$5 a gallon gas...or more.

So the last time we had a run on oil and the price per barrel was about $140 it was because people were greedy and the economy was strong(ish). Today the run on oil is a result of something even more powerful. Fear.
World events are on the brink of worse than chaos. Revolution in countries that the world economy relies on for its life-blood is anything but good. Libya generates a relatively small amount of the world supply of oil but the instability there and elsewhere in the area has given rise to speculation that Saudi Arabia could experience a revolution ala-Libya and Egypt. If that happens (and this is where the fear comes) all hell breaks loose. Between the fear of things that may or may not happen and the fear of things that are actually happening the price of oil is going to keep going up. Combine this with increased demand as a result of marginal improvements in the world economy (not so much in the USA...but elsewhere) and we have a real chance of things getting out of control. I recently saw an article saying we could see $15 a gallon gas. While I'm not sure about the idea of "peak oil" I do believe that the markets respond to world events.
So the next question...is this still Bush's fault?

Related articles

• "Gas Could Hit $5 Per Gallon Amid Continued Instability" and related posts (autoguide.com)
• $8 A Gallon Gas On Its Way? (theundergroundconservative.wordpress.com)

Wisconsin is about so much more than money

Tea-Party anger looks mild compared to a bunch of people looking at being forced to pay for benefits that most tax-payers are paying for themselves and for the union folks. I'm not saying that the unions are over paid and under worked. Union workers pay taxes. Unions don't...but the people they represent at the bargaining table do so I don't have any problems with union workers. The problem that we're seeing in Wisconsin is on the front of things about money and collective bargaining. The reality is that it's about so much more.
Wisconsin is in debt up to its eyeballs and the amount that they're talking about in this collective bargaining and the savings from the concessions they're asking for are a proverbial drop in the bucket. So no it's not about the money. The problem is that the unions represent a political funding source of the Democratic Party and as a result this is between the Democrats and Republicans and the battle for state and national dominance.
I'm not going to elaborate on who I think is right in this particular battle but I am going to say that I think unions have had their day...their advocacy for the people they represent is now way beyond the reality of protecting rights and ensuring safety. The days when unions represented fairness in the workplace are gone. Now they represent entitlements that put states and employers (GM, Ford, etc..) in a position where the majority of their overhead is covering items that most non-union employees pay for with their own money. By pitting tax-payers against other tax-payers they're creating a type of class warfare that has no winners, middle-class versus middle-class. The result is that the political classes further divide the country and the voters keep us in a stalemate the generates no improvement in our fiscal situation and thus doom us to a world where the greatest country in the history of the world falls the way of Rome. Is that what we want? Do you agree with me? Is there a way out of this spiral? Do unions need to fall in order for the Republic to stand? I don't have the answers...just my opinion. Share your opinion in the comments section below.

Related articles

• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warns of layoffs as unions step up efforts - CBS News (news.google.com)
• Beyond Wisconsin, This Could Be the End of Labor Unions (dailyfinance.com)
• Wisconsin governor doesn't budge on anti-union bill (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

How does Obama win a second term?

Recently there was a poll that showed Obama losing a second term in office. It got me to thinking of what it would take for Obama to win in 2012. I realized that it really won't take much. He just has to do as little as possible to put himself in the battles of the House and Senate. As long as he doesn't interject himself into the legislative process he's going to seem like he's neutral and the uninformed voters will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Obama is no dummy. He's going to appear to be outside the fray and as a result it will be the Republican's who are struggling to demonstrate results after getting the "will" of the people. When they fail to do that because the Senate shoots down everything the House passes the Republican's will be forced to try and make Obama the fall guy in order to pull off any kind of win in 2012. That's going to be a very hard thing to do if Obama manages to keep his mouth shut.

So now the pressure to stop Obama is on the Republicans. How do they manage the legislative process and defeat Obama in 2012? The road is perilous and involves finding their candidate for President early and unanimously. There needs to be a consensus candidate that emerges in the next 6-9 months and he/she needs to have universal support by the Tea Party faithful, and the GOP stalwart, while appealing to those who aren't socially conservative but want to see America with a path to fiscal sanity. Right now that candidate hasn't come forward. In addition to that they will also need to demonstrate that they can get democrats in the Senate to pass legislation that falls in line with Republican promises. There's almost no chance that happens if Obama doesn't want it to happen. His power in the Senate was seen when they managed to pass the Healthcare overhaul against all odds. So Obama is going to have to walk a fine line of influence in the Senate and neutrality in the process. He needs to create a strong backbone in the Senate while not appearing to be the brace that keeps them from bending. If he manages that, I don't see him losing against any of the Republican front runners unless things gel behind one candidate.

Tell me how you see Obama in office in 2013.

GOP Cost cutting deep

The GOP recently revealed their plan to cut $2.7Trillion in spending over 10 years (Yes that is a T). Does this mean we're on our way out of our national financial problems? Not if the Democrats have anything to say about it and they will have something to say. Without a majority in the Senate the GOP efforts to bring fiscal sanity back to the country are symbolic. What that really means is they already know this and they are going as dramatic as they can to try and build public support. The problem is that it's almost as likely to backfire as it is to help them. Of course the staunchest Republicans are going to support them in any and all of the cuts they've detailed. The problem is that while the independents got them into office on the promise of fixing the economy and bringing down the debt the reality is that they are just as likely to balk at some of the cuts that have been proposed. The GOP knows this and proposed them anyway forcing the dialog with the Democrats and if the Republicans are careful they can show "compromise" and still win...if they're not careful they'll stick to their guns and fail miserably and be accused of being "too partisan". This is an opportunity for our country to get back on track and perhaps dig out from the holes that were dug over the last 6 years. If the Republicans can navigate this tricky political maneuver and bring up a legitimate Presidential candidate they have a decent shot at saving us from the whims of China and our other creditors. Don't hold your breath though.

Related articles

• Will the GOP Deliver on Spending Cuts? (reason.com)

"itty bitty" political affiliations

I was reading a recent article on the Boston Herald (linked from Drudgereport.com) about Senator Brown in a Martin Luther King Jr. address and found it to be quite interesting in its implications. First of all the reason it was on Drudge is because it would raise eyebrows within the furthest Right of the Republican party. Many of them would be concerned that he diminishes his party affiliation and gives the impression that he is someone who could be a target of the Democrats in close votes. This is a valid concern since he has been one of the more malleable Republicans since taking his position in a shocker election last January. While many would see this treating his party as an after thought as a problem I see his speech in the larger context.
He was promoting the seating for the State of the Union address coming soon. Seating that forces Democrats and Republicans to sit next to each other is a great political symbol. The voters in general are fed-up with division and partisanship and even a relatively pointless symbolic gesture like this is going to speak to the populace. A strictly adversarial attitude as both parties have demonstrated lately is not going to get the public the results they expect. Republicans are in control (for now) because they offered hope that the spending, Obamcare, and deficit would be addressed and the sooner that Democrats embrace that the sooner bipartisanship can begin. Senator Scott Brown is trying to demonstrate to Republicans that the most important thing that they have to bring to the table is themselves and not their party affiliation. The "itty bitty" R or D that tells us the "team" they're on is not something that should exist because they're all on the same team America's team. It's about time they demonstrated it less in rhetoric and symbolic gestures and more in actions that benefit the country.