Let’s Get Some Perspective People

This is a guest post from a friend of mine, Drew. A few nights ago, he made some very good points about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I asked him to write up something for my website and he was kind enough to agree. I think this is a very interesting view point. Thank you, Drew. Enjoy!

The recent tragedy on the Transocean Rig Deepwater Horizon has only further soured me on the state of the American Media and our current political landscape.

It has been an unfortunate display of political point scoring. To be fair and in the interest of full disclosure, I work for a direct competitor of Transocean in the offshore drilling industry. To that end I perhaps may understand the events a little bit better than most of the general public. Please allow me a brief primer on offshore drilling.

BP contracted with Transocean to drill an exploratory well. Transocean drilled this well and were in the process of cementing it closed when the well "Kicked." What this means is that a pocket of Methane gas escaped up the well shaft. This is all we know for certain other than 11 men lost their lives when this happened.

Now we have an uncapped well that is spilling 4,100 barrels per day.. This is an environmental tragedy as well. The problem is that the media is behaving like teenagers with a juicy new rumor about the kid they don't like. They are leading the charge to make the story worse than it actually is and the politicians of Washington are all too happy to go along with it.

Much is being made of the oil being released. The same story I have referenced talks about the type of Oil being particularly bad as well. What you have not been told by anyone in this whole rush to judgment, is that the Gulf of Mexico has twice the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill (250,000 barrels for the Valdez) seep into its waters every year! That is 500,000 barrels of Crude oil every year from just natural seepage.

Does that exonerate BP and Transocean? Of course not. What it does do is provide some much needed perspective. That perspective being that this is an ecosystem that is used to this type of substance. Using the Valdez as a comparison is at its heart, a lie and a tactic to demonize. The Valdez spill took place in an area that has an ecosystem that was never exposed to such a calamity.

In addition we hear about BP's "History of negligence" in the news. Well they have had two foul-ups that everyone is reporting on. First, is the refinery explosion in Texas City and the second in the Pipeline Corrosion incident in Prudhoe Bay. These two instances can arguably be blamed on negligence. So that is two times since 2005 that BP has been negligent.

Let's apply that same standard to our personal lives shall we? Say you enjoy playing texas hold 'em with your friends. Say you aren't that good. If you lose your money twice in five years this same standard in the media would mean you have a "History of Gambling problems."

What about other areas? How about the Post Office? They certainly had more incidents of workplace violence (20 incidents from 1986 to 1997) than what could be reasonably explained and yet we don't hear about the US Postal Service's "History of violence."

The whole point is that the media has an agenda it is advancing. It continues to perpetuate a myth that Oil Companies are out to do harm in order to make a profit. Politicians should be scolded and held accountable for their childish behavior on this issue (and many others). They are supposed to be the ones who are mature about this situation and have clear heads about how to proceed. Instead we get sound bites like "[It is] a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster," from the President.

What ever happened to leadership?

Book Review: Ted, White, and Blue

My wife and I were watching Glenn Beck one night when Ted Nugent was on as a guest. The Motor City Madman was on the whole night talking about America, Politics, and our Society. During the course of the night, they talked about his book, Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, and I knew I had to read it. The book did not disappoint me.

This is not Ted Nugent's first book. It is his sixth. The book covers a wide range of topics, and is his personal manifesto. As such, he makes no apologies for anything he says in the book. Some of it is fun, some of it is insightful, and some people will be insulted by some of the stuff they read. The truth sometimes hurts. Through the course of the book, Mr. Nugent gives his recommendations and ideas on a number of issues including: Politics, Religion, War, Taxes, Immigration, Unemployment, and Global Warming. This is by no means and all inclusive lists. There are seventeen chapters in the book covering seventeen topics. Ted, White, and Blue also has a decent index, and thirteen pages of notes and references.

Ted Nugent surprised me by his depth of knowledge on a number of the topics. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and believe we should be building more reactors. Environmentalists concerned with reactors always ask, "What will you do with the waste?" Ted Nugent has a great response:

"Another unfounded fear is based on the waste that nuclear power produces. The overwhelming majority of the waste from nuclear power plants could be stored in your backyard with no risk to you. It is totally harmless. You could pick it up with your bare hands and not suffer any ill effects. Of the remaining nuclear waste, most of it could be recycled and used again but peanuts-for-brains Jimmy Carter banned the recycling and use of nuclear waste in 1977. Fortunately, the American voters banned Jimmy in 1980. Carter's baseless decision means that all nuclear waste we have ever produced must be stored in a nuclear waste repository such as Yucca Mountain…"

According to the material cited in Ted, White, and Blue, there is enough nuclear waste material in the United States, that if recycled, could power every household in our country for twelve years. That sounds like a good idea to me. Another unique idea from his book revolves around two hot button issues: Health Care and Illegal Immigration. There are a number of different studies that try to calculate the health care costs to American Taxpayers for treating illegal immigrants in emergency rooms. If someone goes to a hospital and needs emergency care, they have to be treated, even if it is something minor like a hang nail or a cough. Someone has to foot the bill for this "free" health care. Mr. Nugent suggests deducting the cost of the health care from the foreign aid we would normally send to the illegal immigrants home country.

Ted, White, and Blue is a fun read. While it does talk a little about Ted Nugent's biography, it is really a discussion of solutions for current problems. I would highly recommend it as an entertaining read that may provide some unique view points and solutions you hadn't considered before.

A New Gas Tax

I am usually against any increase in the Federal Gas Tax. My default position on any tax increase is to oppose it until I know more about it. However, I have been stopped cold by a new purposed gas tax increase. Charles Krauthammer writing in the January 12^th issue of the Weekly Standard argues for a "Net-Zero Gas Tax". I have read this article a few times now, and I believe Mr. Krauthammer may be onto something. I wanted to discuss it here because I would like my readers opinions on the plan.

There are a number of reasons to support a gas tax. Typically, any substantial increase in a gas tax is usually government's way of trying to get the people to use less gas. Depending on your political stripe, you may support this in the name of a cleaner environment, or as a way of lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Europeans already have a much higher gas tax than ours. According to Mr. Krauthammer, our federal gas tax is about 18.4 cents on the gallon. In Europe, the fuel tax is closer to $4 per gallon.

The Net Zero gas tax is different from most tax porposals. Mr. Krauthammer argues for an increase in the federal gas tax of one dollar. This is a pretty big percentage increase and would make gas prices jump up to around $2.83 or so for a national average. This is typically not the type of behavior one expects in an economy where new stimulus packages are dreamt up and voted on every other week. However, Mr. Krauthammer couples his tax with a corresponding reduction of $14 per week in the FICA tax. This reduction is to hit the books the week before the extra one dollar gas tax rolls out. Why a $14 reduction? The average American buys 14 gallons of gas per week. By letting that average American keep the extra $14 in his pay check, he has the money for the additional federal gas tax. The net zero tax is designed to be revenue neutral. The federal government gets the same money it has been getting. However, Americans can now chose to continue to buy the same amount of gas each week, or cut back some and have a little extra money.

Are there challenges to this? Sure, and Mr. Krauthammer has a solution for many of them. What about people on welfare or social security? They would get an extra $14 on their weekly checks. What about truckers who buy much more than the average 14 gallons of gas each week? Institute some sort of exception or credit for them to keep the new tax from hitting them so hard.

What I see as the brilliance of this proposal is that it doesn't hurt most Americans and it could potentially cause many Americans to change their driving habits. Many of us are still driving like gas is $4 a gallon. If this tax were enacted soon, we could keep those driving habits and potential get a little money for it. Both parties can claim this as a victory. Democrats love new taxes, and can say this one is to fight global warming. Republicans can say this is a way to cut our oil use, thereby hurting heavy oil countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. Both parties get a feather in their cap, we might do some good, and the tax becomes one we can decide not to pay by driving less.

The only way out of our economic problems are with creative new approaches. The Net Zero Gas tax is a creative approach worth looking at.

Government 101 – Me and My Soap box

I have been spending some time this week reading up on the economic crisis. I have been struggling with the question of if I believe our Congress should give the Executive branch a $700 Billion check. Proponents say if we don't do it, then our economy (and the economy of the rest of the world) will collapse. Opponents say that bailing out the market is irresponsible, will saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, will devalue our dollar further (thus hurting our economy and the world's), and may not fix the problem. Some have argued for other solutions such as suspending the capital gains tax for two years. They argue that there is private capital out there waiting for the right price to jump in. Warren Buffets infusion to the market of $5 Billion yesterday sure seems to give this argument some weight. What is the right answer? Honestly, I think all of the arguments have their strong points and their weak points. The bailout check would be used to buy up bad mortgages. Managed correctly (which I don't know if the government can do) this could actually return a profit to the government and to taxpayers. I am always a fan of removing taxes and getting private capital flowing, but is suspending the capital gains tax for two years enough to get that money moving? If we have learned nothing from the Great Depression, we should have learned two lessons. First, business and the market hate uncertainty. It scares them. Businesses will hold on to money, and not invest, until they are sure what the government plans to do. Second, passing laws just to pass laws can sometimes make matters worse. What if giving the Fed's a $700 billion check simply delays a much worse crash?

My wife made me watch Glenn Beck last night. If you didn't see it, you should go look for it on CNN or YouTube. I found the transcript for the show here. If I am recommending you view a CNN program, you really should sit up and take note. Glenn Beck had former Shell Oil executive John Hofmeister on and asked viewers to call in to ask any question they wanted of Mr. Hofmeister. Mr. Hofmeister has a new organization called Citizens for Affordable Energy. While watching that episode, and talking to my wife about the economic crisis and the energy crisis I realized we haven't come up with the correct solution yet because we haven't asked the right question yet. The right question is: When are we going to start legislating like adults, and not like children who just want to feel good?

Go look for articles on the economic crisis. Most of them blame it on the "Sub prime mortgages" or "bad mortgages" or "questionable lending". This is code speak for "loans that were given to people who should have never gotten a loan in the first place." Congress encouraged / forced banks to give loans to people who wouldn't have qualified for them. They did it under the guise of "making homes affordable for everyone." This is the problem. Any sane adult should be able to take a step back and look at the world and realize there are people in this world who will never be able to afford a home. There are charities that have as their goal fixing this. This is a noble goal. However, it isn't a realistic one, and it isn't one our government should be legislating to fix.

Another example is Polar Bears. How? Simple. Recently our government, under the evil George Bush, placed Polar Bears on the threatened species list. Bear in mind (no pun intended) that the worldwide Polar bear populations are at a high point. There are now more Polar Bears in the world than at any point in the twentieth century. Why did they get placed on the threatened species list? Because it "felt good".

We can't drill in water closer than 50 to 100 miles from our shores. Even though the most productive oil rigs are within the 50 mile mark, congress has decided we shouldn't drill there. Why? Sun bathers don't like to see oil rigs. What if there is an accident? Who will protect the birds? The safety record of the oil industry is actually pretty impressive. You have heard of a few spills, but by and large, oil is moved around this country every day and the only time we hear about it is when our gas prices go up. For those of you who think we can get rid of oil and replace it with solar or wind power, you are living in a pipe dream. If you think political environmentalist are going to let you construct wind and solar energy "plants" you haven't been paying attention. Already there are concerns with wind mills killing migratory birds. Sane adults can pass a comprehensive energy plan that uses oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and anything else we can safely squeeze energy out of.

What about our tax code? Here is a colossal waste. We have a cumbersome tax code that is designed to make the wealthiest people in the United States give their money to the "poor". Think Robin Hood with a gun and the federal government. We don't tax business and individuals to keep the government running and for the government to do those things the Constitution gives it power to do. We tax to try and earn votes, and because it "feels good" to stick it to the wealthy and to Big Business. What this really does is to drive businesses over seas and to take money from the people who might be able to bail us out of our current financial troubles.

I have great faith in the American people. At some point, Americans are going to wake up and tell their representatives to start passing laws like adults and not like 60's era hippies. When that happens, you will see a real energy policy, a tax code that makes sense, and as Glenn Beck would say, the few surviving hippies running for the hills while the rest of us chase them there with torches, cell phones, and SUV's.

Quick Notes -- Gang of 10, Energy, and Georgia

The late William F. Buckley once said, "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." I wish to change that just a little. After watching the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I would rather be governed by a random lottery of 1000 people in the United States than our current elected Congress and Senate. I have lamented many times that neither Obama nor McCain represent the best from their parties. This week has further depressed me on the ability of our currently elected representatives. This means you get to enjoy a somewhat expanded version of Quick Notes.

Energy. Without looking at the polling data, I think it is safe to say that Energy has become the number one issue of the election. This can always change. On a daily basis, I see more in the paper, on radio, and on TV about energy and gas prices than any other issue. There are a number of positions out there. Obama wants to stop using oil in our country in the next ten years. He also wants to give "middle class families" a $1000 check to help with prices at the pump. How would he pay for this? With windfall profit taxes on big oil companies. If we put profit taxes on oil companies, what do we really think will happen to the price of gas?

McCain has been better on this issue. He has changed his position on off shore drilling. He wants to increase nuclear power in the U.S. He even wants to increase our alternative energy production. I agree with these issues, but don't believe they go far enough. I am an "all of the above" kind of guy. I believe we need to drill for oil in our country wherever we believe it is economically feasible. If that means off shore, in ANWR, or in the Grand Canyon, then do it. We need to build more nuclear power plants in the U.S. If France can get 80% of their energy from nuclear power, why can't we. The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy. I am skeptical, but the plan calls for it to be financed 100% from private sector funds. Any alternative energy that private financiers want to go for, I support. They use their money, they drive the market, and if they are successful, they should reap the profits. This is Capitalism at it's best.

This is a long winded way of saying that there is an issue out there that both McCain, and the Republicans can win on this year. Conventional wisdom is that this year, Obama should win, and the Democrats should pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. Imagine turning that on it's head. However, into this discussion steps...

The Gang of 10. Democrats aren't the only one trying to drive a stake in the discussion of off shore drilling. 5 Republicans in the Senate have joined the fray. There is a great article on this at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain. If you follow politics, and are a conservative Republican, all you need to hear is Lindsey Graham and bipartisan compromise. These two phrases generally mean Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get screwed. The Gang of 10 plan allows off shore drilling, but only in a few states, and with the permission of those states. It bars drilling in ANWR, it provides $84 billion of tax incentives for alternative fuels that are paid for with new taxes on oil companies. These senators have decided they can tax certain companies to provide incentives to their competitors. Imagine Congress taxing Microsoft and giving the money to Apple. Or taxing Starbucks and giving the money to McDonald's. It is arrogant, unwise, and against the very nature of our market economy. The five Republicans, Graham (R-SC), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Thune (R- SD), and Corker (R-TN), have shown a colossal lack of judgment.

Georgia. Turning to world events, Russia has started a full scale war with the nation of Georgia. This is a very complicated matter that I may more fully explain in a future post. However, something to keep an eye on is the possibility of a nuke being used in this engagement. When the Soviet Union collapsed, 5000 small nuclear weapons went unaccounted for. The government of Russia said they were destroyed, and that all evidence of their destruction, and all correspondence ordering their destruction was also destroyed. In addition, Georgia was sitting on some nuclear weapons, which they turned over to Russia in exchange for U.S aid. In both of these cases, there is a chance that some nuclear weapons (some as small as 44 lbs) may be in the hands of the Georgian government, or some of the smaller groups fighting in this engagement. If they feel that Russia is about to take over their entire country, Georgia may feel it has no option but to set one of these off. Keep an eye on that part of the world to see what happens.

Number One Issue in ’08: Gas Prices?

I have written a few times on this site about energy and gas prices being an issue this Presidential Election season. I am now convinced that it could be a very big factor in not just the Presidential election, but Congressional and Senatorial campaigns as well. Gas prices hit an all time high today for our national average at $4.11 a gallon. The Democrats campaigned on lowering energy and gas prices back in 2006. So far, they haven't done anything about it. $4.00 appears to be the point when most Americans begin to lose patience with the "environmental movement" and decide it is time to do something. A few days ago I saw a t-shirt selling on ebay. The shirt had a picture of a polar bear and said, "I'd drill through his A—, for cheaper gas!" I have always been amazed at the good PR the Polar Bear gets. Let's not forget that this is an animal known to stalk and kill people, and routinely eats seals. Why do you think the Polar Bear hangs out on ice?

I digress. Many Republicans are pushing hard to at least get a floor vote on off shore drilling. Pelosi and Reid are both playing this down. Neither of them wants a roll call vote with their members voting against off shore drilling come November. I'm not a professional campaign manager, but I bet a very effective add could be made with a Representative or Senator voting against drilling, and gas prices at $5 in November. Pelosi has said she won't allow any energy bills to see the floor for fear that an off shore drilling vote could come up. Reid has said he doesn't think anything will happen in the Senate, but Republicans and some Democrats don't agree with him.

There is a move in the Senate to create a "Gang of 14" style compromise. According to the Politico, this would show up in a bill that opens up the coast for drilling, but includes some conservation or alternative fuel measures. Depending on the language, there is a real opportunity to get some meaningful legislation passed here. There are already Democrats committing their support to this bill. If it passed in the Senate, there would be more pressure on the House to do something.

I called a U. S. Representative’s office today to discuss off shore drilling with them. I called as a simple voter, and not in any way associated with this blog. While discussing the merits of off shore drilling, and discussing alternative energy such as bio-fuels and nuclear power, the staffer I talked to wouldn’t commit one way or another for the Representative they worked for. At one point in the conversation, the aide even asked not to be quoted. I have never been told from an elected officials office that they didn't want to be quoted while talking to a voter. I took one very clear message from this: This particular Representative isn’t willing to commit one way or another on this issue. If that is true, then Reid and Pelosi may be in for a loss as Democrats work to craft a bill with Republicans against the Democratic Leadership’s wishes. This could make this years Congressional and Senatorial campaigns much closer than the conventional wisdom.