poliwonk

Rough Necks or Stiff Necks -- To Drill Now or Not!

2008-06-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

"If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil-how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it." President Bush Speech, June 18, 2008.

I intended to begin my arguments with quotes from my favorite columnist, but I could not pass on President Bush's gem from this past week. Since the President links the high gasoline prices with the drilling restrictions he wants lifted, it necessary follows the President believes the relaxation of restrictions will result in the lowering of gasoline prices. With full realization I may offend hyper-sensitive conservatives, that rhetoric either shows his ignorance or at least his willingness to pander for the oil industry. The drill, drill, drill refrain we hear from the oil controlled Administration is why we do not have a comprehensive energy plan for his country. Although the President wants immediate action because of the high price of gasoline even he admits his proposals "will take years to have their full impact." Are we supposed to take this seriously?

This argument will not have anything to do with the virtures of the environment versus our need for oil. My position goes way beyond this level. My concern is plainly and simply with the ever present shrill to find more oil when the real focus ought to be how do we actually get away from oil. Our continued dependence on oil is the real threat to national security and destroying more undeveloped areas will not remove that threat.

Rightzilla, as a loyal conservative, will argue there are two components, increasing supply and decreasing demand both of which need to be addressed. She is also likely to argue we need to start somewhere and that somewhere is with more drilling to buy time for the development of other alternatives. The problem is we do not need more time just to avoid the inevitable. We need to start weaning ourselves off oil and we can do that only be reducing our demand for oil not by drinking more.

There is no doubt numerous links that cite to what is believed to be enormous domestic reserves believed available to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. There arguments are illusory. First, it is hard to believe the pie in the sky estimates when the amount of known reserves keeping getting decreased by the experts. The amount of reserves is a very inaccurate science. And excuse me for not believing the scientific "intelligence" the Administration is getting from the oil industry. I am afraid the amount of reserves will end up like the weapons of mass destruction that prompted our entry into Iraq-a figment of the Administration's imagination. Secondly, the amount of the reserves will buy us little time. Increasing domestic production without addressing our insatiable demand will only result in a quicker depletion of our reserves. How much time are we really buying without addressing the primary concern?

It is an absolute joke to suggest drilling restrictions are the cause of the record setting oil prices or that the elimination of those restrictions is the cure. The restrictions were in existence last year when the price of gasoline was over $1.00 per gallon less. Oil shale reserves appear to offer some hope, but the technology is still many years away, which offers no immediate help. Additionally, 80% of off shore reserves are open for drilling, all of which are not being fully exploited today. If all areas are not being used how will 20% more area be helpful?

I submit the amount of money proposed to be spent on opening new reserves would be better spent on developing renewable resources, energy efficient automobiles or mass transit systems. The Administration response-shut down efforts to develop solar energy. With these actions please do not try to convince us the Administration wants to reduce our dependence on oil. We need to find alternatives that will not just delay the inevitable, but rather will eliminate our need for foreign oil. As long as the Administration continues to be a shill for the oil industry we will never divert the necessary resources to the development and implementation of energy alternatives.

If we want to explore the economic factors resulting in the recent spiraling cost of oil we should start with the economics of oil company mergers like ExxonMobil and the trading market. How much competition exists in the American market today when so few companies control an overwhelming market share? These practices result in uncompetitive practices and price-gouging. Every wonder why the prices always climb more steeply and quickly than they decrease?

Loopholes for oil companies to drill on our public lands need to be closed. A windfall profits tax should be imposed in order to prevent predatory practices. Tax breaks for oil companies that continue to get wealthier at the expense of the American consumer need to stop. These added revenues should be earmarked for research and development for alternative energy sources or technologies designed to reduce our demand for oil. We also need to impose strict gas mileage standards. We are long past the time of thinking more oil is all we need. We need a comprehensive energy policy and I fear we will never be forced to change our demand as long as we have an Administration that believes the only answer is to find new oil. Blocking new exploration may be the only way to bring the oil industry to the table. Let us start there!

---CounterCoulter

Should we drill. There are many reasons given not to: “we cannot drill our way out of this….” “ANWAR is too precious to destroy by drilling oil…..” “There is already enough land on which leases exist to provide our needs without involving additional leases.”

The first order of business is to get out of the fog of sound bites ringing back and forth across the isle and take the issue of drilling head on. I have a 2007 Honda Pilot sitting in my driveway. I travel 20 miles each way to work five days a week. I make various other trips on the weekend to coffee, shopping, errands, dog training, church, visit the folks and other typical activities many people have incorporated into their life style. I paid close to $90.00 at the Shell station next to my office Monday night. It was a higher price than most stations, but I was on fumes. Would it be nice not to turn loose of a “C” note every time I fill-er-up? Sure it would be. Especially since nobody is washing the bugs off my windshield with each tank full since I don’t live in Oregon. But who is to blame that the price is high, and is it a fault the government needs to address? Fundamentally, it is free market and speculation that sets the price. Well, and perhaps a few of those who would rather see us dead controlling the barrel prices over seas. And were that the end of the story, I would say resoundingly NO!! to the intervention of government. But because government is already entrenched in the oil that fuels this nation, they must now participate in the fix to the dilemma they…..yes, they……created.

The nation is crying for cheaper gas. But because of environmental restriction imposed through governmental regulation, we cannot simply get it. We continually kowtow to the histrionics of beyond the pale environmentalists’ wincing when any microbe is infringed on by human existence that we have lost our collective rational minds! Time to take a big slap in the face and come to our senses drill for oil, research alternative energy sources, commend conservationism and say goodbye to a few species whose demise will go unnoticed. Instead of sitting around bemoaning that it will be ten years before we see results, only to find ourselves sitting around in ten years bemoaning that it will take ten years to see results, crank up the rigs and let it rip! After all, whether you believe in GOD or not, Genesis got it right:

Genesis 1:26 states that “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Sounds like the best plan to me and that does not mean we are the bad guy for wanting to live instead of those over whom we have dominion. All of this is to say that we can sit on our hands and watch our own existence diminish to nothingness because we feel guilty for having cognative reasoning skills not shared by beast and bird, or we can do what we need to…..DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

----Rightzilla

CounterCoulter's Response:

I wish we used more "cognitive" skills instead arguing we should drill just because we can because we have complete dominion over the earth. I have a better idea. Why don't we kill every living creature, insect and bug, because we can? Dig a hole several thousand feet deep, because we can. Bury all the remains under tons of earth, because we can and wait for the heat and pressure to cook the organic material into more oil fields so we can do more drilling, just because we can. Everyone knows we should always do things just because we can. Rightzilla, I must disagree that such behavior demonstrates our cognitive ability.

If we are going to rely on biblical quotes, why stop the dominion discussion with Genesis 1:26. What about Genesis 3:16? "To the woman [God] said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'" Interesting twist on the dominion argument.

Why don't we take a step back from religion and ask ourselves how intelligent is it to adopt a "drill baby drill" mentality? Your argument is centered on the premise more drilling will solve our energy problems and in support you rely on the words of Newt Gingrich, who titled his article "Report From Norway: Why They Don't Have an Energy Crisis and We Do?

In many respects I agree with Mr. Gingrich. I too wish we were more like Norway, but not like Mr. Gingrich thinks. Maybe Norway does not have a energy crisis because almost all of Norway's electricity comes from hydroelectric generation. Their reliance on clean energy results in Norway ranking 58th in the world in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. What a novel approach, using clean energy sources to achieve energy independence, just like Norway. Despite these observations, Newt's take is that we need to emulate Norway's stance on off shore drilling. What Newt fails to comprehend is that off shore drilling works for Norway but necessarily for uss because the US consumes the same amount of oil in four days as Norway uses in an entire year. Can we build a big enough straw to suck out all the oil we need to meet our insatiable demands?

Rightzilla also argues the cost of gasoline is just a reflection of the free market system. More oil, more gasoline, lower costs. Please read your own reference materials. "Crude oil prices are determined by worldwide supply and demand, with significant influence by [OPEC]." The oil industry is far from being a true free market system because the supply can be controlled by an organized group without influence by normal market factors. We are the captives and will continue to be so as long as we kowtow to the wishes of the oil industry. The other point Rightzilla glosses over in her own reference materials is the statement "increased demand for gasoline and other refined products in the United States and the rest of the world is also exerting upward pressure on crude oil prices." Her solution to keep pace with the increased demand is simply more drilling because we can.

Reducing our demand for oil is not going to be easy. This difficulty is why conservatives want to take the easy approach and suggest we just need to drill more. I am "sick and tired" of the easy approaches, the one line catch phrases that cater to the simple minded and the attempt to cloak everything with biblical passages no matter how ridiculous the position because you cannot argue with the bible. Way to stick with the usual conservative agenda driven by the religious right. I have strong religious values, but oddly I am at a loss to find any biblical passage that is even remotely helpful in analyzing modern economic theory. Please enlighten me. For a conservative, when all else fails, just cite the bible.

I recognize my suggestions for a comprehensive energy policy will not lower the price of gasoline over the short term any more than drilling will. It just amazes me the President and Rightzilla actually believe we can do more drilling to bring down the cost of gas as if drilling can actually start tomorrow. Linking the two is ridiculous. The focus needs to be on what is the best LONG TERM policy. I submit less dependence on ANY oil is the better solution. The conservative position is to think we need to drill to become less dependent on FOREIGN oil. I am tired of riding that one trick pony.

A sensible approach to increasing domestic supplies should be explored, but I for one refuse to discuss any increase until we start addressing in real terms ways to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign or domestic. I applaud any effort to fight any measure that will give the oil industry more control over our economy and our national security. God grant us the resolve to make those hard choices.

---CounterCoulter

So. The rhetoric continues with really nothing new under the sun. CC rails about pandering to the oil companies and bases this on the fact that Bush wants to drill despite the fact there is time involved in actually getting from the oil extraction point to my SUV, or to a lesser degree his GREEN car. I do not see anything in his comprehensive energy mantra to suggest that the alternatives will give us a return on our efforts any faster. T. Boone Pickens, arguably the most knowledgable man in the energy industry is running a bazillion dollars worth of adds regarding wind farms. I support wind farms. let's build them and see if they can get above 1% of the energy supply they currently are in any less time than getting that Texas Tea. Meanwhile, get off our thumbs and drill. Furthermore, as far as the Bush administration pandering, problems with regulation on wind farms is state born , not federally imposed. Picken's private energy company is being capped regarding output by Texas, not the Feds. One problem we have with any inginuity in this country is local Politburoocrats imposing regulation, much of the time driven by environmental interests. So just how are we to develop new modes of energy when the libs stand in the road and block it at every turn? In Ellensburg Washington and at Martha's Vinyard they worry about the lack of asthetics and birds flying into the blades of the turbines. Wonder if the little dutch boy, while standing with his finger in the hole in the Dyk ever looked over his shoulder to see the windmills taking out the bird population of his country.

Another thing that sticks in my craw is the lemming like acceptance of the proposition that oil is NOT a renuable resource. While this may draw the ire of CC, recent research suggests that oil is itself renewing. This information, as the article points out is not well publicized here.....so who is pandering to whom? Seems more likely that the activist/anarchist/militant faction of the far left is far more culpable regarding the sad state of energy than is W. Personally, I liked it better when they were throwing blood on fur. That didn't cost me anything.......by the way, where did they get that blood?

Some researchers say that extracting oil from the continental shelf reap results in as little as 1.5 - 2 years. This is important because if true, the far left is out of gas. Not to mention the implications if hydro-carbons do regenerate. These increimental resource "takings" under the guize of conservation must stop. The sky is NOT falling, but they got the flourocarbons out of my hairspray. The spotted owl is alive and well in a barn in Cle Elum, Washington and the drilling and use of oil should not make us feel as a periah.

THE GREAT WALL OF MEXICO

2008-06-07T12:02:00.000-07:00

Issues surrounding immigration in America are many. However, the root of the debate centers on the border itself. There are laws regarding the proper way to enter the country, but literally millions of people are living here in the U.S. having gotten here by dashing across the border without regard to the rules of entry. While building a wall across our southern border is met with overwhelming support, nay sayers use such rhetoric as it is racist to do so or it does not address the issue at all. However, 57% of all non citizens entering this country illegally in 2006 were from Mexico. This figure clarifies both the need to address the southern border and the fact that our problem with the southern border is not WHO in terms of race is crossing but the NUMBERS that are crossing illegally. This is an economic problem both from the standpoint of the invader and the invaded. While there is a valid argument that many illegals come to the U.S. and work productively with no other crime than to have broken the law to get here, the fact of the matter is, crimes perpetrated by illegals crossing the southern border is frightening. As a matter of fact, 2% of all illegals in this country commit violent sexual crimes. And the sexual crimes were often preceded by other crimes as the criminal behavior of the actor escalated. Those crimes are committed against both U.S. citizens and other illegals. With neither group being safe from the criminal population crossing the border, it is clear that to build the wall and enforce the border would reduce crime and make life safer for those non citizens who come here legally to work and be productive. The wall itself is not the only piece of border security. Those who oppose it cite such things as tunnels that exist even today as a way to by-pass the wall. No matter what we do to secure our border, those who seek to come here will try to overcome that obstacle. However, a strong border policy combined with a sensible and workable work program would curtail the numbers of people who find the desire to break the law necessary. If, as is stated by many against border control, the people coming here are productive, law-abiding, tax paying people, they will gladly access a program that allows them the ability to come here and not have to skirt the law, get a social security number that belong to others, avoid medical and legal services out of fear of deportation and find the need to produce anchor babies.

My relatives came here from other lands just as did most people in the U.S. However, during the great immigration from Europe and the Irish Diaspora, people were processed in at such places as Ellis Island. Some were allowed to stay, others were not. But it was as fair as humans get and it provided the bedrock of a great nation. My own great-grandfather sought to settle in Canada, but was stopped at the Canadian border and turned back because the border agent thought he looked ill. Thank God for serendipity. As that ensured my being born in America. The greatest nation on the planet.

We need border control. We need to know who is in our country. We need to continue building a nation that is unified even with its diverse make-up. I have always thought that the innocent pay for the transgressions of the guilty. Rules and laws are made to keep society organized and civil. A border wall helps separate the wheat from the chaff and forms an element in a program that would allow worthy individuals to come here and realize their dreams while filtering out those who have nefarious motives. One last thought before I close. Not everyone can come here. Even in the pool of those we would not disallow under perfect circumstances. But we must balance proper, legal immigration with the infrastructure we have to support the current, legal population as it ages and those we allow to come here from outside. Even a melting pot has its limits before the pot itself melts down.

---Rightzilla

Ann Coulter discusses an illegal immigrant woman who has lived here for 10 years working as a cleaning lady at the airport and concludes “[s]o far, the only thing Arellano has contributed to America is one illegitimate child.” Most interestingly Coulter makes reference to this woman’s most serious crime of “using a stolen Social Security number to get a job as a cleaning woman at an airport.”

Wow! Life must be easy when everything is looked at through simpleton glasses. The obvious answer for conservatives is to build a fence along the United States/Mexico border to protect us from criminals who take jobs from legitimate Americans by using false social security numbers.

The problem with this theory is that it forgets it takes two to tango. Immigrants would not be pouring across our borders unless there were a demand for their services and if employers were not so eager to maximize profits by hiring workers for wages far less than would otherwise have to be paid. For conservatives this is admirable because “profit” is what drives our free market society. Unfortunately we cannot have it both ways. Basic economics is the reason no artificial barrier is a solution to the problem even assuming we could actually build an impenetrable wall.

I will make reference to numerous economic studies that contradict the common conservative argument illegal immigrants are an economic burden to our system and contribute nothing.

http://www.mobudget.org/Undocumented%20Workers%20Impact%20on%20Missouri%20Economy%20June%2006.pdf. http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2008/05/the_price_for_i.html.

http://www.hacer-mn.org/downloads/English_Reports/EconomicImpactUndocumentedWorkers.pdf.

Such an argument simply is not supportable. My reference to these studies, however, is not done to advance the argument we should ignore the issue. Preventing illegal immigration is a worthwhile goal. The economic truths simply demonstrate how futile efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration will be unless these economic issues are addressed.

The guiding economic truth is that if there is a demand for cheap, illegal labor there will be a supply no matter how big you build the fence. The question becomes who is responsible for establishing the demand for cheap labor? The answer obviously is the employers who want cheap labor, even if the workers are illegal.

Illegal workers are not preventing otherwise motivated workers from finding employment. Hotels on the Las Vegas Strip hire workers on a daily basis, many of who undoubtedly are illegal. An unemployed single mother from the depressed iron belt is not prevented from moving to the sun belt for job opportunities because of illegal workers. She does not move because she is not motivated.

In an April 2007 study the argument is made the migration of illegal workers benefits both the undocumented workers who desire to work and live in the United States and employers who want flexible, low-cost labor. The author makes the case that unless a system of legal immigration that reflects the economic advantages of illegal labor is devised, such programs, including guest worker programs, will not significantly reduce illegal immigration.

From my own personal experience I have seen contractors submit bids that would indicate 50 man hours will be incurred when the other competitors must bid based on 100 man hours. The winning bid also would have used 100 man hours because the contractor was employing twice the number of illegal workers being paid half as much as a regular employee. Does that employer want to stem the tide of illegal workers?

If we really want to eliminate the use of illegal workers, we need to focus on who is employing those workers. Complete the social security data base, require employers to verify the status of all workers and enforce strict penalties against employers that hire illegal workers. That would be money better spent. Ask the DEA how effective a program is when you try to eliminate the supply without addressing the demand.

-- CounterCoulter

CounterCoulter Responds to Rightzilla

There is one important point I do not want overlooked. I do not challenge the idea of trying to eliminate illegal border entries. Border security is a legitimate pursuit. But before we spend $8 billion or more for a state of the art fence, assuming those estimates are reliable, I hope there is a better argument other than believing 51% showing some level of approval for a fence is considered to be "overwhelming" support. By that standard I guess we could argue Gore thrashed Bush in the popular vote in the 2000 election.

Rightzilla's own references reveal the folly of believing a fence is feasible, either practically or economically. The first 11 miles of fence built in San Diego was over budget by 3.8 times. The last three miles cost a whopping $10 million per mile. With these estimates it is not hard to envision the total cost of a 2000 mile fence coming in at a paltry $20 trillion. That is trillion with a capital "T!" Should we spend this amount of money, or any amount of money for that matter, for a fence that even today cannot keep out the undesireable? At least 40 tunnels under the existing fence have been discovered. How many have not?

We can build all the fences we want, but as long as employers in this country want cheap, illegal labor and there is a supply of that labor, economics dictate the two forces will find a way to come together. The only solution is to attack the demand for this illegal labor. I am afraid conservatives think they need to address the supply side of the equation because of their infatuation with anything labled "supply side" economics.

Rightzilla argues a fence will filter out the wheat from the chaff and keep out those that come here only for nefarious reasons. Who is considered the chaff and how do you define "nefarious reasons?" More importantly, how can we build a fence that will be any less of a sieve than the fences that exist now. If we do not intend to address these real problems then the proposal for a fence is nothing more than a symbolic gesture to make us feel like we are keeping out all the undesirables. We need real solutions not symbolic gestures that make us feel better.

I suspect, based on private discussions with Rightzilla, she included illegal workers who work "under the table" in the category of those that are here for nefarious reasons. These illegals prevent legitimate Americans from getting employment. The existence of this under the table workforce is exactly why we need to tackle the problem by targeting the employers willing to hide income from being taxed. Need I remind everyone it is the employer that violates federal laws when he pays a worker cash and fails to withhold and/or report that income. These employers do not report these cash wages because they want to pay less for labor costs. They not only forego income taxes but also other employment taxes like employment security and workers' compensation. As long as this arrangement remains unchecked by weak enforcement efforts, the tide of illegal workers will not be stemmed.

If we do not learn from history we are bound to repeat it. This adage is more true today than we may want to realize. I finding unsettling comparisons between the current illegal worker problem and the economic tribulations that resulted from the slavery ban following the civil war. The economics of slavery resulted in the freeing of the slaves in name only. Sharecropping and unfavorable land lease arrangments kept the former slaves in a virtual state of indentured service because the plantation owners did not want to lose the benefits of cheap labor. Hopefully we will not suffer as long today many of the inequities we suffered for 100 years following the civil war before we as a society finally step up to the plate and confront the economic realities we face today.

We have the capability of putting into place an employment identification verification system, but the economics will not change until we increase the cost on those employers who want to circumvent the system. When the risks become too great the demand for the illegal labor will diminish. Higher wages will have to be paid, leading to an increase in the cost goods and services. As a society, do we have that resolve?
---CounterCoulter

Rightzilla responds to CounterCoulter:

The first point I would like to take issue with in CounterCoulter's direct argument is that the free market economy and the greed of the business owners looking for cheap labor is what causes the problem, not the getting of fake or stolen social security numbers. First, that is simply a dodge. The fact is identity theft is a huge issue in this country, and illegal immigration contributes to that phenomenon. Moreover, CounerCoulter's contention is more a talking point than it is an argument. The fact is, our economy is not made better by the parasitic relationship we have with illegals.

The center for immigration Studies asserts that the cost of illegals in this country is from 11 billion to 22 billion dollars. Mexican migrant workers abroad send back to Mexico 17 billion dollars annually. That is money taken out of our economy, not put back into it. And it is state and local tax dollars and wages being shipped out while the tax contributions made by the same workers are largely federal, never replenishing the resources they extract. There is also an important nuance missed by CC: many jobs now done by immigrants were previously done by American's. And to answer which came first, the chicken or the egg, it was the illegal came here first and THEN the American worker was shut out. So, of the hemorrhage of workers flooding the border were stopped, the American worker would get his former job back and those whom just cannot stand corporate America making money would be happy again to see the profits going to the workers. While I whole heartedly agree that employers need to be penalized for hiring illegal workers, the fence is still an integral part of how we will address the problem. As I said in my original argument, there are many parts to the fix. To suggest that because employers need to be penalized we don't need a fence is not a conclusion which follows from that premise.

We have a huge problem in this country. We have millions of people here illegally. They sap our local recourses and send it back home to improve the economy of the motherland. We have people to work in this country. Of course, if we are willing to pay someone not to work *cough*welfare*cough* then low end jobs are not going to entice those people to resume their rightful place in the work force. This problem is not just as a result of corporate greed, it is also the problem of the philosophy of the redistribution of wealth. If we keep this up, we may just find that redistribution coming back to haunt us later from south of the border.

----- Rightzilla

First Fare Coming Tuesday!

2008-06-06T11:15:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, June 10, 2008, Rightzilla and CounterCoulter will square off for the first time with:
The Great Wall of Mexico. Do we need a wall? If so, will it work? Each will post their take on this issue at the same time with no knowledge of the content of the other's column. They will then respond to the argument posed by the other and we will see where the common ground lies and where the debate remains. Then, you too can join us in this debate!

A New Era Begins!

2008-05-29T19:09:00.001-07:00

Here is where you will find two voices from two politically opposite commentators. It is not a new idea, opposites have been an accepted viewing/reading format forever.......but in today's sound-bite political environment where ideas have to be squeezed in between commercials you are rarely treated to two cogent arguments to consider. Rest assured, now you will have that chance. I am Rightzilla. I will represent the perspective from the right. I will allow the blogger who will represent the left to introduce himself. After the introductions are complete, you will be privy to spirited, passionate, supported exchange between the two of us. The rest will be up to you!

Rightzilla and I, during one of our many political discussions, hit upon the idea of providing a forum for a straight forward discussion of current issues from different political perspectives. I chose the moniker “CounterCoulter” because I believe Ann Coulter is the epitome of what is wrong with our political debate today. Good, honest debate and discussion has given way to sarcasm and name calling that causes both sides to retreat to the polar opposites. Hopefully this forum will highlight what differences exist and what there is in common. You cannot begin to understand the other side’s position if you do not take the time to try to understand the arguments. I am a lifelong Democrat, but I have never felt every Democrat has all the answers on all the positions. It is time to strip away the labels and let the discussion begin.