Nazi Pelosi has already promised to slap new taxes on energy. So even if the price of crude drops, the price at the pump may not.

Remember that old saying:

VOTE REPUBLICAN, IT'S LESS TAXING!
 

I can feel the windfall (AKA windfall taxes) breeze coming in November if she does become Speaker.

Remember the old Democrat slogan:

VOTE ONCE. VOTE OFTEN.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Mike, show me where Pelosi has said we are going to "slap new taxes on energy."

The fact is that oil will fluctuate, but the longer term trend will be up. Simple supply and demand - with the continued industrialization of China and India and the long-term instability in the Middle East we will see continual rising prices over the next decade.

A realistic energy policy - one that actually works toward America's energy independence - will have to come by providing tax incentives and funding for new energy alternative technologies. The way to pay for this is to cut some/all of the billions in tax credits and federal subsidies that the oil companies currently get.
 

You can go to Nancy Pelosi's freakin website to see that she supports Winfall Taxes Rob.

http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=1266
 

You are showing her response to the 2006 Republican budget. So what? The 2007 budget is upon us.

But, let's be clear. Are you for energy independence and federal funding of energy research?

If you are, then how do you expect to pay for it? We don't just print more money.

The Dem agenda (you can look it up on the DNC website) calls for removing some of the billions in tax subsidies and tax credits that are given annually to the oil companies. They have record profits - I don't think they will go bankrupt if they don't receive a couple of billion in tax subsidies.

If you don't like the Dem agenda with respect to paying for energy independence research, what do you propose?
 

I am not for federal funding of energy research, and I would have nothing to do with it as a State Senator so that's not my call.

Also, those record profits come after years of nearly going bankrupt. Like you said before, "The fact is that oil will fluctuate, but the longer term trend will be up. Simple supply and demand".
 

I want to know your personal position on energy independence. Since you want to criticize the Dems, what is your position?

Also, what are you talking about with respect to bankruptcy for oil companies? When do you believe that Exxon or any other major oil company was near bankruptcy.

I just looked up Exxon's numbers. They have issued a dividend for decades, they had over $11 billion in profit in 1997 and $36 billion last year.

I did not look up numbers before 1997, but am fairly confident that if they have been giving dividends going back to at least 1970 then they haven't been near bankruptcy during that period.

Please educate me on Exxon's bankruptcy.
 

I never said anything about Exxon, but a lot of smaller ones did back in 1998 when the crude was at $18 a barrel I beleive it was.

I can't educate you on Exxon, because there is nothing to educate you about; of which, is the reason I never mentioned Exxon.
 

That's news to me. The industry has always been profitable. It is just that now they have record profits.

I am sure there were some closings, because every industry has closings even in boom times. This is because of poor management - not because of environmental conditions.

So what is your position on energy independence?
 

I beleive that we need energy independence, but I do not support the government being in charge of it.

That sounds like facism when the government runs private business.
 

I don't like bureaucracy, and I think we could get rid of some of the government departments already in place... I would start with getting rid of the department of education.

I do not want to grow the government any further by putting it in charge of energy independence.
 

So you want to get rid of the U.S. Dept. of Energy? You must not realize the the nation's energy policy is already led by the President and the federal government.

Since you don't want to grow government any more, you must be really disappointed in the fact that under George W. government spending has grown by about $1 trillion, or about 55 percent - far more and far faster than Clinton's 8 years.
 

Rob, are you OK right now? Can you see very well? First it was Exxon and now the energy Department.

I never said that we should get rid of the energy department.

I said that we should start with getting rid of the EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

I also do not beleive that the GOVERNMENT should grow any further than it already is, and that includes a government run independent energy development. I think that private companies should be running the drive for independent energy.

Also, I am not very happy with the growth of the government under the Bush Administration, but it was primarily for Defense and in the wake of one of the worst national disasters our nation has ever seen.
 

I know what you said, but you seem to not understand that the government already has a Department of Energy that is funded by taxpayers to manage the nation's energy policy - including energy independence. Go to the Energy Dept.'s website and read up on it - it is clear you don't understand how our nation's energy policy is handled.

You are absolutely wrong about where growth in spending has gone. Bush has increased the military budget, but he has increased domestic spending at a record pace also - NCLB and Medicare Part D are two huge new entitlements. When you look at dollars - new domestic spending dwarfs new military spending. You can look at the President's budget figures at OMB yourself, but the Cato Institute (a conservative thinktank) has a good summary analysis:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

OK, let's talk about the Education Dept. I assume you think Bush's NCLB program is a waste. What would you do with college loan guarantees and the Pell Grants? Do you want to eliminate the block grants that go to poorer states to fund public education? Being in South Carolina, I would think that would have a huge impact on your state's public education system. Somehow I doubt that would be a good position to take as a candidate.
 

Rob, I am not the idiot you cast me to be.

I realize that the there is an Energy Department, and I do not want them to spend billions more on what PRIVATE corporations can do more effectively.

I also do not agree with Part D of Medicare, but that is neither here nor there.

Rob, you are trying to corner me into Democrat talking points with the NCLB, and you can try that out on someone else.

As you can probably tell by my website that I am running for the State Senate, and I would have no affect on any of this, but it is my opinion that the Bureaucrats in Washington DC should not tell a School in South Carolina how to teach. I beleive that the South Carolina Board of Education would do a better job of it.
 

OK, so you don't want the Energy Dept to spend billions of dollars more on energy independence. Why don't you call for the abolishment of the Dept. of Energy then? I am asking for your opinion as a citizen not as a legislator - you made your opinion known about the Dept of Education.

That is fine, I agree with you that NCLB is a foolish program (NCLB puts Washington standards on local districts and withholds federal dollars for those districts that do not comply - what you clearly abhor by your last comment).

But if you want to abolish the Dept. of Education, how do you propose that South Carolina get its block education grants to help pay for public education? How should Pell grants be delivered to college students so they can go to college? Or are you saying that that federal funding should be eliminated?

I am not trying to paint you into a corner, I am asking you a legitimate question. You want to get rid of the Dept. of Education, but South Carolina and its students are direct beneficiaries of significant federal funding provided by the Dept. of Education (as are all states).
 

I don't think that we need to get rid of the Energy Department, but restraints on Government interference with private business is what I do support.

There is a ton of money wasted between Washington DC and South Carolina as appropriated through the bureaucrats in the Education Department.

I am not saying that we need to stop funding for education: just get rid of the middle man in Washington DC.
 

I am not sure what interference you are referring to, and I don't understand how you would send taxpayer dollars for education (particularly block grants and Pell grants) without "the middleman." You need to ensure accountability for the money so someone needs to know where the money goes.
 

I think that we need to minimize the government, not expand the government Rob.

The taxpayers dollars will still go to the States, but without bureaucrats getting involved.

I think they could buy a nice new computer system that will decide where the money goes instead of 1000's of people getting paid to push a piece of paper around to different offices in DC.

I would suggest that the system would account for individual states needs, and automatically set the standards for contributions to the individual states block grants, pell grants, expansion, improvements, and etc...

I just don't think that the current system is working properly, and as I have said many times before... I want a smaller government.

As for the Energy Department... I would phase out the NNSA I think its called, and integrate them with the Department of Homeland Security or dissolve them into the Energy Department instead of having a seperate entity.
 

That is cool. But if you truly want that then you should be looking for real change in Congress and in the White House. This administration and do-nothing Congress have exploded government spending - mostly in discretionary domestic spending, not the military.

Over the last 6 years they have increased the federal budget (i.e. spending) by about $1 trillion per year. We have gone from about $1.7 trillion in annual government spending the last year of Clinton to about $2.7 trillion for the coming fiscal year. And that does not include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which are done as supplementals to the budget.

http://robsobs.blogspot.com/2006/10/us-government-spending.html
 

I can assure you Rob that I am not proud of the spending, but I also do not want to stop building our defense.

There are a lot of ways that I think we could cut back, and I have provided a few ideas, but in the viewpoint of a prospective State Senator I can only do so much.