Monday, August 25, 2008
Biden gets VP nod
Looks like my predication came true. Now the question becomes what happens if the dems take the white house. Assuming Markell wins the governor's race, he'll get to appoint Sen. Biden's replacement until the special election in two years. If that scenario happens, I predict that Sen. Biden's son, Beau, will get the nod. If Judge Lee wins the election, I think it becomes much more interesting of a guessing game as to who would go in. Any guesses?
Monday, August 18, 2008
If Biden is VP, is this a good thing for DE? Absolutely.
For the most part, I have avoided commentary on the national political race (or the state ones for that matter) because whatever my comments are, at least on this particular forum, are going to be lost as white noise. Hopefully my comments regarding Sen. Biden will hopefully come across as more thoughtful than some other random rants I have seen on the internet on this topic. My own political affiliations and philosophy are disclosed below.
With rumors swirling about Sen. Biden being a potential vice presidential candidate, I think it works out much better than the media is letting on. So my point is clear, I think he's a good pick. Will he get it? That I don't know, but I think the answer is yes. At the very least, I'm sure he's in consideration for a cabinet position, which also works out well.
The reason why I think Biden will be good is not just for the wealth of his foreign policy experience, but that he's from Delaware. He will be able to make sure that whatever Obama's economic policy is, it will not fiscally bankrupt the corporate universe. That will have to make Wall Street happy. Whether the average Delawarean realizes the impact Delaware has on the rest of the country is of little consequence; my point is that Biden does, and if he does, and is VP, that means Obama does too. In other words, Delaware, and more importantly, the American economy, should be pretty safe.
Of course, the top 3% of the individual tax world will probably be screwed regardless of who the next president is because our country is on the verge of a fiscal calamity, but I would suspect the ultimate tax plan of either candidate can be massaged to protect those relevant business entities (i.e., those small business owners who are shaking in their boots over worry over how they will be taxed on their less-than-stellar earnings for FY08). Biden only helps to ensure that that in fact happens, or so that's the assumption I'm going to stew over for now. We'll find out in a couple of days of what exactly his role is going to be in this process, and whether Sen. McCain is able to effectively respond with his vice presidential candidate.
Then comes the matter of who will take over for him in Senate. That, of course, will be a much less national issue, but most definitely an interesting one. Go Delaware!
Disclosure: Politically, I am fairly conservative on most issues, particularly financial ones, and moderate on some others. In one sentence, I disfavor big government, favor state's rights, and favor minimal government interference with state's rights to the extent that the government should dictate national policy and provide guidance to the states. To the best of my understanding, that makes me a modern Reagan Republican, although most younger Democrats probably have similar beliefs (which suggests that we probably are closer to a one-party system than the partisan one that plagues the current media coverage). I am not affiliated with, nor endorse with these comments, any candidate for state, local, or national office.
That being said, I may have discussed a few months ago whether Sen. Biden should be considered for the presidential nomination, and agreed with the majority of pundits that the answer was that he probably would not be considered, even though he was significantly more qualified than either of the then-front runners. Personally, right now I am more in favor of Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain, at the very least because he is much closer to my age. I speculate that age will be an underlying issue more than it is currently playing out, but I'll save that commentary for a more intelligent poster. If anything, watching their debate on the tv the other day suggests that one candidate is quick to respond without thinking and the other thinks about what he's going to say, but sometimes it's difficult to get the point. Is one method better or worse? Again, I'll defer that pregnant pause for someone else or another day.
With rumors swirling about Sen. Biden being a potential vice presidential candidate, I think it works out much better than the media is letting on. So my point is clear, I think he's a good pick. Will he get it? That I don't know, but I think the answer is yes. At the very least, I'm sure he's in consideration for a cabinet position, which also works out well.
The reason why I think Biden will be good is not just for the wealth of his foreign policy experience, but that he's from Delaware. He will be able to make sure that whatever Obama's economic policy is, it will not fiscally bankrupt the corporate universe. That will have to make Wall Street happy. Whether the average Delawarean realizes the impact Delaware has on the rest of the country is of little consequence; my point is that Biden does, and if he does, and is VP, that means Obama does too. In other words, Delaware, and more importantly, the American economy, should be pretty safe.
Of course, the top 3% of the individual tax world will probably be screwed regardless of who the next president is because our country is on the verge of a fiscal calamity, but I would suspect the ultimate tax plan of either candidate can be massaged to protect those relevant business entities (i.e., those small business owners who are shaking in their boots over worry over how they will be taxed on their less-than-stellar earnings for FY08). Biden only helps to ensure that that in fact happens, or so that's the assumption I'm going to stew over for now. We'll find out in a couple of days of what exactly his role is going to be in this process, and whether Sen. McCain is able to effectively respond with his vice presidential candidate.
Then comes the matter of who will take over for him in Senate. That, of course, will be a much less national issue, but most definitely an interesting one. Go Delaware!
Disclosure: Politically, I am fairly conservative on most issues, particularly financial ones, and moderate on some others. In one sentence, I disfavor big government, favor state's rights, and favor minimal government interference with state's rights to the extent that the government should dictate national policy and provide guidance to the states. To the best of my understanding, that makes me a modern Reagan Republican, although most younger Democrats probably have similar beliefs (which suggests that we probably are closer to a one-party system than the partisan one that plagues the current media coverage). I am not affiliated with, nor endorse with these comments, any candidate for state, local, or national office.
That being said, I may have discussed a few months ago whether Sen. Biden should be considered for the presidential nomination, and agreed with the majority of pundits that the answer was that he probably would not be considered, even though he was significantly more qualified than either of the then-front runners. Personally, right now I am more in favor of Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain, at the very least because he is much closer to my age. I speculate that age will be an underlying issue more than it is currently playing out, but I'll save that commentary for a more intelligent poster. If anything, watching their debate on the tv the other day suggests that one candidate is quick to respond without thinking and the other thinks about what he's going to say, but sometimes it's difficult to get the point. Is one method better or worse? Again, I'll defer that pregnant pause for someone else or another day.
Tags:
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Loockerman Exchange set to reopen
I saw in the paper today that the Loockerman Exchange in downtown Dover will be reopening soon under new management. I had written about its close a few months ago. I already threw out the paper, but I remember specifically that they said one of the things they will be changing is the speed of service for lunch and that lunch entrees will run between $5 and $10, which will keep them in line with the other lunch venues in that area. The old website is here; I'm not sure if it is still actively updated or not or will change when the new site opens.
Particularly, the article implies that they will be striving for lunch to take less than an hour. That only jumped out at me because I did eat there for lunch a couple of times and the lunch took well over an hour, and probably closer to two hours (which is really slow). I have written about the pace of lunches downstate on other occasions, and it still amazes me that (as compared to Wilmington), that it is a struggle for a group or even two people to get in and out of some of these places for lunch under an hour.
But maybe this attempt to pick up the lunch pace will rub off on some of the other fine eating establishments in Dover. For now, the record for the best service in terms of food, speed, and price remains the Amish Market (Spenses, which is near the hospital).
(Still not sure where they expect people to park if they really want to get non-Doverites to return to downtown Dover at night, but maybe they have worked out some deal with the post office and a shuttle service of sorts). Maybe I'll check it out once they reopen.
Particularly, the article implies that they will be striving for lunch to take less than an hour. That only jumped out at me because I did eat there for lunch a couple of times and the lunch took well over an hour, and probably closer to two hours (which is really slow). I have written about the pace of lunches downstate on other occasions, and it still amazes me that (as compared to Wilmington), that it is a struggle for a group or even two people to get in and out of some of these places for lunch under an hour.
But maybe this attempt to pick up the lunch pace will rub off on some of the other fine eating establishments in Dover. For now, the record for the best service in terms of food, speed, and price remains the Amish Market (Spenses, which is near the hospital).
(Still not sure where they expect people to park if they really want to get non-Doverites to return to downtown Dover at night, but maybe they have worked out some deal with the post office and a shuttle service of sorts). Maybe I'll check it out once they reopen.
Tags:
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
MSNBC email takes over the CNN email spam
In a rather quick turnaround of spammers, the CNN spam I wrote about last week has evolved into a similar scam from MSNBC. This one purports to be from "MSNBC Breaking News" and has the subject line "msnbc.com - BREAKING NEWS:" and then some headline. I didn't bother clicking on it, but it should jump out to anyone who thinks two seconds about it as being a spam/scam.
Several other sites have also written about this less than clever scam. It will lead you to some malware website, so again, use your head. The only reason these clowns still operate is that people still fall for it. Here's a thought: If it sounds too good to be true, it is. Would it really make sense that you won some lottery in a foreign country or have some dead millionaire cousin who you never heard of and left you and nobody else (other than thousands of other fools) money? Of course not.
Take a look at Security Watch (providing great detail on the scam), Can Talk Tech, MX Logic IT Security Blog for more information about it. A couple of other bloggers have also reported on it: CyberCrime and Doing Time and Panda Security (with a screenshot of the email). Again, just use your head and delete the email and these dummies will get the hint eventually. And update your virus software.
Several other sites have also written about this less than clever scam. It will lead you to some malware website, so again, use your head. The only reason these clowns still operate is that people still fall for it. Here's a thought: If it sounds too good to be true, it is. Would it really make sense that you won some lottery in a foreign country or have some dead millionaire cousin who you never heard of and left you and nobody else (other than thousands of other fools) money? Of course not.
Take a look at Security Watch (providing great detail on the scam), Can Talk Tech, MX Logic IT Security Blog for more information about it. A couple of other bloggers have also reported on it: CyberCrime and Doing Time and Panda Security (with a screenshot of the email). Again, just use your head and delete the email and these dummies will get the hint eventually. And update your virus software.
Tags:
Friday, August 8, 2008
CNN Custom Alerts spam/spoof email - it is a virus
Most junk mail and spam mail is pretty easy to spot. I noticed today that I had gotten several emails from "CNN Alerts" with the subject line "CNN Alerts: My Custom Alert." Since I had not signed up for this sort of thing, I thought it was strange, but opened it to see what it was nonetheless (no file was attached, obviously).
It seems to send you to a link and sends you to CNN sites that are otherwise accurate. But if you mouse over the "Full Story" link, you'll see it attempts to take you to some international website. Another blogger reports that the link in fact sends you to a malware site, so be smart, use your head and don't click on it.
Other sites also have reported on this particular spam and confirm that it is another attempt at scamming the innocent and unsuspecting email public: Donna's Security Flash, Spyware Techie, CNET Spyware; Can Talk Tech (which has the screenshot).
Like the IRS email scam attempted a few months ago, use your noggin and keep this particular in your spam folder.
It seems to send you to a link and sends you to CNN sites that are otherwise accurate. But if you mouse over the "Full Story" link, you'll see it attempts to take you to some international website. Another blogger reports that the link in fact sends you to a malware site, so be smart, use your head and don't click on it.
Other sites also have reported on this particular spam and confirm that it is another attempt at scamming the innocent and unsuspecting email public: Donna's Security Flash, Spyware Techie, CNET Spyware; Can Talk Tech (which has the screenshot).
Like the IRS email scam attempted a few months ago, use your noggin and keep this particular in your spam folder.
Tags:
Monday, August 4, 2008
Annual Credit Reports and the misleading commercial for a free one
NPR reported this morning on the "Free Credit Report.com" commercial, which you can see on YouTube through a simple search. What is misleading about the commercial, as the NPR article reports, is that the report is only "free" after you pay the $15 monthly fee. The New York Times also reports how various consumer groups have targeted this company for running what is, effectively, a misleading (and therefore deceitful) advertisement. It also notes that the company that runs this free credit reports company (Experian) is one of the three major credit bureaus for which you can already get a free annual credit report. Hey, these companies are allowed to make money, so why not capture a bigger share of the market?
The bottom line is that under federal law, you can get a free annual credit report through AnnualCreditReport.com, which will provide your report from each of the three credit reporting companies. The site's frequently asked questions is here.
Unlike other commercials I have heard and remarked on, I can't knock this one too much because it's very effective. But like all commercials that purport to give stuff away for free, just remember to use your head and double check the fine print along the bottom line. As a wise economist once said, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." (TANSTAAFL) Similarly, if it wasn't for this Congressional act, there would be no such thing as a free annual credit report.
The bottom line is that under federal law, you can get a free annual credit report through AnnualCreditReport.com, which will provide your report from each of the three credit reporting companies. The site's frequently asked questions is here.
Unlike other commercials I have heard and remarked on, I can't knock this one too much because it's very effective. But like all commercials that purport to give stuff away for free, just remember to use your head and double check the fine print along the bottom line. As a wise economist once said, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." (TANSTAAFL) Similarly, if it wasn't for this Congressional act, there would be no such thing as a free annual credit report.
Tags:
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The emergence of a three (or maybe even four) party system
I am not going to wade into the political waters of Delaware too much beyond making a simple observation that maybe this debate between Markell and Carney should go beyond this upcoming "primary." Given the numbers of people that vote in primaries generally, is whoever gets selected truly going to be a so-called "representative" candidate? If the answer is no, there is no reason why either candidate should defer to the up and down vote a fraction of Delawareans will give in what will amount to be a worthless endeavor in basic democracy. Heck, even the teacher's union says they both are qualified.
What is far more interesting, and what should happen (although it will not), is that Markell and Carney should both be listed as candidates along with Lee and Protack (to the extent he is a viable candidate) and then see how the votes play out. The downside is that Markell and Carney split the vote and Lee wins the office. The upside, however, is that the will of the majority wins. While I acknowledge the downside scares people (although for no good reason), I think it's far more likely that one candidate will get a near majority of the vote, leaving one candidate to emerge as the true governor pursuant to the vote of the people. And even if it does wind up being one person by virtue of a split vote, is that really a bad thing? I submit the answer is a resounding no.
The time is coming where we need to start thinking more about the worth of keeping the existing two-party system when neither really purports to stand under its founding principles. In all reality, Delaware is a fairly conservative state by political standards, and whether people label themselves as Democrat or Republican has not caused the sky to fall or the corporate revenue to drop. The same will happen regardless of who the governor is.
Admittedly, I will have to give this new party system some more thought. There are some writings about it, but not very many. The threat of one party dissolving certainly can be real, and perhaps on the national level, the threat is past conception. Regardless, one thing is clear: the system we have now needs some sort of upgrade. Perhaps letting the Delaware governor race proceed in a three- or four-way run isn't such a bad thing.
What is far more interesting, and what should happen (although it will not), is that Markell and Carney should both be listed as candidates along with Lee and Protack (to the extent he is a viable candidate) and then see how the votes play out. The downside is that Markell and Carney split the vote and Lee wins the office. The upside, however, is that the will of the majority wins. While I acknowledge the downside scares people (although for no good reason), I think it's far more likely that one candidate will get a near majority of the vote, leaving one candidate to emerge as the true governor pursuant to the vote of the people. And even if it does wind up being one person by virtue of a split vote, is that really a bad thing? I submit the answer is a resounding no.
The time is coming where we need to start thinking more about the worth of keeping the existing two-party system when neither really purports to stand under its founding principles. In all reality, Delaware is a fairly conservative state by political standards, and whether people label themselves as Democrat or Republican has not caused the sky to fall or the corporate revenue to drop. The same will happen regardless of who the governor is.
Admittedly, I will have to give this new party system some more thought. There are some writings about it, but not very many. The threat of one party dissolving certainly can be real, and perhaps on the national level, the threat is past conception. Regardless, one thing is clear: the system we have now needs some sort of upgrade. Perhaps letting the Delaware governor race proceed in a three- or four-way run isn't such a bad thing.
Tags:
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Zero chance lottery tickets
This was an interesting article about lottery tickets and how they may be sold even after the grand prize has been won. According to the executive director of the Virginia State Lottery, "there were times when there was a scratch game out there that might've said "zero" in terms of the number of top prizes, but our players knew that." That seems sort of deceitful. It makes me wonder how many Delawareans have been duped by this same sort of shenanigans. This may be one of those cases of "buyer beware" since nobody is forcing you to buy a lottery ticket, but given the target market of lottery tickets, it seems more like a scam than a golden ticket to a better life.
Of course, with gas prices the way they were, someone should just create a lottery for free gasoline and make a bundle off those willing to jump in the raffle bandwagon.
Of course, with gas prices the way they were, someone should just create a lottery for free gasoline and make a bundle off those willing to jump in the raffle bandwagon.
Tags:
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Energy Commentary Part III
This is Part III of a three part commentary on energy letters that were recently published in the State News. Part I advocates for immediate drilling; Part II advocates for drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan; this third and final part is a letter which advocates for more big government as part of a "credible commitment to reducing oil consumption.
This letter appeared as a letter to the editor/guest commentary in the July 10, 2008 edition of the Delaware State News (page 4):
Plan would conserve energy, create jobs
David Benevy, Effort, Pennsylvania
I own a building that used 4,000 gallons of heating oil a year. I decided to just say "no" to oil and installed electric heating. Oil has gone up to $4 a gallon, so, I would have spent $16,000 heating with oil. I've been offered oil next year at $5 a gallon, so, I would have to spend $20,000 next year if I still used oil. The electricity I used for heating cost me $2,500 for the entire heating system. That's like buying heating oil at 63 cents a gallon! Now, that's energy conservation! How can this experience be repeated all over this country? Here's my suggestion.
Create a federal Department of Energy Conservation. Start with a crash program to reduce the use of home heating oil and propane. Invest $150 billion the first year. Hire and train thousands of energy-conservation specialists to develop an energy-saving plan for each homeowner desiring to participate. Get funding from investors by offering them an 8-percent tax-free return. Charge the homeowners 3-percent interest and have the federal government make up the difference. Insist that all products purchased for these projects be at least 90-percent American-made.
The benefits of this plan are far reaching. First, it will put people to work as energy-conversation specialists. The products required to implement the projects will range from new windows and insulation to heat pumps, geothermal systems, electric hot-water heaters, etc. A large number of jobs will be created to install these products. Since they must be of 90-percent American origin, it will put this money to work across America. By paying only 3-percent interest, homeowners will be able to repay the loans with less money than they would have spent on oil. This is money that will not go out of the country and will be spent locally.
By reducing the demand for heating oil, the supply of diesel fuel (basically the same product as heating oil) will increase, reducing its cost. This, in turn, can reduce the cost of everything that is transported by diesel fuel. The 8-percent tax-free yield will encourage foreign investors, and hence, the demand for dollars, which will improve the exchange rate, which tends to lower the cost of oil.
There is a federal weatherization program which provides windows and insulation to lower-income Americans. This program will have a wider scope and be available to everyone, regardless of income, because its goal is to benefit the country rather than lower-income people.
A realistic goal for the $150 billion would be to cut the nation's use of home heating oil and propane in half. Each house is different, and there is a different strategy for each house. A house with central air and an oil-fired hot-air system can easily be converted to a heat pump using the oil or propane system for backup heat. Geothermal savings would offer even greater savings. Houses using oil furnaces for hot water could turn the furnaces off when not needed for heat and use hot water heaters instead. Poorly insulated houses could be made to use less oil by insulating and installing modern windows.
Unlike current plans floated by our presidential candidates which include spending $150 billion over the next 10 years or offering a prize of $300 million for a better battery, this plan can be implemented using existing technology and bring about an immediate and dramatic reduction in our use of oil and propane. Moreover, when everything is taken into account, the federal government will probably end up making money with the venture. The interest cost to the government would be $7.5 billion the first year. But since the program moves money back into the American economy, it creates jobs, profits and consequently, taxes. The money saved by homeowners not buying oil and propane will go back into the economy.
Most significantly, by making a credible commitment to reducing oil consumption, this program should help lower the cost of oil. This will lower everyone's fuel bills, including the government's fuel bill, and results in less money leaving the country to pay for oil, leaving more money in the country to help the economy recover.
This letter appeared as a letter to the editor/guest commentary in the July 10, 2008 edition of the Delaware State News (page 4):
Plan would conserve energy, create jobs
David Benevy, Effort, Pennsylvania
I own a building that used 4,000 gallons of heating oil a year. I decided to just say "no" to oil and installed electric heating. Oil has gone up to $4 a gallon, so, I would have spent $16,000 heating with oil. I've been offered oil next year at $5 a gallon, so, I would have to spend $20,000 next year if I still used oil. The electricity I used for heating cost me $2,500 for the entire heating system. That's like buying heating oil at 63 cents a gallon! Now, that's energy conservation! How can this experience be repeated all over this country? Here's my suggestion.
Create a federal Department of Energy Conservation. Start with a crash program to reduce the use of home heating oil and propane. Invest $150 billion the first year. Hire and train thousands of energy-conservation specialists to develop an energy-saving plan for each homeowner desiring to participate. Get funding from investors by offering them an 8-percent tax-free return. Charge the homeowners 3-percent interest and have the federal government make up the difference. Insist that all products purchased for these projects be at least 90-percent American-made.
The benefits of this plan are far reaching. First, it will put people to work as energy-conversation specialists. The products required to implement the projects will range from new windows and insulation to heat pumps, geothermal systems, electric hot-water heaters, etc. A large number of jobs will be created to install these products. Since they must be of 90-percent American origin, it will put this money to work across America. By paying only 3-percent interest, homeowners will be able to repay the loans with less money than they would have spent on oil. This is money that will not go out of the country and will be spent locally.
By reducing the demand for heating oil, the supply of diesel fuel (basically the same product as heating oil) will increase, reducing its cost. This, in turn, can reduce the cost of everything that is transported by diesel fuel. The 8-percent tax-free yield will encourage foreign investors, and hence, the demand for dollars, which will improve the exchange rate, which tends to lower the cost of oil.
There is a federal weatherization program which provides windows and insulation to lower-income Americans. This program will have a wider scope and be available to everyone, regardless of income, because its goal is to benefit the country rather than lower-income people.
A realistic goal for the $150 billion would be to cut the nation's use of home heating oil and propane in half. Each house is different, and there is a different strategy for each house. A house with central air and an oil-fired hot-air system can easily be converted to a heat pump using the oil or propane system for backup heat. Geothermal savings would offer even greater savings. Houses using oil furnaces for hot water could turn the furnaces off when not needed for heat and use hot water heaters instead. Poorly insulated houses could be made to use less oil by insulating and installing modern windows.
Unlike current plans floated by our presidential candidates which include spending $150 billion over the next 10 years or offering a prize of $300 million for a better battery, this plan can be implemented using existing technology and bring about an immediate and dramatic reduction in our use of oil and propane. Moreover, when everything is taken into account, the federal government will probably end up making money with the venture. The interest cost to the government would be $7.5 billion the first year. But since the program moves money back into the American economy, it creates jobs, profits and consequently, taxes. The money saved by homeowners not buying oil and propane will go back into the economy.
Most significantly, by making a credible commitment to reducing oil consumption, this program should help lower the cost of oil. This will lower everyone's fuel bills, including the government's fuel bill, and results in less money leaving the country to pay for oil, leaving more money in the country to help the economy recover.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Energy Commentary Part II
This is part II of a three part commentary on energy letters recently published in the Delaware State News. Part I was a letter about the benefits of immediate drilling. This second letter, a response to that letter, also discusses the benefits of drilling, but as part of multi-faceted approach. The headline is misleading though.
This commentary appeared in the July 8, 2008 edition of the Delaware State News as a letter to the editor/guest commentary. Again I have attempted to add links where I was able to find support for the points.
Drilling will not solve oil crisis
Andrew Alea, Dover, Delaware
This is a two-fold response to Franklin Wright's June 30, 2008 commentary, "Drilling Answer to Gas-Price Woes." I first offer a counterpoint to Mr. Wright's letter, and then a starting point for a more productive discussion on approaching our nation’s energy concerns.
We both agree that the price of and our dependence on oil will continue to be a central issue for both candidates this fall and to this country for at least the next decade. In none of Wright's hyperbole and rhetoric, however, does he offer any substantive approach for the candidates (and more realistically the voting public) to think about given that the price of gas is not coming down anytime soon. Unlike Wright, I will not attempt to summarize my understanding of either Obama's or McCain’s positions beyond what they agree on, leaving the readers to their own resources to check Wright's allegations for accuracy and form a sound, independent opinion.
Wright begins by arguing that both parties have "distinct solutions" to the energy problem. I believe he has misspoken. Everybody agrees on the solution: we need to increase our oil reserves and alter national perceptions and trends regarding energy policy and use. Obama and McCain agree that one way to reach it would be through offshore domestic drilling. They also agree that this is only one means to increase supply, it should not be undertaken at the expense of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and is, at best, a long-term, insubstantial fix. What distinguishes the candidates is not in their "solution," then; it is with their "approaches," which aren't that distinct.
Wright and I also agree that drilling even as early as next year will not affect oil prices significantly for at least a decade (or at least the 2016 election). Thus, we both conclude that the only logical reason for making a concerted public push to drill domestically serves no purpose, save a political one.
After reaching this conclusion, Wright and I have divergent reactions. He focuses on a senator's comments (implying that he supported nationalization of the oil refineries) as gospel that the Democratic party has become a Trojan horse for a socialist agenda. Not only does this position overlook the fact those comments were clarified the next day, it dodges the likely purpose behind them, which is probably as political as the push for domestic drilling. Regardless, Wright uses them to bolster his personal theory that the Democratic party (and by implication, their candidate) is attempting to tie the invisible hand of the free market to benefit OPEC and domestic oil barons. I have not found any source that supports that theory (for either candidate or party), which ultimately led to my confusion as to the point of his commentary beyond the simple idea of more drilling to lower gas prices. As should be clear, more drilling serves little to accomplish that goal in the short term. His reaction to the idea of increased drilling as the only viable approach prompted me to write this response.
I offer a short and long term approach which may start to reach the issue. The only short term (and immediate) method for lowering gas prices would be for the federal (and perhaps state) government to implement a gas tax credit. The credit, available to anyone who files a tax return, could give, for example, a maximum $400 credit to qualifying tax payers. The credit could be adjusted for mileage, whether they own or lease a car, or maybe for the type of car they drive in order to influence nationwide purchasing trends. According to a 2004 report by the California Energy Commission, the average American guzzled 464 gallons gas (Delaware was 541.6). At $4/gallon, this adds up to around $2150/year. Those taking the maximum credit would magically have their yearly gasoline expense drop to $3.26/gallon. Of course, tax credits are only a quick solution, and would have to be made up somewhere, and certainly the General Assembly or the Congress can work out the details for either of these approaches better than I can. The longer term solution would be to revamp the tax code and modernize it to reflect our current society and economic trends. I haven't heard either candidate float that albatross out yet, but perhaps it is coming.
My long term approach to the oil problem would be for Congress or the President by executive mandate to direct each state’s government to examine, pass, and begin to implement (within a certain time frame), an individual state energy policy. Thus, if a state wants to start drilling for oil, either within their borders of offshore, build a field of solar panels in the desert, build a nuclear reactor, wind farm, hydrogen plant, or whatever, the federal government will have to work with these states and decide how their plans fit within the national scheme. The federal government could also mandate through fiscal bullying a reason for the car companies to use existing plants in cities like Newark and Detroit to start producing some sort of fuel efficient concept car on a mass scale.
States (like Delaware with the wind farm) would be able to use their independent policies to help other states develop and implement similar strategies, which in turn would provide a steady stream of revenue and work for those initial states and their citizens. Letting each state develop the technology best for its citizenry would not be easy, and the role of the federal government, Republican or Democrat, would have to be to work with the states to implement their plans quickly and in harmony with the refined national goals and policy.
The candidate who makes the most common sense with his energy plan and gets the most votes is going to be the winner. The question each of us is going to be asking, sooner or later, is who should that person be. Just don’t be fooled by Wright into thinking that increased drilling will solve the problem anytime soon.
This commentary appeared in the July 8, 2008 edition of the Delaware State News as a letter to the editor/guest commentary. Again I have attempted to add links where I was able to find support for the points.
Drilling will not solve oil crisis
Andrew Alea, Dover, Delaware
This is a two-fold response to Franklin Wright's June 30, 2008 commentary, "Drilling Answer to Gas-Price Woes." I first offer a counterpoint to Mr. Wright's letter, and then a starting point for a more productive discussion on approaching our nation’s energy concerns.
We both agree that the price of and our dependence on oil will continue to be a central issue for both candidates this fall and to this country for at least the next decade. In none of Wright's hyperbole and rhetoric, however, does he offer any substantive approach for the candidates (and more realistically the voting public) to think about given that the price of gas is not coming down anytime soon. Unlike Wright, I will not attempt to summarize my understanding of either Obama's or McCain’s positions beyond what they agree on, leaving the readers to their own resources to check Wright's allegations for accuracy and form a sound, independent opinion.
Wright begins by arguing that both parties have "distinct solutions" to the energy problem. I believe he has misspoken. Everybody agrees on the solution: we need to increase our oil reserves and alter national perceptions and trends regarding energy policy and use. Obama and McCain agree that one way to reach it would be through offshore domestic drilling. They also agree that this is only one means to increase supply, it should not be undertaken at the expense of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and is, at best, a long-term, insubstantial fix. What distinguishes the candidates is not in their "solution," then; it is with their "approaches," which aren't that distinct.
Wright and I also agree that drilling even as early as next year will not affect oil prices significantly for at least a decade (or at least the 2016 election). Thus, we both conclude that the only logical reason for making a concerted public push to drill domestically serves no purpose, save a political one.
After reaching this conclusion, Wright and I have divergent reactions. He focuses on a senator's comments (implying that he supported nationalization of the oil refineries) as gospel that the Democratic party has become a Trojan horse for a socialist agenda. Not only does this position overlook the fact those comments were clarified the next day, it dodges the likely purpose behind them, which is probably as political as the push for domestic drilling. Regardless, Wright uses them to bolster his personal theory that the Democratic party (and by implication, their candidate) is attempting to tie the invisible hand of the free market to benefit OPEC and domestic oil barons. I have not found any source that supports that theory (for either candidate or party), which ultimately led to my confusion as to the point of his commentary beyond the simple idea of more drilling to lower gas prices. As should be clear, more drilling serves little to accomplish that goal in the short term. His reaction to the idea of increased drilling as the only viable approach prompted me to write this response.
I offer a short and long term approach which may start to reach the issue. The only short term (and immediate) method for lowering gas prices would be for the federal (and perhaps state) government to implement a gas tax credit. The credit, available to anyone who files a tax return, could give, for example, a maximum $400 credit to qualifying tax payers. The credit could be adjusted for mileage, whether they own or lease a car, or maybe for the type of car they drive in order to influence nationwide purchasing trends. According to a 2004 report by the California Energy Commission, the average American guzzled 464 gallons gas (Delaware was 541.6). At $4/gallon, this adds up to around $2150/year. Those taking the maximum credit would magically have their yearly gasoline expense drop to $3.26/gallon. Of course, tax credits are only a quick solution, and would have to be made up somewhere, and certainly the General Assembly or the Congress can work out the details for either of these approaches better than I can. The longer term solution would be to revamp the tax code and modernize it to reflect our current society and economic trends. I haven't heard either candidate float that albatross out yet, but perhaps it is coming.
My long term approach to the oil problem would be for Congress or the President by executive mandate to direct each state’s government to examine, pass, and begin to implement (within a certain time frame), an individual state energy policy. Thus, if a state wants to start drilling for oil, either within their borders of offshore, build a field of solar panels in the desert, build a nuclear reactor, wind farm, hydrogen plant, or whatever, the federal government will have to work with these states and decide how their plans fit within the national scheme. The federal government could also mandate through fiscal bullying a reason for the car companies to use existing plants in cities like Newark and Detroit to start producing some sort of fuel efficient concept car on a mass scale.
States (like Delaware with the wind farm) would be able to use their independent policies to help other states develop and implement similar strategies, which in turn would provide a steady stream of revenue and work for those initial states and their citizens. Letting each state develop the technology best for its citizenry would not be easy, and the role of the federal government, Republican or Democrat, would have to be to work with the states to implement their plans quickly and in harmony with the refined national goals and policy.
The candidate who makes the most common sense with his energy plan and gets the most votes is going to be the winner. The question each of us is going to be asking, sooner or later, is who should that person be. Just don’t be fooled by Wright into thinking that increased drilling will solve the problem anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
