Apr 9, 2010 Political
When George Bush was president the price of oil spiked at nearly $150 a barrel. During that time, Democrats drove their SUVs to gas stations and let them idle with the AC running while denouncing Bush and his coziness with Big Oil. Then they hopped back in their big vehicles, drove a few blocks to their offices and started investigations into gouging by oil companies.
Market forces caused the spike in prices and it had nothing to do with Big Oil gouging (which was never proven by the Democrats) but this did not stop the Democrats from calling oil executives to DC to explain why the product they sell rose in price.
The price of oil is now near $90 and it is predicted that it will go above $100 once again. The price of a gallon of gas has been rising over the weeks and will be higher this summer.
Will the Democrats call for investigations into Big Oil? Will they claim that Obama is in bed with Big Oil? Will they drive their SUVs a few blocks and let them idle while they scream about high oil prices before returning to their offices and starting investigations into price gouging?
Don’t bet on it. Obama is in office and the Democrats run the show (which they did when oil hit the highs back then) so it is unlikely that these price increases will be attributed to anything other than market forces and the greed of the oil companies.
Bush is not in office to bash and blame so they will skip the criticism.
The oil price increases could end up hurting the alleged recovery. I wonder how long it will be before oil executives will be hauled before Congress and blamed for interfering with the grand plan of the sainted one.
Then again, they could just blame Bush and Cheney. That seems to be the pattern of this regime.
Feb 19, 2009 Political
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has indicated that his state might not take the $4 Billion that it is slated to get under Obama’s Generational Debt Plan. Jindal stated that he would have to review the money and see where it is to go and what strings are attached to accepting it. I imagine he would be more willing to take it if it were designated for infrastructure and not so much if it were designated for welfare.
This is a wise move since the federal government might tie all kinds of conditions to the money or state exactly where it has to be spent. This country was set up with a centralized federal government and (eventually) 50 separate and distinct state governments. The states are supposed to be responsible for a lot of the spending that goes on within their borders. If the feds start handing out money like candy then the states become wards of the federal government which can then attempt to dictate how certain things are done.
It is irresponsible for states to make up their budget deficits off the backs of the taxpayers from other states. People in 49 other states had nothing to do with the failed policies that led to the collapse of California. That state needs to fix its own problems. Forcing us to pay for their problems (or the problems of any other state) does nothing more than enslave taxpayers. A portion of our earnings, the fruits of our labor, is being confiscated from us and given to states that cannot manage a budget.
Bailout money to the states keeps them from being forced to take the tough decisions that need to be made in order to become fiscally sound. Instead of making appropriate cuts in spending and workforce, the states will sit back and give residents more of the same stuff that caused the problem in the first place. Governor O’Malley of Maryland and his Democratic legislature are sitting around salivating at the chance to sink their teeth into the bailout money so they can spend, spend, spend. It is shameful and demonstrates a complete lack of leadership.
While Jindal has indicated that he might not accept the federal money the welfare king Ray Nagin said he will take all the money the state does not want. I guess the hundreds of millions of dollars that were forcefully extracted from taxpayers from other states and sent New Orleans did not quite meet the needs of of Nagin and his cronies. Now he wants 4 billion more to waste on his poverty torn hell hole. It was wrong to send taxpayer money to NO in the first place and it would be a travesty for him to get anything else. However, I would not oppose taking the 4 billion and spending it on construction crews to use bulldozers to fill in NO.
I hope Jindal sticks to his guns and works out his state’s problems without taking the money. It would be refreshing to see a responsible politician for a change, I mean in addition to Sarah Palin.
Palin? That woman that makes the left cringe. The one who they think is dumb? The one who was savagely attacked by the media?
Yep, that is she. Her state of Alaska has enough money squirreled away to weather the economic problems even if they extend for a few years.
There is an interesting thing to see. The governor that the left is so afraid of that they engaged in character assassination has run her state so well that it is in better shape than states run by their wonderful Democrats or the RINO in California. In addition, her state is doing better than New York, Maryland, Kansas, and a number of others who are standing around waiting to put their hands in our pockets.
To be sure, Palin said that her state would take the approximately 1 billion dollars in stimulus money if it were designated for the right things like infrastructure and transportation. She is wary of accepting it for social programs that the state will have to pay for once the money is gone. It is going to be tougher for Palin because the price of oil is down but since the state saved some of the money it made when oil prices were up it is in better shape to ride out the economic storm.
The state currently has $6.6 billion in its constitutional budget reserve fund that it could tap into. A few billion dollars more also is available from other pockets, said Juneau economist Gregg Erickson, a longtime Alaska budget watcher.
Given Alaska’s robust reserves, the state is well-prepared to weather the next two years, Erickson said. As to how long reserves will last after that, there are too many factors involved to say for sure. AP
We will see how well she does in the tough times but she is smarter than liberals give her credit for. She is at least smarter than all the governors who are running in the red.
As an aside, why does California not just spend a bunch of money? It has about 45 billion dollars in debt so it should spend 2 or 3 hundred billion more to get back on sound footing.
After all, that is what Obama is doing to fix the problems in the rest of the country.
Jun 9, 2008 Political
On April 24th 2006, Nancy Pelosi released a press statement that was reported to address the Republican’s empty rhetoric with regard to gas prices. In the press release from over two years ago Nancy wrote:
“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
It is now June of 2008 and the price of oil has doubled in the last year and it is up 44% since January. If the Democrats had a plan (I highly doubt that) then they either forgot to implement it or it was implemented and was a horrible failure. Much like any other time Democrats claim to have a plan, they are long on talk and short on action. In fact, are usually lying about what they “plan” to do. There is a lie up front in the price gouging claim. They have conducted about a dozen investigations and have found no price gouging. The only gouging is by state and federal governments who reap trillions of dollars in taxes and don’t have to do anything for the money.
The real thing we need to know is why has the plan not been implemented? If it has, why has it not worked and what kind of plan was it to give us such huge increases? Nancy Pelosi promised America that she and her Democrats had a plan and now things are worse than they were a year ago. I think I can speak for everyone when I answer why this is the case.
Here is an idea. Drill here, drill now, pay less.
Jan 16, 2008 Political
Hillary Clinton said that it was pathetic that President bush was in Saudi Arabia begging them to increase production in order to lower the price of oil. She stated that we need an energy independence policy right now with what she calls “green workers” to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
First things first. The world depends on fossil fuels. They are here for a reason and that reason is for us to refine them and use them. The fact that we have to get a lot of it from the Middle East is the fault of the Congress. If they would allow us to build more refineries and to drill on our own property for oil then perhaps we could reduce what we import.
It is also important to remember that many companies are working on other fuels but that it will take years of research before we have alternate sources. Ethanol is wasteful and uses more energy to produce than it provides. We have a long way to go but for the time being we must depend on oil. Nuclear energy is also an option but while Hillary was chiding the president for trying to get the price lowered she was bashing plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada. Nuclear power would go a long way to reducing our dependence.
I guess Hillary is having fun taking a shot at the president and saying he was begging. Let me ask you Hillary, what would you do, cry?
Dec 23, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton has ramped up the pandering and outright lies of her campaign by claiming that electing her to the presidency will instantly lower the price of oil. Hillary is claiming that since she will reduce our dependence on oil, the oil producing countries will lower prices to get us to stifle that effort. She actually claimed that Jimmy Carter, perhaps America’s worst president, was on the right track in doing this and then Reagan was elected and he ignored it because oil was cheap. I know that the 60 year old Clinton has to remember the gas lines of the 70s and the terrible economic times fueled, in part, by the oil crunch. If this is her idea of being on the right track, she is more delusional than I originally thought.
So, electing Hillary will result in an instant drop in the price of oil. I wonder if she will sign a binding and irrevocable contract stating that she will immediately resign if the price of oil does not instantly drop (and it needs to be a significant drop, not a few dollars but more like the $60 or $70 she cited). The Arabs are probably keeping the oil price high to help Democrats win the White House anyway. The Democrats have a history of being in bed with the terrorists and the Commies.
I wonder what unbelievable (and unrealistic) claims Hillary will make next. Vote for me and global warming will instantly stop. Vote for me and Natalie Holloway will show up unharmed. Vote for me and the dead Beatles will rise from the dead and go on tour with those who are living. Vote for me and I will turn water into wine. Vote for me and there will instantly be world peace. Vote for me and world hunger will end.
This is the part of the campaign where candidates say just about anything to get elected. There is no way that she is correct on this but she does not care so long as she gets elected. Once she is president she can shrug it off until it is time to get reelected and then she can tell a few more whoppers and make a few more unrealistic claims.
I have a feeling she would get in office and then when the prices failed to drop she would say that the Arabs are trying to make her look like a liar (as if she needs help). Remember, Bill promised a huge tax cut for the middle class and then when he got in he said he looked at everything and tried all he could but he could not make it work. Things, he said, were worse than he thought or than anyone told him. Hillary would play much the same way.
Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton is an idiot. Anyone who believes what she is saying should be locked in a small room with no lights and kept there away from other humans.
If Hillary is elected and prices go down does it mean she is the candidate of big oil?
NY Daily News