No vote on oil drilling only hurts all Americans

I think republicans did a good thing and made a great political move in pressing democrats to keep Congress in session until an agreement was made on what to do about high oil prices, or to at least have a vote on offshore drilling -- of which Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi refused to even allow a vote on.

All the republicans wanted was JUST A VOTE. A vote is no guarantee of passage. It simply would have provided Congressmen and women an opportunity to show the voters where they stand on the issue.

I'm saying this because McCain has been pressing Obama on Obama's desire not to change his position on offshore drilling, and this has done wonders for McCain in the polls. In the past week alone, McCain gained 8 points in Gallup in 4 days.

Yesterday, despite the democrats turning off the lights and the microphones, republicans stayed in session and continued to debate amongst themselves.

McCain was originally against offshore drilling, but changed his mind when he determined that this would be the best "short-term" means of lowering the price at the pump.

He has been mulling over other ideas too, such as providing an incentive in cash for the first person to invent a more powerful battery for cars, building nuclear power plants, and seeking other alternative fuels that might power cars and make electricity.

Obama has been steadfastly against slant drilling, drilling in ANWAR, nuclear power and does not want to provide an incentive to make a more powerful battery. He is for windmill power, so long as those windmills don't get in the way of scenery (which will be hard, because we'll need billions of them to meet our needs).

Democrats --including Pelosi and Obama -- say offshore drilling would take 10 years to do any good, and the consequences may be severe for the environment.

However, it was Bill Clinton who refused to sign a bill handed to him that would have allowed off shore drilling and drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago. If that bill had been signed, we'd be reaping the rewards right now.

And scientists say technological advancements have all but eliminated the environmental threat created in the past by oil drilling.

And while offshore drilling, according to McCain, would be only a temporary solution to the energy crisis, he -- if elected president -- says he would continue to encourage companies to seek out alternative fuels -- which is really the idea solution here.

Obama had been steadfastly opposed to slant oil drilling. But, after he lost 8 points in the polls in four days, he all of a sudden today decided that he "might" support it if that's what it took to get a decision passed through Congress and put on the president's desk.

Sure, McCain changed his mind too, but he did so on his own time. Yet, any time a candidate changes his mind he risks it being seen as politically motivated -- or a flip flopper.

Still, I think Obama is going to appear to voters to have changed his mind here only when his hand was forced. McCain changed his mind earlier on in the campaign, and not when he was pressed to do so (however, even that may be debated, as he wanted to appeal more to his Conservative base.)

I personally see changing your mind good. Even I, your humble reporter, change my mind sometimes as I do my research; as I learn more.

Yet I think Obama waited until the polls showed it was an unpopular position before changing his mind. However, it does show that he -- not unlike McCain -- might be willing to find a COMMON GROUND approach to solving America's problems.

Obama said, "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

McCain does still oppose drilling in ANWAR.

Obama has also said he'd rather that we make sure our tires are fully inflated, and democrats have also supported the idea of lowering the speed limit that Americans have to drive, all in an attempt to lower prices. I have no problem with conserving, but not at the expense of progress.

As the Khaki elephant writes, and I have written in past posts, Obama would rather us give up our economic mite, and go back to early 1900s style living, rather than drill for more oil. Which doesn't make much sense, because they support OTHER NATIONS drilling for oil.

Drilling for oil is going to have just as much of an environmental impact if it's done on the other side of the world as it would here. So, if it's going to be done, why not do it right here where we can reap the benefits, become energy independent, be safer in the process because we would no longer rely on foreign dictators for our oil, and have a lower cost of oil and gas.

Pelosi: man she is steadfastly against new oil drilling no matter who might benefit. She says she will not allow a vote on the senate floor. She would rather have nothing at all -- to the disadvantage of all Americans -- than have something she does not politically support. This is the kind of partisanship we do not need.

Some bloggers, and some republicans, think that democrats want to keep prices high, which is a great incentive for people NOT to drive, and thus keep pollution down.

Obama has said (paraphrasing), "I wanted prices of oil to be high, I just didn't want them to go up this fast."

To be fair here, I have written how some republicans have written about how higher gas prices make alternative fuels competitive. So this idea of keeping gas prices high is not just a democrat idea, and not just a liberal idea either.

Which is all the more reason to continue the debate in an attempt to find a COMMON GROUND solution, and to at least allow a vote.

By doing nothing, we are only hurting all Americans.

This, my friends, is just my humble opinion.

A do nothing Congress is often good news

Conservatives are calling this Congress something that has been used before, which is a "do nothing Congress." And it is true.

But, sometimes, in my humble opinion, doing nothing is better than doing something stupid. It always seems to me that every time there is a crisis, like a market crash or something, the Fed always thinks it has to come up with some kind of governmental solution.

Why? Why not just let the market work things out? Why not just get government out of the way and let people solve there own problems? For the most part, this strategy worked for Bill Clinton.

I never thought about why the economy was doing so well in the 1990s, that is until one day my dad tossed one of his political hints at me. He was never one to really discuss politics with his kids, or even let us know his political view, but he did drop a line once in a while, which in retrospect gives me a pretty idea of where he stands politically.

He said: "I don't think Clinton is that bad of a president. He has done nothing to screw up the economy, and therefore the economy under him is doing well. Sometimes doing nothing is good."

Like right now is a good example. High oil prices is one example. The housing market is also doing poorly, so you have all these people in Washington thinking they have the solution, and that if we just add this bill, or tweak this we can solve these problems.

It seems to me that every time the government adds this bill or tweaks this, they make matters worse. That's one of the reasons I think the great depression lasted so long. Sure, some of the changes of the New Deal were excellent, but I do thing some went overboard.

I say this because there were several depressions in this country prior to the great depression, and even though it was tempting for presidents and Congress to change a bunch of things, and add regulations, they had the common sense to leave well enough alone. And all those depressions were short lived. The market fixed itself.

And that's one of the reasons Ronald Reagan was so popular, because he got rid of a ton of governmental regulations that were in the way of the market, and holding people back. Look at all the creativity escalated with the Reagan boom, such as Microsoft and Rush Limbaugh to name a few.

Clinton was great at knowing when to act and when to not. He increased taxes once, but he cut the Capital Gains. Subtle changes, but he didn't do anything drastic.

Bush, IMO, was one to think he had to do something, so when there was all that corruption on Wall Street (Enron for example), he passed legislation the increased regulations, and may have even hurt businesses in the process. But he did this, as so many of our elected politicians do, just to show the people that he is aware of the situation and is doing something about it.

It didn't matter that his doing something may have made things worse.

Sure, it might have been something pointless. It may have been something stupid, but he did do something. Yadayadayada I say. I can think of several other areas I think the government ought to have just done nothing. I'm sure you guys can think of your own examples of a government program or regulation that should never have come to be.

Or better yet, those that never came to be.

I think a lot of the things our politicians do is simply for political gain. I think the dems attempt to tax the profits of gas companies would have been merely for political gain. And while there intent here was to lower the price of gas, it probably would have done the opposite.

I think the idea of National Health care is a great idea, but I think it would actually make health care in this country worse overall. Sure it will give all the poor people better health care, but all the people who have health care now, it will only get worse.

However, I could be wrong, and that's why we keep reading, and that's why we blog I think. We blog because we want to share ideas, and to grow as individuals. But none of us bloggers do things to screw up the country either. We only share ideas. At least that's the intend of this blog.

What's that they say about baseball? "Sometimes the best trades are those that are not made." I think the same can be true of Washington, that sometimes the best law is the one not made.

And even though times might be tough at times, and the gov tempted to do something about it, it's far better to do nothing than to do something stupid

For that reason, we can't complain about a "do nothing Congress." Actually, they deserve more credit than they will ever get.

And that is the thought of the day.

Dems still have no clue how to manage economy

Does the Democratic party ever learn? That is one of the questions I'm pondering now that I've just read an AP report that Democrats in the House just passed a bill that would "raise taxes for millions of Americans by $683 billion over the next five years. It would also give generous increases to domestic programs."

Likewise, "The Democratic-written plan would bring the federal budget back into the black by letting all of President Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010." Basically, that would result in the biggest tax increase in American history.

A tax increase is exactly what we don't need right now, especially with 40 percent of economists in the U.S. predicting that we either are in already or are headed into a recession. History has proven again and again that raising taxes only prolongs recessions, and cutting taxes is the way to get out of them.

Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush proved this when they raised taxes to jump start faltering economies that they inherited, and each time the tax cuts sent the economy into a boom.

And Herbert Hoover raised taxes which helped send the recession he inherited into a depression, and FDR raised taxes that made sure the depression would last a long time. I know he thought he was doing a good thing, but by taking more money out of the pockets of people who already don't have any, you are hurting the economy.

No matter how messed up the republican party is, this is one of the main reasons I simply cannot align myself with the democratic party. They just don't get it. They fail to learn from history.

The Senate on the other hand passed some of Bush's tax cut proposals. That's a step in the right direction, but it may not be enough to save us.

The tax refunds are a nice gesture, and I will wisely use this money, but this, in my opinion, will not prevent a recession. Oh, I suppose it might, but the best way to stymie a recession is to cut taxes and decrease domestic spending, not increase it. Americans can barely pay their bills as it is, can you imagine if they had less money to play with.

They will say we need to do this to help the poor, to help those who have lost their jobs, to help those who have lost their houses. I feel for those people, but why throw all the rest of us hard working Americans into poverty too.

You want to raise taxes on the rich? The rich aren't stupid. When you raise their taxes, when you raise the taxes of the upper middle class, they are going to hoard their money, stop spending, stop investing, and businesses will suffer as a result.

The rich and the upper middle class create 80% of the jobs in our market. It's not going to be a pretty picture when they stop hiring new workers because they are in a hoarding mode. And, with fewer people working, that means less money for the government, even thought those who do work have to pay more.

We will all suffer. What we need to do is cut taxes, allow people and businesses to keep more of their well earned money, encourage them to spend and invest and create more jobs. While we might make less money in the short term, in the long term we will have more tax payers, and thus more money.

We aren't going to get out of debt by spending and taxing.

This is no different than the way we run our finances at our homes. When we find that we are making less money, or find ourselves in debt, we stop spending. That's not rocket science, it's common sense.

I'm not worried because there's no way any tax hike will ever get by the Presidents desk, but if Hilary or Obama get elected, we could be in for a ride. I'm not making a prediction here. And, if they did raise taxes, I would hope they'd prove me wrong.

More than likely, if we ignore history during these fragile economic times, we could send the greatest economy in the history of the world in the wrong direction, and we will all suffer as a result.

So wise up Democrats.