"Price Signals." Otherwise known as punitive taxes and fees, which would primarily affect the middle class, just like the One's plan to tax small businesses. Watch as Obama advocates sending "price signals" to the middle class in order to "change their behavior."
"It's not gonna be painless...a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity." So that's his plan: raise energy prices so Americans will be able to consume less, thus benefiting the environment and catalyzing the production of new energy. This is completely ignoring Obama's lack of initiative (to put it very politely) in respect to nuclear power, coal, and offshore drilling.
And it gets worse. In the same interview, Obama said that under his plan, electricity rates would "skyrocket," as companies passed higher fees on to consumers:
"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
Engineered price shocks are the last thing our economy needs right now. As we've seen with this year's gas crisis, rising energy prices can wreak havoc on an economy, affecting families and businesses alike. Obama talks about technology "catching up," but a receding or even stagnant economy will hardly ever produce major scientific breakthroughs, especially when the powerful hand of government is increasing taxes and imposing unnecessary cost burdens on energy.
As profits for energy companies begin to fall, less money can ultimately be funneled to research and development, which means the deployment of any revolutionary technology for a society will be significantly delayed, or simply never realized at all.
So, what do you get if you vote for Obama on energy? Well, he's a de facto nuclear opponent. He doesn't support additional drilling. He's said nothing about improving oil and gas infrastructure or building more refineries. He's obviously no "coal booster," as he recently admitted. And he is literally guaranteeing that energy prices will rise under his administration. Believe him.
The problem? Obama has no plan for the period of transition. He thinks he can wave his divine wand and shackle the energy companies, save the environment with a Captain Planet-esque PSA, and "science" will heroically come to the rescue and invent a magic new energy source to fuel his SUV and power his mansion.
We need to adopt sound policies to keep energy prices down, harness our own supplies of oil, coal, natural gas, wind, tide, and the rest of the lot, and use the resulting cushion to sustain our economy while we develop the alternatives and the infrastructure to deliver them.
Here's hoping America sends Barack his own "signal" on Tuesday.
Update: Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, has made a statement declaring Obama's remarks as "unfortunate."
"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally...If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."
While reading Sarah Palin's interview with Fox News' favorite college dropout, I came across something of interest regarding drilling in Alaska:
Palin: I support drilling in Alaska because it’s going to be good for our nation and our nation’s--
Hannity: Including ANWR?
Palin: Absolutely. ANWR is a 2,000 acre plot of land and it’s a 20 million acre plot of land...But, no secret, John McCain and I agree to disagree on that one. And I’m going to keep working on him with ANWR...we must start taking the steps to get [energy independent]. That’s why he has embraced offshore drilling. That’s why he has embraced the ideal of the alternative fuels also. And I’ll keep working on him with ANWR.
Let me start by saying this. There are rational positions about which people with different values and political perspectives can differ. Then, there are irrational positions, which are driven either by the interests of powerful lobbies (read: environmentalists) or perhaps simply unchecked emotion. Opposition to drilling in ANWR can be classified as the latter.
The area in question is about the size of Los Angeles International Airport, and LAX isn't even one of the nation's largest; you could practically fit it inside Dallas-Fort Worth.
And don't get me started on the myth of threatened caribou populations. Since construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the amount of caribou increased more than ten times over, a jump largely attributed to the warmth of the pipeline. If you were a caribou, where would you rather get it on with your old lady - under a nice hot pipe, or in the freezing cold snow?
After reading her statement, I thought to myself, "Gee, imagine that...Palin openly says that John McCain has something completely wrong, and is going to "work on him" to change his mind. Is there anything Joe Biden thinks Barack Obama has completely wrong? Any particular issue over which Joe wants to "keep working on him?"
I couldn't think of a single issue on which the 1st and 3rd most liberal senators would disagree. But then, as if Delaware's own gaffe-master was reading my thoughts, Biden dropped this bomb:
It would be one thing if he said, "While my running mate supports clean coal, I personally am not in favor of it, and will work to have the voices of people like you and me heard in an Obama administration." But notice the statement, "we're not supporting clean coal," which is in direct contradiction to Obama's stated energy plan. From Messiah's website:
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.
Either Joe has been too busy reviewing his IQ tests to remember which ticket he's on (which doesn't seem likely given that McCain also supports clean coal), or this is all part of some grand scheme to have the wicked witch of the East River jump aboard the ship Biden is hopelessly trying to sink with comments like these.
Come to think of it, this is probably in the same category as Biden's admission that the Obama ad lambasting McCain for his inability to magically make his bones work was "terrible." He even added some of that trademark Barack "nuance" when he implied that Barack Obama didn't approve a message that ended with the words "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."
Suddenly, Caribou Barbie no longer looks like the most detrimental VP pick of this election.
Update:The McCain campaign has already pounced:
As part of John McCain’s “all of the above” energy plan, the Lexington Project, clean coal will be a strong component of the drive to energy independence. In addition to providing domestic energy, the coal industry is a key part of the economy in several states.
John McCain’s support for clean coal technology is in sharp contrast to that of his opponents. Joe Biden visited Virginia on Saturday, saying that he was a “hard-coal miner” and that it was “nice to be back in coal country” while Obama supporter, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) said “Senator Obama’s a friend of coal.” But just two days later in Ohio, Senator Biden said he wants “no coal plants here in America” and that he and Senator Obama are “not supporting clean coal.”
Update:Check out this adorable little bit of spin from the Obama campaign on the issue of Biden's comments. Again, remember what Biden said: "we're not supporting clean coal."
“Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology,” says Biden spokesman David Wade. “Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."
So the Obama campaign has now said that despite Biden's own words to the contrary, he really does support clean coal. Can you imagine if McCain had made the same statement, and his McCain tried to play it off as if he just "misspoke?" He'd be accused of being a senile old man unfit for the presidency. And what if Sarahcuda misstated one of John McCain's positions? It would be another reason to paint her as an "irresponsible" pick.
So while we don't know whether Biden supports clean coal, what if the coal is both clean and articulate?
Third Way, a non-partisan think tank, issued a joint report with the Heritage Foundation which concluded that "a rebirth of nuclear energy would deliver vast economic and environmental benefits to the United States."This was of course the highly anticipated follow-up to their well-received "The Sky is Blue" report.
Adam Sacks, director of Oxford Economics USA, said building 53 new plants in the United States would result in reduced demand for fossil fuels domestically and could save the U.S. up to $9 billion a year in energy imports, most of which would be petroleum imports. The expansion of nuclear power will create many jobs, many of them high-paying, technical jobs, Sacks says.
Update: More developments regarding another piece of the energy puzzle - offshore drilling. The House voted late yesterday to approve offshore drilling. Sweet, now we can start drilling, right? Not so fast.
The vote allows oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but only if the drilling takes place "50 or more miles out to sea," despite the fact that most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil below coastal waters are within 50 miles of land, and as such are still off-limits. From Breitbart:
An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.
"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason...so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."
And Pelosi wonders why her approval rating is lower than George Bush's.
I know you've been so busy working hard to get your approval rating below 10%, and allowing Nancy Pelosi to turn off the lights, cut the microphones, and leave conservatives to talk about energy policy in the dark while the "congressional leadership" got a jump on summer vacation. Meanwhile:
I say, why not take an extended vacation until the end of this month? That way, though it might feel like you're continuing your tradition of getting absolutely nothing done (unless you think renaming post offices and congratulating sports teams constitutes "leadership"), you can actually accomplish something most of the nation is clamoring for. You can let the congressional restrictions on offshore drilling expire.
The White House's own moratorium has been dissolved; the congressional element is the only thing standing between Americans and billions of barrels of domestic oil.
So, I ask of you Congress - give the American taxpayers their money's worth and keep up the lousy work.
Gas is over $4.00 a gallon in most of the country. Food prices are on the rise. So what do you do when your oil-rich and oh-so-compassionate Wahhabi chums won't boost petroleum production? Offer them nuclear technology, of course!
Above: "Please can we have more oil, please?"
As detailed in a White House press release under the title "Strengthening Diplomatic Ties with Saudi Arabia," the administration will "assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to develop civilian nuclear power for use in medicine, industry, and power generation."
This has been reported by Middle East sources as well, including our friends at Haaretz and the always-enthralling Al-Jazeera.
So Iran isn't to be trusted not to make a bomb, but Saudi Arabia is? The nation who showers the families of suicide bombers with cash, uses our petrodollars to fund terror groups and extremist mosques, and spreads one of the most radically virulent and barbaric forms of Islam around the world?
George Bush is about to let a nation (who sits atop more oil than the scalps of all the McDonald's fry cooks on the planet) into the nuclear club -- a nation which inhabits a region in which the mere assumption of nuclear goings-on has been proven to trigger air strikes and regional instability. Meanwhile, we haven't licensed a nuclear power plant in 30 years, much less built a new oil refinery. While nuclear and refining capacity have still managed to make some increases over the last few decades, we are sitting on our oil-addicted hands while we provide the energy source of the future to nations that sponsor our destruction. Notice I said nations, not nation. Why?
Get ready for this one. France is also building reactors for Algeria and Libya. That's right -- the same Libya that we took the nuclear car keys away from after they were found to have been building a weapon. What's really going to fry your falafel is the fact that you're footing the bill for enormous investments in a country that is as familiar with complex infrastructure as Barack Obama is with American history. That is to say, not very.
Has Bush finally decided that, regardless of the evidence of Iran's malevolent intent, the world will never look favorably upon an Israeli-US strike on her nuclear facilities? If so, has he also decided that allowing Saudi Arabia to go nuclear is the only way to achieve some semblance of balance in the region and offset the threat of nuclear blackmail by Shiite Iran? After all, there are no "allies" in the Middle East; just useful friends who haven't slit your throat yet.
In 2004, Dick Cheney said, "[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." He had a completely legitimate point, but the same can be said for Saudi Arabia (never mind the fact that this is the country that gave us Osama bin Laden).
Representatives in Congress are beginning to take notice of the issue as well. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke out against the administration's ludicrous and hypocritical initiative:
"At a time when Saudi Arabia and its allies in the OPEC cartel are squeezing consumers with devastatingly high oil prices, the Bush Administration is rewarding the Kingdom with promises of future nuclear cooperation."
"Nuclearizing the most dangerous region in the world poses an enormous and unnecessary risk that has few or no benefits for this country."
"Even as the Bush Administration is attempting to prevent oil-rich Iran from acquiring the means to manufacture nuclear weapons under the guise of a peaceful nuclear energy program, its policy is to help Saudi Arabia develop that same capacity. And it is doing so while encouraging many others to embrace nuclear power."
Oh, and a question to all the useful idiots out there. After 5 years of a "war for oil," why aren't we swimming in the stuff by now?
When Exxon-Mobil reported profits of $39.5 billion in 2006, Democrats were feeling faint. In 2007, when those profits were $40.6 billion, the wall of noise coming from the Left was even louder. Since most Americans were educated by our government and the concept of "profit margins" is never discussed in the mainstream press, Democrats have been able to keep doing what they do best: demagogue and manipulate.
Hillary's words just don't have the same bite when printed, so here's a quick refresher:
Let's start with "I want to take those profits" and work our way backwards. Hillary's alarming belief is that it is the government's right to seize legally-earned profits from a private business. I'm not sure if I'm more frightened by the statement or the applause it received.
When corporate taxes are raised, the corporation can simply calculate its projected sales and factor in the higher tax rate as it does with any expense. Because of this, higher taxes on a corporation ultimately lead to higher consumer prices. Corporations do not pay taxes. You do.
Since 2004, Exxon-Mobil has paid roughly 41% of their total taxable income in taxes, an average of $27 billion per year. 2004 is also the last year for which complete data regarding taxation at various income levels are available. That year, 130 million Americans filed individual tax returns. The total number of taxes paid by the bottom 65 million (50%) was $27.4 billion.
So in one year, the government takes as much from Exxon-Mobil as they do from the entire lower half of individual tax payers.
Now, as for "the highest profits in the history of the world," it's obvious Hillary doesn't think you understand the difference between a profit and a profit margin (and maybe you don't). Profit margin accounts for the relationship between the amount of money you make (profits) and the amount of money it took to earn those profits.
Let's say you're selling "War Is Not The Answer" t-shirts. The shirts cost you $5, and you sell them for $7. Your profit is $2 (for every $5 you spend). Now, the cotton used to make these shirts is buried under a desert on the other side of the world, you've got textile mullahs salivating over a nuclear cotton gin, and global demand is through the roof. Pretty soon, the price of your precious resource has doubled to $10, and you start selling your shirts for $14.
Wow, you've doubled your profits! You used to make $2 per shirt, and now you make $4! But are you twice as rich? No, because production is also costing you twice as much.
You're still making $2 for every $5 you spend, so your profit margin remains the same. Exxon's profit margin has remained around 10% for the last 4 years, while the profit margins for financial institutions, retailers, and other areas of the economy have been much higher.
Hillary and Obama believe (and want you to, as well) that there is such a thing as "too much profit," and will never mention oil companies' idle profit margins or the fact that profits are directly tied to employee benefits, pensions, and stock earnings, impacting thousands of working individuals and families -- not just whether a CEO gets a new mini-bar in his Gulf Stream.
"All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization."
-President George W. Bush, September 23rd, 2003
Whether he's drunk on something more than ideology, or simply absentminded (let's go with the latter), President Bush seems to be conveniently glossing over a rather glaring absence of consistency between what is said and what is done.
The corruption, radicalization, and throwback barbarism that takes place inside the borders of Saudi Arabia dwarfs that of pre-invasion Iraq, and is approaching that of post-Ahmadinejad Iran. Though unlike Shia Iran, the Kingdom's state religion is Wahhabism, an expansionist branch of Islam which emerged only 250 years ago. Wahhabism is one of the most brutal sects of Islam, and the Saudi-Wahhabi movement has been known for violently defeating and subjugating non-Wahhabi peoples of the Arabian Peninsula since well before the establishment of the current Saudi state.
But that's just ancient history. Saudi Arabia must be a sensible country at this point, not run by Bedouins and thugs, effortlessly gliding into the prosperity and standards of the 21st century. Right?
Let's just say, it's not Kansas. Women are secluded and veiled in kind of gender apartheid, while polygamy is as legal as it is practiced, which is regularly among Saudi elite. There is no religious freedom in the Kingdom for any faiths other than Islam, and Saudi textbooks have been found to contain material teaching that Jews were the "descendants of apes and pigs."
Above: Not an Oprah-approved book in sight.
Saudi media is made up of state-run and private-but-publicly-subsidized elements. With this torrent of government-controlled media flows the most blistering anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda in the Arab world. The only freedom of the press is the freedom to choose the best way to express hatred of the West.
There's something to be understood before going forward: Your money is Saudi money.
Saudi Oil exports make up 44% of the country's GDP, and the Kingdom is America's 3rd largest provider of crude oil. Our money is Saudi money, and Saudi money is where it all starts. Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency would hardly exist without Saudi funding and membership. In fact, Saudis are responsible for the majority of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia is the nerve center and womb of radical Islam. Our money pays for it, their home grown terrorists carry it out, and the kingdom's miserable masses are amused or indifferent.
Now it's time for "Guess Which One Doesn't Belong:"
A. Mohamed Atta B. Satam al-Suqami C. Jamie Lynn Spears D. Abdulaziz al-Omari
Time's up. If you chose C, you're right. Jamie Lynn has never flown an airplane in her life. You must have realized that the other three people (along with 12 other Saudi nationals) all flew commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Bonus points if you didn't know who Jamie Lynn Spears was.
So, if Bush thinks that governments who support terror are complicit in a war against civilization, what's so different about the Saudis? Why have we aligned ourselves with a murderous theocracy?
Above: Our friends the Saudis. Condi, is that you back there?
We are bound to the Saudis in an administration-spanning pseudo-alliance; that is to say a "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" arrangement, with one side scratching your back and one side self-detonating around the world.
What do the Saudis do for us, besides finance our destruction? What do we do for the Saudis to deserve any of this? What in God's name is in the middle of this precipitous relationship?
Oil.
The hippie's favorite scapegoat has found new legitimacy. It should be obvious that the Saudis keep the oil flowing to the United States and the rest of the West. Every time you fill up your car with gas that began as Saudi crude (statistically, one in every five times you fill up) you're offering your contribution to a government with half an economy earmarked for "military spending."
But you're not seeing the real price of Saudi crude. The ever-changing digits at the gas station don't include an additional expense – thousands of Americans murdered at home and around the world.
Does Bush even read his speeches before opening his mouth?
This is the cost of being dependent on foreign oil. It seems hopeless, and it shouldn't be, but with the political establishment as poisoned as it is, and with Americans lacking anything resembling a common national initiative, hopeless might be the word.
We could start by building more gasoline refineries in the United States. We haven't built a new refinery in over 25 years, and refining gasoline domestically will reduce the amount of gasoline we are forced to import, lowering costs.
Nuclear power is also a viable option, and I would recommend examining the success France has had with the majority of its energy coming from nuclear power. Environmentalists stand in the way of drilling for oil reserves in ANWR. The same goes for the coast of Florida and the Gulf. You wouldn't want to see the property value of your condo go down, would you?
Responding to the brainwashed-bumper-sticker cries of "No Blood For Oil," the Bush Doctrine seems to be saying "Well hold on...exactly how much oil are we talking about here?" The Kingdom keeps the oil flowing, and we promise to overlook their human rights atrocities, virulent hatred of Israel, and support for terror around the globe. Our duplicitous and suicidal enabler, Saudi Arabia presents as much a case for energy independence as anything that leaves Al Gore's attention-starved lips.
