Tuesday I got a tank full of gas for $2.69 a gallon. Sure wish gas prices were that low in August when we went to Yellowstone! Our trip cost us $549 in gasoline for 3,188 miles. If we made that trip now, we would have saved about $200. (Of course, Old Faithful Lodge is now closed for the winter season.)

The U.S dollar ended stronger than usual. One US dollar will now purchase $1.26 in Canada, .62 Pounds, and .78 Euros.  

Oil sunk to the $63 to $69 / barrel range this week. Less than half of what it was priced at its high. Since oil is priced in dollars, the stronger dollar makes the price/barrel go down. OPEC is likely to try tightening the supply in an effort to boost the price.

Wouldn't it be great if OPEC's decrease in production didn't matter?

The Congressional Democrats do not favor domestic drilling. Remember the Trojan Drilling Bill? Obama doesn't either. Republicans and McCain are in favor of drilling more offshore, utilizing oil shale, and "All of the above." Think about that when you hit the voting booth.

Post Script: Right on schedule, OPEC agrees sharp output cut  "An emergency OPEC meeting on Friday reached swift agreement to chop production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in an effort to halt a deep oil price slide." Well, oil priced in the $60s was nice while it lasted.

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: 

Boy, that bailout bill really helped, didn't it? The Dow is now below 10,000 at the time of this writing. The rest of the world isn't faring much better.

But don't they say that every cloud has a silver lining, or it is an ill wind that blows no good?

Well, falling oil prices would be the little ray of sunshine in our black cloud of falling stocks.

Oil prices fall below $90 amid financial crisis worries: 

Oil prices briefly fell to an eight-month low below $90 a barrel Monday on speculation that the spreading financial crisis will exacerbate a global economic slowdown and cut demand for crude oil.

Significant gains by the U.S. dollar against the euro also contributed to slumping oil prices.

By midafternoon in Europe, light, sweet crude for November delivery was down $2.68 to $91.20 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session, the price fell as low as $88.89 a barrel.

Oil prices have tumbled nearly 40% since peaking in July. The Nymex front-month contract last traded this low in early February.

At least lower oil prices will help Americans with heating costs* and filling their gas tanks. That is the only good thing I can say about the falling markets right now.

But, since we are so dependent on middle east oil, don't expect this downward trend to continue back to "good ole days" prices. After all, they do control the supply side of supply and demand. More from USAToday,

Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossien Nozari said Saturday that it would be "unsuitable" for both producers and consumers for oil to dip below $100 a barrel. He called on fellow OPEC members not to pump too much oil and avoid a drop in prices.

"OPEC has signaled it may defend $80," Shum said. "There's uncertainty over what OPEC may do."

Need another reason to drill domestically and adopt an "All of the Above"** energy policy? Our economy would not be in the mess it is right now if we had adopted it years ago.

*Most will not benefit this winter from falling oil prices when it comes to heating. JSOnline: Government warns of sharp increase in winter heating costs, especially for homes using oil 

**I do not favor all of the All of the Above. So far, solar, wind, and ethanol are just too expensive and inefficient to be practical. 

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: 

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

Have you noticed that this summer was cooler than usual? That fact, coupled with our recent cold and snowy winter, takes the subject of Global Warming off the front burner.

The last time the temperature didn't hit 90 degrees in Milwaukee during a summer* was in 2000, the weather service said. Before that, it was 1915.

But without even knowing what the daily highs were, could you tell our days and nights were cooler when compared to other summers? I could. Thanks to lower evening temperatures, we were able to avoid turning on our electricity guzzling air conditioner this summer.

As a gardener, I know this summer has been cooler. Tomatoes, which require warm evening temperatures, are ripening slowly. This spring my peach trees let me know we had a colder than usual winter by producing only 2 blossoms. Essentially all of the flowering buds were frozen out. I haven't had a bumper crop in years.

We may have had a stretch of warmer than usual temperatures in recent years. These fueled the Global Warming argument. Who could forget the summer of 1995? (We were remodeling. The whole east side of our house was open to the elements and mosquitoes. Couldn't run the air.) Remember that summer? We had a number of 100+ days! It was awful.

But the warming trend seems to have turned around, and I think it is taking the wind out of the Global Warming alarmists' sails.  

Did you notice how the Global Warming/Climate Change issue was no longer in the limelight at the Democrat convention? There was lots of talk about energy independence and getting off of foreign oil from the Democrats, but not much on reducing carbon footprints, or Global Warming specifically, that I heard.

Barack Obama did not mention Global Warming or even Climate Change in his speech. The closest Obama came to it was, (my emphasis)

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East...

...As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power**... ...And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

The Republicans are off to a slow start with their convention due to hurricane Gustav. Last night Joe Lieberman did mention global warming briefly:

If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do something about global warming.

*The article stated that for record keeping purposes, they count summer as being June, July, and August instead of the June 22 - Sept. 22 definition of summer. 

**Pretty ironic. The Democrats have been blocking these energy sources in Congress, but now that the American public is demanding domestic drilling, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear is OK?

Links: 

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

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:

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:

Barack Obama would prefer that most people think he is John Kennedy the 2nd. But where Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", Obama seems to have an opposite campaign theme: Don't do anything for yourself that the government could do for you.

No, to me, Obama more closely resembles former President Jimmy Carter. They both favor negotiating with terrorists and both seem anti-semitic. They also both share the same opinion on windfall profit taxes for oil companies.

"'SPEAKING OF WINDFALL PROFITS',  Barack Obama said yesterday [Monday] that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further." Barack Obama said Monday:

"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.

That same Reuters piece mentioned that "CRITICS SAY TAX DOES NOT WORK": (My emphasis)

Critics of the windfall profits tax say it proved to be counterproductive when it was last put in place in the United States in 1980 during the final year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.

Those critics say the measure prompted oil companies to cut back on domestic production while failing to raise as much in tax revenue as lawmakers expected. It was repealed in 1988 during the Reagan administration.

What's that saying about history? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? That's  Change we can't afford:  

“At a time when American families face record gas and energy prices, Barack Obama has called for even higher energy taxes. At the center of Barack Obama’s plan is a scheme last tried under Jimmy Carter that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn’t expect anything more from a politician who has consistently voted to increase taxes on energy, including natural gas purchases in Illinois. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford.”

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO INCREASE ENERGY TAXES WILL HURT AMERICAN CONSUMERS (from the McCain campaign.)

Barack Obama is trying to call a McCain presidency George Bush's 3rd term. Tuesday I heard John McCain fire back that an Obama presidency would be Carter's 2nd term.

I don't believe McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, but if we are going to have a rerun...I know which presidency I would pick.

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:

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