Remember the story about the Trojan Horse? The Greeks gave a huge horse statue to Troy. The unsuspecting Trojans brought the gift into their city. During the night, the Greek warriors inside the horse came out and took the city. Hence the saying, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The gift ended up being the undoing of the citizens of Troy.

Well, I am saying, Beware of Dems bearing drilling bills. It is not what it seems, in fact, it is worse than doing nothing.

On the surface, it looks like the House Democrats are concerned with high energy prices in America. In reality, this bill does very little to increase domestic oil production. I think they are only concerned with reelection. 

Considering that 90% of the oil available exists within 50 miles of the shoreline, what will allowing drilling beyond 50 miles do for us? This bill essentially bans access to 100% of the oil on the west coast, including Alaska. It is all show and no go.

This is what happened in the House. From GrasstopsUSA:

On Monday evening at 9:45pm, Pelosi dropped a 245 page bill on Congress (H.R. 6899, the so-called "Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.").

...she effectively stifled substantive debate, by-passed the committee process, prohibited amendments and forced a vote within 24 hours! 

And on Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives passed this "sham bill" on a mostly partisan vote of 239-189! And Pelosi's bill is NOTHING BUT SMOKE AND MIRRORS and will ACTUALLY PROHIBIT DOMESTIC DRILLING, RAISE YOUR TAXES, and has a 'mother-load' of Congressional pork!

OK, right there that should tell you something. Democrats have been against drilling all along and Republicans for it.

If the majority of Democrats voted for H.R. 6899 and the Republicans didn't, doesn't that tell you something? It isn't real! 

What does this worse-than-nothing H.R. 6899 bill include? (My emphasis)

The bill would allow states to “opt-in” to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf 50 to 100 miles off of their coast, as well as explore for oil shale on federal lands. The bill excludes the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as Georges Bank, and does not include any revenue sharing provisions for States. States therefore have little incentive to “opt-in”. It also allows for lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), but does not include any provisions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In addition, it would prohibit 48 companies from competing in future OCS oil and gas lease sales.

H.R. 6899 requires the sale of at least 20 billion barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve within sixty days of enactment. It imposes a new 15 percent renewable energy requirement on private utilities. The bill also includes several green housing initiatives for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and creates a new $2.5 billion Residential Energy Efficient Block Grant Program, as well as a $5 billion Alternative Energy Sources State Loan Fund.

H.R. 6899 extends current and creates new tax credits and other incentives with the stated goal of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Many of the tax credits that are being extended by this bill are set to expire December 31, 2008. The bill includes $17.744 billion in tax increases on oil companies by denying them manufacturing deductions and limiting the ability of U.S. companies to utilize foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction. [Tax increases will be passed onto  us.]  

The bill does not include lawsuit reform, nuclear energy, clean coal, or refinery provisions.

Guess the House Democrats did not listen to Obama's acceptance speech: "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves [that involves drilling], invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

So much for wanting to end America's dependence on foreign oil.

Whatever the case, a similar energy bill faces long odds in the Senate this week - potentially leaving Congress without a major legislative accomplishment on an issue of top concern to voters.

...Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican, accused the Democrats of trying to fool voters about where they stand on drilling: "It's very clear this is written in such a way to make it look like they're in favor of drilling."

The Senate will vote on their own versions. I am not hopeful. All we can do at this point is contact our dynamic duo senators and request that they vote against this drill-nothing version and the President veto this farce.

Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

President Bush  comments@whitehouse.gov.

It is pretty sad that the best we can hope for is that Congress will run out of time before they can each pass a do nothing drilling bill or for a President's veto pen. The Congress' greatest gift would be to do nothing and just let the moratorium expire. 

House Republican quotes regarding this bill:

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner, "It would permanently lock up 80% of our nation's offshore energy resources--holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil."

Congressman Jeb Hensarling called it, "a hoax bill that would permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf for American energy and block energy production in arctic Alaska and the Inter-Mountain West." 

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said, "I'm offended...And the American people should be offended that we're not doing the job for them that really matters." 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Have you noticed that the mood of the country has changed regarding energy?

Last year, THE solution was all about growing our own energy by using ethanol. The emphasis was on reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on foreign oil, regardless of the cost.

But rising food prices and the fact that ethanol was a boondoggle (using as much energy as it supplied) caused ethanol's reign to slip from political popularity.

Then came Newt with his Drill Here.Drill Now.Pay Less. campaign. While I am surprised that he never did get those 3 million petition signers, he certainly started the conversation that we must start producing more oil domestically.

It was a conversation the President and House Republicans were willing to listen to. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats, however, were not. In fact, she shut down the House for 5 weeks!

During that 5 weeks off, around 130 House Republicans kept the heat on the discussion in the House. See YouTube

Also during the summer, the polls started showing that 67% of Americans favored domestic drilling.

John McCain responded to that fact by embracing offshore drilling. Certainly his picking Palin indicates he is looking at domestic oil and increasing natural gas. The Republican ticket has an "All of the above" approach. (Oil, clean coal, natural gas, tidal, hydro, hydrogen, geo-thermal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.)

Barack Obama wouldn't go that far, but did promote getting off foreign oil dependence by increasing clean coal, natural gas, and safe nuclear as additions to the usual wind, solar, etc.

But while all this new domestic energy posturing was going on, Pelosi and the House Democrats were not available until this week. On Monday:

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

So finally, she and the House Democrats are willing to allow a vote on drilling!

"Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess.  She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative.  When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

"Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans.  The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation.  It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

"Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy.  Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding? (My emphasis)

This vote would have never happened without public pressure. We tend to forget that fact. But don't jump for joy just yet.

The next hurdle will be, what kind of energy bill gets passed? Will it be a real energy bill that truly increases drilling opportunities and new energy sources? Or will it be just all show and no go? as a token attempt by Democrat Congressmen and Senators up for reelection to appear sympathetic to energy prices?

But House Republicans called the Democrats' proposals "gimmicks," and instead have insisted on a stand-alone vote on oil drilling.

"Speaker Pelosi's so-called 'energy' bill will do nothing to help our energy crisis," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican. "It will multiply red tape and make it almost impossible to lower already skyrocketing oil costs." (My emphasis)

Stay tuned! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last May I told you about Randy Melchert, candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly--24th District.  Although that is not my district, his "Melchert Plan" to lower area gasoline prices by 10% is appealing. I don't have to live in the Menomonee Falls/Germantown area to be in favor of that! 

From his website:

...[His] three-part plan would eliminate the Minimum Markup Law, lower the state Gas Tax to the national average, and end the forced use of Reformulated Gas.While gas prices have risen nationwide, gas in Wisconsin has risen more than other states because Wisconsin has one of the ten highest gasoline tax rates in the nation! The Tax Foundation shows how gas taxes in Wisconsin are 3 cents higher than Indiana, 5 cents higher than Ohio, almost 11 cents higher than Minnesota and Iowa, almost 15 cents higher than South Carolina and Kentucky, and 19 cents higher than New Jersey

Now I could understand if the gas tax was used for highway maintenance and road repair, but when Governor Doyle can steal $240 million from the transportation fund to cover the rest of his budget, we're paying too much in gas taxes.

On his website, Melchert includes a series of interesting charts, graphs, and lots of statistics that illustrate how Wisconsin drivers pay more for gasoline than most other states. There is also a savings calculator where you can punch in your numbers to see how the minimum mark up, reformulation, and higher gas taxes affect you. On average, I probably would save $300 a year, but if I would calculate the savings for our entire household, we would be saving somewhere around $900 a year.

Since we just returned from a trip out west, I can confirm we found gas prices elsewhere much cheaper. The added bonus was that we could get non-ethanol gasoline in other states, giving us more miles per gallon.

For example: in a 2 day period on Aug. 16th and 17th, regular gasoline in Sioux Falls, SD was $3.49/gal, Willmar, MN was $3.62/gal, but in Wisconsin, reformulated gas (the only kind available) in Black River Falls was $3.79/gal. 

Check out the information on Melchert's website, and if you would like to save 10% on your gasoline bills, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to implement the Melchert Plan!

If I lived in the 24th District, I would be voting for Randy Melchert come Sept. 9th. But I live in the 14th District, so my vote happily goes to Leah Vukmir.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

I just heard this announcement on the news: Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling. (This would be the moratorium his father enacted.) He will be talking about this decision from the Rose Garden at 12:30pm today.

This move will not make offshore drilling possible in itself, but it will put the pressure on the Congress to act,

White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so.

Last week, Nancy Pelosi was still digging in her heels on domestic drilling ban, but Harry Reid and Richard Durbin showed a glimmer of interest.

But that glimmer seems to be dying in the light of Bush's probable ban lifting today,

After hearing of Mr. Bush’s proposal on Tuesday night, Mr. Reid affirmed his opposition, saying, “The Energy Information Administration says that even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won’t have a significant impact on prices.”

This lifting of the executive ban is a step in the right direction, but it's only a step. We aren't there yet by a long shot.

UPDATE: Not only did the President lift the offshore ban, but also lifted the ban in ANWR and "on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming." (From Breitbart.com)

Tuesday, July 15: I heard Sen. Jon Kyl state on a news snippet this morning, that if we would start drilling in the oil shale deposits, we could start producing oil from there in 3 to 7 years. So much for the not for 10 years gloomy outlook. (Didn't we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years?)

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

When I think of oil spills, my mind goes immediately to the Exxon Valdez. Remember that one? In my mind's eye I can still see volunteers trying to wash off animals and rocks with toothbrushes and Dawn detergent. 

1989 Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef off of Alaska, it was a case of drunk driving!

Valdez, Alaska: Today, years after the Oil Spill cleanup, efforts on some heavily oiled beaches have been reinstated, and with the help of Mother Nature, the Sound will recover more each year. Prince William Sound today flourishes with marine life, waterfowl, bottom fish, and salmon runs. Visit Valdez and see gorgeous Prince William Sound for yourself!

Before the Valdez, there was the 1978 Tanker Amoco Cadiz that tanker split in two off coast of France.

These images stick with us and make people wary of increasing offshore drilling.

But if we continue the moratorium on offshore drilling, will we be immune to oil spill disasters?

NO. The Valdez and Cadiz spills were not the result of offshore drilling rigs gone bad, they were the result of oil tanker accidents.

Whether we drill here on land or offshore, we are still importing oil from across the oceans. We are still vulnerable to oil tanker crashes and accidents.

Last month President Bush urged our Congress to Lift the Offshore Drilling Ban. (My emphasis throughout page) The President,

admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

...

The offshore drilling moratoria have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80 percent of the country's Outer Continental Shelf. It was instituted to protect tourism and lessen the chance of oil spills reaching popular beaches.

The good news after hurricanes Katrina and Rita was at least there were no major oil spills due to off shore drilling.

Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal recently stated in a Fox News piece on offshore drilling that, “You know, that’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills.” 

According to a Heritage Foundation piece, June 30, 2008, More Lies From the Center for American Progress, The Center for American Progress tried to paint a picture that it was the offshore drilling that caused oil spills. The CAP linked to a Minerals Management Service study that reported, "113 oil platforms were 'totally destroyed' --a total of 124 offshore spills."

That sounds bad, but read more from the MMS: 

Offshore environmental impacts as a result of hurricane events in the [Gulf of Mexico Regional Office] have typically been minor due to the downhole safety valves at wells and operating practices conducted by the oil and gas industry with respect to platforms and pipelines in advance of approaching hurricanes… While cleanup was required, the volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor.

The Heritage Foundation article then states, "CAP then goes on to blatantly conflate onshore and offshore oils spills. They (CAP) write:

In fact, oil seeped onshore into southeast Louisiana, which saw 44 onshore and offshore oil spills. The EPA called the spills “worse than the worst-case scenario.” Even oil industry representatives admitted: “nature can always topple you.”

If you click the first link, southeast Louisiana, it takes you to a MSNBC article, 44 oils spills found in southeast Louisiana.  In that article you find:

The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana.

And from the last link, nature can always topple you, the Houston Chronicle article states: 

“Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters unleashed 1 million gallons of oil from one of the massive storage tanks at Murphy Oil’s nearby refinery.”

The Heritage Foundation concluded, "These are all onshore oil industry activities. To cite them as evidence of the danger of offshore oil drilling is blatantly dishonest. The Center for American Progress owes Gov. Jindal an apology."

One thing I found in the Houston Chronicle that people rarely verbalize: oil companies don't want spills either! 

"We don't like to spill oil. Oil that spills is of no value," said Larry Wall, a spokesman for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.

Oils spills = $ loss to the oil companies!  It is in their best interest to prevent storm damage and oil spills too.

Continuing to restrict US oil companies from drilling offshore cannot guarantee we have no more oil spills on our shores. We already have our own oil companies drilling offshore, Mexican companies drilling close by, oil tankers approaching our coastlines to deposit their oil, and our own land based refinery and industry storage tanks. Any one of these entities could cause an oil spill disaster...given the right circumstances. Maintaining the drilling moratorium removes just one piece from that list of possible offenders. It alone will not prevent future oil spills.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.24 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

President Bush urge[d] Congress to end ban on offshore oil drilling today: (My emphasis)

"Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction," Bush said.

About 60% of Americans support government moves to encourage more oil drilling and refinery construction as a way to combat soaring energy prices -- but the same number also profess to be in favor of conservation, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday. [We should drill and conserve?]

The Presidential candidates are lining up along party lines on opposite sides of the domestic drilling coin: 

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain who announced his position this week after opposing it in the past, increasingly support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.

Barack Obama who is running for president, and fellow Democrats, oppose it over environmental concerns and say such action would have little immediate impact on fuel prices.

Despite the President's plea, the Democrats in Congress' Appropriations Committee blocked the measure from coming for a vote today. So the President proposes, Congress disposes. No help from Congress.

Some Democrats did propose that government take over some refineries though!

House Republicans tried to lift the ban before, "Time after time in recent years, drilling advocates have been unable to get the votes in Congress. When Republicans controlled Congress in 2006, the House of Representatives agreed to overturn the ban on offshore drilling, but the measure died in the Senate."  The ban has been in effect since 1981.

Bush admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

With 67%* of American voters supporting more domestic drilling, what are we to do with our Congress that is so unresponsive? How about signing the Drill Here. Drill Now, so we can Pay Less petition?

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

Click DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS. to sign the petition and see the latest links to related news articles (updated every day). 

*Latest Rasmussen poll 

Links:

Today is your last chance to weigh in on the Governor's Global Warming Task Force.

If you want to give the task force your 2 cents on ethanol, global warming, lifting alternative energy mandates or any other environmental issue the State of Wisconsin will be spending your money on and impacting your freedom to choose, email them now! (You can bet that all the corn farmers, ethanol manufacturers and those who lean Green will be flooding the task force with their point of view.)

The deadline for submitting comments on the Strawman Proposal has been extended to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 2008. Comments can be emailed to* DNRGLOBALWARMTFCOMMENTS@WISCONSIN.GOV

*The email address I had before did not work, this one should be correct. Sorry. 

Hat Tip, Vicki McKenna. She talked about this at 10:25. 

FYI:  Neighborhood Information Meeting tonight for Fire Station #3 move 

Links:

Oil companies have made a lot of money and some in Washington think they should get a bigger cut. The Senate recently tried to snatch some of those profits with their attempt to resurrect the Windfall Profits Tax bill. Thankfully, the Senate Republicans stopped that piece of legislation ...for now.

I am sure we will see that tax tried again. After all, Obama is campaigning, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

Generally, Democrats seem to think that oil companies just do not have the right to keep their profits. They don't seem to have that same aversion to other corporations' profits though. I heard on Jay Weber recently that oil companies made about 7.5% in profits.

How does that compare to other industry profits? Weber said Banking made 20%, Pharmaceuticals 18%, Insurance 11%, and Beverage/Tobacco 9.4%. So oil companies 7.5% is excessive and these other industries are not? Does it seem there is a double standard here?

Weeks ago, Sean Hannity broke down the profit per gallon of gas that oil companies received. We're paying around $4/gal. Oil companies get about $0.08/gal. Taxes on a gallon are around $0.19/gal for Fed. and State, I think. Again, oil companies seem to be getting the lesser amount.

How much profit does an oil company like Exxon make? Mark Perry, on Seeking Alpha, a Stock Market Opinion/Analysis site shows that last year they had pre-tax profits of $70.61 billion. Wow, that is a lot of money!

Some of you might be muttering to yourself how unfair it is that these filthy rich companies are making all the money and WE (via taxes to government) should be getting some of it.

But here is a figure the news media does not talk about very much; the amount Exxon pays in taxes. Perry includes an interesting chart showing the profits vs. taxes: $40.6 billion in after tax profits, $30 billion in taxes. Exxon averaged over the past 3 years to pay $27 billion in taxes each year. He compares that to regular taxpayers contribution to the IRS:

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

This was not enough for the Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) though. They wanted more. 

No doubt about it. We have high energy prices and future prices don't look any better, but taxing oil companies more will not lower the price at the pump!  Would you want to work harder to increase production only to have more of your profit taken away?

FYI:  Neighborhood Information Meeting tonight for Fire Station #3 move 

Links:

The Windfall Profits Tax Bill was blocked by the Republicans Tuesday:

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly. ...

..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The Democrat supporters said this tax differed from the 1980s version because "oil companies could avoid the tax by using their 'windfall' to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions*." Senate Republicans weren't buying that argument though and so the Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop the GOP filibuster.

Wow! The Senate Republicans were on a roll yesterday; they went on to block a 2nd bill: 

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

This on the heels of Friday's block of the Cap-and-Trade bill. Maybe the Republicans are finally getting the hint that most Americans don't want all these taxes on corporations that get passed on to us?

Do I dare hope that the GOP would push for more domestic drilling and building additional US oil refineries? That would make a positive difference in future energy supply/costs.

But the bigger picture issue with the Windfall Profits Tax is, whose money is it anyway? Don't corporations, and individuals for that matter, have a right to make money?

What gives the government the right to arbitrarily say, you are making too much, we are going to take more of that. That is not a Windfall Profits Tax, that is socialism.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't oil companies face opposition whenever they want to build new oil refineries? 

Links:

Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column,

GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER  Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.

No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.)

We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! 

Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Question: Who is the number 1 oil producer? Number 2? Number 3?

Do we have the right to sue any of the top 3 for not producing more or setting prices? 

If you said yes, that would include suing the United States. We are the number 3 oil producer in the world*.

"Congress' latest answer to rising gasoline prices: Sue OPEC .(LA Times)"  -What about counter suit? What if OPEC sues the U.S. for not pumping all of the oil deposits in our own country? Isn't it ridiculous that we don't pump the oil off of our shores for environmental reasons, yet Mexico just to our south does?

What about an OPEC lash back? Do we really want to poke a stick in the eye of our major oil suppliers? (One of my nicknames is Cautious Kyle.) The President must think so too, "The White House warned that the measure could invite retaliatory action by the oil cartel, which supplies about 6 million barrels of crude to the United States every day."

Just imagine what our economy might look like if we were pumping from all of our own known deposits and kept our oil dollars home? Or on the darker side, just imagine what what our economy would look like if OPEC decides to sell elsewhere? From the L.A.Times:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) scoffed at the measure, arguing it was "long on psychic compensation" but unlikely to bring down gas prices. He assailed Democrats for blocking efforts to increase domestic oil drilling, complaining that the bill "doesn't outlaw the congressional cartel that has blocked our energy production in this country."

"Even if this bill gets vetoed, which I believe it will, we're sending a message over to the OPEC countries that we want to litigate," King said, warning of possible reprisals.

OPEC could speed the flow of oil to the market, King said. "Or they might just decide, a little bit out of spite, to turn the spigot down a little bit to say, 'We'll show you.' "

Maybe we should sue Congress for blocking US drilling attempts? 

*Top 10 oil producers: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US (first 3 each produce almost 2X or more than the following), Iran, China, Mexico, Norway, Canada, Venezuela, United Arab Emirates.

Past Post: Can We Just Start Drilling Now? 

Don't forget the Music Concert to Benefit Chinese Quake Victims, Saturday, May 31st, 10AM - 1PM, Brookfield Civic Plaza

Links:

Wednesday, I caught a few minutes from Mark Belling's last half hour on the radio. He read this Wall Street Journal piece, The Biofuels Backlash. It is yet another condemnation of the whole biofuel fiasco--the food crisis, pollution, excessive water use, price supports, etc. You know, the usual complaints... (Let them eat and drink ethanol).

The WSJ piece opened stating that for the past "30 years we...opposed ethanol subsidies. So imagine our great, pleasant surprise to see that the world is suddenly awakening to the folly of subsidized biofuels."

Belling also mentioned that McCain and other senators were asking the EPA to waive some of their standards that have been pushing biofuels. That brightened my spirits, since McCain has been chanting the ethanol mantra like most of the other politicians. I found the article, Senators call for EPA to reconsider ethanol output mandate. Here are a few highlights:

Twenty-four Republican senators, including presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona, sent a letter Friday to the Environmental Protection Agency suggesting it waive, or restructure, rules that require a fivefold increase in ethanol production over the next 15 years.

Congress passed a law last year mandating a ramp-up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015 and 36 billion by 2022. But McCain and other Republicans said those rules should be suspended to put more corn back into the food supply for animal feed, and to encourage farmers to plant other crops.

"This subsidized (ethanol) program _ paid for by taxpayer dollars _ has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world," said McCain, in a statement.

...Analysts say lawmakers are unlikely to roll back popular ethanol subsidies during an election year.

Congress will not "turn on the corn belt" because of the significant number of votes held by ethanol-producing states, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. analyst Kevin Book argued in a recent note to clients. Ethanol subsidies could face greater risks, however, in 2009 and going forward, according to Book.

The good news is political winds are changing a bit and promoting biofuel is no longer the slam-dunk it once was. Congressman Sensenbrenner just introduced his legislation, HR 5911, Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 against ethanol mandates. Wouldn't it be great to see some actual repeals? I hope people are contacting their senators and speaking out against S 2191, the Lieberman/Warner America's Climate Security Act of 2007.

The bad news is that, "Spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the Bush administration remains committed to ethanol as an alternative fuel because of its potential to 'get our nation off its addiction to foreign oil.' " (Good reason to start producing more domestic oil!)

Mark Belling expressed something to the effect that he wished Republicans* in our State Assembly would draft some sort of bill to state that Wisconsin wanted out of the ethanol mandates. It would have no teeth, but it would send a message.

It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates adjust their positions on ethanol in the next 6 months. Do I dare hope the tide is turning?

*Maybe I should say Representatives who are anti ethanol since so many on both sides of the isle have sold their souls to King Corn. Since there are so many more food and fuel consumers than corn growers/ethanol processing plant owners, if the public would just bother to contact their representatives in all levels of government, maybe we could turn this around!

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all.

The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.

I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol!

People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."

Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.)

But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. 

Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there."

Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off.

Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.

Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between economic development and water conservation more evident than in the push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.

Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol. With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent produced by the fermentation/distillation process.

So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.)

And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) 

Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! 

Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

Ethanol's Failed Promise

Let Them Eat Cake

Hunger fuels food riots in Haiti 

Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included)

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Just heard this on Mark Belling, Sensenbrenner co-sponsored a bill to end ethanol mandates: 

"Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Menomonee Falls) is a cosponsor of HR 5911, the Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 (RIPE Act), introduced this week by Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona.  This bill will repeal the legislative provisions responsible for the artificial demand for ethanol by:

• Repealing the renewable fuel standard;
• Repealing tax credits for ethanol producers;
• Repealing tariffs on importing ethanol.

“...The fact is, the ethanol industry has been subsidized for twenty-seven years [51 cents/gallon] and claims to still need the subsidies to survive,” Sensenbrenner added.  “If an industry cannot survive without government support after twenty-seven years, there are more serious problems in place.”

Mark Belling did not give the bill much chance to pass because of the powerful ethanol lobby, but hope always springs eternal in my heart. After all, Belling isn't omniscient; he did not think Gableman had a chance against Butler for State Supreme Court either.

Almost every day we are seeing newscasts and articles on how biofuel has caused food shortages and food prices to rise. If the American public puts enough heat on their congressmen, who knows?

Contact Congressman Sensenbrenner, Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links:
Update: "Creepy" picture Billy Ray cannot deny

Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park