John McCain has announced his support for offshore drilling to tap petroleum sources which have been known for years. In 1981 the federal government prohibited states from allowing petroleum extraction offshore due to environmental concerns. In light of today’s technology which can reassure us that the environment is safe, even with oil wells in the sea, this moratorium looks silly. In light of the need for the US to be free of dependence on foreign sources of oil, this moratorium looks completely ridiculous.

Predictably, Obama has made fun of the whole idea. He continues to chant the mantra that development of additional resources only enriches evil oil companies. Obama would like to see all free enterprise ended, so any enterprise, be it oil or sliced bread, is anathema to him. He has no idea that additional oil in the marketplace would benefit all Americans for three big reasons: 1) developing the offshore oil resources available to the US would reduce our need to buy oil from other countries, always recognized as a good thing; 2) additional oil in the marketplace will work within the economic law of supply and demand to reduce the price of crude oil and ultimately the price of a gallon of gasoline, a beneficial outcome for every US citizen; and 3) any new profit for oil companies will enrich the retirement funds of millions of US citizens who are stockholders in oil companies, a very beneficial outcome. Obama also doesn’t care if this action would work with the law of supply and demand, or if stockholders would make money to support themselves in retirement. Obama is a socialist, so he has no regard for free enterprise or the freedom of citizens.

Support for offshore drilling is only halfway to a fully sane energy policy. McCain still needs to support drilling in ANWR as well. And while he is at it, he needs to support exploration and development in the Arctic, because if we don’t take action in that area soon, we will find ourselves forever shut out of mineral rights there. Many other countries, such as Russia, have already started looking for any minerals which might be found in that remote, frozen seafloor. It is completely short-sighted and stupid for the US to miss out on the benefits of exploration there.

And, oh, by the way. If we don’t drill offshore, that does not mean that there will not be offshore drilling. In collaboration with Cuba, the Chinese are preparing to drill off Florida’s coast right now. If the US wants the petroleum in the reserves under the sea off our coasts, the US needs to drill and recover it. It will not be allowed to sit there until we are good and ready. While we are dithering about the possibility of some environmental disaster if US companies drill, countries who could not care less about an environmental disaster off the coast of the US are going to drill and extract that oil. We can either get busy and get in on the action, or we can let other people do it, which means that we will need to buy that oil from other countries instead of buying it from our own domestic companies. Does this make sense? No. Absolutely not. It is a complete boondoggle.

Enabling US companies to drill for oil off the coast of the US is only half of the right solution to our oil problems. But hurray for half way. I am happy to see even a hint of progress in the right direction. I intend to let John McCain know how happy I am to see him take this position, and I hope you will do the same.

We citizens need to speak up, speak out, and shout in the ears of everybody in the federal government: Drill here. Drill now. Achieve energy independence for the USA.

Drill Here! Drill Now!

Back in the era of the Great Depression, our newly-elected liberal Democrat President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, proposed and persuaded Congress to pass the Social Security act. He thought that old people should have something to live on in retirement. All the speeches people heard at the time made them believe that if this act passed in Congress, each worker in the US would have his own retirement account where his withholding tax plus his employer’s match would be saved to fund his very own retirement. What a boondoggling lie that turned out to be.

In fact, the payroll tax is plopped regularly into the budget money of the US to prop up activities that might otherwise not get done. The payroll tax is simply one of many sources of money which the Congress slurps up to fund whatever it darn well feels like.

Only in recent years, with the predicted failure of the Social Security promise, have we taxpayers fully realized what a lie it was that Roosevelt told. When I first learned about Social Security in high school history, I truly and actually carried away the image of a little savings account somewhere with my name on it. Oh, I had never even held a job at age 15 when this image hit my consciousness, but I looked forward to it. I wasn’t alone. Lots of people my age thought we had something to look forward to. We were faithfully paying that payroll tax. Our employers were faithfully paying their part. Congress wouldn’t lie to us, would it? Ha. Of course it would.

During George Bush’s first term, he proposed that we start fixing this problem. Bush proposed that a small percentage of the withholding tax be invested in a private account that actually did have the worker’s name on it. President Bush suggested that a small amount of money invested in a well-managed mutual fund would grow over a worker’s lifetime to an amount that would belong to the worker, be a real benefit during his retirement, and be an asset that could be passed on to his heirs. What a great idea! Instead of 7.3% of every paycheck going to Washington to be used who knew how, some of that money would go into an account with the worker’s name on it, and that money would belong to the worker until the day he died. Liberal politicians opposed this idea with the argument that it was simply a ploy to enrich Wall Street investment counselors.

Today, if you log on the Obama website and go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/#strengthen-retirement you can see Obama’s proposal to help people prepare for retirement. You will see that he proposes that every employee have a retirement account that he funds by depositing something every payday. Obama includes a provision that allows the employee to opt out, but whether the employee opts in or out, one thing is sure: his entire 7.3% payroll withholding tax still goes to the government for whatever purpose the government chooses. The employee pays just as much as if the promise of Social Security were real. All Obama is doing is creating yet another government requirement. The employee is still out 7.3% of his gross pay. Obama only offers more pressure to save money over and above that 7.3% that supposedly goes to Social Security. In other words, the government currently steals from employees and employers at the rate of 7.3% for each paycheck, but that has resulted in no money for people to live on in retirement. So now we will compel people by law to save for retirement, and we will set up a bureaucracy that will monitor and supervise this requirement and it will produce a neat form the employee can sign if he chooses not to participate.

Obama is clearly a liberal politician. If we had some doubts before, we have no doubts now. He has come up with yet another way to reduce the amount of money a worker takes home after working hard all week.

Please do not think that I oppose the idea of a worker saving for retirement. I believe it is a wise move for anyone. I just don’t think the government has any authorization in the Constitution to require people to do it. The Constitution envisioned a voting population who were all adults who took responsibility for themselves. If they wanted to save for retirement, they could do so. Even in the benighted days of yore, before Social Security, the employee who wished to accept the discipline of saving for retirement could do so. Even without the government requirement, any employee today who wants to save for retirement can do so. It is a free choice anybody can make.

Liberal politicians seem to believe that nobody will accept the self-discipline of saving for retirement unless the government requires it. In fact, liberal politicians don’t believe the voting public has the sense to make any decisions without government instruction. We can’t decide to take care of our medical needs. We don’t know what to eat or how much to weigh without the government to tell us. In addition, we can’t and won’t plan for retirement unless the government pushes us to put some money into a real retirement account even though the government has been taking 7.3% of every paycheck for as long as any of us has been working ostensibly for our retirement.

I applaud retirement planning, but I don’t applaud a government requirement on that subject. If the government begins to tell us we should save and we must sign a paper to say we don’t want to, then the next step is to tell us we don’t have the option not to. Then we must save a certain amount. Then we must save more. Then we must pay a fee to some government inspector whose job is to make sure that we save what we are supposed to save. When the camel of government sticks its nose under the tent, it does not stop until it is sitting in our laps eating bonbons that we have been required to provide.

I will not be voting for Obama in the fall. I will vote for John McCain. I am not sold on John McCain’s commitment to personal freedom for all, but I intend to make sure he knows that is what I expect. I hope a lot of other people will give him the same message. We cannot afford a socialist in the White House. We must not elect Obama.

We don't have the best choice, but we do have a choice. I will vote for John McCain.

   Conservatives are seriously in need of a voice and a leader in today’s election. The Republican candidate for president, which should be the conservative leader, is a better liberal than either prospective Democrat candidate. I know this to be true, because my best liberal friend has said that she loves McCain. It isn’t just my opinion that he is committed to a liberal agenda; liberals see the same thing. I know that I will vote for McCain because he is the Republican candidate. I could not possibly vote for either of the Democrats still in the running. McCain is my only choice I will vote for him with serious reservations. My politically liberal friend will vote for him enthusiastically.

   What are the principles I seek in a conservative candidate? I look for a commitment to the US Constitution, and very particularly, I look for a commitment to the principle that the federal government is entitled only to powers listed in the Constitution; it is not entitled to claim and exercise other powers for any reason. I look for commitment to low taxes, because that is the natural expression of a commitment to limited powers. Finally, I look for a commitment to free enterprise. The economic engine of our prosperity is free people risking their own fortunes on the possibility that they can provide products and services other people want.

   I also look for a well-educated candidate, and I consider an education in the scientific method to be critical. The scientific method is a discipline scientists use as they look for the answers to questions in the physical and biological realms. It is the method that must be applied to studies, models, and hypotheses used to describe the climate of the earth. A candidate who understands the scientific method will not accept hysteria and political agendas as science.

   I test this concept by looking at a candidate’s statements about climate change. Al Gore and an assortment of green environmentalists are pushing a political agenda based on some weather facts over a period of about 100 years of weather records. They allege that they can assert the following:

   ·        The earth’s climate is warming, and the rate of warming is increasing

   ·        The warming can be precisely attributed to human activity which increases the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

   ·        Humans can slow or perhaps reverse the warming by reducing the levels of CO2 they put in the atmosphere

   ·        CO2 levels can be managed effectively by buying and selling carbon credits.

   So this is my first dive into political blogging. I welcome any comments, disagreements, complaint, and even compliments if you feel so inclined.