No way Jose, not gonna drill in ANWR, not gonna drill offshore. We need to be investing in alternative sources. Isn’t that pretty much it? The democrat’s answer to $4.00 (and rising) gas prices?

So that means that the United States is “satisfied” to keep our oil production static – no need to increase production? In the face of becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil each year – that’s ok? Continuing to send billions of our dollars out of the U.S., some to countries that aren’t our friends, is ok? No real benefit to becoming more energy independent is there?

The dems tell us that solar, wind, wave, thermal, hydrogen, and the energy source de jour will replace petroleum as our primary source for home heating and transportation. They tell us that even if we did start drilling in currently prohibited areas, we wouldn’t see an appreciable impact for ten years – the implication being, that ten years is so far in the future, it’s futile to begin today.

If you believe that, I’ve got a magic rock that can predict lottery numbers – I’ll be happy to sell it to the highest bidder. Anyone who believes the crap coming from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (OPR) is a genuine prospect for my rock.

It’s extremely unlikely that any of the “alternative” energy sources will be mature enough in ten years to take over the non-transportation uses of petroleum (home heating, jet fuel, asphalt, lubricants, and kerosene). And we can't forget the other countless consumer products that aren't widely recognized as being petroleum derived. For example, solvents used in paints and ink, paraffin wax used in candles, cosmetics, and candy, roofing materials, detergents, film, pesticides, and more - the uses are seemingly endless.

Of course, we still have to figure out how to make asphalt from a summer breeze or paint solvents from sunshine. The point is: oil is here to stay. We can (and should) begin to transition to some other main source of vehicle power and home heating, but it will take time and we must consider the interim. During those interim years, I don’t think that U.S. citizens will be willing to sit still for continually increasing gasoline prices – to what? $8-10/gal.? And worse, if a belligerent act or natural disaster stops the flow of oil into the U.S., what then? How many of you remember rationing?

Make no mistake about the OPR’s positions. They are not stupid – true, they’re acting stupid, but they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re gambling. Gambling that they can hold on, and not allow any action by George Bush and the republicans to result in a positive result. This is 100% politics. Gaining (and retaining) power is more important than any effect on the population, on our economy, or on the security of this nation.

Here’s a thought, since OPR don’t believe that we really need the oil resident in ANWR or offshore anyway, why not drill it and sell it to the Chinese. That would aid in our trade imbalance with China, wouldn’t it? And we don’t really need it, do we?

At least it is to the left. Liberals don’t often ask, and never answer, WHY? And it is their biggest weakness.

Now, in the summer of 2008, much of America is lamenting $4.00 gasoline. There’s no reason to ask why everyone is so distraught over higher gas prices – that’s pretty easy to figure – it can be a family budget buster. But, when the dems continue their tired old rants, “we can’t drill our way out of this mess,” “it’ll take ten years to bring to market,” and “speculators are driving up the price,” we should be asking “WHY?” to each of those statements. Let’s see their “logic.”

WHY can’t “we drill out way out of this mess”? Please explain the reasoning that supports that statement. The truth is: we can. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics must conclude that increasing the supply to a static demand will reduce the price. To exaggerate for effect, if the U.S. was to increase our production by 7 million barrels/day, we would equal the crude that we import from our top five suppliers (Canada, Saudi, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela). Even my dog would agree that prices would drop. So, now that we’ve established that increased production could reduce prices, we only need to estimate how much prices would fall if we increased production by, let’s say, one million barrels/day - a not unreasonable number.

As far as the ten-year pessimism goes, I’ve heard experts that hold to a five or six-year time-span as being more realistic, not ten. Regardless, the journey begins with a single step, and the step must be taken NOW. Instead of proposing a “windfall profits tax,” why not propose a “windfall production bonus”? Find and get the oil to market sooner and earn a bonus – that works everywhere else in the marketplace.

Very little that government does takes place in much less than ten years – should we not call for a higher CAFÉ standard because the target MPG will take manufacturers ten years to achieve? Should we not fund space exploration or develop new military hardware because it will take ten years to complete? That’s hogwash. WHY shouldn’t we start now?

WHY do speculators “drive up the price”? Once again, simple economics. They’re betting that our 21 million barrel daily consumption will continue to rise and exceed our static production by at least 12 million barrels/day (CIA 2005 estimated figures). Demand rises, domestic production remains static, and we must import more crude. When demand outpaces supply, the price goes up. Is that too difficult to understand? The speculators are merely gambling on the price continuing to rise. What would happen if (magically) the world’s production doubled tomorrow? Wouldn’t the price a speculator would expect to pay drop drastically? WHY can’t the dems in Congress understand that?

WHY are the statements coming from the dems so out of touch with reality? The answer is pure and simple – politics. Congressional democrats are pandering to environmental “wackos” and don’t want anything constructive to happen on George Bush’s watch. When new drilling must occur to satisfy their constituents, dems will want to take credit for it.

Is it any wonder that congressional approval ratings have continued to drop? RealClearPolitics reports an average approval rating for congress at 18% [update: RCP average of 4 July polls is now down to 17.3%] - it was 34% when the democrats took control in 2006. As Einstein defined insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What congress has been doing hasn’t worked – isn’t it time to do something different?

 How asinine is that? The democrats (led by the environmental wackos) have prevented any drilling in the name of “protecting” these sensitive natural areas from being despoiled, and now they’re trying to blame republicans for the problem? Those preventing us from drilling are putting the U.S. economy in peril. If if weren't so dangerous, it'd be ludicrous.  

Here’s a fact that everyone should know: the area proposed for drilling in ANWR is 31 sq. miles, only slightly larger than the area of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport (DFW), (29 sq. miles). For this, we put our country’s security at risk? For this, we allow ourselves to be held hostage to rising prices?

• Suppose Iran sinks a ship in the Gulf of Harmouz, blocking the passage of oil tankers? What will happen here? And when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve runs out an estimated 33 days later?
• If the supply is cut and we must ration, you won’t be able to get an unlimited supply even if you can afford higher prices.

Right now we’re complaining about $4.00/gal. for an unlimited supply of gas. If gasoline is rationed, we will welcome the opportunity to pay $8.00/gal. for “black-market” gas if we could get it. Gasoline rationing could become a reality if something happens in the Gulf of Harmouz to halt the flow of crude. When rationing comes, even the affluent will be affected; it doesn’t matter that you can afford it if there’s none to be had.

Rationing is not a “doomsday” scenario – it’s already happened. If you’re younger than mid 50's, you probably don’t remember any personal discomfort, you were too young. But coming from one who experienced it, a colonoscopy is more fun.

But in 1973, OPEC instituted an oil embargo. Because suppliers were limited in their stocks, gas stations were also limited in the amount of gas they could sell. They either limited individuals to 10 gallons at a time or let everyone fill up and just closed the station when the day’s supply ran out. And you didn’t just stop at a station and pump your gas – chances are that you had to get in line. And the queues were long waiting to get your gas – waiting an hour to pump 10 gallons wasn’t unusual. Seeing a sign at a station indicating that they were “Out of Gas” was a frequent sight.

And this just in: VIENNA:Published: July 10, 2008, The head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries warned Thursday that oil prices would see an "unlimited" increase in the case of a military conflict involving Iran, because the group's members would be unable to make up the lost production. "We really cannot replace Iran's production - it's not feasible to replace it," Abdalla Salem El-Badri, the OPEC secretary general, said during an interview.

Further price increases and/or shortages are one incident away. Every time that loon Ahmadinejad frowns, prices go up. We are at his mercy. It could happen again.