On a recent trip across the country, while glancing out the window I was rewarded with a wonderful view as we passed over the Mahong River that spreads across the Ohio and Pennsylvania border.  I wistfully thought of my Quaker ancestors who settled in this fertile part of our great country.  They planted their fields, raised their families, and became part of this great experiment in Democracy we call America.  

As I looked closer, I could almost see them clinging to their guns and religion…

“I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”

“The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn’t bail them out.”

In the 2008 election cycle, the list of the top recipients of donations from the financial services, insurance and real estate sector included the leading presidential candidates.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama took in $22.5 million, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with $21.5 million. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was close behind with $19.6 million.

Money also rained down on the top members of Congress. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a candidate for president during the primaries, received $6 million. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), received $720,000 this year.

The No. 2-ranking Democrat on Frank’s House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, collected $755,000, and ranking Republican Spencer Bachus of Alabama took in $704,000.

Are you surprised we are in this mess?  Stop the partisan bickering and blame game.  Our political leaders are held hostage by their corporate donors who finance their obscene lust to get re-elected.   What are YOU going to do to make a difference?  Do you honestly believe either McCain or Obama will represent change?  What would George do?

What is the current biggest risk in our ability to reach that goal in the next ten years? Falling oil prices. Seriously, that is our biggest risk. If oil prices fall, consumers will quickly forget the pain, investors will stop pouring money into alternative energy, car companies will crank up the SUV assembly lines, and politicians will start talking about the next new “crisis”. You say that can’t happen? Check your history books, as that is exactly what happened after the late 70’s oil crisis. The oil cartels felt the reduction in oil demand; they saw the new investment into solar and got scared. OPEC’s back was broken, new supplies came online in the North Sea and Alaska, and cheap oil returned.

We cannot allow that to happen again. With oil prices dipping to close to $100 a barrel, Congress should immediately call for a price floor on foreign imported oil. Any oil purchased over-seas at less than $100 a barrel would receive a tariff that made up the difference. Any oil that was produced in the US would remain tariff free, enabling US oil companies to invest in new fields, knowing that their oil could always be sold for a stable price. That price would never be undercut if OPEC and other oil-exporting companies suddenly increased supply.

The government could announce that, as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, it will henceforth not allow the price of foreign purchased oil to fall below $100 per barrel. If high oil prices continue, the proposal would have little impact and cost nothing, either politically or financially. If prices fell below that level, the added tariff would be sent to Washington to help fund alternative energy investment, tax refunds for hybrids, etc.

If consumers and industry knew that the price of a barrel of oil would never again fall below $100 a barrel, they could make long-term investment and consumption decisions with the knowledge that vastly lower oil cost will not under-cut those decisions. Americans will not buy fuel-efficient automobiles, create distribution networks for alternative fuels, or invest in technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells, flex-fuel vehicles or wind power unless they know that a future sharp fall in oil prices will not undercut them.

Would you support a price floor? If not, why?

I was hopeful that Obama would take up McCain’s offer to do weekly town-hall style debates.  In my opinion, it is worrisome when a candidate tries to minimize his appearances with the other candidate.  How do you feel about the upcoming debates?  Would you like to see more, or are you already sick of the campaign and just want the election to be over?

Last week I asked folks to predict who would be the VP choices, and surprisingly, no one picked the ultimate winners!  I am most impressed with Strong Moderate who was the only person to predict Sarah Palin.  Nice job, I don’t think too many people had her on the short list last week. 

While I think McCain’s pick was less “safe” than Obama’s, I think it will ultimately hurt him.  Just as Dan Quayle became an albatross around Sr. Bush’s neck, I think Palin will also come up short for McCain.  Why?  One reason, she has no experience.  She is even fresher than Obama, and that is startling in itself.  Reading her bio on Wikipedia proves her to be a very interesting individual, however I am not sure that her qualifications (2nd in 1984 Miss Alaska competition) are going to energize the electorate. 

I think the most interesting line in her bio is, “On September 11, 2007, the Palins’ then eighteen-year-old son Track, eldest of five, joined the Army. He now serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008″  That sure is a lot of 9/11’s.  Coincidence?  Let’s see what EuroYank has to say…

What do you think?

I have been a disgruntled Independent since I was 18 and voted for Ronald Reagan many years ago. In fact, Ronnie was the only Democrat or Republican that I have ever voted for President. I am a strong believer in the need to create a strong third party within the US. The current two-party system creates an environment that is a quite a paradox. As the two party’s policies actually move closer together, the division and ranker in both the elected and the electorate are actually increasing. Strange days indeed, quite peculiar Mama.

I had high hopes for the Reform Party, however Ross Perot ultimately proved he was a bit crazy, and abandoned the party once it was not all about him. I would have liked to have seen him provide support even after he was no longer a candidate. All of the other third parties sit too far outside the common mainstream “silent majority” to really have a chance. Candidates like Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Michael Anthony Peroutka, and Cynthia Ann McKinney have not really been able to draw much, if any, attention.

In order for a third party to gain a foothold it must have a nationally known political figure step up to the challenge. In 1912, that was Teddy Roosevelt, who had lost the Republican nomination, and created the Bull Moose Party. Later in 1980, John Anderson ran against Carter and Reagan. Then in 1992 and 1996 Ross Perot tried to mix it up with Clinton and Bush. Ultimately they all failed, and no true third-party ever lasted past their nominee.

So, that is where Hillary steps in… Ok, stop laughing. If Hillary split from the Democrat Party, and announced her run as an Independent, I would guarantee that she would easily win the coming election. If she selected a young, middle of the road conservative as the VP candidate, she would effective split the Republicans and Democrats, and ride to the White House on the 49.5% of the public who love her, and Bill.

Who would you vote for as a third party candidate? Would you support Hillary?

Who remembers Spiro Agnew?  Or maybe Edmund Muskie? Uh, Sargent Shriver, William Miller, Frank Knox?  Heck, most people probably don’t even know who Jack Kemp is.  Did Al Gore help Clinton win in 1992, I would vote no.  Did George H. W. Bush help Reagan, hmm, maybe…

So, leave me a comment with who you think the VP candidates will be.  The first person that posts a comment with BOTH Democratic and Republican choice will get 500EC.  I have the right to also award additional EC for particularly interesting choices; funny, inventive, etc.

My guess is:
Democrat - Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh
Republican - Florida Gov. Charlie Crist

Update 8/25/8
Biden is Obama’s choice, however we still do not know McCain’s pick.  Place your vote, the first person to pick Biden and the eventual winner will win the 500EC.

As we discussed last week, Russia currently has a stranglehold on the EU’s energy supply.  The Russians now supply about 25 percent of the European Union’s crude oil needs and half of its natural gas.  If the European Union has not figured out the strategic importance of this fact, the Russians obviously have.  Just as OPEC held the West hostage in the 70’s, Russia now has the ability to wield the same control over Europe.  Their first step was invading Georgia and daring NATO to do anything about it.  So far, Europe has once again shown their leadership in the fine art of appeasement.   And the US, which is busy fighting multiple battles, does not have the stomach to get involved. 

There are three basic reasons why the US, EU, and others such as China, India, and Japan need to become energy independent.

1) Stop sending Trillions of dollars to non-democratic countries that are usually unstable dictators, or hostile regimes.  This money transfer is unhealthy to the global economy.  It allows a small group of people in these petro-kingdoms to hold their own people hostage.  Is it any surprise that almost no country who’s main export is oil is a free democracy that values human rights?

2) Our reliance on carbon based energy sources is a contributor to global warming.  In addition, the extraction of oil from areas such as the Middle East, Nigeria, and South America creates huge environmental issues.  These countries do not have strong environmental regulations like we have in the West.

3) New energy technology will drive our economy over the coming decades.  Instead of sending petro-dollars overseas, that money should be invested in our economy, and on new technology that will help make the world a safer and cleaner place to live.

For those too young to remember, The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.

The new version would be specifically targeted at talk radio, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levine.  The Democrats are unhappy that talk radio is dominated by Conservative shows, without a balanced number of Liberal shows.  Radio stations argue that they cannot generate ad revenue with Liberal shows, that they just are not popular with their audience.  Apparently, however, they are conformable with the Liberal TV news media (ABC, NBC, and CBS).   They are only suggesting that radio should be regulated, for now.

Having the government regulate the content and views of radio stations seems like a step backwards in terms of free speech.  If a station had a guest on talking about the importance of good child nutrition and the dangers of child obesity, would they than have to also have a guest that advocated McDonald’s?  Who makes the decision on what is “honest, equitable, and balanced”?  Nancy Pelosi or George Bush? 

Do you think the Fairness Doctrine an infringement of Free Speech?

Russia has demonstrated that its military is a force to reckon with, that it can defeat a Western-trained force, and that the West and NATO will not act to intervene.  Like during the Cold War, the West has limited ability to blunt Russia’s military agression.  Both sides know that an armed conflict between NATO and Russia is never going to happen.

After the fall of Communism, both Washington and the EU invested heavily in Russian energy production.  The result has been a network of oil and natural gas pipelines, ports, and tankers that can feed a million barrels a day to the world market. Washington has helped to expand and link that network directly to Europe, where Russia is currently the dominant supplier.  The multi-billion-dollar Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that runs across Georgia is run by an international consortium, including American oil-giants Chevron and Conoco-Phillips.

Now, US taxpayers are about to get a double whammy.  Two government agencies, the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), have made large investments in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, lending money to private companies involved in the construction of the pipeline. Ex-Im Bank gave $160 million in loans, and OPIC has provided $100 million in “political risk insurance”.  If the pipeline is damaged or destroyed, these companies will be forced to write off these loans, and US taxpayers will be left to pickup the pieces.  That is a potential quarter of a Billion dollar bill that may come due soon.