Polls
Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| Democrats' energy plan equals high gas prices |
|
|
| Written by By Frank Aquila / For the Tracy Press | |
| Tuesday, 22 July 2008 | |
|
A Republican leader argues that domestic oil drilling is a sensible short-term solution.
Why? The reason is as simple as supply and demand, not smoke and mirrors, as the Democrats so often try to portray on the people.
Every country runs on oil, and because the United States uses more oil than it produces, we must pay the world market price for oil. We import 65 percent of the oil we use. Even though we have the resources in America to be energy independent, the Democrats have blocked every effort to make this a reality. Alaska sits on a pool of oil, which could be explored without disrupting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The people of Alaska overwhelmingly support this proposal. Now, the Russians have begun exploration for oil in the Arctic Circle. Oil is also known to be in Utah, Colorado and off the coast of California and Florida. In 1995, the Republican-controlled Congress passed a bill to open a small region (ANWR) in Alaska to tap into the available oil. The Democrats protested, claiming there would be no results for 10 years. President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill. Even by the Democrats’ own timetable, America could have been energy independent of foreign oil by 2005. As usual, the Democrats have tried to stop our exploration of oil in America. This has put our environment and our economy at risk, because we are forced to rely upon the world for oil. The only energy plan of Democrats is to raise taxes on vehicles, gas and the people, while blaming high gas on the “evil” oil companies. While Big Oil made huge profits, the government made nearly four times as much.
The Democrats want to tax our energy even more with a 25-cent increase in the state gas tax, as well as a 50-cent increase in the federal gas tax. They also want to place a major tax on oil companies. What do the Democrats want — $6 gas? How would the increase in gas affect the prices of other common items, like food, that need gas to be transported? The cost, once again, would be passed along to the consumer. America invented the peaceful use of nuclear power. Yet, modern Democrats usually oppose it as a source of energy. We have never lost a life to nuclear energy production. Even nations such as France derive most of their electricity from nuclear power. Why does the Democrat party routinely oppose nuclear power in America?
We need to be less dependent on foreign oil and proactive in seeking a diversity of environmentally safe, technology solutions to fuel America. We should embrace ethanol as a fuel source, as well as sugar cane-derived fuel. We should have new investments in clean-coal technology, because our nation is so rich in sources of coal. Wind, solar, and hydro-electric energy should all be explored in useful ways.
Most of the candidates running for office will tout their willingness to follow though with solutions for a plan for energy, but the energy solutions of the Democrats so far have been to increase taxes on gasoline.
Drilling for oil here in America is a sensible, short-term solution. Drilling the people with more taxes seems to be the Democratic Party’s only solution.
• Frank Aquila is a Manteca resident and president of the South San Joaquin Republicans. His e-mail address is
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trackback(0)
Comments
(18)
Hmmm, there are other problems with this letter:
Even by the Democrats’ own timetable, America could have been energy independent of foreign oil by 2005. Wrong. This is completely illogical. The results of drilling in ANWR would not have been felt for 10 years. That does not mean that we could have been energy independent in 10 years. Since ANWR is estimated at only a fraction of our current energy needs, it would not have had the effect of making us energy independent. Here's a quote from Wikipedia and the Energy Information Administration: "The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."
Good Article that Mark Davis and the Democrats do NOT want people to see. We have enough oil here in America to be Energy Independent for 120 years
It actually makes the case for less independence and my suspicions are unfortunately it will be the usual marketing ploy.
Why would oil companies drill in ANWR or "offshore(s)" than sell (us) barrels at $50 when they can put it on the world market for roughly $140 dollars per. Afterall, they are not in the business of losing money! If you buy into the whole supply and demand theory, then demand has to go way, way down. This means moving into alternate fuel sources.
Apparently the Federal Govt. recently "discovered" huge supplies of "stored" crude oil - and as of today - the NYSE closed doen at $120.oo per barrel.
Do you see any significant changes at the pump?
I must, for once, agree with a good part of Mark's critique. Not because he throws out yet another report or website that can often be loaded with propaganda and subject to other interpretations, but because his presuppositions are based on sound economic law.
I was also add that biofuels are a bad idea as they use more fossil energy that they save and have their own pollution problems. This is at least the case with wheat.
Still, this letter does lend itself to some good ideas. There is no reason why we ought not to explore and harness our own resources for the good of the American economy. The fact that oil drilling will not bring an immediate reduction in price or at what level the reduction may or may not be is not an argument against drilling. No single energy source will bring immediate relief for a nation that has largely stopped new energy production in fossil fuels, refinery capacity, and nuclear for nearly 30 years. This lack of development in America has meant more profits for our enemies abroad and made us subject to disruptions if war or civil strife breaks out.
As far as nuclear power goes, our problem with it is political and not economic. If France has been able to handle the problem of nuclear waste and risk at an acceptable level then surely we can. Sadly, a very influencial group of environmentalists do not think any exploration or use of fossil fuels or nuclear energy is ever worth the risk no matter how little the risk may be. This merely allows nations like China and India to eventually leave us in the dust as they are willing to utilize any energy source and accept a much higher degree of risk than us.
I must, as usual, point out that Scott Hurban hasn't a clue. Not because he can't write in concise or coherent sentences or paragraphs (no, he can't do that), but because he refers to things like "economic law" while not understanding that economics is a social science and less plausibly lawlike than, say, biology. He also is underinformed in claiming France's nuclear system is flawless. Of course it isn't:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/...3520080723 Wow, that was almost as hard as finding flaws in almost anything Frank Aquila writes.
Mark D. I don't want to get between you and Scott but I actually have a correction for you. Scott did not say France's nuclear system is flawless, he stated it is operated at an acceptable level. Big difference.
Thanks mark j. Mark Davis likes to change words and twist things. That's par for the course. While economics is a social science, I am sure he is aware of the law of supply and demand of which I referred. By the way, Mark, when are you going to stop pretending you haven't made up your mind about who to support during the election? You wrote to me over a year ago that you thought it would be cool ( your words) if Obama or Hillary were elected and lately you have been pretending that you haven't decided. You are not a very honest person. Were you able to follow my train of thought Mark?
Remember, Mark, speaking of the difference between law, correlation, and theory. It still remains the theory of evolution and not a law and a bad theory it is.
After reading the article I couldn't help but wonder why the price for a barrel of oil dropped immediately after Bush mentioned the off-shore drilling of oil. Hmmm? And I read in the paper the other day that our lawmakers in our Capitol want to raise gas tax by .10, all when American's are having a bad time paying the already high prices. Hmmm?
Mark davis says.."but because he refers to things like "economic law" while not understanding that economics is a social science and less plausibly lawlike than, say, biology."
If Biology is more "Lawlike" then why do Pinko Hippys ignore Biological Law, and swallow Evolution like it is.? cummon Mark, it's not real "Law" you are interested in, ..it's Your own set of "Laws" that you worship. and By Your writing...I wouldn't make fun of Scott's.
It has been far too easy picking on Scott lately, though he does generally bring it on himself with his tirades. His claims concerning propaganda are particularly remarkable and should be closely studied by SR.
But I'll concede MJ's point. Note the timing on the Reuter's article, though: it was yesterday! What is not remarkable is that people don't want to be poisoned. They also want to raise their children without the risk of being poisoned. They also don't want the coastline poisoned. Hence people's voices contribute to risk aversion in a way that is natural for a democracy. For Frank Aquila or Scott to attribute that to a broad conspiracy or influential minority is clearly untrue. It is a perfectly legitimate concern and I definitely want politicians in office who take stewardship of natural resources and environmental protection very seriously.
Once again Mark, being the propagandust that he is, tries to relate my position to one of conspiracy theorist. No where do I mention conspiracy when I speak of the influence of environmentalists nor do I ever say they are a minority. These are merely Mark's fabrications. As the price of energy continues to rise, people will forget about the latest global warming fad, as they forgot about the global cooling fad, and the ozone layer fad and they will demand drilling. This is already happening. People are for extreme envoronmentalism until that can see it is costing them, then they will take a little pollution to protect their way of life.
By the way, Mark, why don't you answer my Obama question!? How long will you perpectuate this lie that you are an independent. He will clearly carry the state, so why do you feel compelled carry on with this charade? Are you still able to follow my thought or is it too incoherent for you?
Scott: Actually here is your quote:
Sadly, a very influencial group of environmentalists do not think... Hence my reference to the "influential minority". I did not attribute the conspiracy to you except with poor reading comprehension (see parallel construction). As for your silly baiting: I am an independent and have in the past voted Libertarian and for at least one Republican who was very effective in the Senate for my state at the time. I tend to vote Democratic these days. That is my position and has been my position for the past several years. I make no representations that it will not or can not change in the future. This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
|
|
Here's Obama's nuclear energy policy statement (note Frank's use of the weasel word "usually"):
Also, the claim concerning a gas tax hike is actually isolated to Dingle of Michigan who thinks it would help battle global warming. His proposal has had limited uptake. There are a few other congressional leaders who want tax increases to replenish the highway fund, but all of these proposals are going nowhere.