Democrats constantly talk about their desire to help the “little guy,” the disadvantaged and the hard worker trying to make ends meet. Democrats used to target these core voters found in: union homes, lower and middle-income families, recipients of the earned income tax credit, immigrants just beginning in the U.S. workforce, and Federal Taxpayers with Annual Gross Incomes less than $50,000 who pay no federal taxes.

Of course, the impact of the Democrats’ “no drill, no nuke” position hurts all these voters in a myriad of ways, for example:

·         Food costs;

·         Transportation expenses (including summer holiday trips),

·         Home renovation projects (including to name just two - the rocketing costs of all petroleum- based products such as vinyl, high-energy windows and PVC irrigation piping);

·         Small farmers stretched thin who must sacrifice something else just to afford diesel fuel for their tractors so they can plant their crops;

·         Commuters who bought a home beyond the suburbs, where they could afford one, and find it too expensive to commute now; and  

·         Retirees and others who need their IRA, 401K, or other investments to sustain them. 

Has the Democratic Party grown so prosperous from contributions by lobbyists, Hollywood types, and fat cats that they do not care about “the little guy” anymore? Perhaps, they have grown cocky reading about the plight of their opponents and have concluded they can get away with anything now?

What should we conclude about this apparent indifference by Democrats to the difficulties caused so many over energy cost? Why do “no drill, no nuke” democrats continue to trot out various arguments that are laughable, weak, or nonsensical.  

The Democrat “can’t doers” in Congress are appearing arrogant and callous to many voters who are reminded multiple times a day of how this stubbornness and delay are reducing their standard of living. If we were living in ancient times, we might even see this Democrat hubris foreshadow a long period of exile from political leadership.  If oil prices keep rising, we can only hope history repeats and Democrats get the boot or they quickly see the error of their ways and take action to lower prices.

Thank you for your service to our country.

There has been a great deal of news about oil prices since January 2007 when both houses of Congress came under the control of one party. I think gas was around $2.33 a gallon at the time and today it is over $4.00.

 I have just one question about oil prices.

Please tell me it isn’t true that China is drilling on behalf of Cuba and the Castro government just sixty (60) miles from our coastline? 

If China is drilling for Cuba 60 miles off our shore, why can’t we pass legislation immediately to expedite drilling and exploration off our coasts and the Gulf of Mexico beyond 60 miles?

I look forward to an explanation.

Sincerely,

Senator McCain, on May 12, 2008, said there is no doubt about global warming or climate change, the facts are clear, and the debate is over.  (Emphasis added.)

It would be interesting to hear Senator McCain respond to the signers of the “Oregon Petition” (Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?') who take the position:    

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.  

Or, perhaps Senator McCain should let George Will know.  In a Newsweek column, Questions For McCain, Mr. Will asked this question about the Senator’s dogmatic, proof positive, case closed position on climate.

• You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth—hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

Senator McCain’s statements on drilling and climate change strike a sanctimonious note for those who might question his point of view or want more agreement among the scientific community.  Not drilling off our coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in Alaska, where the residents all support drilling, while billions go overseas to countries that fund terrorism only compounds the insanity for many. If his mind is closed once he reaches a decision, what does that suggest if a President McCain is ever in error?

Where is the straight talk?  What is Senator McCain’s plan?  The exorbitant costs to subsidize energy alternatives for gas and oil stagger the mind.  In Wind (23.37) v. Gas (25 cents), a Wall Street Journal editorial, the Journal reported that: “the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like.” Solar and windmills are a quixotic quest as a solution to our current energy problems.  

Reported costs for energy sources were listed by The Journal:

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. [Emphasis added.]

As gasoline sprints towards $200 a barrel and Congress bickers over energy policy, many fear a declining standard of living that will deny them the American dream.  Rising gas and food costs for those on fixed incomes makes it increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet.  It must seem to them like another example of Michelle Obama’s complaint of someone raising the bar. What about drilling, nuclear power, flex-fuel vehicles, and more refineries? 

Instead of talking about global climate change, why not present a comprehensive plan now to break OPEC’s pricing power and get our energy house in order during a McCain first term? A leader would seize the opportunity to chart a vision, present it to voters without antagonizing them, and persuade us. 

  A, May 11, 2008, New York Times Editorial, "Rethinking Ethanol," captures the quagmire Congress has created with its failed corn ethanol policies and examines the fairly easy remedial steps that should be taken to fix the problem. Rather than endless debates about an abbreviated summer holiday from the Federal gas tax, here is a way for Congress to begin to right the market place by recognizing its mistake and taking a step back from the precipice.

In a time of worldwide increasing food shortages due to a displacement of food production for ethanol, many may starve around the world before they ever have to fear loss of life from apocalyptic environmental conditions. Additionally, the plan to increase corn ethanol production could actually accelerate global warming.

The Times recommends:

A. end tax breaks for corn ethanol;   

B. end a 51-cents-a-gallon subsidy to ethanol blenders; and

 C. end the five-fold increase in ethanol production.

For once, even I agree with the New York Times. It is time for Congress and the Administration to take action.