Big Oil: The Root Of The Problem

As a follow up to past post I have written concerning American oil companies, the following information has been released by the Associated Press in various newspapers.  They report:

 

The oil companies insist they are trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buy backs and dividends.  The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.  The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55% of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30% in 2000 and just 1% in 1993 according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.  Said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University, "if you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil".

With record oil and gasoline prices still going strong the bottom line for American Oil is still greed.  They are not concerned about increased drilling or production as proven by the fact that their expenditures to find new deposits have remained flat for years.  They don't want to drill on the millions of acres they already own, or lease in the U.S.  Instead, they want the government to open up ANWAR and the Arctic --- just another power play while holding America hostage to foreign oil and record prices.

George W. Bush & Ehud Olmert

George Bush and Ehud Olmert, the leaders of the U.S. and Israel respectively, have failed to live up to their responsibilities of doing what is necessary to bring peace to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.  Mr. Bush has been disengaged in the peace process for much of his tenure in office until last November when he hosted a U.S. peace conference for the Middle East.  That conference was about reaching a deal with both parties by this year's end.

 

The New Orleans Times Picayune, on July 29, reported that Olmert told a closed door meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that there is no practical chance of reaching a comprehensive understanding on Jerusalem during 2008 and that he has scaled back Israel's ambitious goal of signing a deal before Bush leaves office.  It should be noted and remembered by the people that the leaders of Israel and Mr. Bush had always taken the position that there could be no peace in the Middle East because of Yassar Arafat.  Well Mr. Arafat has been gone for awhile now, so yet another excuse is introduced. 

 

Now comes a report from The Washington Post that Israeli leaders routinely get half or more of their campaign contributions for party primaries mostly from American donors.  The fund raising trend is especially pronounced on Israeli's political right --- politicians who advocate aggressive military action against Iran and Hamas and who maintain an uncompromising stance against ceding land to Palestine.

 

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League and a prominent Jewish American leader, said he's uncomfortable with the idea of Americans playing such an important part in determining who gets to lead Israel. It is the height of arrogance.

 

The U.S. does not allow foreigners to contribute to our political campaigns.  We should adopt the same law and forbid Americans to contribute to foreign campaigns.  There should be no outside monetary influence in any country's political system.  I have reported on more than one occasion that the leaders of Israel like nothing better than for U.S. leaders to emulate their sad and sorry behavior. 

 

The next U.S. President needs to change our foreign policy and relationship with Israel before that country gets us into an unnecessary war.  The policies that Israel carry out are done with impunity.  That is un-American.  Something has to change.  

Road to 60: The Ad Wars

As Democrats seem almost certain to pick up five Senate seats this November (Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Colorado, & Alaska), with many other races in single digits (Oregon, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, Minnesota, & Maine), the ad wars have already gotten heated.  

This latest ad from the DSCC is up in response to Elizabeth Dole's ad claiming that North Carolina needs her because of her "clout" in the Senate:  

In Oregon, in a race that has gone from double digits to neck and neck in just a few months, incumbent Republican Gordon Smith would like to fool Oregonians into believing that he is an independent, maybe even a Democrat.  How is Smith going about doing this? Well, the latest two ads Smith has released tout his relationship and supposed friendship with Senators Barack Obama and John Kerry and claim that he (Smith) has stood up to George Bush.   Smith is clearly doing everything he can to hide the fact that he is a Republican, but Smith is a Republican and this ad exposes why Oregon needs to elect Jeff Merkley to the Senate:

It's great to see the DSCC putting its extensive financial warchest to good use early on --- exposing the incumbent Republicans as what they truly are while allowing the Democratic candidates to stay above the fray and talk about solutions to the problems of their respective states and the country at large.   

The Republican Cycle Of Record Federal Deficits And Debt

The champions of deficit spending and the creation of debt are indeed the so called conservative Republican presidents.  On July 28, Mr. Bush's White House announced that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2009, Mr. Bush's final budget, will be another whopping record of $482 billion --- by far the largest ever.  It was originally projected to be $400 billion. 

 

The White House also announced that this year's budget deficit for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008 will be $389 billion.  It was projected early on to be $260 billion.  The White House and Mr. Bush are now trying to blame everything and everyone under the sun for this deficit explosion, but now it won't wash because of his record of reckless fiscal policies.  Lets look at Mr. Bush's irresponsible deficit spending and debt:

 

If the latest two projections on the deficit hold up Mr. Bush's total deficit spending for 8 years in office will be over $2.5 trillion and he will have added over $4 trillion to the national debt.  Ronald Reagan's total deficit spending for 8 years was $1.4 trillion and he added $1.9 trillion to the national debt.  Mr. Bush 41 (George Herbert Walker Bush) deficit spending for his 4 years in office was $1.03 trillion and he added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. 

 

I will let the readers add those numbers up so they can understand the reckless behavior of those so called conservative Presidents.  They will have served a total of 20 years when Bush 43 leaves office and did not balance one federal budget in those 20 years.  The reckless fiscal behavior of those 3 Presidents is the reason the economy was never sustained on their watch and why job creation was uneven and suffered job losses.  They never had a true economic policy.  They had a tax policy of trickle down economics which never worked to sustain the economy. 

 

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan-Bush 41 reckless behavior of 12 straight years of deficit spending and debt by reducing the deficit every year his first 4 years in office and then created a balance budget with surpluses each of his last 4 years.  His administration had a $62.8 billion surplus for his 8 years in office and paid down over $400 billion on the national debt.  Mr. Clinton had an economic plan that produced the greatest economy and created a record number of over 22.7 million new jobs.  He also left Mr. Bush a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion which Mr. Bush squandered. 

 

The Republican Party has no record of being fiscal conservative despite their lies.  The record shows their real intention, to bankrupt the country to deprive the government of funds for Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that have been a benefit to the American people.  Their tragic record speaks for itself.  And the present Mr. Bush is by far the most tragic.

Energy Crisis: People Power For Change

The American people can not wait on elected officials or corporate America to bring about change in using fossil fuels.  The exorbitant increase in oil and gasoline has been going on too long while the President, government officials, and corporate America only give excuses.

 

We the people need to change and make the sacrifice ourselves in order to start the process of greening America by drastically reducing our dependence on oil and gasoline.  At the same time, we have to demand our government start to act now.

 

In a report out of the Times Picayune, the largest newspaper in Louisiana, dated July 29, 2008, an AAA survey of people in Louisiana show that 77% of drivers made significant changes in their driving habits.  Here is how they accomplished that:  (1)  Moved closer to work.  (2) Carpooling. (3)  Using Public Transportation.  (4) Biking or walking.  (5)  Buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.  (6) Taking fewer or shorter leisure trips.

 

Taking matters in our own hands will be a sacrifice worthwhile even though it will some times be hard and difficult.  The alternative is much worse, harder, more costly, and we should understand all that having lived with the problem.

 

Those who advocate more drilling are supporting the status quo and falsehoods.  The Big Oil companies have enough acreage in the U.S. that they have yet to drill on.  They are not working that acreage because there is really no shortage of oil or gasoline.  If there were, they would be drilling up a storm on this acreage at the record prices of the last 2 years.

 

We the people should impose on ourselves 60mph speed limit on the interstate system.  Let the saved gasoline sit in the refineries until the oil companies get the message.  The inconvenience of truth has already arrived.  Shame on us if we ourselves pass up the opportunity to do some thing about it and make a better world for our children and grandchildren. 

 

Remember when V.P. Dick Cheney met with representatives of the energy industry after Bush came into office?  The results of that meeting, what they discussed, and the decisions that were made are still secret today and the public is still in the dark.  If that is not enough to make the people face realty, what will?

 

President Carter took bold action and leadership during the Arab Oil Embargo that actually reduced consumption.  Reagan reversed all that after he took office.  Its time for the people to act on their own, because if one thing is for sure, we can no longer sit around and wait for the government to. 

What's My HUGE Headline From Today's Events?

Democrats are going to pick up at least 5 Senate seats come November, with Alaska now joining my list of Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Colorado?  In case you're living in a cave and don't know why, here's a look:

Let's just say that the odds of a 60 seat majority are ever increasing...

Veepstakes: My Prediction Time

Joseph made his predictions just a few nights ago and now I guess it's my turn: 

I believe Senator McCain will choose former Governor Mitt Romney because of his experience with managing and the economy, something Senator McCain lacks in both the reality and the public mind.

 

I believe Senator Obama will choose Senator Jack Reed.  Senator Reed has military and foreign policy experience which Senator Obama lacks.  

 

My own choice for McCain would be Senator Chuck Hagel or Senator Richard Lugar.  Both have common sense and political and foreign policy experience.  They would bring some sanity to McCain's know-it-all attitude.

 

My own choice for Obama would be General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb, or Senator Hillary Clinton.  I once wanted to see Senator Joe Biden as VP, but now feel that he would be more valuable as Secretary of State in an Obama administration.  Clark and Webb have military experience and although Clinton does not, she has the overall experience to make a difference.

 

If I had to pick a potential surprise, a wildcard if you will, I would go with Senator Lindsay Graham for McCain and Governor Ed Rendell or former Senator Sam Nunn for Obama.

 

Whoever Obama and McCain choose, however, lets just hope the next President does not choose another Dick Cheney type.  Only time will tell.

Andrea Mitchell, You've Made Me Proud

Veepstakes: Prediction Time

First let's take a look at the Republican side:  Who's most likely to be John McCain's Veep.  Here's my predictions:

#3: Tom Ridge.  That's right, the former Pennsylvania governor is the third most likely man to be chosen as McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee.  Why?  For starters, McCain likes Ridge.  Ridge is probably who McCain would most like to pick.  The only problem, of course, is that Ridge is pro-choice, and McCain has previously said that it is unlikely he would choose a pro-choice running mate.  Still, Ridge could shift Pennsylvania to McCain and hence throw a huge curve ball into the Democrats' plan to regain the White House.  For that reason alone, Ridge has got to be in serious contention.

#2: Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty would be a very interesting choice.  Why is he #2?  Again, McCain likes Pawlenty.  Pawlenty was one of the first politicians to endorse McCain during the primaries and McCain has always been good friends with the Minnesota governor.  Add to the mix that Pawlenty could put Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes in to play and Pawlenty is the second most likely pol to be named McCain's number two.

#1: Mitt Romney.  Indeed if I had to place money on it, I'd say McCain has already decided on Romney.  I'm not sure why as Romney doesn't exactly do that much for McCain.  He might put Michigan in to play, but thats about it.  Also, Romney is conventional wisdom.  Everyone in the media expects it to be Romney.  If McCain truly wants announcing his VP to give him some much needed media attention, shouldn't he pick someone that would be a little less expected?  It's not a wise choice by McCain, but then again, McCain hasn't exactly been making wise choices as of late.

As for as the Veepstakes on the Democratic side go, everything is much less clear.  Everyone in the political world has a different opinion.  I'm positive that McCain's VP will be from the above list, and 95% sure it's Romney, but I could be completely off with Obama's list.  But here goes nothing...

#3: Hillary Clinton.  Many people don't think the "dream ticket" has a chance of happening.  I'm very skeptical myself.  But there is a chance.  Obama wants the fundraising prowess of the "Hillraisers" and the only way he's going to get it 100% is to pick Hillary.  In addition to the money issue, Hillary also gives Obama great strength in the "rust-belt" states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and even Michigan.  

#2: Tim Kaine.  Obama wants to win Virginia.  If there's one state Obama is intent on flipping this cycle, it's Virginia and what better way to get a head start than by putting its very popular governor on the ticket?  

#1: Evan Bayh.  One doesn't hear much about Bayh, but I will guarantee Obama is looking at him seriously.  With recent polls showing the race in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state, so close, Bayh could help Obama grab this red state come November.  Add to that Bayh's executive experience as governor of Indiana as well as his foreign policy experience from being in the Senate and Bayh is as good of a pick as any for the Vice-Presidency.  

(In addition to the 3 previous names, I believe that Joe Biden and perhaps even Jack Reed are in contention for the #2 slot.  I don't think either would be particularly great or exciting choices, but I do believe they are on the elusive list.)

John McCain

I used to like John McCain.  I never liked the majority of his political positions, but I liked John McCain the person.  He had dignity.  He had respect.  He had independence from his party.  He, in many ways, had everything George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican leadership in Congress lacked.  This campaign, however, has changed John McCain; changed him or brought forth the true John McCain --- I'm not sure which.  Whatever the case, my opinion of John McCain has changed, and changed for the worst.

It was not too long ago when John McCain said he would run a respectful campaign.  He correctly claimed that "Americans want a respectful debate" and promised to give America just that.  He vowed not to question his opponents "character and integrity".  

But with the election just months away and McCain bracing for a significant loss, speaking with regard to the electoral college, McCain has changed his tactics.  Desperate to destroy the Democratic nominee, McCain and his camp, just this week, rolled out their latest despicable line of attack --- essentially calling Barack Obama out for treason:

"Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

The previous line was used by McCain over and over again.  This is turning in to 2004 all over again.  Why must one's patriotism be questioned in a political campaign?  Why can't Republicans show some decency and admit that just because they disagree with Democrats on policy, their love for this great country and its troops is equal and abundant.  

Attack lines like the one used by McCain are disgusting.  They are completely uncalled for.  How dare John McCain say that any one wants to lose a war?  How dare he?  

John McCain, sir, you have lost all my respect by going after Sen. Obama in that way, and by extension, all Americans who oppose this war.  No amount of recollections of your time as a POW in Vietnam can restore honor and dignity to you name in my eyes.  You were a hero to this country.  You were honorable.  You came into this campaign with that honor and respect.  But when you use that honor and respect bestowed upon you by the American public for your courageous service to this country, and you twist it in order to make the case that you and your party and only you and your party and it's positions show love for this country and our troops, you lose that honor and respect.