Our congress has the power to adopt a new program that would rejuvenate our economy, improve our standard of living and place our nation in a better position of economic balance and balance of trade.
Such a program will not be adopted because of the selfishness of our congress and other politicians and career supervisors in Washington DC.
Our country is known for its unique innovative ideas and initiative. It was this type of initiative that caused some very successful people to explore some new ideas. They spent huge sums of their own money to have some of our problems examined by experts and then made the results and proposals a gift to the public so we could work for them and adopt them to help ourselves.
I appreciate their great gift. I want their findings acted on so it benefits my grandchildren as well as helping you and your families. We have a problem with very selfish people who are using old systems to negotiate personal benefit as politicians in our federal government. It is time we took an interest and demanded change.
Suppose we were able to say to the automobile makers we will eliminate all the income taxes you pay for your profit as well as all the taxes you pay on behalf of your employees. Suppose we also eliminated all income taxes for the employees of the automobile companies?
Sound strange?
Actually we could eliminate these taxes for all citizens and all companies in the United States. It would help the companies become more profitable, would help them compete better world wide and attract more expansion of industry and investment in the United States. You and I would have a larger income and prices would barely increase with the proper tax reform.
The gift of knowledge given to us by our generous benefactors is compiled in books about a tax reform called the “Fair Tax”. What we need now, more than ever is a complete dialogue and debate about the use of this plan. I can only urge you to read as much as you can about it. Tell your congressional contacts to review it and discuss it. We need it now more than ever. We need you to learn as much as you can about it and help us decide if it will do all that is claimed. So far, those opposed seem to be thinking of only themselves. You need to find out what is best for you and your family and then support your decision by action.
Of course, I should not fail to mention that it is designed to restore the funds for and protect the Social Security program and Medicare program. With some revision it could also cover a national health program.
Additional information is available at www.fairtax.org
There are at least two books on the subject.
Also look at the short articles previously presented. Some of the estimates might change as they are updated and we need to have more discussion to fully understand the benefits.
http://divinebullet.blogspot.com/2006/09/increase-income-with-government-reform.html
http://dictionarydogs.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-get-raise-by-just-asking-for-it.html
Information about what we should look for in our national candidates:
http://dictionarydogs.blogspot.com/2006/11/help-wanted-in-congress.html
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
SUPPORT THE BIGGEST POLLUTER!!
IN SUPPORT OF OUR BIGGEST POLLUTER, THE AUTOMOBILE!!
Automobile engine emissions have become the most significant result of oil production. You can check the references or take my word for it and skip to the body of the message below.
For example here is a reference:
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/E_Overview4.htm
Another interesting reference is:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577413/Air_Pollution.html
Also look at an article summarizing the problems related to the automobile.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A16228-2002Jul16¬Found=true
If you just take my word for it and accept the automobiles (your car and mine) are causing problems with the environment and creating a situation where we buy so much oil we are financing our enemies development of military assets that they want to use to conquer us.
For many years we have been bombarded with advertising of all types that have convinced us we must own an automobile and our influence on our neighbors and our stature in this world is based almost entirely on the size and value of the automobile we drive. The average American owes close to $30,000 for a car loan. This means that many Americans spend the equivalent of a whole years income for an automobile and much of their decision is based on the image that automobileS will project.
For years it has been known that a red convertible in the showroom window will draw men into the show room. It was believed that the red convertible stirred senses related to love (sex) and most buyers would leave with a more sedate sedan but they had a chance to explore their fantasy and they were lured into the showroom.
The automobile industry has researched every facet of our imaginations and buying impulses. They know us better than we know ourselves and they have convinced us (brainwashed) that we need a car and the bigger the better.
Now, after convincing us that we need their product they are going broke because of international competition. They want our government to use our tax money to save their sorry butts so they can continue to mislead us and sell us something we do not need if we were smart enough to resist them.
Our primary problem comes from our lack of use of mass transportation. When our fathers began to believe in the value and convenience of the car they stopped using mass transportation. If you wanted to use a form of transit today you cannot except in larger cities.
In some of our major cities like New York a subway and bus system exists to help move people and the efficiency of such projects is very beneficial. The subway is electrified and covers most of the city. The same concept can be applied to other cities using underground or above ground systems. The distribution of the electricity is very efficient and reduces the need to distribute fuel to inefficient modes such as the private automobile. It is difficult to drive and park in New York City and other large cities so many people park their cars and ride the transit systems into cities that have them available.
Many countries rely more on mass transportation than we do. Of course we are innovators in a wonderful country open to free capitalization and the mass production and promotion of the automobile has been very successful. If we could stimulate our major automobile manufacturers to shift from the automobile business to the transportation business we would have some of the best minds in America working on the improvement of our energy use and more efficient methods of moving us from place to place.
Of course we do not expect a transit system to be efficient out in the country where population is spread out and infrequent, but we can identify cities that will benefit from better and more efficient transportation. We can also expand our bullet train system to connect more cities and we can expand other people moving systems for smaller cities.
We need to explore the use of electricity as an energy source produced from nuclear power or natural gas. We need to explore existing technology to build better and more efficient movement.
And we need to promote the use of mass transportation and stop luring the masses to the ownership of individual automobiles.
The big three auto producers have the talent to prepare a plan for us to promote better and more efficient transportation that will be less expensive and produce less pollution. They also have many manufacturing facilities that could be converted to handle the production of people moving vehicles for mass transit. They also have the marketing ability to help us promote among ourselves the concept of the contribution we are all making to our community with the use of mass transportation.
We already have in the House of Representatives a leader in the efforts of mass transit, Congressman John Mica, who can lead us in our efforts to change our styles and resolve many problems. He is a ranking member of the House Committee for Transportation and Infrastructure and has worked hard to improve transportation projects.
And yes, with a few concessions from the big three automakers I could see benefits from helping with their financing. If we were ever to support a plan to improve transportation and make it more efficient we would have to invest some money and now, in a time of need by these companies it would seem they would be more receptive to directing their goals toward projects that benefit all of us. They have gained some reductions on some labor contracts and have invested large sums in hybrid car development. If they will recognize and work with our needs we can consider working with them.
Read about moving people in self controlled pod cars
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=12392
Read about a people mover blog I published a couple of years ago.
http://divinebullet.blogspot.com/2006/07/introduction-to-our-solution-to-fuel.html
Read about the bullet trains here:
http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/bullet.htm
Read a good summary about mass transportation followed by a complete history here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/public-transport
Read about the need for mass transit by Tom Teepen of Cox Newspapers.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/391906_teepenonline13.html
Now you must visit the Urban Design group who have organized the problem as part of a master plan to work for a solution. You will find this site interesting and exciting. Spend some time here, subscribe to their newsletter and support their efforts.
http://www.urbandesign.org/
Thank you for visiting my blog.
Automobile engine emissions have become the most significant result of oil production. You can check the references or take my word for it and skip to the body of the message below.
For example here is a reference:
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/E_Overview4.htm
Another interesting reference is:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577413/Air_Pollution.html
Also look at an article summarizing the problems related to the automobile.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A16228-2002Jul16¬Found=true
If you just take my word for it and accept the automobiles (your car and mine) are causing problems with the environment and creating a situation where we buy so much oil we are financing our enemies development of military assets that they want to use to conquer us.
For many years we have been bombarded with advertising of all types that have convinced us we must own an automobile and our influence on our neighbors and our stature in this world is based almost entirely on the size and value of the automobile we drive. The average American owes close to $30,000 for a car loan. This means that many Americans spend the equivalent of a whole years income for an automobile and much of their decision is based on the image that automobileS will project.
For years it has been known that a red convertible in the showroom window will draw men into the show room. It was believed that the red convertible stirred senses related to love (sex) and most buyers would leave with a more sedate sedan but they had a chance to explore their fantasy and they were lured into the showroom.
The automobile industry has researched every facet of our imaginations and buying impulses. They know us better than we know ourselves and they have convinced us (brainwashed) that we need a car and the bigger the better.
Now, after convincing us that we need their product they are going broke because of international competition. They want our government to use our tax money to save their sorry butts so they can continue to mislead us and sell us something we do not need if we were smart enough to resist them.
Our primary problem comes from our lack of use of mass transportation. When our fathers began to believe in the value and convenience of the car they stopped using mass transportation. If you wanted to use a form of transit today you cannot except in larger cities.
In some of our major cities like New York a subway and bus system exists to help move people and the efficiency of such projects is very beneficial. The subway is electrified and covers most of the city. The same concept can be applied to other cities using underground or above ground systems. The distribution of the electricity is very efficient and reduces the need to distribute fuel to inefficient modes such as the private automobile. It is difficult to drive and park in New York City and other large cities so many people park their cars and ride the transit systems into cities that have them available.
Many countries rely more on mass transportation than we do. Of course we are innovators in a wonderful country open to free capitalization and the mass production and promotion of the automobile has been very successful. If we could stimulate our major automobile manufacturers to shift from the automobile business to the transportation business we would have some of the best minds in America working on the improvement of our energy use and more efficient methods of moving us from place to place.
Of course we do not expect a transit system to be efficient out in the country where population is spread out and infrequent, but we can identify cities that will benefit from better and more efficient transportation. We can also expand our bullet train system to connect more cities and we can expand other people moving systems for smaller cities.
We need to explore the use of electricity as an energy source produced from nuclear power or natural gas. We need to explore existing technology to build better and more efficient movement.
And we need to promote the use of mass transportation and stop luring the masses to the ownership of individual automobiles.
The big three auto producers have the talent to prepare a plan for us to promote better and more efficient transportation that will be less expensive and produce less pollution. They also have many manufacturing facilities that could be converted to handle the production of people moving vehicles for mass transit. They also have the marketing ability to help us promote among ourselves the concept of the contribution we are all making to our community with the use of mass transportation.
We already have in the House of Representatives a leader in the efforts of mass transit, Congressman John Mica, who can lead us in our efforts to change our styles and resolve many problems. He is a ranking member of the House Committee for Transportation and Infrastructure and has worked hard to improve transportation projects.
And yes, with a few concessions from the big three automakers I could see benefits from helping with their financing. If we were ever to support a plan to improve transportation and make it more efficient we would have to invest some money and now, in a time of need by these companies it would seem they would be more receptive to directing their goals toward projects that benefit all of us. They have gained some reductions on some labor contracts and have invested large sums in hybrid car development. If they will recognize and work with our needs we can consider working with them.
Read about moving people in self controlled pod cars
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=12392
Read about a people mover blog I published a couple of years ago.
http://divinebullet.blogspot.com/2006/07/introduction-to-our-solution-to-fuel.html
Read about the bullet trains here:
http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/bullet.htm
Read a good summary about mass transportation followed by a complete history here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/public-transport
Read about the need for mass transit by Tom Teepen of Cox Newspapers.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/391906_teepenonline13.html
Now you must visit the Urban Design group who have organized the problem as part of a master plan to work for a solution. You will find this site interesting and exciting. Spend some time here, subscribe to their newsletter and support their efforts.
http://www.urbandesign.org/
Thank you for visiting my blog.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
CAN WE REDUCE OIL PRICES?- WHO DO WE BELIEVE?
My research for this discussion was very difficult because everyone giving information has some type of self interest. I have to admit to some bias and yet I would really like to know the truth. I have the advantage of years of experience, formal training in economics, took a second major and job training in business management, a little experience trading oil futures and even some experience in politics. Let me see if I can add to your knowledge and tell you the several sides of each issue affecting oil prices. I apologize for the length of this article but there are many factors affecting oil prices and the length is necessary.
There are a number of things that will affect oil prices and you better be ready to accept part of the blame. If we do not realize that we are the main problem we are never going to resolve the issue.
The main cause of high oil and high gas prices is the law of supply and demand. We use too much and other parts of the world are using more so we have to recognize the problem.
High demand causes high prices because more people are bidding on the product, the world is not producing enough to meet demand and reduce prices and we will not allow drilling or construction of refineries. The suppliers of oil are holding back and maintaining a reduced supply so the price stays high. So first I will discuss how we can reduce demand.
Then I will talk about increasing supply. Then I will discuss finding alternatives. We will also look at the speculators. In the end I hope you will better understand that we have to do many things, cut back, develop mass transportation, find alternatives and for awhile increase our production and supply to help reduce prices.
There are forces at work trying to keep the price of gas high so we will use alternative sources. The alternatives have to be experimented with more to make them reach their potential so you and I are going to suffer while others play with pricing. If you want to do something about it you are going to have to study this article and maybe do some additional investigation. If you learn more that will help all of us please pass it on. Let us begin:
First there is the effect that you and I have. We are addicted to automobiles. A recent study of major addiction shows that we are most addicted to cell phones, then automobiles and then cigarettes and so on. Our addiction to the auto developed with the Model T Ford when it made most families a part of the success of the US by giving them independence and transportation at a price they could manage. We had arrived. Since 1909 we have been bombarded by the allure of the auto, right up to the current ad by Cadillac for the sexy gal asking if your car turns you on. I remember an article in the Portland, Oregon newspaper about how the car interests bought up the well operated trolley system and ran it badly until it went bankrupt.
We, you and I, need to support mass transportation. We need to push for it and we need to use it whenever possible, especially mass transit fueled by alternative power such as wind, sun, tide, nuclear power and standard electrical power. I have to place this as a high priority item because we can do things to lower the price of gas but the expansion of population around the world will continue to increase our need for gas and until we can develop alternative power we will continue to be short of production of fuel. We will also be expanding our highways and the dangers connected with them. We can expect to see massive enlargement of highway sizes in the near future. The efficient development of mass transportation and the efficient distribution of power to these transportation methods through electrical wires will be an advantage.
This is a long term solution but we must push for it now and we must start educating our children to pull them away from the worshipping of cars. It is reported there are 3 cars for every resident of Los Angeles, the average American Family owes a whole years salary in car payments, we are killing many people on the highways and we are destroying many pristine areas to make room for the highways.
You and I can also affect the price of oil by reducing our dependence on the automobile.
Second.
The cost of oil is controlled by many factors. OPEC Nations control production to maintain the longest and highest value of its finite supply of crude oil. One of our former national officials went to the oil producing nations and earned millions by showing them how to organize into OPEC and maintain maximum income. If we show we are serious about drilling and becoming self sufficient it will cause OPEC to reduce the costs of crude to where you and I will stop worrying about the cost of oil and worry more about a green earth. We are already causing concern because OPEC is considering some adjustments to production to reduce prices by increasing supply.
J. Boone Pickens who has made billions in oil and is considered to be the smartest man in the oil business recently told Neal Cavuto that world production of oil is about 20% below demand and that will continue to keep the oil prices high for a long time period.
In addition to the price created by supply and demand we have price increases caused by speculation. This comes under the discussion of futures trading. There are two factors you will hear about, one is the low margin required for trading and the other is the so-called Enron Loophole.
At the present time you can control the future price of oil by buying a futures contract at a market price. You must have good credit with a commodities broker dealing in the correct exchange location and place on deposit about 5% of the futures market value of 1000 barrels of oil. When oil was at $100 per barrel a market value of 1000 barrels would be $100,000. You could buy this unit and control it for a deposit of $8,000 (Includes 5% deposit and fees). As the price increased you could sell that unit for the market so when the price reached $130 per barrel you could sell that unit for $130,000 and would therefore earn $30,000 on an investment of $8,000. It looks easy but hindsight is wonderful so consider if that price had dropped to $90 your broker would be looking for an additional payment to cover the $10,000 loss. The risk is high and the losses can be staggering so keep in mind that if the market perceives that the price will drop owners of these futures units will start selling fast and the drop in price will be fast and many losses will occur. This is one of the reasons that starting to open more drilling locations will drive the nervous investors away and prices will drop. OPEC nations also point to the futures price and will price their commodity accordingly because they feel they should not get less than the futures price is willing to pay. The futures market usually evens out wide swings in prices and can be beneficial to the public. However, the margin should be increased from 5% and gradually increased to a rate between 30 % to 50%. This would reduce the number of traders who get involved for a quick profit during difficult times such as we are having now.
Also keep in mind that many prudent investors have stock investment programs and 401 K retirement programs that invest in these commodity futures. It tends to even out wide swings in the market except at certain times like we are having now and that could be controlled by higher fees.
We also have to look at the Enron loophole which allowed the commodity market to deal without federal controls. We really get involved in politics here because the bulk of the information explaining the procedure is encouraged by the election process. I relied upon Wikipedia and tried to get a non biased view but I also read the descriptions of some of those that have a political agenda and I must admit it is difficult to get a clear viewpoint. Better control is a legitimate argument that needs to be considered but is the control set up so that politicians can hold more hearings just to gain publicity? It might be better to require higher margins and let it go at that. If there are wrong doings by individuals investigate their activities but enlarging the power of our congress over areas they are not familiar with to gain political advantage is dangerous. I would like to see more information and clarity about this subject and possibly an investigative group of experts could study this and clarify the regulations and their procedures to the public. The Enron loophole came about when congress passed a bill restricting some investments practiced by Enron. The bill was studied by investors who soon learned it allowed them to switch futures trading to uncontrolled futures trading boards that were not controlled or open to inspection of the Commodities Board of Trade. Some very large groups began dealing in huge amounts of futures contracts and found they could control the price of many futures markets including oil. Recently the Congress passed another bill that would grant subsidies to farmers and the administration was opposed to this bill and wanted to veto it. Inserted in this bill was a patch to bring the futures markets back under some control. Congress had enough votes to override a veto but because there were several features in the bill you will see game playing and grandstanding before the public claiming who voted for and against the bill. It is cheap maneuvering which is used to confuse the public and gain votes at election time. We will see if this change in the law helps. Nothing has happened yet to the price of oil so maybe the new bill has some flaws in it also.
Another subject of heated discussion is the existing oil and gas leases that are not being utilized. I see estimates of 40 to 90 thousand acres of leases now in effect that are not being utilized. When I tried to find the reasons for this under utilization I had real difficulties. One side says they are not being used in order to drive prices up. The other side says the leases are in areas where there is limited gas or oil. Some have suggested swapping leases for new and more promising leases, others suggest fines for non use or cancellations. These discussions are troubling. In a time of concern for good business ethics our government has a made a contract and if it is a bad contract we have to honor it. But we have to find out why the leases are not being used. One study said most of the leases were purchased by oil companies because they were cheap and help build a better looking balance sheet showing valuable reserves. This helped with financing and stock sales. In another commentary I found statements by an economist with the oil industry that sounded plausible. He stated the leases were not considered productive enough to be profitable unless the price is high like now but there is fear the price will be reduced soon and that would make them unprofitable again so there is reluctance to invest in their development.
If there were some non political studies we might find a solution. It is very hard to solve a problem without a true definition of the problem. Certainly the ability to exchange leases for more profitable leases would seem in order with a stipulation in the new lease that development must take place within an agreed time period.
Should we drill in some of our pristine areas of the country? Most Americans feel we should. Others feel we should not and should wait until we have developed alternative forms of energy. I feel we must take some immediate corrective action to increase supply and reduce prices. We should also work on alternative fuel sources and new forms of energy. We should also support mass transportation for a longer term solution. If we use a stop gap procedure of bringing new oil supplies on line while we develop other forms of energy we will intimidate our present suppliers who will reduce their costs to keep us from having the need to develop our own resources.
One of the suggestions made is that we should tax excess profits of oil companies. Economists have made many studies of this subject and even affirmed it in the independent studies hired out by the Fair Tax group. They have found that corporations do not pay taxes, it is a cost of doing business that is reflected in their product pricing so the consumer ends up paying the tax. We might also look at the excess profits made by the oil companies. The reports are they show a profit of about 8% net taxable profit. Some companies selling high quantities of products work with 2% to 3% of profit, A 6% profit is about average but some companies related to banking and also sales might have profits in the double digits and some go as high as 25%. The oil companies are large and their 8% may be seem excess but talk to some accountants and look up profits for various types of companies and judge for yourself. Excess profits taxes will be passed on to the consumer and I do not find this a worthwhile or dependable system of trying to reduce prices at the pump.
Should we drill in ANWR? I have seen photos of the area to be drilled and it is not very pristine, it is a desolate coastal area as confirmed by satellite maps and photos taken by a former bush pilot in the area. Probably the biggest convincer to me is that if we buy our oil from a foreign company they could be destroying far more pristine areas and with much fewer controls than we use. We owe it to the world to develop resources with our technology and controls.
Should we drill off our coast?
Take Florida for example or Florida and California which controls the bulk of our total coastline mileage. As I ride along the coast my view is usually blocked by ugly condos and they are fighting to control the beach access around them. Now, many of these residents want protection for their view and their beaches from the rest of us who have to pay higher gas prices. You cannot see beyond 15 to 20 miles out to sea anyway so what is the problem? We have shown good control of our pollution and many benefits of tapping the oil reserves off the shore lines so lets do it.
I watched an interview with a person named Eric Bolling (an independent trader on CNBC and Fox Business channel) who called some drilling companies to see what the delay is in drilling and bringing on line additional oil production. He was told that the drilling companies have rigs available right now to go out and drill. He said if it was further out from where they are drilling now much of the infrastructure is in place and additional oil could be flowing in about 3 years and possibly in as little as 1 year.
I also looked into the reports that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba. I found this project had not started, partly because the nearest refineries are in the US and because of our embargo the oil could not be brought here. However, Bolling says there is talk of discussion between Venezuela and China and if this project starts there is fear that Cuba will be drilling a short distance from our southern coast and with new technologies they could be drawing out the oil from the vast reserves we are failing to utilize in the Gulf of Mexico that are near Florida.
Now, lets summarize our findings.
We need to manage transportation better which will help us manage fuel and energy supplies better. With increases in mass transportation, especially electric it allows us to distribute the fuel more efficiently and to have more options for the source of energy including nuclear power.
We can still alleviate the near term cost of energy by exploring new forms of energy which will help convince OPEC to reduce costs and increase production while we still need the commodity.
We can make greater use of our energy resources which will still be used to fuel our new mass transit investments.
One of the new prospects for biofuel is a new plant that grows in dry areas and could be planted and harvested along our southern border by hiring our neighbors. This plant seed will produce 10 times the oil in corn and could expand our resources. India, for example is planning 9,000 acres of the plant.
As you will see we are being misled by many for political purposes. We must bring a stop to this and pay attention to who is using earmarks inserted in bills without disclosure and review for the expenditure.
The main problem with our need for oil is our overuse of cars which are not an efficient means of transportation and requires delivery of fuel to the point of use. We all agree we want to clean up the planet but we cannot be blind to using our resources now as we develop new and better forms of energy. We have many prospects but it will take a few years to improve upon them so we benefit the most from the new innovations. One of the people who have been working constantly to help us see the value of improvements in transportation has been my own member of the House of Representatives, Congressman John Mica. He has been honest and straight forward and has not wavered from his objectives. It is my support of him as a fine individual that has stimulated me to study and try to contribute to your understanding of all the factors in affecting the high price of oil and fuel. I am trying to be non-political and hope you will see past the politics and look for the truth. If you have good knowledge of any of the items I discuss I would encourage you to help all of us by sharing your knowledge. We Americans are proud and resourceful and we can solve any problem we understand.
Thank you for your interest and assistance.
There are a number of things that will affect oil prices and you better be ready to accept part of the blame. If we do not realize that we are the main problem we are never going to resolve the issue.
The main cause of high oil and high gas prices is the law of supply and demand. We use too much and other parts of the world are using more so we have to recognize the problem.
High demand causes high prices because more people are bidding on the product, the world is not producing enough to meet demand and reduce prices and we will not allow drilling or construction of refineries. The suppliers of oil are holding back and maintaining a reduced supply so the price stays high. So first I will discuss how we can reduce demand.
Then I will talk about increasing supply. Then I will discuss finding alternatives. We will also look at the speculators. In the end I hope you will better understand that we have to do many things, cut back, develop mass transportation, find alternatives and for awhile increase our production and supply to help reduce prices.
There are forces at work trying to keep the price of gas high so we will use alternative sources. The alternatives have to be experimented with more to make them reach their potential so you and I are going to suffer while others play with pricing. If you want to do something about it you are going to have to study this article and maybe do some additional investigation. If you learn more that will help all of us please pass it on. Let us begin:
First there is the effect that you and I have. We are addicted to automobiles. A recent study of major addiction shows that we are most addicted to cell phones, then automobiles and then cigarettes and so on. Our addiction to the auto developed with the Model T Ford when it made most families a part of the success of the US by giving them independence and transportation at a price they could manage. We had arrived. Since 1909 we have been bombarded by the allure of the auto, right up to the current ad by Cadillac for the sexy gal asking if your car turns you on. I remember an article in the Portland, Oregon newspaper about how the car interests bought up the well operated trolley system and ran it badly until it went bankrupt.
We, you and I, need to support mass transportation. We need to push for it and we need to use it whenever possible, especially mass transit fueled by alternative power such as wind, sun, tide, nuclear power and standard electrical power. I have to place this as a high priority item because we can do things to lower the price of gas but the expansion of population around the world will continue to increase our need for gas and until we can develop alternative power we will continue to be short of production of fuel. We will also be expanding our highways and the dangers connected with them. We can expect to see massive enlargement of highway sizes in the near future. The efficient development of mass transportation and the efficient distribution of power to these transportation methods through electrical wires will be an advantage.
This is a long term solution but we must push for it now and we must start educating our children to pull them away from the worshipping of cars. It is reported there are 3 cars for every resident of Los Angeles, the average American Family owes a whole years salary in car payments, we are killing many people on the highways and we are destroying many pristine areas to make room for the highways.
You and I can also affect the price of oil by reducing our dependence on the automobile.
Second.
The cost of oil is controlled by many factors. OPEC Nations control production to maintain the longest and highest value of its finite supply of crude oil. One of our former national officials went to the oil producing nations and earned millions by showing them how to organize into OPEC and maintain maximum income. If we show we are serious about drilling and becoming self sufficient it will cause OPEC to reduce the costs of crude to where you and I will stop worrying about the cost of oil and worry more about a green earth. We are already causing concern because OPEC is considering some adjustments to production to reduce prices by increasing supply.
J. Boone Pickens who has made billions in oil and is considered to be the smartest man in the oil business recently told Neal Cavuto that world production of oil is about 20% below demand and that will continue to keep the oil prices high for a long time period.
In addition to the price created by supply and demand we have price increases caused by speculation. This comes under the discussion of futures trading. There are two factors you will hear about, one is the low margin required for trading and the other is the so-called Enron Loophole.
At the present time you can control the future price of oil by buying a futures contract at a market price. You must have good credit with a commodities broker dealing in the correct exchange location and place on deposit about 5% of the futures market value of 1000 barrels of oil. When oil was at $100 per barrel a market value of 1000 barrels would be $100,000. You could buy this unit and control it for a deposit of $8,000 (Includes 5% deposit and fees). As the price increased you could sell that unit for the market so when the price reached $130 per barrel you could sell that unit for $130,000 and would therefore earn $30,000 on an investment of $8,000. It looks easy but hindsight is wonderful so consider if that price had dropped to $90 your broker would be looking for an additional payment to cover the $10,000 loss. The risk is high and the losses can be staggering so keep in mind that if the market perceives that the price will drop owners of these futures units will start selling fast and the drop in price will be fast and many losses will occur. This is one of the reasons that starting to open more drilling locations will drive the nervous investors away and prices will drop. OPEC nations also point to the futures price and will price their commodity accordingly because they feel they should not get less than the futures price is willing to pay. The futures market usually evens out wide swings in prices and can be beneficial to the public. However, the margin should be increased from 5% and gradually increased to a rate between 30 % to 50%. This would reduce the number of traders who get involved for a quick profit during difficult times such as we are having now.
Also keep in mind that many prudent investors have stock investment programs and 401 K retirement programs that invest in these commodity futures. It tends to even out wide swings in the market except at certain times like we are having now and that could be controlled by higher fees.
We also have to look at the Enron loophole which allowed the commodity market to deal without federal controls. We really get involved in politics here because the bulk of the information explaining the procedure is encouraged by the election process. I relied upon Wikipedia and tried to get a non biased view but I also read the descriptions of some of those that have a political agenda and I must admit it is difficult to get a clear viewpoint. Better control is a legitimate argument that needs to be considered but is the control set up so that politicians can hold more hearings just to gain publicity? It might be better to require higher margins and let it go at that. If there are wrong doings by individuals investigate their activities but enlarging the power of our congress over areas they are not familiar with to gain political advantage is dangerous. I would like to see more information and clarity about this subject and possibly an investigative group of experts could study this and clarify the regulations and their procedures to the public. The Enron loophole came about when congress passed a bill restricting some investments practiced by Enron. The bill was studied by investors who soon learned it allowed them to switch futures trading to uncontrolled futures trading boards that were not controlled or open to inspection of the Commodities Board of Trade. Some very large groups began dealing in huge amounts of futures contracts and found they could control the price of many futures markets including oil. Recently the Congress passed another bill that would grant subsidies to farmers and the administration was opposed to this bill and wanted to veto it. Inserted in this bill was a patch to bring the futures markets back under some control. Congress had enough votes to override a veto but because there were several features in the bill you will see game playing and grandstanding before the public claiming who voted for and against the bill. It is cheap maneuvering which is used to confuse the public and gain votes at election time. We will see if this change in the law helps. Nothing has happened yet to the price of oil so maybe the new bill has some flaws in it also.
Another subject of heated discussion is the existing oil and gas leases that are not being utilized. I see estimates of 40 to 90 thousand acres of leases now in effect that are not being utilized. When I tried to find the reasons for this under utilization I had real difficulties. One side says they are not being used in order to drive prices up. The other side says the leases are in areas where there is limited gas or oil. Some have suggested swapping leases for new and more promising leases, others suggest fines for non use or cancellations. These discussions are troubling. In a time of concern for good business ethics our government has a made a contract and if it is a bad contract we have to honor it. But we have to find out why the leases are not being used. One study said most of the leases were purchased by oil companies because they were cheap and help build a better looking balance sheet showing valuable reserves. This helped with financing and stock sales. In another commentary I found statements by an economist with the oil industry that sounded plausible. He stated the leases were not considered productive enough to be profitable unless the price is high like now but there is fear the price will be reduced soon and that would make them unprofitable again so there is reluctance to invest in their development.
If there were some non political studies we might find a solution. It is very hard to solve a problem without a true definition of the problem. Certainly the ability to exchange leases for more profitable leases would seem in order with a stipulation in the new lease that development must take place within an agreed time period.
Should we drill in some of our pristine areas of the country? Most Americans feel we should. Others feel we should not and should wait until we have developed alternative forms of energy. I feel we must take some immediate corrective action to increase supply and reduce prices. We should also work on alternative fuel sources and new forms of energy. We should also support mass transportation for a longer term solution. If we use a stop gap procedure of bringing new oil supplies on line while we develop other forms of energy we will intimidate our present suppliers who will reduce their costs to keep us from having the need to develop our own resources.
One of the suggestions made is that we should tax excess profits of oil companies. Economists have made many studies of this subject and even affirmed it in the independent studies hired out by the Fair Tax group. They have found that corporations do not pay taxes, it is a cost of doing business that is reflected in their product pricing so the consumer ends up paying the tax. We might also look at the excess profits made by the oil companies. The reports are they show a profit of about 8% net taxable profit. Some companies selling high quantities of products work with 2% to 3% of profit, A 6% profit is about average but some companies related to banking and also sales might have profits in the double digits and some go as high as 25%. The oil companies are large and their 8% may be seem excess but talk to some accountants and look up profits for various types of companies and judge for yourself. Excess profits taxes will be passed on to the consumer and I do not find this a worthwhile or dependable system of trying to reduce prices at the pump.
Should we drill in ANWR? I have seen photos of the area to be drilled and it is not very pristine, it is a desolate coastal area as confirmed by satellite maps and photos taken by a former bush pilot in the area. Probably the biggest convincer to me is that if we buy our oil from a foreign company they could be destroying far more pristine areas and with much fewer controls than we use. We owe it to the world to develop resources with our technology and controls.
Should we drill off our coast?
Take Florida for example or Florida and California which controls the bulk of our total coastline mileage. As I ride along the coast my view is usually blocked by ugly condos and they are fighting to control the beach access around them. Now, many of these residents want protection for their view and their beaches from the rest of us who have to pay higher gas prices. You cannot see beyond 15 to 20 miles out to sea anyway so what is the problem? We have shown good control of our pollution and many benefits of tapping the oil reserves off the shore lines so lets do it.
I watched an interview with a person named Eric Bolling (an independent trader on CNBC and Fox Business channel) who called some drilling companies to see what the delay is in drilling and bringing on line additional oil production. He was told that the drilling companies have rigs available right now to go out and drill. He said if it was further out from where they are drilling now much of the infrastructure is in place and additional oil could be flowing in about 3 years and possibly in as little as 1 year.
I also looked into the reports that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba. I found this project had not started, partly because the nearest refineries are in the US and because of our embargo the oil could not be brought here. However, Bolling says there is talk of discussion between Venezuela and China and if this project starts there is fear that Cuba will be drilling a short distance from our southern coast and with new technologies they could be drawing out the oil from the vast reserves we are failing to utilize in the Gulf of Mexico that are near Florida.
Now, lets summarize our findings.
We need to manage transportation better which will help us manage fuel and energy supplies better. With increases in mass transportation, especially electric it allows us to distribute the fuel more efficiently and to have more options for the source of energy including nuclear power.
We can still alleviate the near term cost of energy by exploring new forms of energy which will help convince OPEC to reduce costs and increase production while we still need the commodity.
We can make greater use of our energy resources which will still be used to fuel our new mass transit investments.
One of the new prospects for biofuel is a new plant that grows in dry areas and could be planted and harvested along our southern border by hiring our neighbors. This plant seed will produce 10 times the oil in corn and could expand our resources. India, for example is planning 9,000 acres of the plant.
As you will see we are being misled by many for political purposes. We must bring a stop to this and pay attention to who is using earmarks inserted in bills without disclosure and review for the expenditure.
The main problem with our need for oil is our overuse of cars which are not an efficient means of transportation and requires delivery of fuel to the point of use. We all agree we want to clean up the planet but we cannot be blind to using our resources now as we develop new and better forms of energy. We have many prospects but it will take a few years to improve upon them so we benefit the most from the new innovations. One of the people who have been working constantly to help us see the value of improvements in transportation has been my own member of the House of Representatives, Congressman John Mica. He has been honest and straight forward and has not wavered from his objectives. It is my support of him as a fine individual that has stimulated me to study and try to contribute to your understanding of all the factors in affecting the high price of oil and fuel. I am trying to be non-political and hope you will see past the politics and look for the truth. If you have good knowledge of any of the items I discuss I would encourage you to help all of us by sharing your knowledge. We Americans are proud and resourceful and we can solve any problem we understand.
Thank you for your interest and assistance.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Fair Tax, Boortz and Congress
NEIL BOORTZ, THE FAIR TAX AND THE NEW CONGRESS
Recently Boortz disclosed on his program that a high level Democratic congressional leader is interested in the Fair Tax. It was also indicated this leader is interested in having the Democrats adopt this program in the new Democratic congress.
Until now, Fair Tax supporters have only heard that Nancy Pelosi, Democrat and the new Speaker of the House had told her group that they should not co-sponsor the Fair Tax bill.
The revelation by Boortz raises a couple of interesting issues for the hundreds of thousands of Fair Tax supporters.
Boortz wavered some on his support of those who had co-sponsored the bill in his comments about not supporting the Republican candidates. Boortz is a Libertarian and he would normally support a Libertarian candidate. However, he knows the Libertarian candidates do not have much of a chance and he often gives support for the conservative candidate as the less objectionable of his goals which is a smaller Federal Government.
This past election, he along with many voters were objecting to the wasteful add-ons to bills of pork barrel projects and many felt they wanted to teach the Republicans a lesson.
I have to wonder if Boortz decided not to support Republicans because they sat on the bill and looked more kindly on Democrats because they might adopt the Fair Tax. He wavered and had differing viewpoints at various times. If the possible Democratic support did influence him, then he was suppressing his ideals of the Libertarian Platform in favor of the concept of the Fair Tax. Boortz had difficult decisions to make.
A second issue is the support of the Fair Tax by existing Republican co-sponsors when the leadership changes. It is believed that many would support the concept thus giving the Democrats a victory in their new platform of the “most ethical congress” and the support of the working person because the Far Tax helps the low income worker.
What would happen if the existing Republican Congress brought the bill forward for a vote? What would the Democrats do? If they voted against the bill, then passed it later when they took control they could receive some objectionable publicity of playing politics. If they passed it later they could make a small change in the bill stating they had overcome some objection.
When the bill is passed, the reaction by the lobbyists will be intense. Because the presidential election of 2008 is so important for the Democrats to win, they will not want to lose the financial support of the lobbyists so I doubt if it will come up for a vote until after the 2008 election.
If it does come up the members of congress will do the usual. They will look for an issue that they want to change in the bill. An issue sponsors cannot agree to. Then they will delay their votes to see what type of support it has. If it passes they will then vote yes or no depending on their need for financial support from lobbyists. If it does not pass they can then add their vote, yes if they can gain mileage, or vote no if it does better for them financially and then in the new year they can pass it with a slight change and claim it is a different bill.
In any event, the voting decision will be made about what is best for the survival of the congressional member. Seldom is the best interest of the voter considered and that is the level of politics in our government.
What this country needs is reform of the campaign finance system and stronger restrictions of special interest group influence. All interests must be heard, but the role of congress is to protect the best long term interests of the citizens. Often this coincides with the best long term interests of commerce and that is part of the Republican philosophy. But one side cannot be granted excessive power that will corrupt the leaders of our nation.
Recently Boortz disclosed on his program that a high level Democratic congressional leader is interested in the Fair Tax. It was also indicated this leader is interested in having the Democrats adopt this program in the new Democratic congress.
Until now, Fair Tax supporters have only heard that Nancy Pelosi, Democrat and the new Speaker of the House had told her group that they should not co-sponsor the Fair Tax bill.
The revelation by Boortz raises a couple of interesting issues for the hundreds of thousands of Fair Tax supporters.
Boortz wavered some on his support of those who had co-sponsored the bill in his comments about not supporting the Republican candidates. Boortz is a Libertarian and he would normally support a Libertarian candidate. However, he knows the Libertarian candidates do not have much of a chance and he often gives support for the conservative candidate as the less objectionable of his goals which is a smaller Federal Government.
This past election, he along with many voters were objecting to the wasteful add-ons to bills of pork barrel projects and many felt they wanted to teach the Republicans a lesson.
I have to wonder if Boortz decided not to support Republicans because they sat on the bill and looked more kindly on Democrats because they might adopt the Fair Tax. He wavered and had differing viewpoints at various times. If the possible Democratic support did influence him, then he was suppressing his ideals of the Libertarian Platform in favor of the concept of the Fair Tax. Boortz had difficult decisions to make.
A second issue is the support of the Fair Tax by existing Republican co-sponsors when the leadership changes. It is believed that many would support the concept thus giving the Democrats a victory in their new platform of the “most ethical congress” and the support of the working person because the Far Tax helps the low income worker.
What would happen if the existing Republican Congress brought the bill forward for a vote? What would the Democrats do? If they voted against the bill, then passed it later when they took control they could receive some objectionable publicity of playing politics. If they passed it later they could make a small change in the bill stating they had overcome some objection.
When the bill is passed, the reaction by the lobbyists will be intense. Because the presidential election of 2008 is so important for the Democrats to win, they will not want to lose the financial support of the lobbyists so I doubt if it will come up for a vote until after the 2008 election.
If it does come up the members of congress will do the usual. They will look for an issue that they want to change in the bill. An issue sponsors cannot agree to. Then they will delay their votes to see what type of support it has. If it passes they will then vote yes or no depending on their need for financial support from lobbyists. If it does not pass they can then add their vote, yes if they can gain mileage, or vote no if it does better for them financially and then in the new year they can pass it with a slight change and claim it is a different bill.
In any event, the voting decision will be made about what is best for the survival of the congressional member. Seldom is the best interest of the voter considered and that is the level of politics in our government.
What this country needs is reform of the campaign finance system and stronger restrictions of special interest group influence. All interests must be heard, but the role of congress is to protect the best long term interests of the citizens. Often this coincides with the best long term interests of commerce and that is part of the Republican philosophy. But one side cannot be granted excessive power that will corrupt the leaders of our nation.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Help Wanted in Congress
MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Salary range is $168,500 to $212,000.
A generous office budget is provided.
Generous retirement benefits, up to 80% of base salary.
Your duties will be to represent your state for 6 years as a senator or represent the citizens of your district for 2 years. You may run for reelection at the end of each term.
The citizens who elect you expect you to give their needs and safety the highest priority. If you place the wishes of lobby groups or those who offer large contributions above the voters you might not be re-elected.
You are asked to understand and believe in the constitution of the United States and support its directives and in rare cases update them.
You are expected to hold hearings and pass legislation that will remove the influence of large cash contributions and lobbying pressures on members of congress. You will evaluate the possibility of federal financing of campaigns.
You will hold hearings and find ways to reform the complex federal tax code.
You are expected to speak truthfully to your constituents and not mislead them with statements that benefit you or your campaign at the expense of constituents.
When you approve increases in your retirement above $11,000 per month remember the people who voted for you must exist on $1,000 per month.
You will show respect for the office and conduct yourself in a manner that is of the highest standards.
To apply, register with your local office of the political party you prefer. If you do not receive support from your party, help us to elect members who agree to the above principles and this will force your party to recognize your ideals.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
.
.
.
CAN WE IMPROVE CONGRESS OR JUST BASH IT?
There always seems to be something about the hallowed halls of congress that disturbs us. We blame everything on the President but congress has a lower approval rating than he does.
I am most concerned with the way the members of congress raise money to finance their campaigns and have been outspoken about it in my blogs.
If we can seriously do anything about the problem we must study it and understand it. This week Bruce Bartlett wrote a very educational article for Townhall.com titled “Evolving democracy” and it explains the background of congress from the intent of the founding fathers up through current changes. It is an easy short read that I really enjoyed and if you have interest in the government you will want to look this over. Go here: Evolving Democracy
If you start reading previous postings of Mr. Bartlett you will find him very interesting. He also writes for the Washington Times and is an author. He is a conservative, he understands what he believes in and he is dedicated to his cause. I have mentioned before that my great grandfather was a member of the grass roots movement that founded the Republican Party for the primary purpose of ending slavery. We are a large party and try to appeal to enough voters to gain influence and often must soften our conservative ideals to at least slow down the opposition. Sometimes our thinking gets cloudy and Mr. Bartlett can always be counted on to help us think through and clarify conservative objectives. We need Mr. Bartlett and must support and encourage him.
.
.
CAN WE IMPROVE CONGRESS OR JUST BASH IT?
There always seems to be something about the hallowed halls of congress that disturbs us. We blame everything on the President but congress has a lower approval rating than he does.
I am most concerned with the way the members of congress raise money to finance their campaigns and have been outspoken about it in my blogs.
If we can seriously do anything about the problem we must study it and understand it. This week Bruce Bartlett wrote a very educational article for Townhall.com titled “Evolving democracy” and it explains the background of congress from the intent of the founding fathers up through current changes. It is an easy short read that I really enjoyed and if you have interest in the government you will want to look this over. Go here: Evolving Democracy
If you start reading previous postings of Mr. Bartlett you will find him very interesting. He also writes for the Washington Times and is an author. He is a conservative, he understands what he believes in and he is dedicated to his cause. I have mentioned before that my great grandfather was a member of the grass roots movement that founded the Republican Party for the primary purpose of ending slavery. We are a large party and try to appeal to enough voters to gain influence and often must soften our conservative ideals to at least slow down the opposition. Sometimes our thinking gets cloudy and Mr. Bartlett can always be counted on to help us think through and clarify conservative objectives. We need Mr. Bartlett and must support and encourage him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
