This morning the Speaker Pro-Tempore limited One-Minute Speeches to five per side of the aisle.  Today five Democrats stood to speak, while only three Republicans stood to speak.  I am not offering exact quotes or transcripts of each speech, just a brief synopsis of the topic.  Any personal comments or opinions will be held to the bottom of the post.

1.  Peter DeFazio, D-OR
Congressman DeFazio suggests that Secretary Paulson's bail-out solution is the wrong approach, and suggested that adding a transfer tax to every transaction held on Wall Street would be a better solution.

2.  Joe Wilson, R-SC
Congressman Wilson reminded us that going all the way back to 1989 congressmen had stood on the floor and issued warnings that an eventual, massive government bail-out would be necessary if Fannie Mae continued taking on risky loan practices.

3.  Dennis Kucinich, D-OH
Congressman Kucinich said that "industrial capitalism can finally now be destroyed as it becomes replaced by casino socialism...", refering to the practices of investment banks on Wall Street.

4.  Lamar Smith, R-TX
"The Media can't help themselves in showing bias against Republicans..." when reporting on events such as last-night's debate, citing that after all, they have given to Obama's campaign at a ratio of 20:1 compared to their giving to any Republican campaign.

5.  Joe Baca, D-CA
Congressman Baca spoke to encourage support of HR-62, a support-bill for Native Americans.

6.  Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
"It has become painfully clear that Americans should not have to suffer through the years of pain which will follow a bail-out of Wall Street".  She also said that there are "smarter ways" than a bail-out, and that bail-outs thus far have not worked.

7.  Ed Perlmutter, D-CO
The Bush administration and their NeoCon philosophy have constantly insisted on cutting back regulation with a borrow-and-spend policy.  The party is now over.  Thank goodness we didn't agree to privatize Social Security.

8.  Mazie Hirono, D-HI
"I have been shocked to hear some putting the blame on minorities for the current mortgage crisis, citing their participation in the Community Re-Investment Act..."  "...This is a distraction from the fact that this administration relaxed oversite..." Basically, she say's there's no way that those who participated in receiving loans as  aresult of the Community Re-Investment Act can be attributed any responsibility in the crisis, but that it's all the administration's fault for not enforcing oversite.

My personal comments:
While Mr. DeFazio thinks that placing a tax will somehow restore the banks' liquidity, I don't see how a bankrupt institution can be healed by further restricting its cash flow.

My praises to Joe Wilson for offering some historical perspective.

Ms. Blackburn, have you given us a solid plan that would offer a better solution, or can you do nothing more than criticize the solutions that have been offered thus far?  I certainly appreciate you standing up and speaking, and I encourage you and your colleagues to continue to do so - but please do offer viable solutions along with your criticism.

Ms. Hirono is confused.  No one has blamed minorities, but they have blamed the loosened restrictions caused by the CRA and insisted on by liberal politicians.  Actually, those blaming the CRA and liberal lending policies of Fannie Mae are actually putting the blame on the same thing she is - a lack of restriction and oversite.  The only question is, who really insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be encouraged to offer mortgages to people who might not be able to pay them back?  Who runs the committee that has oversite in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Who placed those people in that committee?  Was it the Bush Administration?  Do some research, then come back and tell us the truth.

Again, I'm disappointed that Republicans only filled 3 of their 5 slots.  Please, write, call, and encourage your Republican Representative to stand up and address the House Floor each morning.

Late this morning Sen. Barack Obama left Washington with the intention of attending tonight's scheduled debate at the University of Mississippi.  John McCain, however, is apparently undecided as to whether or not he will attend.

In an address Wednesday, Senator McCain suggested that the debate be postponed until after a solution deal to the current financial crisis is agreed upon by both houses of Congress.

I strongly urge Senator McCain to attend the debate tonight.  The ammunition against him will be much stronger if Sen. Obama debates an empty chair than it will be if he leaves Washington for a few hours to debate Obama.  Regardless of his decision the media is likely to paint McCain as weak and unfit, so at this point his best course of action is to attend and have his voice heard on these important issues.

I've been watching the House convening lately, and paying attention to the One-Minute Addresses.  Each morning when the House of Representatives convenes there is an opening prayer and each side of the aisle is then allowed to offer One-Minute Addresses on any topic of each speaker's choosing - usually ten speakers are allowed from each side.  I haven't been able to find a record of these addresses, so I've decided to offer highlights here. 

I don't type fast enough to transcribe the addresses in their entirety, but I will give a brief statement to the topic of each address.  I'll make every attempt to offer just a synopsis of what each speaker said without offering any opinion on their comments.  If I do offer comments, I will do so at the bottom of the post rather than mixing my comments or opinions with their statements.

This Morning, Friday September 26th, 2008,  the House convened at 9am, and Speaker Pelosi limited the One-Minute Addresses to five from each side of the aisle.

1.  John Yarmuth, D-KY
Congressman Yarmuth say's the current financial crisis is the fault of the current administration, specifically George Bush, for allowing a game of monopoly to be played on Wall Street.  He said the only goal of Republicans is "to end up with the most money", and they don't care how it affects people or neighborhoods.

2. Ralph Regula, R-OH
Congressman Regula congratulated the body for supporting the expiration of the moratorium on OCS drilling.

3.  Peter DeFazio, D-OR
DeFazio say's we should make Wall Street pay to bail out itself.

4.  Joe Wilson, R-SC
For the second time this week, Joe Wilson spoke about the need to pass an "all of the above" energy plan, including increased oil extraction & production, solar, wind, clean coal, and other sources of domestic energy.

5.  Jim McDermott, D-WA
Rep. McDermott opened by calling the current financial crisis "The Administration's financial crisis", then want on to explain how Republicans pushed for a greedy plan to hand social security over to Wall Street and that Wall Street would somehow wave it's magic wand and everything would be okay.  He say's that the current crisis shows us how Wall Street's magic wand really works, and said, "It's time to declare the magic-wand solution officially off the table".

6.  Judy Biggert, R-IL
Congresswoman Biggert say's we need a plan that offers Wall Street a "work out, not a bail out".

7.  Brad Sherman, D-CA
Congressman Sherman stated that the House had passed over $500 billion in bail-outs so far and that so far they have had no impact.  He went further to say that George Bush "wants us to hand Wall Street $700 billion in unmarked bills", and say's that there is no evidence that the $700B would have any impact either.

8.  Virgina Foxx, R-NC
Virgina Foxx say's it's time to work together accross the aisle and come up with a bipartisan solution to the financial crisis.  She said, "There is blame on both sides of the aisle, but most of the blame lies with the current Majority for their years of spend, spend, spend...".

9.  Sorry, I didn't see his name - D
McCain is part of the Washington gang that caused this financial crisis, and McCain should not be president.

Well, there you have it - do you notice something?  There were only 9 people who stood up; five Democrats and four Republicans.  This is typical, unfortunately.  Democrats usually fill all their available slots, and most of them offer speaches about how whatever current problem is at hand is entirely the Republicans' fault.  Very few offer solutions.  The Republicans who do stand up and speak usually promote a new solution - like Joe Wilson continues to do with regard to energy - or honor someone from their home district.  Every day that I've watched, the Republicans have not filled all their available slots, but the Democrats have.

Please, call or write your Republican Congressman and urge - nay, insist - that he or she stand up and fill these slots, using this time to offer some truth to the floor.  These addresses are entered into the Congressional Record, and it's important that all viewpoints are offered.

In one comment on another blog, someone asked "So, tell me how repealing that stupid law created loans to people who could not afford it", referring to the refusal to regulate Fannie and Freddie away from risky loans.

The loans people could not afford were created this way.  FB & FB offered "no doc", "low doc", and Stated-Income mortgages to people who had high credit scores.  In fact, I have a stated income loan myself that initiated 3 years ago.

Conventional mortgages require you to submit tax return and financial statements, proving your income, so that brokers could decide the risk level of loaning you the money you're asking for.  Furthermore, you would typically be required to put 20% of the value down in cash.  Due to Democratic legislation, mostly during the Clinton years, these restrictions were greatly loosened, and there were products made available to the market such as 100% Loan-To-Value (LTV), meaning you didn't have to put anything down whatsoever, Stated-Income loans, meaning your income would not be verified, No-Doc and Low-Doc loans, meaning you would not be required to submit tax returns or other proof of income - sometimes not even proof of employment.  These products were more scarce at their onset, because institutions knew they were risky, but as the housing market began to rise with the influx of investor money more and more of these products came available and were easier and easier to get.  Seriously, all you needed was a 720 credit score and you could ask for, and qualify for, a No-Doc Stated-Income 100% LTV mortgage.

So here's how does that create a crisis?  Go back 4 years and consider a very common scenario.  A house that was worth $125K 2 years ago is now worth $265K.  You're thinking of selling and upgrading, but your income level wouldn't permit you to buy a $325,000 house.  You had a strong credit score, so you could just do "stated income", stating that you make $250,000 a year whether you do or not.  Then, you take a 3/1 ARM starting interest only for the first five years, because you COULD afford the interest-only payment, $1,700 a month for the first 3 years.  After that, it would convert to an ARM & you'd start paying principal.  But you're thinking, this house was worth $200K a year ago & it's worth $325K now, so in 3 years it'll probably be worth $5 or $600K or even more.  If I can't make the $2,700 payment when the loan converts I'll just sell it & pocket the profit.  Well, foreclosures started, loans got harder to get, so values started dropping, and now that house is only worth $200K.  You can't afford the big payment, and you can't sell to get out of your loan, so you're stuck... you struggle along for a year or so, hoping things will turn around, but you start missing payments and soon you're in foreclosure with no other options.  The bank can't even do a short sale because after closing they'll only get $190K or so on their $320K investment.  You entered a risky venture and it didn't pay off in the end; it goes that way sometimes.

Multiply that scenario by several hundred thousand because now you're in the same boat with up to 5% of the nation's home-owning population, and that risky move is now causing the paper that guarantees those loans to loose value.  When the brokers can't sell the paper, they can't raise cash to start new loans, so they become insolvent.  That's where we are now - your risky loan was sold to a clearing house, but now the market doesn't want your paper because of the risk, so the money stops moving.

So now enter what we're calling the "bail out".  Actually, I wouldn't even call it a "bail out" so much as an "investment".  We're not handing a blank check to failed banks to make them solvent again... not at all, actually.  The idea is to reserve as much as $700B to buy the paper on those loans & get some cash back into the system.  Then, once the market re-stabilizes, the paper can be sold back into the market, most likely for a profit.  So the Fed becomes the holder of the paper on your loans.

See, it's really not that complicated... take a look at a $265,000 mortgage.  The bank bought your loan, and passed the money to the entity from whom you bought your house.  You enter a contract with the lender for, say, $1,700 a month for the next 30 years.  The total sum of payments after those 30 years will be $612,000 (add all the payments together - 30years X 12 months X 1700/month).  So, the value of that "Paper" (your loan) to the bank is $612,000.  Well, that's a fairly long-term until they get a total return-on-investment, and they need more cash to keep handing out new loans.  So, they sell the paper on your loan to another house for $400,00 - giving them back the $265K they invested in your house plus a $135K gain.  Then, your monthly payments now go directly through to the new entity.  Well, the fund that bought the paper for $400K might need more cash to do the same kind of thing again, so they might sell that $612K worth of paper to another entity for $450K, making a $50K profit.  And on and on. 

But now we're in a quandry because the foreclosure rate has the fund-holders and the market nervous, so they're not so willing to buy the paper anymore.  That trickles right down to the banks, and the cash stops moving, so eventually the banks have no more cash to hand out in new mortgages.  They sold most of their paper, so they also don't have enough monthly cash coming in to cover their operation.  Now they have to cut back, and some disappear.

Making some sense?

Thank you, Ann coulter, for pulling out a few more inconvenient facts...

"the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.

When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."

Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.

A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.

In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.

Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats."

What the?  Does anyoone else watch the one-minute addresses of the house each morning?  When are Republicans going to start getting in line and fill their 10 spots and talk about more than honoring some athlete back home?  Dem after Dem stands up and declares how this whole financial crisis is the Republicans' fault for their insistence on limiting regulation.  Does everyone really forget history the minute it happens?

I need to research more on this and find more facts, but what I do remember is McCain standing on the floor and insisting that Fannie and Freddie be reigned in before a disaster strikes.  Then the Dems INSISTED that we allow Fannie and Freddie to do whatever they want because they were allowing opportunity for lower-income families to afford better housing.

Thanks to Louise Hertzog who provided the following after Harry Reid accused Bush of 'Fiscal Dereliction of Duty'...

White House warned congress 17 times about problems with Fannie and Freddie

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

Yesterday Sen. John McCain invited Sen. Obama to put partisan politics on hold, go back to Washington and discuss a solution to the current financial crisis.  Obama declined, saying that he was "in touch" with leaders in Washington, that he would be there "if they need him", and that he would "talk with his people".  He supposed it would be best to remain on the campaign trail and press forward with the debate, saying "the American people need to hear from us".

Okay, fine, but truly, after so many years we already know exactly where John McCain stands.  In fact, it was Sen. McCain who, only a few years ago, stood on the Senate floor insisting that something be done to reign in the wreckless lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  But I digress.

My problem with Senator Obama's response and statement is this - he is a current-sitting SENATOR, and he has a job to do.  If he wants to be seen as someone who is capable of leading this great nation, then he should be taking initiative and showing leadership in the job he ALREADY HAS.  It seems he believes the job he was hired by the people of Illinois to be a candidate.  I would be extremely disappointed if he were from my state, and would be insisting that he stop posturing and do his job.  From his statement yesterday, it seems to me that he would rather let someone else do the work, discuss the ideas, and offer solutions, then he will remotely review the suggestions and decide whether or not it is worthy of his vote or his criticism.  Waiting for other people to solve your biggest problems while you criticize their efforts is not leadership in any form.

If the American people don't catch this and realize what it is they'd be voting for, then maybe they do deserve someone like Obama and Biden as their "leader".

For the last several days I've been closely watching the U.S. House to see what is being done about the market situation.  I'm no senior economist by any stretch, so I'm listening and considering all sides in this matter, but it seems most agree that the best move is to go forward with a "bailout".  Well, today the House decided that if President Bush wasn't going to come in person and explain to them all the details of the package he expects them to create that they would simply fall back on their status quo - Do Nothing. 

I hear that a $700B "blank check" would be a very dangerous thing to hand the Secretary Treasurer without serious oversight, etc.  Yet, today did anyone notice that a >$650B spending package funding the wars etc. was passed with very little said? 

Now, I'm sure we needed that legislation passed post haste as well, but it just seems odd to me how we fuss so excessively over one $700B issue and almost silently pass a $650+ measure.

Whatever is to be done, it's definitely time to stop politicizing the most important issues and get something important done - like maybe a mandate to get us some more oil ASAP.

Is this presidential race truly Senator Barack Obama's to lose?  Has Senator Barack Obama's bid for the Whitehouse truly suffered its greatest loss due to Sarah Palin's entrance on the scene?  Perhaps, but I'm not so sure that her seemingly powerful, party-uniting charisma tells us the whole story.  Gov. Palin's "entrance" to the scene may not have done that much to change the popularity of Sen. Barack Obama.  While it certainly has had some effect in bringing Republicans, and apparantly even some moderates, out of the woodwork and back to paying attention, I'm not so sure Sen. Obama's popularity didn't simultaneously fall away all on its own.

Please, let's remember the recent history of the last few months.  Sen. Hillary Clinton was fast gaining ground in the primary campaign, taking several states away from Obama toward the end.  In fact, if the early caucuses in Michigan and Florida would have been admitted and polled properly, that is, with everyone's name on the ballot and with applicable campaigning having been done by all relevant parties, there's a good chance he wouldn't even be the Democratic nominee.  Not only is the U.S. nearly evenly divided between the right and the left, but the left was also nearly evenly divided between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton as their choice.  In fact, most people expected and predicted the DNC to earn Sen. Obama's campaign a 10- to 15-point bounce, but even though the announcement of Gov. Palin wasn't made until the day after the DNC ended the campaign simply did not see numbers anywhere near what was expected.  It's just too easy to get lost in the emotions of the moment and make judgments regarding cause and affect, but if we consider the history of the Democratic primary, including Sen. Obama's numbers versus Sen. Clinton's and his numbers right through the DNC, you might just draw a slightly different conclusion.  Outside the pop-culture elites, such as Oprah and Matt Damon, Sen. Obama's popularity was already fading among the left before Sarah Palin was ever announced as Sen. McCain's Veep choice.

While the Sarah Palin factor may be piling more dificulty atop of the already struggling campaign, I can hardly credit that alone for Obama's current slipping in the polls.  Regardless of the cause, I think we can now more accurately say that this presidential race between McCain and Obama has suddenly somehow become Sarah Palin's race to lose.

With Hillary Clinton nearly winning the nomination for president of the United States, and so many progressive-thinkers insisting for so many years that a woman's place is not in the kitchen, is anyone else shocked by the fact that the strongest attacks against Gov. Sarah Palin are so tightly focused on the fact that she has children? 

The first strong objection released in the press was that Gov. Palin has a young child, just four months old, who, with Downs Syndrome, has "special needs", and this makes her unqualified to fill the position.  Six months ago if someone had told you that a woman was running for one of the top executive offices in the United States but was meeting strong opposition based on the fact that she is a mother of a special needs child, without knowing any other details would you assume that it was Democrats making such comments, or would you have assumed that the candidate was a democrat and, based on your own mindset's stereotypes, that the opposition was coming from the "religious right"?  Even I may have said the latter, but, being among them, I have some insight that those of the left just can't understand.

The second (non)substantial objection came when the public was informed that Gov. Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.  Her opponents in the media insist that this must disqualify Ms. Palin from filling office because a pregnant, teenage daughter must run completely against the values on which people like Ms. Palin stand.  Of course, Barack Obama himself immediately renounced the attacks and insisted that a candidate's family should not be used in this way, but I don't see that he had any choice since it only opens the door to question his own family since he himself was conceived in the womb of a teenage girl.  Still, the ridicule from that announcement is so entrenched that even today on C-Span it's still being discussed whether or not a woman with a pregnant teenage daughter is ready for the office of the vice president.  This one truly confuses me, because the same media insisted so adamantly that the sex life of the then-current Democratic president was none of our business.  His own adulterous affair was not a matter that should be dragged into the public forum because his personal character has no affect on how he manages his office as president.  Yet, now, it IS fair game to drag the sex life of the DAUGHTER of a candidate into public ridicule.  How is that in any way consistent?  It's not acceptable to question the sexual misgivings of the president, but it is right to condemn the sex life of a candidate's daughter?

Media airwaves and pages have been filled with comments suggesting that this "woman" should be at home with her children.  Even Sally Quinn posted the unbelievable words, "Her first priority has to be her children", along with a list of reasons Palin is not qualified including "She is the mother of five children", "a four-month-old with Down Syndrome", and "Not to mention the grandchild".

I have been shocked by the media and the hypocrisy of the left in this matter, but I can see the truth of the matter.  It's not a matter of whether a woman has children and still wants a career, or whether her daughter is less than perfect to her own standards.  No, it is, in fact, a matter of bigotry.  Webster.com defines a bigot as ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance".  The reaction to Governor Palin's personal life by the left exposes an uncomfortable truth about their character; they aren't truly interested in empowering women, they aren't truly interested in equal rights for all, and they aren't in the least concerned with the well-being of the individual family.  If they were, they would have not brought up any of these points about Palin and her family other than to praise her for her perseverance during such real life events, but the evidence in this matter shows that they are not driven by the values they purport at all.  Instead, they seem to be driven primarily by their hatred for those whose values differ from their own, for those whose values they so obviously can't begin to understand.

Can someone explain in realistic, practical terms how raising gasoline taxes and further increasing the price of motor fuel will help my family and business survive the immediate future? While I would love to see every American family drive electric-powered vehicles and have solar and/or wind power plant(s) on their own property to keep the vehicle charged, the fact is that such alternatives are simply not currently affordable to the average family or small business. In fact, the current high gasoline prices make it even that much more difficult for families or businesses like mine to commit any resources toward such an alternative.

While the “we can’t drill our way out” crowd say’s increasing the price at the pump is the best solution to “curing my addiction”, unlike recreational drugs, gasoline is a necessity to the daily operation of both my family and my business. Intentionally increasing the cost will not lessen the need for the resource. I cannot simply decide tomorrow to pour water into my family cars' gas tanks instead of gasoline; the cars run on gasoline. I’m all for alternative energy, but you and I need something that can help our families today.  Raising taxes and further increasing the already overly-burdensome prices will do nothing to help in the short term and will probably devastate the possibility of being able to afford alternatives in the future. If there were viable, cost-comparative alternatives available today the situation would be different, but these people’s “financially punish the gasoline addicts until they quit using” “solution” will only break the back of every middle-class and low-income American family, as well as put a very high percentage of small businesses into bankruptcy. Until there is a viable, reliable, cost-comparative alternative to gasoline that I can use to fuel my vehicles without having to make a new five- or six-digit investment, there is no way the American family OR the American small business can afford such a ridiculous “solution”. If we can’t even afford the fuel, how are we expected to afford purchasing alternative-fueled substitutes that are currently available only in small quantities, are unrealizable, bear more than twice the cost of the vehicles my family currently drives, and have maintenance costs comparable to the total cost of our current vehicles?  I simply can't go out and spend or even borrow $40,000 for a new hybrid car that will only increase efficiency from the 28 mpg my '98 Avalon gets to the 45 mpg they promise, then have to come up with another $12,000 in two years to replace the fuel cell after it stops functioning.

Imagine the reality of such a hypothetical scenario. Obama has taken the Whitehouse, and such an energy plan has been implemented. Higher taxes and further-reduced supply have caused the average price of gasoline to increase to $8.00 per gallon. Since, like 287,000,000 other Americans, we don’t live in NYC, DC, or LA, the current availability of public transportation is not practical for our transportation needs (we just don't have an extra 2-4 hours a day to spend sitting on buses). With both of us working and our two children going to school, we are required to drive a combined 284 miles per week. With two family vehicles getting an average 28 mpg, we use an average of 10.12 gallons of gasoline per week, which would cost $81.14 each week or $4,219 per year. Obama’s solution is that if our “addiction” is punished this harshly it will motivate my family to replace our passenger vehicles with alternative-fuel vehicles, but now that the price of gasoline is so high, the resale value of our current vehicles will have plummeted. Furthermore, with the short supply of and increased demand for alternative-fuel vehicles, the price of those vehicles will have skyrocketed, while the cost savings will come nowhere close to covering the increased maintenance costs much less the initial investment.  With a budget already pressed beyond the breaking point and our investment in our current vehicles a complete loss, the money to purchase alternative replacements simply does not exist. It’s just not possible in any way, so our budget will naturally shift to focus only on the essential needs in order to continue being able to get ourselves to work. Being typical of most American families, this will cause retail numbers to plummet in double-digits each quarter. As retailers continue to lose money, their coffers will quickly dry up and retail stores will start closing their doors.  Shopping malls, as a result, will have more and more empty retail spaces, and will be forced to lower their rent, decreasing their revenues.  Once the property owners' revenues have fallen below their costs and the property owners’ coffers are depleted, the mall properties will become vacant, graffiti-covered eye sores on our land. Let your fingers walk through the yellow pages and look at what types of businesses are in your area.  Landscapers, for example, rely on fuel, and increased fuel costs will force them to raise their prices.  As families shift budgets to focus only on essential needs, they will no longer be able to afford to support such businesses, and the reduction of money spent by average Americans on products and services other than gasoline will cause other small and medium sized businesses to lose revenue, fall into bankruptcy and disappear, along with the jobs they provided. With nationwide revenues through the floor, businesses closing, and unemployment through the roof, tax revenues will plummet as well. Money simply won’t be there for social programs or “check-in-the-mail” relief programs, so deficits will increase and government programs will fail and disappear as their budgets are reduced. Within a very short period of time America would move from a slow economy to a full recession to a complete depression, and even the “almighty” government will no longer have the resources to help. The only possible endgame of this energy “plan” is a complete devastation of our economy, and a complete collapse of our society’s lifestyle. 

The only viable immediate answer is absolutely to increase the supply of the resource upon which our current infrastructure relies... oil.  The futures market will immediately respond based on the promise of increased supply, and the market price will drop. The only way to realistically accomplish that in the near future is to increase production. Then, once we’ve stabilized the market to a price point that leaves American families and businesses with surplus resources, we can use our surplus resources to develop and even reward alternatives to the point that they can be competitive with current products, and, over time, people will naturally switch to these alternatives.

I've read and heard the U.S. presence in Iraq referred to lately as an "occupation".  I have a huge problem with this use of the term, because nothing could be further from the truth.
I think those who use the term have a deep misunderstanding of the word's true meaning.  There is no current occupation, and there never really was.  Nazi Germany occupied Poland; the Nazis went in with force, overthrew the current government, and took control of the country.  Jews and anyone who spoke openly against the Nazi regime were arrested and hauled out of the country, losing their identity and every right as a human being.  The laws of Nazi Germany became the law of that region, and the population was expected to submit to that law or be punished.  Poland, like other occupied nations, remained under such German control until it was liberated and returned to local control by the allies.  That is a true example of "occupation", and, unless you consider a government elected by the people or the Baathist's coup in 1968 to be "occupation", it hasn't happened in Iraq in recent history.  Perhaps it would have been better if it had - Iraq, the 51st state - but it didn't go that way.

With regard to the "Iraq war", the U.S. was a part of a larger coalition, although they certainly were the leaders of the campaign.  The then-current government, Hussein's regime, was overthrown and the feared leader removed, but the U.S. did not take political control of the country.  Instead, the U.S., along with the rest of the coalition, immediately began working with local figures to build a new government put in place by the local populace.  It was even an all-Iraqi court and jury that tried Sadam Hussein.  Today Iraq has its own publicly-elected government in place, creating law, keeping law, and running the nation in earnest.  Iraq has its own armed forces, local police, emergency services, social systems and programs, etc.  The U.S. and coalition presence in Iraq today is nothing more than a peace-keeping force, in place to assist Iraqi forces in protecting its people and the government they elected.

In fact, the "Iraq war" was won 10 weeks after it began.  It then shifted completely to a peace-keeping presence to protect the local populace against radical terrorists who can't stand the idea of a self-governed populace.

Hello, and welcome to my newest corner of the web.  While I've spent much time reading others' posts here on Townhall.com, I haven't, until now, set up a way to share my own thoughts with the world.

If you'd like to know anything particular about me, leave me a message or comment, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.