Remember the story about the Trojan Horse? The Greeks gave a huge horse statue to Troy. The unsuspecting Trojans brought the gift into their city. During the night, the Greek warriors inside the horse came out and took the city. Hence the saying, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The gift ended up being the undoing of the citizens of Troy.

Well, I am saying, Beware of Dems bearing drilling bills. It is not what it seems, in fact, it is worse than doing nothing.

On the surface, it looks like the House Democrats are concerned with high energy prices in America. In reality, this bill does very little to increase domestic oil production. I think they are only concerned with reelection. 

Considering that 90% of the oil available exists within 50 miles of the shoreline, what will allowing drilling beyond 50 miles do for us? This bill essentially bans access to 100% of the oil on the west coast, including Alaska. It is all show and no go.

This is what happened in the House. From GrasstopsUSA:

On Monday evening at 9:45pm, Pelosi dropped a 245 page bill on Congress (H.R. 6899, the so-called "Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.").

...she effectively stifled substantive debate, by-passed the committee process, prohibited amendments and forced a vote within 24 hours! 

And on Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives passed this "sham bill" on a mostly partisan vote of 239-189! And Pelosi's bill is NOTHING BUT SMOKE AND MIRRORS and will ACTUALLY PROHIBIT DOMESTIC DRILLING, RAISE YOUR TAXES, and has a 'mother-load' of Congressional pork!

OK, right there that should tell you something. Democrats have been against drilling all along and Republicans for it.

If the majority of Democrats voted for H.R. 6899 and the Republicans didn't, doesn't that tell you something? It isn't real! 

What does this worse-than-nothing H.R. 6899 bill include? (My emphasis)

The bill would allow states to “opt-in” to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf 50 to 100 miles off of their coast, as well as explore for oil shale on federal lands. The bill excludes the eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as Georges Bank, and does not include any revenue sharing provisions for States. States therefore have little incentive to “opt-in”. It also allows for lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), but does not include any provisions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In addition, it would prohibit 48 companies from competing in future OCS oil and gas lease sales.

H.R. 6899 requires the sale of at least 20 billion barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve within sixty days of enactment. It imposes a new 15 percent renewable energy requirement on private utilities. The bill also includes several green housing initiatives for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and creates a new $2.5 billion Residential Energy Efficient Block Grant Program, as well as a $5 billion Alternative Energy Sources State Loan Fund.

H.R. 6899 extends current and creates new tax credits and other incentives with the stated goal of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Many of the tax credits that are being extended by this bill are set to expire December 31, 2008. The bill includes $17.744 billion in tax increases on oil companies by denying them manufacturing deductions and limiting the ability of U.S. companies to utilize foreign tax credits with respect to foreign oil and gas extraction. [Tax increases will be passed onto  us.]  

The bill does not include lawsuit reform, nuclear energy, clean coal, or refinery provisions.

Guess the House Democrats did not listen to Obama's acceptance speech: "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves [that involves drilling], invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

So much for wanting to end America's dependence on foreign oil.

Whatever the case, a similar energy bill faces long odds in the Senate this week - potentially leaving Congress without a major legislative accomplishment on an issue of top concern to voters.

...Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican, accused the Democrats of trying to fool voters about where they stand on drilling: "It's very clear this is written in such a way to make it look like they're in favor of drilling."

The Senate will vote on their own versions. I am not hopeful. All we can do at this point is contact our dynamic duo senators and request that they vote against this drill-nothing version and the President veto this farce.

Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

President Bush  comments@whitehouse.gov.

It is pretty sad that the best we can hope for is that Congress will run out of time before they can each pass a do nothing drilling bill or for a President's veto pen. The Congress' greatest gift would be to do nothing and just let the moratorium expire. 

House Republican quotes regarding this bill:

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner, "It would permanently lock up 80% of our nation's offshore energy resources--holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil."

Congressman Jeb Hensarling called it, "a hoax bill that would permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf for American energy and block energy production in arctic Alaska and the Inter-Mountain West." 

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said, "I'm offended...And the American people should be offended that we're not doing the job for them that really matters." 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Is it any wonder we are in the financial mess we are in with the state budget? The Senate passed the budget fix yesterday, the Assembly may vote on it today. Contact your State Assembly Representative and let them know your opinion anyway. They could use your support. (Contacts are at end of post.)

My State Representative Leah Vukmir was on Vicki McKenna yesterday explaining the budget fiasco. Leah commented, something is wrong when the budget fix proposed was less conservative than what Doyle would do! She said Doyle criticized them for not making budget cuts. It is pretty bad when your only hope for a better budget is that you liberal governor might make some vetoes!

How did we get into this predicament? Leah explained that using the "rosy" March 2007 revenue estimates to base a future budget on was one problem! Seems state income was based on March 2007's better economy figures instead of the reality of the slower economy during the summer and fall of last year.

Leah expressed her disappointment in Speaker Huebsch and called the budget fix a shuffle game.

When you cook the books, you can't pay the bills, she said. People are feeling the pinch in their budgets--they expect us to do the same.

Plus, what are the Republicans getting out of this compromise? Vukmir mentioned at least an exchange, we vote for this fix and you give us a constitutional Voter ID amendment. But we are getting nothing--just delayed billing and a huge problem in July 2009.

Not only is School Aid delayed into the 2009 budget cycle, but County Aid is pushed into July too.

Rep. Vukmir concluded with, I don't know why we are rushing this. 

Possible areas of cuts mentioned: State employee travel--$22mil, Senior Prescriptions, eliminate ethanol subsidies, 4K. I would add: eliminate Global Warming Task Force and West Allis Bike Path. 

There were originally $250 mil in cuts, now less than 1/5th of 1%. McKenna cited a 2% across the board cut as a possible remedy. 

It will only get worse. For one, Badger Care Plus is attracting far more enrollees than anticipated. That will add to July 2009's woes.

This is a straight up or down vote. No amendments are allowed because it went into Conference Committee.

Contact Assembly Representatives. 

Links:

Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all.

The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.

I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol!

People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."

Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.)

But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. 

Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there."

Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off.

Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.

Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between economic development and water conservation more evident than in the push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.

Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol. With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent produced by the fermentation/distillation process.

So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.)

And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) 

Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! 

Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

Ethanol's Failed Promise

Let Them Eat Cake

Hunger fuels food riots in Haiti 

Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included)

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

"From: Paul Olsen
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:43 AM

Subject: State Sen. Olsen drops role in pushing

alternative fuel mandate

Renewable fuels...
creates jobs $$$$
clean environment $$$$$
supports local economy $$$$$$$
keeps our dollars home $$$$$$$$$$$
its the future $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
a flip flop senator who doesn't defend reality

WORTHLESS !!!"

Now for the conflict of interest issue.

We know that Senate Bill 380 sponsor Senator Olsen removed his name from the bill and will abstain from voting for it due to a perceived conflict of interest. That article from the Oshkosh Northwestern paper stated: (Emphasis added)

Olsen came under fire shortly after the bill was introduced in early January because he has family ties to the ethanol industry and is a part owner of a grain mill that sells corn for ethanol production. Olsen was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 380, which would require vehicle fuel distributors to make renewable fuels 25 percent of their total sales volume by 2025.

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Director Kevin Kennedy indicating Olsen's support of the bill would not violate conflict of interest statutes even though Olsen has a one-third ownership stake in Olsen's Mill, a family business that sells corn to Olsen's brother's ethanol plant, Utica Energy LLC...

...The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board's Standards of Conduct for elected officials generally requires legislators to step away from discussions, votes or support for legislation that will have a benefit for the legislator, a member of the official's immediate family or any organizations with which the legislator is associated...

...Kennedy's decision indicates "immediate family" applies to a spouse or children, but not to brothers or sisters. He said the actual impact of the legislation on Olsen's Mill, in which Luther Olsen has a financial interest, would be "unspecific and speculative."

"Thus, based the facts you have provided, in my view you may participate in the sponsorship, consideration and vote on legislative proposals that increase incentives for manufacturing and using ethanol and renewable fuels without violating laws administered by the Government Accountability Board," Kennedy's letter reads.

So, according to the Government Accountability Board, there was no real conflict of interest.

But here is another tidbit from Jay Webber that I was unaware of. (My alarm is set to WISN so I catch a bit of his radio show each morning.) According to Jay this morning, ethanol producers cannot purchase corn from just anyone--it is not like just any Farmer John Doe can take his load of corn to Senator Luther Olsen's brother's Utica Energy LLC ethanol factory. No, Jay said it had to come from a licensed grain mill, such as Olsen Mill, the one Senator Luther Olsen is a co-owner of!  To me, that really crowds that perceived conflict of interest line.

Jay also told about a very interesting email Charlie Sykes spoke about on his radio show. It was from Senator Luther Olsen's Chief of Staff Heather Smith. It evidently is a response to an email sent by Luther's brother Paul. Pretty interesting stuff. The complete email is at the bottom of the Charlie Sykes link. Here are just a few excerpts:

Why? [does Luther have a target on his back over this issue] Because of you [brother Paul]. They know that you are the c h i n k in Luther's armor. It doesn't matter what any ethics board says about if it's ok or not. Anyone who is not completely retarded running a political campaign knows how to make a perceived ethical problem look just as bad as a real one.

So, in other words, she does not think there is any real conflict of interest! 

I also found it interesting that Ms. Smith noted there was not one call from a constituent in favor of ethanol--after all, their calls would be from Luther Olsen's district, presumably a more favorable district toward ethanol considering the potential for new jobs.

There were not a hundred calls, or ten, or EVEN ONE CALL from a constituent who wanted to tell Luther, "Heck yeah, vote for this, it's great!" We got a memo from a "special interest group" and the DNR, and heaven knows the DNR should always be listened to.

 

Is it any wonder we need to watch all of our politicians regardless of their party? 

Let Governor Doyle know if you agree with his assessment of ethanol in Wisconsin. 

608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Blogs: Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna