By: Doug Roth

Speaking in Elkhart, IN last week, Senator Barack Obama unveiled his energy plan for America at the Concord high school gymnasium. Our Senator Evan Bayh, who may be on Obama’s short-list for VP, was on hand to introduce his liberal colleague to a community devastated by the energy crisis through job cuts in the struggling RV industry. The speech offered by Obama was similar to many of his recent engagements, with a central theme of vilifying “big oil.”

Senator Obama’s plan focuses on massive amounts of spending, relying much too heavily on increased taxes for so-called “windfall profits.” It includes plenty of government mandates on the types and amounts of fuels America will pursue and employ in the future; yet another instance of liberal Democrats deciding what is best for you. Additionally, Obama seems to think, as does Joe Donnelly, that in order to reign in skyrocketing fuel costs, we should penalize those that provide our energy.

The centerpiece of Obama’s energy plan is undoubtedly the “windfall profits tax.” Despite a profit margin that is considerably lower than other industries such as pharmaceuticals or software, many left-leaning politicians have placed a large target on oil companies. Even though economic models show that taxes are always passed on to consumers, Obama and the Dems think that higher taxation will somehow alleviate the price you pay at the pump. Where is the logic in this? Disincentives such as these will only lead to lost tax revenue for the government and less energy for Americans, as providers scale back to avoid penalization.

Obama’s long-term energy plans are not much better. Although he has recently relented to the overwhelming support for offshore drilling, it is painfully obvious that any new exploration or extraction of oil will be so heavily regulated that the investment would be nearly impossible to justify. Furthermore, the “use it or lose it” approach to existing leases by oil companies will result in even more lost tax revenue for the US government. If the investment in extraction could be justified, these leases would be producing energy today. Finally, Obama’s cap-and-trade policy on emissions will greatly hinder the US economy by placing unnecessary regulation on American industry. This policy initiative would be of great advantage to competing industries in developing nations like China, India, and Brazil.

My absolute favorite Democratic energy policies are “responsible” drilling and “safe and secure” nuclear. These promises of safety, security, and responsibility imply massive regulation and oversight in the unlikely event that such avenues are even pursued by the Democrats in Congress or Obama. As far as I know, no one is pushing for reckless drilling and negligent nuclear. The technology exists for an American energy industry that can operate efficiently without government interference.

Barack Obama’s energy policy is wrong for America. Even more distressing for 2^nd district Hoosiers is the fact that our Congressman, Joe Donnelly, has chosen to endorse Obama despite Senator Clinton’s victory in the Indiana primary election. Joe Donnelly could learn a thing or two from other Democratic superdelegates such as Pennsylvania Rep. Christopher Carney, who said that “Pennsylvania’s 10th District overwhelmingly chose Senator Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary and I will respect their decision.” Even Utah Democratic Party official Helen Langen, responsible to no constituency, chose the high road, stating, “I feel an obligation that my vote reflect the way Utah Democrats voted. Most of us didn’t expect to find our votes mattering so much this time.”

After pocketing $7,500 in campaign contributions from Obama’s HopeFund PAC, Donnelly has once again shown blatant disregard for his constituency by offering his support as a superdelegate to Obama, flawed energy policy and all. Donnelly sure is an “independent voice” in Washington; independent of what the 2^nd district of Indiana elected him to do. It sort of makes you wonder who else is buying Joe Donnelly’s votes.

By: Doug Roth

Back in April, Joe Donnelly announced his plan to lower gas prices by about 25 cents. All the local news stations covered the story, and on April 24, 2008, Donnelly even sent an open letter to President Bush with his plan for “immediate relief.” Donnelly and his liberal colleagues in the House of Representatives eventually got their way, but has anyone noticed a drastic drop in prices at the pump? I surely have not. The reason is because Joe’s relief plan was to suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which would bring about 70,000 more barrels of oil to market per day. Sounds like quite a bit of oil until you take into consideration U.S. demand is nearly 20,000,000 barrels per day. Suspending SPR shipments is just a drop in the bucket, a plan that University of Notre Dame economist Tom Gresik claims will only have an impact for “about 5 days.”

So what was the impact you may ask? Well, the bill passed, and shipments were suspended on July 1. On June 30, oil was being traded at $139.96 and gas was at a nationwide average of about $4.14. One week later, with an extra 70,000 barrels of oil per day, gas was at $4.16 and oil was $141.37. Some relief, Joe! In fact, oil was trading above the June 30 levels for more than two weeks beyond the suspension of SPR shipments, and gas did not fall below $4.14 for three weeks.

When will Joe Donnelly and his liberal friends finally accept the concept of supply and demand? Like it or not, oil drives our economy, and although we must work to change that, it is not going to happen over night. With no immediate substantial change in the demand for oil, it is essential for us to increase the supply of oil by pursuing increased domestic production. Increasing the supply of oil by less than one half of one percent through suspension of shipments to the SPR is not relief. It is a political gimmick used to make Joe Donnelly appear to be concerned with your painful experiences at the gas pump.