ExxonMcCain

It's silly, but no sillier than a lot of the useless garbage coming fron the Republicans (e.g., tire gauges).

Offshore Drilling: No Equipment?

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) pointed to the vast federal lands that the oil industry already has access to. Red Cavaney of the American Petroleum Institute disputed the assertion that there is oil and gas under all of this land, but also claimed that the industry doesn't have the equipment needed to drill.

Transcript (video here):

STEPHANOPOULOS: is there grounds for a compromise?

SACHS: yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: okay. fine. we don't love it. but let's drill on the outer continental shelf. let's drill on anwr for the return on investments you're talking about in alternatives.

REP. MARKEY: we don't have to have a grand compromise to drill off beaches to drill where the polar bear is swimming. until experts say this is the case. they drill on 80% of the oil that we already have that is available to them. they should clean their plate before they ask for dessert. they are not going there. exxon mobile, 40 billion in profits just to buy back their own stock. they onlypent $10 million on renewables last year and blocked the tax breaks. that formula is a recipe for dependence upon oil to the indefinite future.

CAVANEY: every single available drilling rig, drill ship is in use being used right now. you can't go and drill when you don't have equipment. we are not magicians as an industry. the idea that there's oil and gas under this 80% it's not true.

SACHS: can i say that's not the support? they are sure this oil off the beaches and in the arctic where the polar bear is swimming but the 80% of the leases they already control, they are not sure the oil is there. it's a disingenuous argument. in order to get access to every bit of oil in pristine wilderness areas.

How do they intend to take advantage of the additional drilling rights that McCain wants to give them without equipment?

My Opening Salvo

Curt's first post is both wide-ranging and limited enough that responding to it will be a good way for me to outline my views.

Curt, beginning with a quote from DJ Toluene:

The Democrats are actually the tax, borrow and spend party. The last Congress (they are the ones who pass budgets) to balance a budget were the Republicans. Now I understand that the Republicans haven't acted that way in a while and that's why they lost in 2006. Now I'm all for punishing them for being as corrupt as the Democrats when it comes to spending but at the same time I'm not going to reward the Democrats. The Republicans are the lesser of two evils. Although the best scenario would be for a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress. Nothing would get done. We saw what happened when the same party controlled both the Congress and the White House.

You can't punish them by electing them. I know the Democrats are your only other option, so if you see them as equally bad then I understand striking this category of voting criteria as a wash and choosing on other issues. You're right, we did see what happened when the same party controlled both branches. I think I'm far angrier and more deeply upset about the results of that than you. Even if I did not like Obama, I could still vote for a lump of dirt over a Republican candidate based on what's happened over the past 8 years unless the Republican candidate offered up a clear and strong repudiation of most of what the current administration has done and stands for, which of course will never happen.

I have no reason to believe that Democrats will spend less money than the Republicans, but I'm not sure that they can do worse. If spending stays the same, or continues rising, I can at least feel comfortable in two things: (1) the spending will benefit more ordinary Americans; and (2) the taxes will be raised to pay for it.

On the second point, I thnk it's a fallacy to say that Bush has cut taxes. If you don't have a balanced budget, it is impossible to cut taxes. We have to borrow to pay the difference. At least theoretically, the debt must eventually be paid back with interest. Even if we intend to stiff those people who lend us money, we must make regular payments toward the interest on the debt.

Also, I'm no economist, but I think that when Alan Greenspan says that budget deficits contribute to the weak dollar (see here and here), we ought to at least have an honest, in-depth national debate over the budget deficit. Who cares about a weak dollar? Perhaps everybody that is suffering from high gas prices. Yesterday, it was reported that oil futures are falling in part because of a strengthening dollar. Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading:

If the dollar continues to strengthen, it will continue to put downward pressure on the price of oil.

I admit that I have misgivings about universal health care. However, the status quo is not working and we have to do something. I am encouraged that Obama does not seek to take over the health care system, but merely work within the private system by providing an insurance alternative for those who are currently unable to get insurance. You could have a whole blog about the health care system, but I'll just say here that I think the current system is so flawed that we may be able to provide health care for all Americans while cutting costs in other areas (for example, universal health care provides access to physicians so that the poor don't show up at our emergency rooms instead). I also think Wyden's Republican-supported Healthy Americans Act is worth considering.

McCain's long-standing objection to earmarks is admirable, but that won't come close to addressing our spending problem. And I think his other promise to review all discretionary spending will be met with so much resistance that may end up accomplishing nothing. We need to cut entitlements, raise taxes, or both. There are no easy choices here.

Curt, again beginning with a quote from DJ:

Talking to your enemies without preconditions is stupid. And Iran, Syria and North Korea are our enemies. It annoys me that we haven't drilled more domestic oil, and started up more nuclear power plants, use our almost unlimited coal supplies and given more incentives for alternative fuels so we can bankrupt the Middle East.

Talking to your enemies without preconditions might not be the best of all foreign policies. However, it is far less stupid than invading them based on KNOWN FALSE conditions (and lying to the country about it). Dialog is good. The idea that we "embolden" (what a stupid word) our enemies by giving them the time of day is naive, isolationist, and in many ways has led our foreign policy where it is today.

I agree with you regarding domestic oil, nuclear power, etc.

Refusing to talk to our enemies strikes me as childish and contrary to a projection of strength. A superpower ought to be confident enough to look an opponent in the eye and challenge him directly. I have heard no good argument against talking to our enemies. Yes, I feel that way even after our foreign policy genius President compared Obama to the appeasers of the Nazis. Setting aside Godwin's Law, the mistake wasn't talking to Hitler, it was giving him Czechoslovakia.

I am as concerned about the impact of our energy policies on national security as I am about the environment. Therefore, I am open to more use of coal and nuclear power.

Illegal immigration is a problem. Immigration is not. Here's my proposal: Crack down on illegal immigration and increase legal immigration to current combined legal and illegal levels.

I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I understand the sentiment and some of the arguments against it. There'll be plenty of time for that issue later.

I see that DJ trotted out the accusation that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the first post. That's a bogus label.