Posted by
voice_of_reason on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:21:40 PM
I will only vote for a Presidential Candidate who will
* re-open debate on drilling in ANWR and other environmentally
verboten areas
I'm fully aware that a President can't enact such laws without the support of Congress. Therefore, I extend this litmus test to all candidates who are running for elected office within my <limited> sphere of influence in Nov '08. Since I believe that economic issues trump social issues, I will use my proverbial nose-clip
fashion accessory when it comes to those matters this fall.
The very fact that the debate on
drillin' in ANWR is re-opened will cause the forward contract price of crude to fall. This will have a much larger short-term impact on gas-prices than (a) begging the Saudis to increase production (b) reducing taxes on gasoline (although I'm in favor of this as well, see below). If
drillin' in ANWR is voted down, the American public will see prices rise again and apply pressure on elected officials who oppose it. This will actually have a long-term effect on gasoline prices.
Actually, I have a suggestion on the topic of gasoline taxes: permanently repeal the subsidies to oil companies
and permanently eliminate federal taxes on gasoline. Hey, is this what the (D) party means by pay-go?
Q) Does it bother anyone else to watch our Senators and Congressmen lecturing oil industry executives about their moral duty to seek alternative fuels?
That is analogous to Coke being ordered (maybe even subsidized) to seek an alternative to Coca Cola. Of course, if Coke chose to do so voluntarily, for competitive reasons - and on their own nickel - that would be just fine. But isn't it absurd to make such a demand?