We rekindled our love affair with road trip vacations in 2001 when our son was finally old enough to endure 3 days of driving at a time, and we were able to afford more dependable transportation. Instead of our usual 2 hour drive to some favorite State Park for 2 weeks of camping, we graduated to visiting various National Parks out west. It has been great.

Because of our road trip habit, I've payed attention to gas prices. Beginning in 2001, when prices spiked in late spring, I would wring my hands with everyone else and worry how high they would go by August (the time of our departure.) But it seemed every year, gas prices went down about 40 - 50 cents/gal by the time we hit the road. (Good reason to plan your driving vacation late in the summer.) Photo shows $3.79/gal on July 25, 2008 at Speedway on Greenfield and Sunny Slope Road, that is about .50 cents lower than earlier highs this summer. 

Experience taught me to not fret too much about what would prices be by the end of summer? I would assure myself the price would come down later in the summer, and they did. Unfortunately, the lower price of August was usually .25 to .50 cents/gal higher than the year before! 

I checked my travel journal for some past August price examples*. You can see the prices increases nearly every year:  2003 - $1.59/gal, 2004 - $1.83 to $1.93/gal, 2005 - $2.53 to $3.47/gal (California' price), 2006 - $2.99 to $3.19/gal, 2007 - $2.85 - $3.09. Notice the prices in 2007 were cheaper than 2006, but that was the exception to the norm.

The AAA agent told me Monday, the price this summer is $1.19 higher (nationwide) than last year's gas prices. That is a higher jump from years past. Some other market forces are at work.

USA Today attributed the oil prices drop to fewer miles driven in, Cost at pump dips as demand, oil prices fall,

Drivers in the USA logged 9.6 billion fewer miles in May than in May 2007, the government reported Monday. It was the third-largest monthly drop in 66 years.

But to me, that alone cannot account for the downturn in oil prices. If you look at the graph to the left, you see that oil prices started declining more steadily around the time the President announced he was removing the moratorium on offshore drilling. I believe if the Congress would approve domestic drilling, we would see more declines. 

If you look at the chart from this 2nd article, US drivers Log 9.6 B fewer miles in May, you see that Americans have been driving significantly less all year. May did not even mark the largest downturn, March did. If the price of oil was so dependent on driving alone, March's decline should have triggered a crude oil price reduction, shouldn't it have?

The data released Monday show that Americans drove 29.8 billion fewer miles in the first five months of this year compared with the same period last year, a 2.4% drop. The dip continues a seven-month trend beginning in November. Americans have driven 40.5 billion fewer miles from November through May compared with the same period a year earlier.

I believe we must start drilling in America if we want to see oil prices really decline. (Domestic drilling would also keep  billions of US $ at home, but that is another subject!) We are on a hair trigger as it stands now, where any natural or man-made disaster could push prices up. 

Unrest in non-OPEC countries, such as Nigeria, could push prices higher. Militants in that country sabotaged two oil pipelines Monday, driving crude prices for September delivery up $1.47 a barrel. A major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico also could send oil prices higher.

"We could always have a spike to $150 a barrel," Smith says.

For right now, we can relax just a tiny bit and enjoy the typical price decrease of .40 to .50 cents/gallon in August. Too bad it is still .70 cents a gallon more ($1.19 nationwide) than last year!

*In 1979 gas prices were under 50 cents a gallon in the early summer! (Good thing.This was our 5 1/2 week, 8,000 mile Way Out West camping trip.)

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).

Links: 

Last week Michelle Obama did it again. She said something that revealed who she is and how out of touch she is with the average American's economic circumstances.

The Washington Times reported that each campaign needed to rein in their surrogates:

The same day a John McCain surrogate dismissed economic woes from a nation of "whiners," Barack Obama's wife quipped that the $600 tax stimulus check could be used for a pair of earrings.

I would not classify Michelle Obama in the same "surrogate" category as McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm, however. McCain can dump Gramm, but Michelle Obama is part of the package. She will be First Lady if Obama is elected. Whenever she says something controversial, an image of her serving tea to an important dignitary while making "small talk" pops into my mind.

Mrs. Obama does not come across as a happy camper. I think the first time I heard her interviewed was last February when the Obamas were in town before our primary. She talked about how women struggled just to get through each day, and she included herself in that group. I was surprised by her remarks because they sounded like those of an unhappy wife.

Michelle mentioned the usual complaints: husbands go off to work and leave all the responsibility of home and children to the wife. She spoke about how she is the one who must take the kids to the doctor or stay home if they are ill, etc. At the time I thought she was not painting her husband in a very good light. To hear her talk, you would think they were impoverished and had no options to hire a baby sitter, helper, or housekeeper.

As the campaign continued, I found out the Obamas lived quite comfortably. Comfortable enough to think nothing of $600.  

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she [Michelle] said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

A reader's response to the Washington Times article summed it up well,

Someone who suggests spending the $600 rebate on earrings is not living the same way the rest of America lives.

We put our stimulus check in the bank, saving it to pay for our property taxes due in December. It required belt tightening now, but I am grateful we were able to do that. (Still wish we did not go down the stimulus road though.) 

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: 

Before we breezed out of town last weekend, I purchased some Edy's Slow Churned Ice Cream in what formerly was the half gallon size and tossed it in the basement freezer. (I know ice cream has not been 1/2 gallon for years. It is actually 7 cups.)

While away, my husband spotted a USA Today article he thought was blog worthy: Shoppers beware: Products shrink but prices stay the same It was all about how manufacturers are making the packages smaller but charging the same price as the former full size:

"Downsizing is nothing but a sneaky price increase," says Edgar Dworsky, former Massachusetts assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection Division, now editor of Mouseprint.org, a consumer website. "I'm waiting to open a carton of eggs and see only 11."

The article showed Edgar Dworsky with a magnifying glass and some Breyers ice cream cartons in the new 1.5 quart size. If you aren't paying attention, it would be easy to mistake the 1 cup smaller packages for the former 1.75 quart sized cartons.

 "We did not in any way try to hide this," insists Tim Kahn, CEO of Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, which also makes — and has shrunk — Edy's. "The package-size change couldn't be any more visible."

I didn't catch the Edy's reference at the time--hey, I was on vacation! But tonight when my men wanted some ice cream, I noticed the Edy's carton on the counter and said, "This is smaller than before, we got gypped like the article!"

I still paid the same price as the larger size but lost 1 cup of ice cream.

Sometimes manufacturers have the nerve to try to sell the idea of smaller sizes, spinning that it is for your convenience that the package is smaller because it is easier to carry!

Sure enough, my ice cream was the newer, smaller size. When I put it back in the kitchen freezer, I noticed that it fit in a place that wasn't tall enough before. Guess the smaller size was for my convenience. :)

Other products have shrunk too. Sugar is a good example. Sugar always came in 5 and 10 pound bags. Now you have to be careful. The name brand sugar often comes in 4 pound bags. Generic or store brand sugar usually comes in 5 pounders. (Aldi's sugar is 5 pounds for $1.79 if you were interested.)

Consumers just can't catch a break. We pay the same, if not more, for gas laced with ethanol for a 10% reduction in m.p.g., and now we pay the same price for a container that is 10% to 20% smaller than before!

Hmm, if only we could reduce the density at Percheron Square by 20%, but that is a subject for another day.

Links:

Remember the billboards that said IT was coming in 2001? The IT was the Segway, a "two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle that runs on a rechargeable battery." Although Steve Jobs and others "predicted it would change the way people lived," the IT came and at the time, it wowed the public about as much as the Edsel.

But times have changed since 2001. Gasoline prices are now higher--a fill up for our minivan then cost $35, today it can cost $80. People are looking for alternatives.

Segway Glides as Gasoline Jumps the Wall Street Journal reports. Obviously, this is not the solution to high gas prices for Wisconsin residents, but the article mentioned a few Segway owners who thought Segways made sense. (Maybe I should say, cents.) 

Scott Hervey of Yorba Linda, Calif., bought one of the electric scooters on June 7 and has put 150 miles on it commuting to his custodian's job at Disneyland, about 12 miles away. He had considered buying a Segway for four years, and gasoline prices finally drove him to do it. Now he "glides," as Segway enthusiasts say, to work. "I like passing gas stations," says the 54-year-old.

Segway's cost around $5,000 each. The user must be fairly agile and willing to expose themselves to the elements--and neighborhoods. Then there is the question of, where do you ride it? Sidewalk or street? Some communities ban them from sidewalks.

We were at Disney World the first year the Segway was released, so we saw them in action. Both my husband and son wanted one.  For specific uses, especially in large factories or businesses, I can see where they would be handy, quiet, and because they emit no exhaust, can be used indoors. I'm not sure they are the perfect commuting vehicle though. But it seems some people would disagree:

Sales at the scooter's maker, Segway Inc., have risen to an all-time high, says CEO Jim Norrod. The closely held Manchester, N.H., company doesn't release detailed numbers. (A September 2006 recall showed the company had sold 23,500 Segways.) But Mr. Norrod says he expects sales this quarter to jump 50% from a year earlier, versus a 25% year-over-year increase in the first quarter.

Among the new customers are local governments and universities whose budgets have been pinched at the gas pump. New York's Syracuse University and the University of Kansas say they bought Segways for their campus police this year, in part because of rising gasoline prices.

As gas prices continue to climb, some people will be looking at creative ways to ease their pain at the pump. I would think those motorized bicycles that the police and parking lot security use would gain in popularity too. Maybe people will finally decide a 30 mile commute to work is not the best idea. (In that case, Brookfield real estate should become more attractive because we are so close to the city.) But for the gizmo-loving customer with a large wallet in a temperate climate, the Segway may finally have hit its stride.

Links:

Sunday we returned from a few days in Dearborn Michigan touring the Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, and The Rouge Ford Factory. The Rouge Factory Tour was new to us. There was Bill Ford, the great grandson of Henry, up on the BIG screen telling us how Ford created this new Rouge factory to be friendly to the environment.

Much like our proposed Fountain Brook Crossing, The Rouge Ford Factory* has Gone Green. The roof is a garden roof, planted with sedum plants to absorb the rain water. They are increasing plantings wherever possible on the grounds; nets are strung up on the factory exterior for climbing vines.

Even their parking lots are water permeable. No more run-off. The paving material looks like asphalt but is a porous material that has sand and gravel below. The guide said that the water that runs through the pavement is filtered and very clean. It requires vacuuming twice a year to keep pores open and calcium chloride must be used instead of sodium chloride in winter.  The porous pavement is more expensive to install and maintain but lasts twice as long as conventional asphalt. Plus, no detention pond is needed...and it's good for the environment.

It seemed everything about The Rouge Factory was good for the environment or good for the employees. You could watch some of the assembly line in action. The workers were poetry in motion each doing their specific little jobs. While they are always under the time constraint of the moving line, it did not seem any were really hustling to keep up the pace. Some workers were on the cell phone, playing a hand held game, or even had newspapers there to catch a snippet of an article.

I asked a tour guide how much money these people made. She did not know specifically but said from what she read in the paper, it was around $20.00 per hour for new hires. Workers with more seniority were higher.

Another guide told us that Ford recently closed 2 other factories in other states, I believe, and now consolidated all of the work here at The Rouge. That sounded efficient. The Rouge's specialty was trucks**. Wonder where the other cars are made?

Monday's Investor's Business Daily answered part of that question: Movin' To Mexico!:  (My emphasis)

Ford's investment of $3 billion in two auto plants near Mexico City is the largest foreign company investment ever in Mexico. As oil prices soar and new climate-change rules are readied in Washington, Ford must shift from its reliance on trucks and SUVs to lighter, more energy-efficient vehicles.

This should be something that workers in Michigan and other Midwestern states with decades of automaking experience should excel at doing. Instead, Ford and other automakers are pushing more and more investment abroad — especially to Mexico.

The editorial cites reasons for an auto sales slump and the US losing jobs--mainly the UAW forcing higher wages and benefits--but increasing climate change rules and higher oil prices aren't helping the industry.

Like a coyote caught in a trap, U.S. automakers have been desperately gnawing off a leg to escape certain death. They're closing plants and slashing jobs in Michigan, Ohio and other U.S. union havens, in favor of non-union, foreign places. Like Mexico and China.

Meanwhile, foreign companies have no problem making cars here. They do it in the non-union South, where the UAW is weak.

So foreign companies can get around our high wages by being non-union, but even they and their products are subject to U.S. emission standards for factories and cars.

You would think that with our ailing auto industry our government would be doing all it could to help encourage instead of hinder. Yet Washington continues to hamper oil exploration and increase auto emission standards (i.e. new diesel emissions will be cleaner than intake air.) 

Add to automakers woes, both U.S. and foreign made here, the latest millstone around the neck: Cap-and-Trade, and I think we have the recipe for outsourcing more industry of all kinds.

Ford may have greened up its Dearborn plant and created an ideal work environment, but if more industry follows suit in exporting jobs to countries that don't care about workers or the environment, what good paying jobs will be left in America?

This was written before Tuesday's post Kohl, Feingold, and Doyle's reaction to GM closing Janesville plant

Related articles: Toyota workers in Kentucky plant made more than UAW members last year

More handwriting on the wall, GM closing Janesville assembly plant by 2010 

*The Rouge Factory was named for the Rouge River in Dearborn. The banks of the river were red clay, hence the name Rouge (French for red). 

**A guide told us this was the last year they would be making Mercury trucks. 

Links:

The big news today is that GM will be closing the Janesville plant that makes SUVs.  This is not a huge surprise considering gas prices as they are. It does seem drastic considering some SUVs get fairly good gas mileage. Plus some businesses and individuals need a truck or SUV for towing or hauling purposes.

What is surprising to me is Senators Kohl and Feingold and Governor Doyle acting like they bear absolutely no responsibility in creating an economic climate unfavorable to manufacturing and large vehicles.

 Update: GM plant closing stuns pols

"It's a tragedy that General Motors plans to close its plant in Janesville, leaving behind thousands of skilled and dedicated employees," said U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis.

"The community of Janesville depends on these jobs, and I will do everything in my power to convince General Motors to reconsider their decision or help their employees find new work."

AND

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said the people of Janesville "poured their heart and soul into General Motors."

Feingold said all will be done by local, state and U.S. officials to try to support "a continuing GM presence" in Janesville.

"The people of Janesville have worked too hard for too long to deserve anything less," Feingold said.

Hmm, Kohl says, "I will do everything in my power to convince General Motors to reconsider their decision" and Feingold says, "all will be done by ...U.S. officials to try to support 'a continuing GM presence' ."

GM should change their mind about the closing, but what about both of our Senators voting against the Cap-and-Trade Lieberman/Warner bill? Or voting to approve drilling in Anwr, Montana/North Dakota, and off our shores? Or reversing the ethanol mandates so people could get better gas mileage?

In GM closing Janesville assembly plant by 2010 Doyle compared the news to a death in the family. "It was just a kick in the gut," Doyle said.

Gov. Doyle issued the statement that "It should've been clear that GM wasn't focused on the future...Now we stand here, carrying the burden of those bad corporate decisions..."

Considering all the bad decisions Wisconsin government has made in blatantly increasing taxes and making Wisconsin a very unfriendly state to do business in, I have to wonder who else is not focused on the future!

Unless we change our ways in Washington and in Wisconsin, I think we can expect more and more manufacturer closings. Many bad decisions by General Motors and our state and federal government have brought us to this point. The death of this SUV manufacturer could be thought of as the canary in the mine--a warning of coming troubles.

Will our elected officials heed the warning? 

Please contact Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) about S. 2191 Lieberman/Warner Cap-and-Trade bill

Read Fairly Conservative Cindy Kilkenny's slant on GM's closing of the Janesville plant

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:

If you've ever planned a road trip, mapping your route ahead of time makes a big difference: which way will allow you to travel with the least amount of traffic, major city rush hours, or road construction? Often a little planning ahead can save hours being stuck in a traffic jam. Certainly there is no sense to chart a course leading to a bridge closed for repairs. No reasonable person would say, the only bridge ahead is closed, but we'll make such good time before the bridge, we'll pick that route anyway.

Yet this is what our government is doing by ignoring the coming Social Security/Medicare crisis. Politicians don't want to deal with that reality. They know it is going bankrupt, but their attitude is, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. "There is a growing, bipartisan consensus about the greatest threat to our nation's long-term economic prosperity: the explosion of entitlement spending." (Ryan)

Last week, Congressman Paul Ryan proposed his "Roadmap for America"--a very practical and pretty painless way to shore up Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. Ryan is planning the future path for America that allows us to make good time and still cross that bridge in the future, and he does it without massive tax increases. He said in an interview:

I am raising the same rate of tax revenue as today, but I am preventing them from doubling in the future. I am proposing to tax 18.5 cents out of every dollar to run the government as opposed to 40 cents out of every dollar. Spend the money more intelligently. The 1st $39,000 (after deductions) for family of 4 is tax free. After that, the first $100,000 is taxed at 10%.

Ryan also bravely addresses Health Insurance and Medicaid in addition to Social Security, Medicare, and Tax Reform. Simply ignoring these pending problems will not make them go away. Ignoring these entitlements just increases the problems and costs. Hopefully Ryan's route will Not be A Road Less Traveled:

There is no threat to our nation’s fiscal health greater than the coming deficits from unrestrained growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Already Social Security and Medicare consume 7.5% of our GDP. Unless changes are made that figure will jump to 13% by 2030.

Bravely stepping in to offer a policy solution, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has introduced a plan he calls “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” 

Read through Congressman Paul Ryan's plan in the Wall Street Journal: How to Tackle the Entitlement Crisis for Health Insurance, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, and Tax Reform.

We cannot afford to ignore this any longer. Our children are the ones who will pay for our failure to deal with these growing problems. Ryan writes:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of government will consume nearly 40% of the economy by the time my [Paul's] three young children reach my age (38). This will require more than doubling the average tax burden of the past 40 years just to keep the government afloat. Continuing down this path will eventually strangle our economy.

Once we come to that "bridge", there is no easy way to cross it. The time to deal with it is NOW! The question is: Do we have any politicians brave enough to do the right thing?

Congressman Paul Ryan is a member of the Congressional Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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:

Anybody notice that the market was up on Friday? And the stimulus checks have not hit most mail boxes yet!

I have been checking my few mutual funds off and on and slowly they are creeping upward.

It's time for me to grab my garden gloves, water bottle, visor and knee pads and head to Mary Knoll Park for the Weed Out. I will try to give a report on it later. 

LINKS:

Upcoming events in Brookfield

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

Congressman Sensenbrenner brought up Senate bill S. 2191, the Lieberman/Warner "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" at his Town Hall meeting Sunday. He described it as a "disaster for Wisconsin."

Information on S. 2191 from Congressman Sensenbrenner's website:

“S. 2191 proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, an important component of the manufacturing industry.  By setting a limit and capping carbon dioxide emissions by businesses, the Lieberman/Warner bill would thrust a highly regulatory regime on our nation’s economy, making electricity more expensive for businesses and consumers.  In Wisconsin, which relies heavily on the use of coal for electricity, this bill would have a catastrophic effect as we would be especially hard hit.

“This point is underscored in a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers to assess the potential impacts of S. 2191 on Wisconsin’s economy…and the results are scary.

The Congressman discussed that study at the meeting and on Charlie Sykes show. The predictions were "scary."

“According to the study, electricity rates in Wisconsin could increase by as much as 163% in 2030 - nearly tripling today’s costs - and gas prices could increase by as much as 176% in 2030, again, almost tripling today’s cost of natural gas.

Not only will we be paying more for utilities, a figure of a 145% increase in gasoline prices was also given on Charlie Sykes show Monday, April 28, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

So not only do we get to pay for higher energy costs for our own use, but we will pay more for every item and service produced in Wisconsin too.  

Who would ever want to live in Wisconsin or locate their business here if that is the case?

The National Association of Manufacturers report estimated that by 2030, 74,000 jobs would leave Wisconsin and a whopping 4 million jobs would leave our nation, because businesses naturally seek the cheapest and easiest place to manufacture their products.

What exactly is a cap-and-trade and why does it have such a negative impact on Wisconsin? 

Cap-and-trade is another term for Carbon Credit (or indulgences). Congress or bureaucrats set a cap or maximum on greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company--be it a corporation or a utility company. Companies that do not comply with the standard must then have to purchase carbon offsets from companies that do comply. It is like a type of stock market that deals in these special credits.

According to Congressman Sensenbrenner, since Wisconsin gets 2/3 of its electrical power from coal fired plants, but Illinois obtains 60% of its electric power from clean nuclear power plants that emit 0 CO2, we will have to purchase these carbon offsets from Illinois just to keep producing our needed electricity! Illinois in effect gets their energy costs subsidized by Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ends up paying 176% more for our electricity. OUCH! (At present, only 20% of Wisconsin electric comes from nuclear plants.)

Think no one in their right mind would agree to a system like this? Think again. Europe has been doing this for nearly 3 years now. Europe's greenhouse gases continue to rise as do their electricity rates. It has done nothing to lower emissions according to a publication from Sensenbrenner's office. I believe Australia just signed on to a system of carbon credits too.

Since businesses will just relocate to third world countries to manufacture their goods, these carbon credits will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions worldwide. The pollution will just move to the far east.

The increase in costs due to cap-and-trade fees are estimated at $1,300 a year / household for Wisconsinites.

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

Representative Zipperer informed the Town Hall meeting atendees that the Wisconsin Assembly recently passed legislation that lifted the moratorium on nuclear power plants last session. The Senate however did not. He said they would try again next time. 

Contact your state representative and senator about the moratorium.

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120

Congressman Sensenbrenner's contact info:Email  Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

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

I attended Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting Sunday. Attendance was light--maybe 2 dozen people (mostly men). Perhaps the early start time kept people away?

Wisconsin's Representative Rich Zipperer was also there to answer questions.

I missed the first question. The second dealt with Common Ground, a group that has been appealing to churches for support. Is it truly bi-partisan?

Both Congressman Sensenbrenner and Rep.Zipperer expressed their doubts of bi-partisanship since Common Ground did not seem to be interested in tax relief, school choice, etc.

A reader had emailed me about this group 2 weeks ago after Vicki McKenna talked about Common Ground on her radio show. The reader was "taken aback" that their St. John's church bulletin urged people to attend the Common Ground conference. Many people might be surprised to learn their church supports Common Ground.

Energy and taxes were the topic of the remaining questions.

One man inquired if the direct donation from retirees' IRAs to a charity option would be renewed (this would then satisfy the distribution requirement). Mr. Sensenbrenner said that there would be an effort to bring that donation option back since donations to charity support groups that often help others without any additional government funding.

The next question asked about the Congressman's opinion of nuclear power. He said he was "All for it--it emits 0 greenhouse gas." He added that Chernobyl's defective design for nuclear power plants has never been used in the U.S. There was more discussion about Wisconsin's rising energy costs, which the Congressman also discussed on Charlie Sykes show Monday morning. It is a subject all unto itself, so I will get to that in a later post.

The last question was on Ethanol. Mr. Sensenbrenner said it was "Bad stuff--not energy efficient, and the blend reduces gas mileage." He also mentioned that there is engine damage and increased pollution because of it, and the 51 cents per gallon subsidy was passed 20 years ago!  Add to that the economic and social impact of food into fuel and it is time to "Get off the ethanol kick!"  (Amen)

"The real problem is politics", he said. Iowa is the first caucus in the primary process. For any candidate to succeed, they must first "Worship at the altar of ethanol!" That is why we have it, the Congressman explained.  (I was aware of that, were you?)

He closed by mentioning he would be discussing the N.A.M. report (National Association of Manufacturers) on energy and the business climate in Wisconsin and the United States, Monday morning on Charlie Sykes radio show. Catch the podcast, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

From what the Congressman said at the town hall meeting, Wisconsin's energy costs in the near future will be sobering if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill passes. More about that later.

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

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

People constantly ask me if I think the referendum will pass. I just answer, I don't know. Truly, I just don't know.

You would think that amid the sub-prime jitters, falling stock market, rising food prices, rising energy prices, and the probability that our state and federal taxes will go up, the public would not be too eager to take on more debt for the next 20 years. But then again, think, may be the key word here.

You would think people would know they cannot keep purchasing things with a credit card until they have thousands of dollars in carried balances. You would think people would know they cannot buy a home on an a.r.m. and not expect to pay more per month at some point.

You would think people would know that air conditioning 2 entire schools--including 2 acres of gymnasium space--in an era of rising energy costs, would raise a red flag with voters.

I gave up trying to predict what people will think or do a long time ago. By day's end tomorrow, we will find out what Elmbrook voters thought.

A reader sent me this link, urging that voters take a look at the Job Market, 2009 before they vote. It made me think. 

Brookfield Academy's $12.5 mil high school, we can too

Correction: C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS AND AIR CONDITIONING--did you know they are air conditioning even the gyms?

Tomorrow is the big day, Millions of Dollars Tuesday!

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

Cost Breakdowns of Type of Work (cost per square footage)

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: click on that subject heading.

Tax Calculator  

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

Former 2007 Referendum Facilities Facts Sheets (Still a good read)