in the legislative cycle.

And... We have this guy on our side:

Good old Al. Mr. Do as I say, not as I do, as this catchy vid from his recent speech on climate change in DC indicates

ESxvY1tQHTo

Whose home in Nashville used 10% more energy after it went green than before. (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=7891)

Then there's the whole carbon credit boondogle (http://facethestate.com/articles/dnc-boondoggle-carbon-credits-fund-broken-turbine) as this article indicates.

purplehawk

July 29th, 2008, 5:28 pm

Gore won a Nobel prize for his work on climate change, Mom. No amount of conservative talking points - which are the basis of your argument - can change the fact that Al Gore is interationally recognized as an expert on the subject.

BTW, the Democrats had a bill just last week (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Senate_talks_break_down_on_energy_compromise.html) and Republicans filibustered it. And oil prices rose immediately after.

Another Democratic bill to place curbs on energy speculators (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e223dcc-5a95-11dd-bf96-000077b07658.html) was also blocked by Republicans last Friday.

monster_mom

July 29th, 2008, 8:39 pm

Gore won a Nobel prize for his work on climate change, Mom. No amount of conservative talking points - which are the basis of your argument - can change the fact that Al Gore is interationally recognized as an expert on the subject.

That doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite. If he's so convinced that he's right, why won't he debate anyone on the issue? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116909379096479919.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries)

BTW, the Democrats had a bill just last week (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Senate_talks_break_down_on_energy_compromise.html) and Republicans filibustered it. And oil prices rose immediately after.

And with the Republicans digging in a refusing to allow adjournment until there is a vote on drilling and prominent Democrats like Reid appearing to give in (a bit), oil prices are down to $121 right now.

Another Democratic bill to place curbs on energy speculators (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e223dcc-5a95-11dd-bf96-000077b07658.html) was also blocked by Republicans last Friday.

The bill passed the Senate first with a 94 - 0 vote but was blocked in the House when word reached the Republican's that Pelosi and Reid had canceled markups in the Appropriations Committee on bills that would have forced Democrats to take votes on GOP amendments to lift the offshore drilling ban.

purplehawk

July 29th, 2008, 9:44 pm

That doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite. If he's so convinced that he's right, why won't he debate anyone on the issue? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116909379096479919.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries)

Who is he going to debate? The world agrees with him, with the notable exception of China and American conservatives.

The bill passed the Senate first with a 94 - 0 vote but was blocked in the House when word reached the Republican's that Pelosi and Reid had canceled markups in the Appropriations Committee on bills that would have forced Democrats to take votes on GOP amendments to lift the offshore drilling ban.

There's some game-playing going on there. I don't think for a minute Boehner and his crew are dumb enough to believe off-shore drilling is going to solve the problem. They're hoping to use the issue to gain an edge in November; thus hyping off-shore drilling as "the be-all, end-all" - even if it's not true - is okay with them.

Shameful. :no:

ETA:

So is this: Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, has been indicted (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12142.html) on charges that he hid $250,000 in gifts from an oil-services firm.

Gifts from big oil, eh? Stevens is a big proponent of opening ANWR to drilling. Come to think of it, he was also the sponsor of the Bridge to Nowhere (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm).

monster_mom

July 30th, 2008, 2:18 pm

Who is he going to debate? The world agrees with him, with the notable exception of China and American conservatives.

It's not just conservatives who reject Gore's theories, it's these 31,000 scientists who reject Gore's claims (
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734'). The folks at Planet Gore question the economic and technical feasibility of Gore's plan (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzRlYzM3YzkxZjZhMzlmN2E5NzgzNmRhMzEzYTY1ZjU=), and so do the folks at Green Tech, who have a more liberal mentality and still question his most recent plan (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9994015-54.html?tag=bl).

Even Kyoto has been maligned (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5042766)because it won't do much to curb greenhouse gas emissions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3131285.stm) and it excludes countries like China and India - two countries which are competing with the US to see which can be the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. And then there's the issue of cost, which is prohibitive. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/aug/17/highereducation.climatechange)

Considering the tremendous cost of doing what he suggests, it would be nice if he'd take questions on the issue and actually provide answers. But he steadfastly refuses to debate or discuss the issue. Even the American Physical Society, has opened debate on the issue (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403)

There's some game-playing going on there. I don't think for a minute Boehner and his crew are dumb enough to believe off-shore drilling is going to solve the problem. They're hoping to use the issue to gain an edge in November; thus hyping off-shore drilling as "the be-all, end-all" - even if it's not true - is okay with them.

That's why drilling is just one part of their plan.

So is this: Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, has been indicted (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12142.html) on charges that he hid $250,000 in gifts from an oil-services firm.

Gifts from big oil, eh? Stevens is a big proponent of opening ANWR to drilling. Come to think of it, he was also the sponsor of the Bridge to Nowhere (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm).

Stevens should resign and drop out of the election. Even if he's innocent, he should have known better than to accept gifts of such a large value as a Senator.

purplehawk

July 30th, 2008, 2:40 pm

monster_mom

July 30th, 2008, 3:00 pm

It never fails to amaze me how often some scandal or other pops up involving a Republican legislator. The Democrats held a majority for nearly half a century before they let hubris take over and doom them. The GOP first attained a majority in 1994. It took just twelve years for them to self-destruct.

I posted Republican Culture of Corruption: 2007 So Far (http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html) before, but am using it again to support this post. I sure wish they would update it to include 2008.

And it never fails to amaze me how reports on scandal and corruption in the Republican's ranks are page one above the fold and scandal and corruption in the Democrats ranks are page 5 with no mention of party affiliation.

Know what? Scandal and corruption isn't unique too the Republican party or to the Democrats. It didn't just suddenly appear in the halls of power 50 years ago or when Bush was elected to office. It's been around since governments were formed and it affects liberal and conservatives, nice people and really nasty pieces of work equally.

Chris

July 30th, 2008, 3:04 pm

Scandal and corruption isn't unique too the Republican party or to the Democrats. It didn't just suddenly appear in the halls of power 50 years ago or when Bush was elected to office. It's been around since governments were formed and it affects liberal and conservatives, nice people and really nasty pieces of work equally.

I pretty much agree with this. How are these scandal(s) going to affect the '08 elections? Can one party or the other pick up a seat that they wouldn't have had a shot at previously?

purplehawk

July 30th, 2008, 3:04 pm

And it never fails to amaze me how reports on scandal and corruption in the Republican's ranks are page one above the fold and scandal and corruption in the Democrats ranks are page 5 with no mention of party affiliation.

That's hardly true. Look at Jefferson. He's been all over the front pages. He also happens to be the only Democrat under indictment.

Know what? Scandal and corruption isn't unique too the Republican party or to the Democrats. It didn't just suddenly appear in the halls of power 50 years ago or when Bush was elected to office. It's been around since governments were formed and it affects liberal and conservatives, nice people and really nasty pieces of work equally.

I agree with you there. The trouble is, Republicans had the trifecta from 1994 until 2006 and, with control of all the levers of government, they have no one but themselves to blame for the scandals.

monster_mom

July 30th, 2008, 3:15 pm

I pretty much agree with this. How are these scandal(s) going to affect the '08 elections? Can one party or the other pick up a seat that they wouldn't have had a shot at previously?

Don't know. Stevens was facing a tough primary battle and was polling below his Republican opponent. If the doesn't resign he's likely to lose the primary so his seat will be up for grabs. I don't know who the Democrat running for the seat is and don't know how close the race will be.

I agree with you there. The trouble is, Republicans had the trifecta from 1994 until 2006 and, with control of all the levers of government, they have no one but themselves to blame for the scandals.

I don't think that being a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent makes you any more or less likely to engage in unethical behavior. I'd say that the individuals who engaged in scandalous and unethical behavior, no matter which party they're aligned with, are responsible for the problems they've encountered.

purplehawk

July 30th, 2008, 3:25 pm

How are these scandal(s) going to affect the '08 elections? Can one party or the other pick up a seat that they wouldn't have had a shot at previously?

The predictions I've seen, Chris, are that Democrats expect to pick up five senate seats and perhaps fifteen in the House. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, is in trouble with his bid for reelection, too.

I'd say that the individuals who engaged in scandalous and unethical behavior, no matter which party they're aligned with, are responsible for the problems they've encountered.

Normally I'd agree with you, but I think the culture Republicans established on the Hill accommodated players like Abramoff, DeLay, and Cunningham. It's also true with sex-related scandals like those of David Vitter, Larry Craig and Mark Foley.

monster_mom

July 30th, 2008, 4:10 pm

Normally I'd agree with you, but I think the culture Republicans established on the Hill accommodated players like Abramoff, DeLay, and Cunningham.

The culture was there long before the Republicans re-took control. These names sound familiar?

Traficant (D-OH) (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa072502a.htm)

Sandy Berger ( http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/)

Dan Rostenkowski (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E5D8103BF932A35755C0A9629582 60)

Henry Cisneros (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/cisneros/)

Albert G. Bustamante (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/money/archive/money041596.htm)

To name just a few? (http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm)

Scandal and corruption isn't unique to either political party. There isn't something inherent in the DNA of a Republican or a Democrat which makes them more or less susceptible to corruption. There is an old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The culture which creates a vacuum of power exists wherever there are people in power. It's been around since the beginning of time and will remain long after I'm dust.

It's also true with sex-related scandals like those of David Vitter, Larry Craig and Mark Foley.

Lets not open the can on sex scandals. Unless someone committed a crime, like rape, most of those scandals are personal in nature and really don't deserve comment.

Especially not this week when we all know there's a family in North Carolina suffering.

Chris

July 30th, 2008, 4:19 pm

I agree that we should only allow comment on scandals to the extent that they may affect the 2008 Congressional elections. So, that probably limits it to candidates up for re-election and declared candidates. Stevens certainly qualifies under this mantle, and I would think his tough primary fight is in part because of the cloud hanging over him and his son from the indictments, etc.

purplehawk

July 30th, 2008, 8:08 pm

Traficant is the only person on that list who was a congressman or senator, and he was convicted in 2000. Old news.

I agree with Chris. We should probably keep this to those now in Congress.

WarriorEowyn

July 31st, 2008, 1:47 am

Traficant is the only person on that list who was a congressman or senator, and he was convicted in 2000. Old news.

I agree with Chris. We should probably keep this to those now in Congress.
Well, of course it's old news if she's commenting on corruption that happened when the Dems had had control of Congress for a long period of time - didn't they lose it in '94. The party in power always decides they can get away with corruption - it's the nature of politics, not of one party.

Lets not open the can on sex scandals. Unless someone committed a crime, like rape, most of those scandals are personal in nature and really don't deserve comment.
I think what Craig is accused of is a crime - misdemeanor or something - related to public indecency. But I do agree that it's not relevant to how they do their jobs - although it's a bit rich to hear that from a Republican given what they put the Clintons through.

lindaluna

July 31st, 2008, 9:51 am

Vitter is still in the Senate. The guy with the diapers at the Washington Madam's house.

purplehawk

July 31st, 2008, 3:25 pm

So is Stevens. He's being arraigned today (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25944067/) in Washington.

monster_mom

July 31st, 2008, 3:40 pm

So is Jefferson. He was arraigned (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/Story?id=3259384&page=1) in June.

purplehawk

July 31st, 2008, 4:13 pm

True. I said back then that he should resign - Jefferson, that is.

monster_mom

July 31st, 2008, 5:54 pm

Seems the NRCC has finally gotten off it's backside and decided to actually try to win an election or two this November. Here's their just released advert on the upcoming Congrerssional elections:

Ek9dU4G-qL8

purplehawk

July 31st, 2008, 6:57 pm

monster_mom

July 31st, 2008, 9:06 pm

It's a great ad.

But I don't think it will save the GOP in November.

Pelosi-bashing has been around for years. It will play well with the hard-right and there aren't enough of them to overturn the public's disgust with Republicans in Congress. The approval ratings for Congress as a whole are pretty dismal (http://pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm), but Democrats' favorability ranges between 28%-35%, while Republicans are stuck in the teens and low-twenties. That fact is made entirely clear when you consider how many GOP legislators are in deep danger of losing their seats (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10492.html) this November.

But Pelosi hasn't been the big balooka for long, and now that she's the big giant head in the Democratic party, she's the one everyone will look to for answers. While it's unlikely to hurt her chances at being reelected, any member of Congress who defers to her judgement and is seen as closely aligned wiht her policies may suffer as a result.

There are lots of GOPers set to lose their seats this November if they don't cleanup their act. For far too long the GOP has been spending my money like it grows on trees and it's time for that to stop. But Democrats would be poorly advised to ignore whats causing the Republicans so much trouble.

With gas prices around $4 a gallon and the economy moving so slowly, people are going to look twice at anyone who supports raising their taxes before taking the necessary steps to cut extraneous government spending and people are going to wonder why Congress hasn't done anything to lower gas prices. Both of those will land squarely on the Democrats doorstep unless they do something to remedy the situation.

OldLupin

July 31st, 2008, 10:34 pm

Well, of course it's old news if she's commenting on corruption that happened when the Dems had had control of Congress for a long period of time - didn't they lose it in '94. The party in power always decides they can get away with corruption - it's the nature of politics, not of one party.

I think what Craig is accused of is a crime - misdemeanor or something - related to public indecency. But I do agree that it's not relevant to how they do their jobs - although it's a bit rich to hear that from a Republican given what they put the Clintons through.

Clinton was the President and lied under oath, repeatedly. That is a crime, not a personal issue. Either way, it is simply that Republicans are expected to have higher moral standards than Democrats and they are almost always crucified for their indiscretions much more than their counterparts. Despite those glasses worn by some that shade everything Democrat mitigated and everything Republican evil, for the majority we just expect Republicans to be better behaved, even after Nixon. Of course petty theft isn't as serious as perjury, but Nixon resigned to save embarrassment while others will cling for all they are worth regardlesss of the damage.

Either way, when it comes to scandal, I give you Ted "I better call the office first" Kennedy. If he can basicly side-step murder, or at a minimum depraved indifference to human life, I would have to guess that most incumbents are pretty safe despite scandals, if they are long tenured.

purplehawk

July 31st, 2008, 11:12 pm

Democrats would be poorly advised to ignore whats causing the Republicans so much trouble.

I agree with you. They'd damned well better not ignore it!

Speaking of the GOP, though, they would do well to use their time in exile to understand what brought them so low. They should have paid attention two years ago to the message the electorate was sending them.

monster_mom

July 31st, 2008, 11:27 pm

I agree with you. They'd damned well better not ignore it!

Speaking of the GOP, though, they would do well to use their time in exile to understand what brought them so low. They should have paid attention two years ago to the message the electorate was sending them.

I'm not sure what that message was. The Democrats assumed that it was to bring the troops home but, they never delivered on that promise. Now the surge they said would never work has been an amazing success and the Democrats are facing another election cycle with an electorate that's just as angry and just as frustrated as it was 2 years ago (as evidenced by their abysmal, single digit approval ratings).

The GOP, for it's part, seems to be slowly getting the message. They're finally getting back on message about fiscal responsibility. Let's hope they don't forget again.

WarriorEowyn

August 1st, 2008, 5:12 am

Clinton was the President and lied under oath, repeatedly. That is a crime, not a personal issue.
But why in the world was he being questioned on a personal issue anyway? There's no reasonable reason for a person to be under oath to answer questions about their sex life.

Either way, it is simply that Republicans are expected to have higher moral standards than Democrats and they are almost always crucified for their indiscretions much more than their counterparts.
True. And often unfair - but understandable when the Republicans involved are ones deriving large parts of their support from the "moral majority". People don't like that sort of hypocrisy, and the irony makes for good media.

purplehawk

August 1st, 2008, 6:02 am

monster_mom

August 1st, 2008, 2:49 pm

I have a hard time buying into the idea that conservatives somehow have "higher moral standards" than Democrats, based on what we've seen over the past fourteen years. And it's not just in the Congress and the White House. We've seen scandal after scandal coming out of the churches, too, although that's been going on forever. I think this moral thing is a ruse a lot of people have bought into, but conservatives have no more claim on morality than do liberals.

I agree with you on this. I don't think morality is a Republican or a Democratic thing - I think it's an dindividual thing. And I don't think compromosing your morals is a Republican or a Democratic thing - I think it's an individual thing.

Human beings are fallible - we've know that since Eve first took a bite of that apple. No one group of people of politicla party has a monopoly on morality and no one groups of people of party has a monopoly on scandal. People just are what they are - human beings who blow it sometimes.

******** On to a new topic......

And interesting debate, of sorts, occurred on the Hill yesterday. Republicans raised their motion to consider debate on offshore drilling. Democrats objected. Republicans then asked that the motion be set with some sort of automatic trigger that would allow debate should gas prices reach $4.5 a gallon. Democrats objected. Republicans asked that the trigger be $5 a gallon. Democrats objected. Republicans asked that the trigger be $7.50 a gallon. Democrats objected. Republicans asked that the trigger be $10 a gallon and Democrats objected. You can watch the exchange here.

Z0FcNNeuf0E

I can see the adverts being written as we type.....

***** Update*****

CSPAN is reporting tha the gang of 10 (a group of 5 moderate Democrats and 5 moderate Republicans) has patched together a compromise plan for energy independence that they will put before Congress today. The official CSPAN report on the proposal says (and I'm not joking) "U.S. Senate: 'Gang of 10' - Unveil Compromise Energy Proposal" (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280202-1) and that's the extent of the announcement.

I'm not sure what will happen, but it should be interesting.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280202-1

Dedalus Diggle

August 1st, 2008, 3:53 pm

But why in the world was he being questioned on a personal issue anyway? There's no reasonable reason for a person to be under oath to answer questions about their sex life.

B. Clinton was under oath and questioned about his sex life because he was a defendant in a civil case which charged him with sexual assault. Is that not a 'reasonable reason' to ask questions about whether he makes sexual advances on his subordinates?

Back to the election, I heard an interesting interview with a man named Bill Russell, who is challenging Jack Murtha for the U.S. Reps. He is pushing domestic energy development, particularly clean coal technologies, which will play well in Pennsylvania. Murtha has shot his mouth off so many times in recent years with unsupportable accusations and radical rants, it would be good to see him go.

purplehawk

August 1st, 2008, 4:28 pm

B. Clinton was under oath and questioned about his sex life because he was a defendant in a civil case which charged him with sexual assault. Is that not a 'reasonable reason' to ask questions about whether he makes sexual advances on his subordinates?

No. Clinton shouldn't be on-topic for this thread, should he?

Back to the election, I heard an interesting interview with a man named Bill Russell, who is challenging Jack Murtha for the U.S. Reps. He is pushing domestic energy development, particularly clean coal technologies, which will play well in Pennsylvania. Murtha has shot his mouth off so many times in recent years with unsupportable accusations and radical rants, it would be good to see him go.

I don't much care for John Murtha, but he's hardly alone in spouting off with unsupportable accusations. As for "radical rants," I could tot up several dozen Republicans who've made a career of doing the same thing.

Chris

August 1st, 2008, 4:39 pm

I'll reiterate what you all do seem to know...Bill Clinton's not on topic for this thread. Unless he runs for congress this year.

Dedalus Diggle

August 1st, 2008, 5:13 pm

Clinton shouldn't be on-topic for this thread, should he?

Of course, he is not. I hate to let such blatantly-erronious statements go unchallenged though. However, keeping in mind the need to return the discussion to Congress, I did go on to discuss the Russell-Murtha race.

purplehawk

August 1st, 2008, 5:57 pm

From The Crypt at Politico:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the light and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones have been turned on as well.

But C-SPAN has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one is witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left. ...

You can read the rest here: House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/House_Dems_turn_out_out_the_light_but_GOP_keep_tal king.html)

I'm proud of Pelosi for sticking to her guns on this one. :tu:

monster_mom

August 1st, 2008, 7:33 pm

Congress has recessed for the next 5 weeks. The House recessed yesterday with a vote of 213 to 212. All but 17 Democrats voted for Adjournment. Those 17 Democrats and every Republican voted against adjournment.

***Edit***
Sorry for the edit, but apparently only the Democrats have adjourned. The Republican's have remained on the floor of the House and are giving speeches and chanting with the visitors in the gallery. They are in the dark and the Speaker's office has refused to turn on the microphones and cut CPSPAN'S transmission.

Apparently Speaker Pelosi sent the Capitol Police to clear the press gallery and lock the doors but Republican members got wind of her attempt to squelch freedom of the press and are taking it in turns to sit in the gallery and prevent the Capitol Police from removing the members of the media.

As of 2:00 the standoff is still going and pizza has been ordered for members remaining on the floor.

In another interesting, and related note, supporters of drilling have initiated a campaign to have the President call Congress back into session to debate drilling.

Here's the best part. I''m not joking.

You can check out Rep. John Culberton's repot via twitter here https://twitter.com/johnculberson

OldLupin

August 1st, 2008, 9:23 pm

purplehawk

August 1st, 2008, 11:10 pm

What is there to be proud of here? Would you have been just as proud if the Republicans had done this to Democrats? Way to get that bipartisan feeling back to Washington. If the democrats keep "uniting" the country this way we might just have another civil war. I am ashamed that the majority party leader would resort to such a juvenile act. It is going to backfire, but where is the indignation from the "abuse of power" crowd? Oh I forgot, its only abuse when its the other guy, when our side does it we are proud? tsk, tsk.

Have we forgotten February 14, 2008, when Republicans walked out of session en masse and straight into a horde of reporters (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-walk-out-on-contempt-vote-2008-02-14.html) waiting for them on the Capitol stairs? The topic under dispute that time was FISA.

Jessica

August 1st, 2008, 11:22 pm

We're taking a break. You guys aren't even trying today.

Sherlock Holmes

August 4th, 2008, 1:36 pm

Re-opening the thread. Try to play nice: the staff's patience with the DoIMC political thread is rather short.

Midnightsfire

August 5th, 2008, 12:38 pm

Roy Blunt Throws Down The Gauntlet; Says Democrats Must Allow Off Shore Drilling Or Repubs Will Shut Down Congress (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/04/roy-blunt-throws-down-the-gauntlet-says-democrats-must-allow-off-shore-drilling-or-repubs-will-shut-down-congress/)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Normally I avoid overtly partisan websites, but this was too good to pass up.

Apparently Blunt's trying to take a page from Gingrich in 1995 which backfired against the Republicans and eventually led to Newt's ouster.

And another problem for the GOP is that the Bush Administration isn't backing any shutdown regardless of issue. (Various links here (http://beltwayblips.com/story/white_house_says_no_to_special_session_of_congress/))

purplehawk

August 5th, 2008, 4:29 pm

Stunt City, eh? And all of it aimed not on principle, but on their reelection prospects in November. Bah!

OldLupin

August 5th, 2008, 5:44 pm

Stunt City, eh? And all of it aimed not on principle, but on their reelection prospects in November. Bah!

I agree to an extent. This has become a publicity stunt with ulterior motives, which is the point at which I loose patience for it. The Republican representatives were right at first to protest and draw attention to the non-vote, but once they achieved that, making a bigger issue of it strikes me as petty. Besides, all they needed was to get Stephanopolis to ask Pelosi why she didn't allow a vote to make the Speaker look off kilter. I think his being the former press secretary for Clinton lulled her into a false sense of security, but what an answer! I had trouble distinguishing what she was trying to say for all the stammering and blithering. The line about Republicans can use their imaginations on how they can get a vote was both telling and downright priceless. Good thing the Democrats aren't running on a platform of unification, these types of antics don't make that look like a goal for them.

Redhart

August 5th, 2008, 5:53 pm

monster_mom

August 6th, 2008, 3:31 pm

I find the whole thing absolutely hilarious! They've even got a web site up and running and instructions on how to get to the floor to watch the spectacle.

Offshore drilling, alternatives, and conservation all should have been a priority for the last 30 years. They haven't been. But 30 years of hiding our heads in the sand doesn't mean we should hide our heads for 30 more years or 30 more days. This current crisis is a wake up call we all should pay attention to. We need real solutions to our energy problems - alternatives and oil and conservation - and we need to get started now.

Dedalus Diggle

August 6th, 2008, 3:53 pm

Ya, this is becoming an election stunt.

Fact is, where were these guys and why were they not doing this in the last 8 years (albeit, I realize they haven't had the majority the last 2..but they don't now, either).

While I'm not the biggest Pelosi fan--this reminds me of a college student who suddenly finds out term papers are due tomorrow, and are throwing a fit because the teacher won't give an extention...and it's all her fault.

Granted, that simplified, but it brings that to mind. Given that, I find it a bit hard to muster too much sympathy for their theatrics.

The Republicans have been pushing for more drilling (the currently available sites have been explored and are either under development and production or more commonly have been shown not to have commercially useful deposits, at least under current technology and market conditions) for well over a decade, perhaps ever since the first oil shocks (I can remember it at least during Clinton's reign), but the Democrats have used the modern form of the filibuster to prevent it. I stress the modern form of the filibuster, because that does not require the old-style of actually reading phone books and encyclopedia and such tricks to occupy the debate - a faction just shows it has enough votes (at least 40) to prevent brining the matter to a vote, and the majority recognizes that and moves on to other business. I am not 'blaming' the Democrats for their use of the tactic - both sides do, and often on things I would have preferred seeing either passed or at least voted on. However, to say that the Republicans have not pushed for increasing supplies is just wrong - it has been brought up repeatedly, and the filibuster threat used to prevent any progress.

purplehawk

August 6th, 2008, 4:17 pm

Dedalus Diggle

August 6th, 2008, 4:34 pm

Then why isn't the push aimed at the oil companies for the leases you've just said "have been explored and are either under development and production?" Why aren't we hammering them to produce on the 80% of off-shore leases they already have in their pockets?

Is there something magical about the oil in the 20% they want now?

As to the available sites that have been trumpeted by elected Democrats, I have explained in the post above yours. However, i have heard you claim this '80% of all offshore areas are already available' several times. It sounds as if you are saying that 80% of the entire coastline of the USA has been allowed to be explored and, if the results are good, developed. However, the articles I have read, from 'mainstream' sources and others, is that the entire east coast, west coast, Alaska coast, Hawaiian coast, eastern Gulf Coast (i.e. Florida) are all subject to the moratorium on offshore oil/gas exploration and development. Could you please explain your claim and provide a cite from a reliable source?

purplehawk

August 6th, 2008, 4:40 pm

Senator Joe Biden OP-ED: Oil companies have lots of leases to drill (http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=E20B32D9-D252-4E61-BA4A-BAD79F2A76FE)

monster_mom

August 6th, 2008, 5:21 pm

Senator Joe Biden OP-ED: Oil companies have lots of leases to drill (http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=E20B32D9-D252-4E61-BA4A-BAD79F2A76FE)

Biden is right on one thing - only about 20% of the leases currently issued are producing. That's because the remaining 80% of the available leases (those non-producing ones we keep hearing about) either don't have oil, the oil is too difficult to get at, or the companies holding the leases are attempting to ascertin where the oil is, how much is there, and whether it can be accessed.

Oh - just because Biden says something it doesn't make it any more factual than Gingrich or Bush saying something makes it fact. I'd still like to see some facts to back up this assertion that the non-producing leases have oil on them that's accessible and are not being developed intentionally by the oil and gas companies specifically to drive up gas prices so they can get more leases.

The opposing point of view is that the non-producing 80% of the leases either don't contian large quantities oil, the oil they contian can not be accessed, or the research into whether the lease can be developed is underway.

I've posted and linked this before, but I'll post it again. If you follow the link you can find the research to substanciate the assertions made here.

CLAIM: The vast majority of federal and gas resources are already available for development.

FACT: In the Lower 48 states, about 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and 67 percent of onshore federal lands are off-limits or facing significant restrictions to development. There is no way, at this stage, to determine exactly the extent of the resources off-limits because many of these areas have not been subject to inventory studies in decades.

CLAIM: Oil and natural gas companies are given leases by the government and purposely don’t produce from them to increase prices.

FACT: Companies pay billions of dollars for the right to explore on federal lands. If the company does not produce within the lease term, it must give the lease back to the government, and the company does not recover the billions of dollars it may have invested.

CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them

FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market -- obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production -- is a long and complicated one.

CLAIM: There’s absolutely no reason for a company not to produce if it finds oil or gas on the lease.

FACT: If the company finds resources in commercial quantities, it will produce the lease. But there can sometimes be delays – often as long as seven to 10 years – for environmental and engineering studies, to acquire permits, install production facilities (or platforms for offshore leases) and build the necessary infrastructure to bring the resources to market. Litigation, landowner disputes and regulatory hurdles can also delay the process.

CLAIM: Companies should be penalized for not producing from their leases.

FACT: Oil and gas companies take all the risk with federal leases. Not only do they pay billions to obtain leases, they pay to hold them while they are spending even more capital to determine if these leases contain resources. Penalties on leaseholders on top of those fees would only discourage U.S. exploration and production, at a time when the United States needs all the energy it can get.

CLAIM: If the lease doesn’t contain oil or natural gas, then the company shouldn’t have bought it.

FACT: There are tremendous risks and challenges involved in finding and producing oil and natural gas. There is no guarantee that a lease will even contain hydrocarbons. It is not unusual for a company to spend in excess of $100 million only to drill a dry hole. A company usually has only has limited knowledge of resource potential when it buys a lease. Only after the lease is acquired, will the company be in the position to evaluate it, usually with a very costly seismic survey followed by an exploration well.

CLAIM: Increased domestic drilling activity has not led to lower gasoline prices, and more leases and drilling won’t help either.

FACT: Our nation needs more supplies of all forms of energy, including domestic oil and natural gas, to meet its growing energy demand. Increased drilling has helped the United States offset the natural declines in domestic oil and natural gas production from older fields. Greater drilling activity tends to produce more supply. Fundamental economics suggest that additional supplies put downward pressure on prices.

CLAIM: Non-producing leases could provide a major source of new supplies.

FACT: Many of these leases could provide a major source of new domestic supply once they are developed. Companies are actively developing the leases, and in addition to paying for the lease, they must also pay rent to the government while they conduct development and exploration efforts. But this process takes time. Reducing the time companies have to develop a lease or increasing the costs imposed by government will not increase supply for American consumers. Nor will denying access to areas of oil and natural gas potential like the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.

http://www.energytomorrow.org/energy/Facts_about_Non_Producing_Leases.aspx

purplehawk

August 6th, 2008, 6:11 pm

I'd still like to see some facts to back up this assertion that the non-producing leases have oil on them that's accessible and are not being developed intentionally by the oil and gas companies specifically to drive up gas prices so they can get more leases.

I'd like to see an explanation from those who hold those leases as to why they've done nothing with them.

Redhart

August 6th, 2008, 6:34 pm

monster_mom

August 6th, 2008, 9:11 pm

Your right Monster-Mom (please, don't faint), a lot of those leases are empty for a reason. I won't debate that. I have a friend who's a petro-chemist for a large oil company (she travels a lot and is part of the team that assertains which fields have promise, and which better to not waste time with) and we've had some discussions about this.

Thanks! I didn't faint but I did spit my drink out!

The fact is, the ones that aren't leased yet probably will turn up similar results...some will turn up oil, others will not and be by passed. That's one of the reasons why I question some of those larger estimates on oil productions from fields not yet drilled and tested--they are, indeed, *estimates*. Some are conservative, others are more "if everything goes perfect* hopes.

Absolutely!

Also, some of the fields lay empty because they are awaiting rigs and crews which are not built yet. Those enormous, offshore rigs aren't just popped out of a factory in Bopunk, Kansas once a week. They are huge projects, years of engineering and planning and moo-koo bucks to design, build and actually get them to the spot producing(if there is truly oil there).

Absolutely!

It's not enough to do much for gas price crunch. Biden's right, Opec just *adjusts* their production to compensate. The oil will eventually run out...it'll be years before this oil even hits the market if they open the leases tomorrow (estimates I've read are from 2025-2030, depending on source). It won't do anything to either A) alleviate our supply issue now or B) secure our energy supply against foreign sources C) get us started down new energy sources.

The estimates I've seen show peak production on some of the areas (ANWR in particular) within 10 years. I don't disagree with either A, B, or C, but my understanding of the price of oil is that it's based largely on speculation about supply and demand. Speculators believe that the supply of oil will remain relatively stable over the next few years but demand will continue to rise (not necessarily because of US increases but because of increased demand form China and India). So those speculators are betting that oil is a good bet to go up in price and are driving the price up by trying to buy now.

To have an immediate effect on prices, we don't even need to hit oil - we just need to have the closed areas opened up for speculation - especially the closed area in ANWR (because we know right where that oil is and where to drill to get at it). If the closed areas are opened the speculators bet that oil supplies will remain constant isn't so sure anymore and the speculators will turn to something else where prices are likely to rise. That means they'll sell the oil certificates they have and the price will come down. Prices are down now from where they were at their peak, largely due to the President lifting the executive ban on drilling and the increased support for opening the closed areas in Congress.

Until we REALLY get off the oil, we are going to go through this again . Until our legislators REALLY get off their duffs and promote new energy technology, we are going to go around and around on this and go nowhere until the oil's completely gone, and we're debating by candle light.

Absolutely, although I'd probably have a different perspective on the techniques we should use to stimulate investment and research into energy independence.

America has an opportunity to lead the world in new power technology--or, we can argue in the legislature, continue to pump, and let other countries take the lead as we fade back in the annals of future history (heh..I made an oxymoron :p) and hand the progressive, tech torch to new countries.

Absolutely! But we need something to sustain us until those alternative to oil are available (which by the estimates I've seen won't be for at least 15 years). That means oil and coal. And we need to do everything we can to make sure the oil and coal come from the US.

Someone will do it, the situation will demand it.

Yep. See T. Boone Pickens.

Midnightsfire

August 7th, 2008, 3:20 pm

Your right Monster-Mom (please, don't faint), a lot of those leases are empty for a reason. I won't debate that.
The reasoning is based upon a guessing game.
Also, why on Earth would they acquire those leases to begin with? They pay every year for those leases but they don't do anything with them because... they can't use them? I'm supposed to believe that?
I didn't believe that when I read that earlier (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080616124454.aspx).

But wait... If the oil companies aren't the blame then I would have to scrutinize the politicians who are getting some nice checks from the oil companies. Of course that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

People want to pay less now. Oil drilling wouldn't have accomplished anything in that regard. The only thing that would have had any immediate effect would have been curbing speculation. And Republicans shot that down. And for the life of me I had no idea why. WHY DO THAT? Just because it was a democrat-backed bill. Simple and stupid politics.

Interesting tidbit:
According to the Department of Energy (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm):

"In 2004, United States refineries produced over 90 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. Although the United States is the world’s third largest crude oil producer, less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. Net petroleum imports (imports minus exports) account for 58 percent of our total petroleum consumption. About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 19 percent from the Persian Gulf, and 18 percent from Africa and 13 percent from other regions".

Until we REALLY get off the oil, we are going to go through this again . Until our legislators REALLY get off their duffs and promote new energy technology, we are going to go around and around on this and go nowhere until the oil's completely gone, and we're debating by candle light.

If the future White House backs alternative energy sources then this might be what they need: 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html)

So far I have yet to read any data backed post that supports drilling that can't be tracked back to any reason other than because "Republicans support it." And zero reasons why those that support drilling don't support curbing speculation.

purplehawk

August 7th, 2008, 3:41 pm

OldLupin

August 7th, 2008, 4:37 pm

So far I have yet to read any data backed post that supports drilling that can't be tracked back to any reason other than because "Republicans support it." And zero reasons why those that support drilling don't support curbing speculation.

I think Mom has posted several times with supporting links that had nothing to do with "Republicans support it", but showed the positive short-term and long term impacts of drilling. As I said earlier if the Democrat opposition hadn't relied on the "we won't see any benifits for ten years" argument a decade ago, we wouldn't be preoccupied with short-term neccessity of increasing production and would be spending that time and energy on eliminating dependance on oil.
What is the exact proposal that is supposed to eliminate speculation in any market, let alone the single most lucrative market available? I am unsure how that exactly is supposed to even work.

Neither have I. :no:

Disgusting, actually.

Sorry if I and appearantly others, disgust you, Purp, but I think you are way off and using some very slanted perception to even assert that this claim is accurate, let alone that you are disgusted by it. Might I suggest going back and rereading some of Mom's posts and seeing if there aren't more references to benifits and reasons than "Republican support".

Redhart

August 7th, 2008, 5:59 pm

When you go back and look at mom's, look at my sources, too.

The whole "speculation" deal is not my forte', but I still stand by my opinion that the actual drilling at this point in time (because we can't go back 10, 20 or 30 years) will do little actual good other than give false hope to stave off the inevitable. To me, it just seems like a child with a security blanket...it gives warmth and comfort, but does little to fend off actual threats.

I am encouraged that Mom and I seem to at least agree on some things, and we seem to all agree on the goal we wish to get to (new power sources, getting off foreign oil and oil in general)--it does just seem like we disagree on how to get there. This is progress.

If Mom and I can find common ground, maybe dems and repubs can, too.. (at some point) and actually work out some issues.

monster_mom

August 7th, 2008, 6:17 pm

The reasoning is based upon a guessing game.

That's what drilling, and business is - a guessing game. There may be data to hedge your bet a bit, but it's still a bet. The and gas exploration companies are betting there's oil to in them thar hills and drilling to find it. Sometimes they get lucky and other times they don't.

Also, why on Earth would they acquire those leases to begin with?

They purchase the leases because they think there might be oil or gas under the block on the grid. Then they get permits to conduct seismic and geologic investigations to see if they hedged their bet properly. If those surveys indicate that there might be oil they proceed to drill to see how much there is and whether the quantity is commercially viable. If the surveys indicate that it's not worth drilling then the companies move on to the next area - but they still have to pay the lease fees for the duration of the lease on the now worthless land.

They pay every year for those leases but they don't do anything with them because... they can't use them? I'm supposed to believe that? I didn't believe that when I read that earlier.

Just sticking a pipe in the ground doesn't guarantee you'll hit oil. That's kind of where the term speculators came from. The oil and gas speculators get leases to stick holes in the ground and hope they'll hit oil. If they don't they're out the lease cost and the costs to stick the hole in the ground.

They pay every year for the leases because that's what they agreed to in the contract. If the lease doesn't have any oil or gas they're out of luck. If they don't have sufficient resources (people and equipment) to study the site then they still have to pay.

Don't just assume that idle land hasn't been looked at and deemed worthless or isn't being assessed, because the classification of idle includes both worthless land and land currently being assessed to see if it has any oil or gas.

But wait... If the oil companies aren't the blame then I would have to scrutinize the politicians who are getting some nice checks from the oil companies. Of course that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Aren't to blame for what?

People want to pay less now. Oil drilling wouldn't have accomplished anything in that regard. The only thing that would have had any immediate effect would have been curbing speculation. And Republicans shot that down. And for the life of me I had no idea why. WHY DO THAT? Just because it was a democrat-backed bill. Simple and stupid politics.

Yes, opening the banned areas would have reduced speculation in the oil and gas commodities markets which would have brought the per barrel price of oil down. Republican's didn't shoot that down - the Democrats did - when they left for vacation without allowing a vote on opening the offshore areas to drilling.

If the future White House backs alternative energy sources then this might be what they need: 'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

And, as the article stated, the research is in it's infancy. That means it won't help this winter or next winter or even 10 winters from now when people need to heat their homes but can't afford to. Grants should be provided to encourage this type of research, But we're not at the stage yet where we can base our future on this type of emerging research.

So far I have yet to read any data backed post that supports drilling that can't be tracked back to any reason other than because "Republicans support it."

I've posted links to multiple sites with information about why opening up new areas for exploration would be a good thing. If you'd like to discuss concerns you have with their data then by all means lets do so. But claiming that no one has presented any data isn't ture.

And zero reasons why those that support drilling don't support curbing speculation.

Possibly because the US government can only try to restrict commodities speculation here in the US. We can't do anything about commodities speculation in other countries and oil and gas are traded on exchanges all over the world.

OldLupin

August 7th, 2008, 6:56 pm

Redhart

August 7th, 2008, 7:46 pm

Isn't that a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is out?

Not to mention, as good an idea as it was 10 or 30 years ago to find other renewable power sources and pursue their development, is it not as true today?

I agree, they should have gotten off their collective rear ends years ago (some tried, many were shouted down and still others poo-pooed the idea there was a problem at all). But, here we are now. All we can do is go foreward. I'm not sure that opening up those oil areas years ago would have gotten us out of were we are today, anyway. We might only be paying $4.09/gal instead of $4.29/gal. ...and the oil's still running out. That's always been the danger of using a non-renewable source to power everything.

monster_mom

August 7th, 2008, 9:46 pm

When you go back and look at mom's, look at my sources, too.

I have! Thanks for posting them!

The whole "speculation" deal is not my forte', but I still stand by my opinion that the actual drilling at this point in time (because we can't go back 10, 20 or 30 years) will do little actual good other than give false hope to stave off the inevitable. To me, it just seems like a child with a security blanket...it gives warmth and comfort, but does little to fend off actual threats.

I'm no expert on the stock market either. I think Ray and Brian and Diggs are our resident experts on the markets.

From what I understand, in theory the price of a commodity is based on supply and demand. If the demand for an item is going to go up and the supply will remain unchanged, then the price for the item will go up. If supply is expected to go up and demand unchanged then the price will go down.

With oil, the assumption is that the supply of oil is going to remain unchanged while the demand for oil will increase (driven largely by China and India) which will drive the price of oil up. Commodities speculators have purchased oil commodities because they are betting that oil supplies will remain unchanged while demand will increase.

The only way we can alter that equation is by changing the supply or changing the demand or changing both. American consumers have already cut back on their driving and we saw that effect in dropping prices a few weeks ago. But we can only cut demand so much, and any cuts in the US market are likely to be met with increases from China and India. So we need to think abotu how we can effect the supply of oil. With OPEC refusing to budge, the only option remaining is to open the banned areas to exploration.

I am encouraged that Mom and I seem to at least agree on some things, and we seem to all agree on the goal we wish to get to (new power sources, getting off foreign oil and oil in general)--it does just seem like we disagree on how to get there. This is progress.

Absolutely we need to invest in alternatives. We're fools if we don't. These prices we're paying now, and the effects we're seeing in our economy, should be a huge wakeup call. We've been sitting around doing nothing for 30 years. We need to get off our duffs and get busy - researching methods of storing and transporting solar and wind generated energy, finding safer less frightening methods of generating nuclear power, replacing old dirty coal plants, building clean coal plants, and drilling for new sources of oil.

Jessica

August 7th, 2008, 10:19 pm

We might only be paying $4.09/gal instead of $4.29/gal. ...and the oil's still running out. That's always been the danger of using a non-renewable source to power everything.

Spoken like a proper Californian :lol: My station is actually down to $4.09 but I have no hopes it will last.

My uncle had what I think is a brilliant proposition to encourage businesses to allow telecommuting. It would save on fuel use in this country if we got say 10 to 15% of the work force off the roads, not to mention congestion, pollution etc.

I saw a story on a "gas" station that just opened in Florida (I think) that sold ethanol which I guess a number of normal cars can use. I would happily buy ethanol over gas if I could. I'd much rather give my money to an American farmer than an oil sheik. It just makes sense to me. And both of these are things we can do now that will help the economy in the long run.

purplehawk

August 7th, 2008, 11:07 pm

I'm glad I'm not in California. The price at the pump here today was $3.69 for high test. With my Kroger "plus" card, I got a price of $3.19. Needless to say I stuffed my tank.

I don't know what the answer is for the dwindling supply of and increased demand for oil, but I am convinced that Iraq - specifically the war in Iraq - is responsible for the spikes we've seen over the past five years. It's never much fun when we're paying for both sides of the same war. Going into that hell hole was utter madness.

Midnightsfire

August 8th, 2008, 6:25 am

I think Mom has posted several times with supporting links that had nothing to do with "Republicans support it", but showed the positive short-term and long term impacts of drilling.
No. She hasn't posted anythig that doesn't track back to a corporate sponsor. (That's why I posted a link to the US Geological Survey)
What is the exact proposal that is supposed to eliminate speculation in any market, let alone the single most lucrative market available? I am unsure how that exactly is supposed to even work.
Rather than post yet another link let's look at it another way:

Speculation used to be limited to people/companies in the oil business. Anyone outside of the business could still participate, but there was a cap to prevent them from buying too many futures.
Then in 1999, a group of investment firms setup a group in England to get around that cap so they could trade all they wanted in oil futures. After a while the US decided to drop the cap because it was only hurting US investors since the big guys could still trade outside the system. (There were significant checks on speculation until Enron pushed to have them removed in 2000. After that, oil started jumping in price.)

So there is this big change where now people outside the oil business are trading oil futures and using it as a financial investment much like gold. One of the suggestions was to simply put the cap back and to get England to limit US trading in oil there.

Inflation of the dollar originally caused the run up in oil prices, but that should have only doubled it. Speculation then caused it to basically double again. With limited speculation for those outside of the business it would drop back down to $70 range and we'd only have the inflation to deal with.

So the question that remains is why do Republicans oppose this?
And the only anwer is simple; politics.
And this should anger everyone.

They purchase the leases because they think there might be oil or gas under the block on the grid.
And they are paying for those selfsame leases every year. So they can't be all that worthless then.

Don't just assume that idle land hasn't been looked at and deemed worthless or isn't being assessed, because the classification of idle includes both worthless land and land currently being assessed to see if it has any oil or gas.
*sigh* How much do you know about these leases? :no:

Some info about them from the Committee on Natural Resources (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1) (pdf file in link as well)

The reason why they don't want to give up their leases is so that no other company gets an opportunity for oil production. It's a pure business decision. The bill would have either forced them to work those leases or give them up to someone else who would. (Ergo provide competive interests. Something no company wants since that tends to drive prices down.)

This makes the most sense.

Yes, opening the banned areas would have reduced speculation in the oil and gas commodities markets which would have brought the per barrel price of oil down. Republican's didn't shoot that down - the Democrats did - when they left for vacation without allowing a vote on opening the offshore areas to drilling.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Neither business sense nor common sense. :relax:

purplehawk

August 8th, 2008, 12:38 pm

Thanks for the info, Midnight. You've answered several questions I've posted repeatedly and gotten very little by way of response. I would also imagine leases, whether used or idle, are probably an asset on the balance sheet of the companies holding them.

monster_mom

August 8th, 2008, 2:44 pm

No. She hasn't posted anything that doesn't track back to a corporate sponsor. (That's why I posted a link to the US Geological Survey)

The USGS link provided nothing about why companies are or are not drilling, or where they've drilled and found nothing, or what constitutes idle v/s producing land. In other words, the USGS link provided nothing to substantiate the repeated claim that the oil companies are sitting on leases and deliberately not producing oil off of them to drive the price of oil up so they can get their hands on more leases. I'd still like to see some evidence to substantiate that.

Speculation used to be limited to people/companies in the oil business. Anyone outside of the business could still participate, but there was a cap to prevent them from buying too many futures.

Then in 1999, a group of investment firms setup a group in England to get around that cap so they could trade all they wanted in oil futures. After a while the US decided to drop the cap because it was only hurting US investors since the big guys could still trade outside the system. (There were significant checks on speculation until Enron pushed to have them removed in 2000. After that, oil started jumping in price.)

So there is this big change where now people outside the oil business are trading oil futures and using it as a financial investment much like gold. One of the suggestions was to simply put the cap back and to get England to limit US trading in oil there.

Curbing speculation only makes sense if the other nations trading oil also agree to curb it, and if the rise in prices is largely due to over speculation. But, if the run up on prices is due to real concerns about supply and demand, then we ought to be thanking the speculators for ringing the warning bell because it has us all focused on and discussing conservation and alternatives.

So, is the problem supply and demand or speculation or both?

Let's start with demand for oil (and gas and diesel). By most of the estimates I've seen, it is expected that within the next 3 - 5 years the demand for gas and oil, especially diesel, from developing nations like China and India, will match that of the developing world. So the developed nations of the world can do as much as possible to reduce their demand for oil, but those efforts will have little effect on overall demand in the long run. In other words, demand for oil is likely to increase in the mid to long term.

So what about supply. We need only review previous posts to see that there are real and valid concerns about the long terms supply of oil from the currently available sources. In other words, we know that the supply of oil is likely to remain unchanged or decline in the mid to long term.

So what about speculation? Is it a bubble, with over eager speculators trying to make a quick buck? If it is a bubble then, like every bubble, this one will burst and the speculators will pay a heavy price for their gamble. But with projections that demand for oil will rise while supplies decline, I'm not convinced this is a bubble. It could be an early warning of things to come.

So the question that remains is why do Republicans oppose this?
And the only anwer is simple; politics.
And this should anger everyone.

They didn't oppose it because they thought curbing speculation was a bad thing - they opposed it because the Democrats refused to consider anything else, because markups on bills about increasing drilling were canceled by the Democratic leadership. So we really should be asking why the Democrats ended debate and canceled the markups on bills which contained provisions for offshore drilling and investment in alternatives.

And they are paying for those selfsame leases every year. So they can't be all that worthless then.

Depends on the terms of the lease. My understanding is that the lease term is typically 10 years and that it takes at least 2 - 3 years of permitting just to start exploration. That's 2 -3 years with the land "idle" while awaiting permits. Then you have the exploration and assessment stage, which can take a few more years. Then, assuming you hit oil, you have a few more years to get the rigs in place and start producing.

The whole "it'll be 10 - 15 years before the wells start producing" statement is based on how long it take under the current permit and review process to start producing.

Some info about them from the Committee on Natural Resources (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1) (pdf file in link as well)

That's a report from the Democrats in Congress who have no more validity on the issue than the Republican's do. The Democrats saying it's so doesn't make it so. FYI - the report says nothing about what constitutes "idle" or "non-producing" land.

I'd trust an industry report long before something from Congress.

The reason why they don't want to give up their leases is so that no other company gets an opportunity for oil production. It's a pure business decision. The bill would have either forced them to work those leases or give them up to someone else who would. (Ergo provide competive interests. Something no company wants since that tends to drive prices down.)

The law currently requires them to develop the land within the 10 year lease or lose the lease. The reason companies choose not to develop the land and lose the lease is because the land has been shown to be of dubious production value. It doesn't really make sense to develop land with little or no oil. :relax:

That makes no sense whatsoever. Neither business sense nor common sense.

We should all be angry that the Democrats chose to adjourn Congress rather than open debate on offshore drilling and funding researching into alternatives.