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.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a pristine piece of land.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a barren piece of land full of mosquitoes and other bothersome bugs.  Which statement is true?   Both of them are.  Opponents of expanded domestic drilling use only the first statement to jin up support for their side.  What they don’t tell you is that Area 10-02 in the Coastal Plain north region of ANWR is described by the second statement while the first statement only refers to the southern part of the Refuge.  The oil is located in the northern Coastal Plain area where mosquitoes abound.

Don’t believe me?  Check out the below video.  Luke Puckett and his trusty aide Jack Flock were trying to do a quick YouTube shot for the folks back home when they had to cut it short thanks to a swarm of mosquitoes that was trying to eat them alive.  

 

Ten years ago we were told that it would take ten years to get the oil out of ANWR and onto the market. Today we’re told that drilling for oil in ANWR is not really much of a solution because-you probably guessed it-it will take ten years for that oil to reach the market. This argument is rather handy for opponents of domestic drilling because it allows them to eliminate a solution that they don’t like simply by inserting an amount of time between the discussion at hand at when the proposed solution is expected to take affect. In part they are relying on you to forget ten years later when the problem is still around that you mentioned the same solution before-ten years ago.

But does it really take ten years before that oil can reach us and provide us with the relief that we need? Luke Puckett wanted to find out, and here’s what he learned:



Looks like the ten year argument was another one of those myths that seem to cloud the debate about whether or not we should drill for domestic oil.  Hopefully, however, this campaign and Luke Puckett can help clear away some of those myths.

Standing at the airport waiting to board his flight to Alaska, Luke took some time to reiterate why he’s on this trip and why Joe Donnelly isn’t the right choice for Hoosiers tired of high gas prices.  Time after time Donnelly has voted against domestic drilling.  Time after time Donnelly has effectively voted to keep Hoosiers hostage to Middle Eastern oil.  We simply can’t trust Joe Donnelly to put politics aside and America first on the issue of lower gas prices and real energy independence.

This week Luke is in Alaska leading a group of congressional candidates from around the nation on a trip to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  The purpose of the trip is to draw attention to the fact that we need to drill for domestic oil if we are going to lower gas prices and ease the burden imposed on many Americans by our nation’s over-reliance on foreign oil.  Throughout the trip Luke is doing short YouTube videos talking about where he is at, what he is doing and what he is finding out as he talks to energy experts, environmental experts, and average Alaskans. 

If we can replace Joe Donnelly’s anti-domestic drilling vote in Congress with Luke Puckett’s pro-drilling vote, we’ll begin to see a shift in how Washington approaches the issue of high gas prices.  Second District Hoosiers need somebody who will talk about real solutions and not simply repeat the latest party talking points.

In a few days Luke will be heading off to Alaska with several other congressional candidates to tour the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in order to draw attention to the fact that we need to drill for domestic oil. With gas prices at a record high, and with a significant amount of our oil coming from foreign countries that are sometimes hostile to our interests, Luke believes the time has come for us to declare our energy independence and begin drilling for American oil.

When he’s out talking to people about the need to drill in ANWR, the Gulf Coast and elsewhere, one frequent question that comes up is how much land it will take for drilling operations in ANWR. The answer is that only 2,000 acres out of ANWR’s 19,000,000 acres will be used for drilling and support operations. For a comparison, the state of Indiana is roughly 23,000,000 acres.

The 2,000 acres that we need to access for drilling operations are located on the Refuge’s northernmost section known as the Coastal Plain. This area is not the lush and beautiful part of the Refuge that tourists are often familiar with. Instead of green mountains, blue rivers, and pastures teaming with animal life, the Plain is home to bugs and hardy grass plants and vast spaces of nothingness.

To get an idea of what drilling in ANWR would be like, check out the below chart.