crude reality. . .

The numbers on speculation coinciding with wild swings (mostly up) are hard to deny. I am willing to concede that Bush's open speculation has made the price of crude rise in ways it otherwise would not have (nice Rook to block on the Reagan vs Bush comment by the way).

However, I would not advocate a return to the pre-Bush 43 policy, in a vacuum. And here's why: a funny thing happened on the way tp $4.12 a gallon. Greenies had long sought such skyrocketing prices (Al Gore openly admitted that the best thing for the planet was $10 a gallon gas) because they thought such cost at the pump was the only real way to motivate Americans into consuming "alternative" fuels. The "funny" I speak of was this rise in price had an unintended consequence (if you're a Al Gorian disciple). The "drill here, drill now" movement sprang to life. Talk of opening up ANWR, close shore drilling in numerous states, it all was on the table because at $4 a gallon it felt as if we were being held hostage by this foreign and mischievous OPEC consortium (which is actually a fair description). In fact, the opposite of what the environmentalists wanted occurred. And why? Because "drill baby drill" more aptly captures the American spirit then "$500 cash back on a 2010 Prius." However, if removing the speculation price swings causes us to drop back into anything approaching .88 cents a gallon, then such a domestic push for energy independence (or at least severely curtailing codependence) will cease almost over night.

So, like the watermelon crowd (green on the outside, commie pinko red on the inside. . . hehe), am I willing to see Americans "suffer" at the pump in order to push what I see as a national security imperative? No. Enter my perfect plan, call it the Ryan-Titus Energy Initiative Act of 2012 (given only a new president would sign it into law). We both agree on the national security dimensions. We also agree on fundamental deregulation of the market itself rather then its' speculation. And we both want to crush Al Gore and company. So, as president you announce the EIA to the country as a bill submitted to a simpatico congress. And in it contains the fundamental deregulation of all aspects of domestic energy. We're bringing 5 nuclear power plants and 5 new refineries online per year by slashing red tape and incentivize the tax code. Deregulating the petroleum market. For coal, natural gas, all manners of cost prohibitive obstacles are being eliminated. We're drilling, everywhere. It's fill in the blank deregulation time. Then. . . quietly, without the fanfare, pomp and circumstance of that Rose Garden, not flanked by law makers, in the quiet of the Oval, you roll back Bush 43's speculation allowance. You have fundamentally deregulated the energy market, having re-regulated only the unhealthy speculation of that market.

Now, what have you done? Not only have you set America upon the path of energy independence, shoring up both national and economic security with my deregulation, you have also - if Titus hypothesis is correct - made a move which allows the American consumer to see a tangible drop at the pump within months due to the elimination of wild speculation. It will seem to John Q. Public that merely starting down the path of ramped up domestic energy production reduces his cost at the pump. You will impress upon 2, maybe 3 generations of Americans that domestic production costs them less to fill up, and the green movement costs them more (which happens to be the truth). In our fast food, instant messaging, microwaving, xbox live feed having culture you've got the quick results necessary to sell a long term project. It's beautiful! Now that's bipartisan compromise.