"America is in need of an oil change"

.. says Nancy Pelosi. Really ol' girl? Really?

First Titus, your observations regarding MAC's plans differing from Bush's are well taken, and accurate, outside of one area ...

Bush has lifted the executive ban on off-shore drilling. The president can not lift the federal congressional ban. Which means the executive ban lift is largley symbolic. Beginning in 1982, Congress restricted more and more offshore areas through annual Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations. The DOI has authority over the OCS, which includes most areas more than three miles offshore. Through this annual process, Congress chose to deny DOI the funding necessary to conduct leasing of new offshore areas to oil and natural gas companies. These off-limits areas comprise 85 percent of the OCS—almost everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico—and the congressional moratoria have become a standard feature of each year's DOI appropriations bill. Until recent years, these restrictions were easily renewed with little controversy, but that's when gas was a buck a gallon.



Now, in May of this year the GOP proposed legislation in the Senate to allow states to "get around" the federal ban and institute a state sanctioned deal with oil companies to drill wherever they choose off their coast, maintaining a great deal of the royalties within the state, much like Titus's proposal on the matter. Democrats in the Senate beat it 56-42.

SO HERE IS THE DEMOCRATS CURRENT DILEMMA: The American people by a 70% plus margin support domestic drilling, and they (the Democrats) control the congress. Add to that the federal ban on off shore drilling expires on October 1st at midnight on its own if it is not changed or renewed. So, the Democrat leadership is stuck between a rock and a hard place to employ an old cliche. On the one hand the extremist climate change crowd is a powerful voice within their Party. They are an organized group within the base and Pelosi can't just dismiss them. Not to mention the Democrat Party leadership as a whole is ideologically and politically committed to not recovering our domestic fossil fuels. On the other hand Pelosi has moderate Democrat Congressmen & women up for reelection this year and those up for reelection don't want to buck the 70% of Americans demanding domestic drilling - so what to do? Well, an Ohio Congressman on Hugh Hewitt's show 3 nights ago described a Democrat closed door House meeting which was set precisely to hammer out a strategy, politically, on what to do about drilling's new popularity. Now of course, the Dems would prefer to have no energy bill at all, blame it on Bush and then hope Barak wins and they will get the exact bill they want rubber stamped. HOWEVER, many of these moderate Democrats, whom are up for reelection in November, told Pelosi point blank that they can not and will not go back to their districts opposed to drilling. At one point it was reported that Pelosi was so obstinate about moving on drilling that these moderates broke out in a chant "DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW." Fantastic leader she turned out to be, huh?

So, where are they on it now? Well Pelosi has now realized that an energy bill must be passed in order to protect Democrat congressional seats and maintain their majority - that's how volatile the energy/gas price debate is, and how jittery the majority party in congress is regarding it. Yesterday a new ENERGY BILL spearheaded by House Democrats and Pelosi in particular, passed the House 236-189, and caused Minority leader Rep John Boehner (R) Ohio screaming into a microphone on the steps of the capitol ... "the plan "won't do a damn thing about American energy." You see, the Democrat passed bill is a sham. A husk. A hollow shell meant to give Democrats up for reelection one line and one line only to take back to their districts: "hey, we passed an energy bill that includes drilling."

It's a farce -
1.) Rolls back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in additional royalties from oil taken from the deep water areas of the Gulf of Mexico under leases issued in the late 1990s. Also, it requires they pay $6 billion in NEW "fees" (read: taxes). The tax will be imposed on oil companies that take up the off shore contracts in order to allow the federal government to then "invest" in alternative fuel research, even though 70% of all alternative fuels research is already provided by oil companies. And just fyi - that's 70% of North American research, not just the US. So clearly Pelosi wants the gas to be as expensive as possible once we pull it out - because that's what a new tax does, it makes the product more expensive.

2.) Requires the release of 70 million barrels of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more oil on the market and "lower gasoline prices." 70 million? What in the name of all that is good and holy is that supposed to do? Outside of lessen or strategic reserve? Oy vey!

3.)Provides tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, and purchase of plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars, and requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy sources. Requires how I ask? Forced by the feds? I'm sure that sudden new requirement won't cause any local communities to see a hike in their electric bill ... mother f%$#@!!*&.

4.) Gives tax breaks for new energy efficiency and conservation programs, including the use of improved building codes and low-interest loans for energy-efficient homes, and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting. Uh huh ... bicycles. Now that's a serious energy plan.

5.) The federal government gets the lion's share of the royalties, NOT the states. It's a bend over the state and grab the ankles scenario. Some estimates place the state portion of the revenue as not even being cost effective to begin in the first place. Nice Pelosi, real nice.

6.) There are no federal subsidies or otherwise encouragement to build nuclear power plants - whatsoever.

7.) And most disturbing of all, the part that makes this whole thing a big shill game: THE STATES CAN ONLY DRILL FROM 50 TO 200 MILES OUT! The bulk of the oil and gas, the most easily recoverable, the richest portion, is from 3 MILES TO 50 MILES OUT !!!!

Am I supposed to take this "Energy Bill" seriously? Deny the most oil rich areas, screw the states on revenue, no nuclear and oh ya - GET YOUR EMPLOYEES TO RIDE BIKES!

Let me ask Richter something - is this the "change" we need? Does anyone doubt that this bill would become law under an Obama administration? How many Sheiks, Chavez's, Russian interior minister's and even Canadians are getting a hearty chuckle out of this nonsense? THIS is America taking her energy needs seriously?

And one last observation Richter, on your undying loyalty to the Party of Jimmy Carter - the modern incarnation of the once great Democrat party is a profoundly unserious bunch, whom are supremely unqualified to lead. To put it simply there are no adults left on that side - the Micheal Moore/Ohberman/Move-On elements of that party have infected it like a virulent strain of an incurable virus ... and they are completely incapable of expelling it .... just how tight does one have to squeeze their eyes shut in order not to see this?