A week late but...

Finally catching up with some of my reading and came across Scott Johnson's annual post about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and specifically Lincoln's scathing rejoinder of July 10, 1858. Lincoln spoke in response to Douglas' speech the previous night. He had no word processor, no team of writers, and certainly no teleprompter, put he penned and delivered a speech for the ages. Worth reading again even if you've seen it a hundred times:

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty---or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,---with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,---we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood [16] that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men---descended by blood from our ancestors---among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe---German, Irish, French and Scandinavian---men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they havePage 500 a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric → ← cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of ``don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down,'' for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---``Hit him again''], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in [17] whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not [18] another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which wePage 501 find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---``me'' ``no one,'' &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of ``no, no,''] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

And another thing...

Rain has made for a lazy day indoors today, and I wanted to revisit the notion I brought up earlier of CAFE standards and the government directing product strategy.

The argument seems to be that the Big Three has been terrible at choosing what people want (not making enough small cars) and perhaps the U.S. Government can force them to do what consumers have wanted all along..

It's true the Big Three made few small cars and loads of bigger and bigger SUVs. They also profited handsomely from the practice because consumers bought up the behemoths like hotcakes - not because there were no alternatives, but because they wanted large vehicles and gas was cheap.

Obviously, the manufacturers were ill-prepared for a sharp increase in gas prices. It was always a risk, and in hindsight it was one that was managed poorly. But that's what capitalism is: you take risks and you may profit or lose your shirt.

I have a little something to do with product strategy at my company. I have made LOADS of mistakes along the way. Perhaps I should be fired too. But I believe my successes have far outweighed my mistakes, and I've learned and been humbled where I have not succeeded.

It's pretty hard to admit that you were wrong and change course. But organizations do it all the time. What happens when government gets it wrong though? How easily does a politician reverse course? How easy is it to detangle the web of red tape that has already been woven by a well-intentioned but short-sighted regulation? From healthcare to energy to automobiles, we're about to find out.

I suspect that we'll learn, a day late and several trillion dollars short, that maybe market forces don't work so badly after all.

Arguing for CAFE with out an argument

Look, America. It's time we all say this together: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." As I mentioned earlier, we seem to be either unable or unwilling to look beyond the tips of our noses to see how whatever it is we're doing now is going to play out in the future. Today's case in point: New CAFE standards for automobiles.

Let's back this up and proceed deliberately here. What are CAFE standards? Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were imposed on automakers in the wake of the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s to help reduce fuel consumption by automobiles. The idea, of course, was to force automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. It worked, but with a wrinkle. Fuel economy standards were broken out by type of vehicle. "Average fuel economy" is actually a fairly complicated formula, not a simple arithmetic mean, but that doesn't much matter to the purposes of this discussion. The end message for the automakers was not that each vehicle had to be more efficient, but that the fleet as a whole and each category of the fleet had to be more efficient.

So if your passenger cars have to get more efficient in a hurry, what's the easiest thing to do? Drop the least efficient vehicles for starters. It's not exactly coincidence that the large station wagons of yesteryear disappeared right before the large SUVs of today. The stubborn fact that would not change is that millions and millions of Americans have families, sometimes large families, and families have stuff, and all of those bodies and their associated stuff needs to get transported to and fro. Of course SUVs are not passenger cars and therefore do not hurt the average fuel economy for that line. A large SUV is no more fuel efficient than a large station wagon, but automakers met their CAFE requirements. Again, the perverse incentives and unintended consequences of regulation and not thinking beyond Stage One.

Well here we are again, with our government poised to save the world and our wallets by mandating much higher standards by 2016. Alan Reynolds of the Cato institute recently wrote a compelling summary of the problems inherent in the new regulations. Reacting to it in yesterday's Wall Street Journal are Rob Kleinbaum and WalterMcManus, affiliated with RAK & Co. and the Automotive Analysis Division of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, respectively. Unfortunately for Kleinbaum and McManus, the editors must have eliminated all of their arguments, because the resulting piece refutes nothing in Reynolds' article and introduces new laughable assertions that makes one wonder just who it is they think they're trying to fool.

When CAFE was first introduced in 1975, there was a sharp increase in vehicle fuel economy within a very few years, despite the industry's protests that it would not be possible. The success of the initial CAFE rules despite these protests was a major wound in the industry's credibility.

Well let's look at that. I doubt automakers actually said it couldn't be done. But they may have said it couldn't be done without radically changing the types of cars that rolled off the assembly lines. How do you make these dramatic increases in efficiency in just a few years? There are two main options: you decrease power and weight. Computer-controlled fuel injection would help a great deal in later years, but the emasculated, shortened Mustang of the era is the poster-child of the trade-offs necessary for fuel-efficiency.

The thing is, we don't want to step on the gas and have to wait to go anywhere. Most of us don't want to drive around in death-trap toasters.

But here's the one that gets me:

Increasing fuel efficiency of the fleet does not mean simply switching to smaller vehicles. Cars and trucks of all sizes can be made more fuel efficient by a series of technologies from materials to power trains. Further, domestic manufacturers benefit more than importers because a major competitive disadvantage has been removed.

First, it's fairly dishonest. Yes, there are small improvements that can be made to the internal combustion engine, but those are not the sort that will be needed for the gigantic leap required by the new CAFE standards. Hybrid technology is not going to get us all the way there either. Raising fleet averages to 35.5 mpg is going to mean very harsh things. It means larger cars will simply not be available. Smaller cars will have to be even smaller, lighter and slower. Fuel economy will have to be increased regardless of the cost of incremental gains, so overpriced electric and skeleton hybrids will sit unbought, or become heavily subsidized by the government.

The notion that domestic manufacturers will benefit more because "a major competitive disadvantage has been removed" is simply absurd. What do you mean "has been removed?" As if the government magic wand makes GM's problems disappear. As if GM doesn't want to make each of its vehicles more fuel-efficient while still preserving qualities that make them sellable. So it's government's place to decide product strategy for automakers? Well, technically if they own 60% of one, they have a stake in that company and can do what they like. But to decide it for the industry as a whole is troubling, to say the least. In what other industries will they know better than the product managers who are experts in their fields?

The government is pissing in Big Auto's ear, and Kleinbaum and McManus are trying to tell them (or is it us?) that it's raining.

About those green jobs

Read some WSJ on Dead Tree last night on the plane. Good editorial about the climate change fiasco facing the G8. It's always a little more complicated than it seems, isn't it?

Meanwhile, the supposed economic benefits of "green technologies" are evaporating. In Germany, government subsidies for installing solar panels -- and, it was presumed, thereby creating domestic manufacturing jobs -- backfired when it turned out that it was cheaper to make solar panels in China. A recent paper from Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada Álvarez noted that since Spain started investing in a "green jobs" policy nine years ago, the country has lost 110,500 jobs in other parts of the economy. That amounts to 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created.

Thomas Sowell laments frequently that politicians don't "think beyond Stage One." Stage One gets somebody elected. Stage Three is somebody else's problem. We need to start recognizing that Stage Three is everybody's problem, and address those realities with more vigor, coherence, and frequency that has been done in the past -- and do it before these time bombs are lit.

Oh, if only it weren't for the West!

Wrote last week but neglected to actually post:

Nightline has become simply absurd. Tonight:

Hit piece on Palin ("controversy" with Letterman consisted of Palin accusing him of being strangely obsessed with her daughter... Wouldn't be newsworthy to repeat what he said, would it?)

Next was something about a couple of Christians taking their message to remote and dangerous parts of the world, and the tone was a bit snarky, in my opinion.

But they outdid themselves with a story about how many people live to be centenarians in Japan. They report that in 1963, there were only 153 people who had reached that milestone. Today there are over 36,000. They spent most of the piece giving the boilerplate soft news profiles of very nice but very old people, and reported many assorted theories, including diet, for the phenomenon. But then, inexplicably, they say it's all at risk... due to us.

Yes, ominous music coupled with shots of Burger King and McDonalds and the warning that all this progress is endangered by the bogeyman of The West. Forgive me, but has Japan become less westernized since 1963? If ancient diets and oil rubs were the keys to long life, why didn't it work before? I don't suppose that a massive economic investment in Japan by the West which helped to all but wipe out poverty had anything to do with it. Nor modern, western medicine. And certainly not the life-shortening products of greedy Big Pharma.

I've come to expect a bit of self-loathing from our media corps. But to get things this skewed, on the Fourth of July no less, is a bit much. Nearly sixty-eight years ago the U.S. was attacked by Japan, sparking a horrible four-year war causing devastation across the Pacific. But after victory, the U.S. did not take over Japan or steal its resources. It committed its own resources to rebuilding it, committed its own resources to defend it in perpetuity, and left it alone to prosper. At what other time in human history has such a thing happened?

I think that it is easy to forget what makes America extraordinary. It's not just our freedom to burn a flag or say unpopular things. Outside our borders, the U.S. has used its power and influence for the good of the world. To those who say broadly that we need to take a hard look in the mirror with regard to our foreign policy transgressions of the past, I say get specific, and let's talk. Take your pick. I'll back it up, and you'll lose. America is a force for good in the world; how about on the Fourth of July, we recognize it?

Social Security and my personal time capsule

The other night I was looking through some old Word documents of mine and stumbled across this essay I wrote a dozen or so years ago, when I was 25, about my fears for Social Security. Upon re-reading, I winced at a couple of my analogies, but thought it was worth posting as it hasn't held up that badly with time.

What bothers me about my future, what wakes me up at night in a cold sweat, is not that social security will not be there for me when I retire, but that it WILL be there. I'm worried that in 50 years, I'll be 75 years old and eligible for the first time for social security. And that this dinosaur of a program, the T-Rex of big-government money-burning plans, will somehow still be in place. I shudder at this is because I cannot imagine the cost of making this happen. I wonder under how much debt will my children and grandchildren be burdened so that I can have a paycheck from the government. I try to speculate about the debt we have accumulated as a nation to provide social security for my generation.

Franklin Roosevelt enacted a way to provide everyone in the country, from infants to seniors, with a secure retirement system. Unfortunately, these entitlements would ultimately be paid by those yet to be born. When you never meet these people, when they are "what ifs" and "maybes," when they don't even exist, it's easy to mortgage their futures for a living, breathing, voting populace. Those "what ifs" exist now, and they're us. And we have to end it.

WE are the ones who have to do it. Don't expect Washington, deathly afraid of the AARP's watchful eye in these matters, to intervene on our behalves. Current seniors have paid into the system their whole lives and just want to get some of it back before they die. Who could blame them? Baby Boomers are starting to get nervous about it and are taking every dollar they can find and shoving them into mutual funds, hoping for big returns as retirement age starts to approach. They know there might not be much there for them from Uncle Sam. However, if they can figure a way of getting more from the government, you'd better believe that they'll do it. The battle cry has echoed across the country, "Save social security!"

Not if I have anything to do with it. I'm 25 years old and, so I've been told, have my whole life ahead of me. But why then, in the land of the free, home of the brave, are my retirement decisions being made for me by two generations of politicians desperate to overpopulate Florida on my dime? We've got to end it.

Whenever a long-standing institution ends, someone down the line gets the short end of the stick. If a man paid $500 for a slave, and then slavery ended, he's out $500 with nothing to show for it. We as a nation finally recognized that slavery was wrong and decided to do something about it. Would it have been right to keep the institution just so that everyone got their money's worth? This is a ludicrous question and has an obvious answer. Of course we can't directly compare social security to slavery. To do so seriously would be an injustice to all those who have endured slavery or have suffered its aftereffects. My point is, however, that both systems are do people harm and should be stopped at all costs. Throwing good money after bad to keep an institution going is no way to solve the core issue of having an inherently bad system.

This IS a bad system, not just in practice, but in principle, and let me tell you why. Many will say that, yes it has its flaws but it is needed because so many people do not have other options when they retire. To this I say more options would be available to us were we not encumbered with paying such a high percentage of our incomes into this particular program. Wage earners, whether we always act like it or not, are adults, and as adults in a free country we should have the right to invest ALL of our retirement money as we see fit. Think of what your financial portfolio might look like if you could invest all the money you currently put towards social security into private funds.

If the government can more effectively plan and pay for our retirement than we can do on our own, then they might as well employ us all and tell us which jobs we are best suited for and how long we should stay at each one. After all, when left to the free market, while most people find jobs, others do not. Just like most people will plan for retirement and others will not. It is only due to social conditioning that one idea seems ludicrous and the other not.

People will slip through the cracks. There's no doubt about it. But let's deal with those who are unwilling or unable to provide for their own retirement as a separate issue. We should not be sacrificing the good of the majority so that we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we can plan a system that works for everybody. Because we can't. Besides, social security only pays out to those who put in. A lot of poor people don't put in, so saving social security for them is moot. That's a welfare issue and that's separate.

Now again, we see that FDR's spectacles did not give him much foresight. He implemented a program from which there is no easy exit. My sleeve is caught in some lumber machinery, and it's pulling me towards the blade. If I try to pull it out it's going to take my hand, then my arm, and then my whole body. The only logical thing to do here is take off the shirt. Cut my losses.

We've got to do the same thing. We can't just stop paying it because we can't afford to have our grandparents move in with us right now. Yes, the dollars you put in are supposed to be invested for you for your retirement, but we all know that the net effect is every dollar you pay goes into some old codger's wallet. But how long can we continue to do this? Who is going to pay for us when we are old codgers? The answers are: not much longer, and I don't know about you, but I'm going to pay for myself.

I am not a rich person. My parents aren't rich. There are no rich uncles that I know of. I don't play the lottery. If I have two nickels to rub together, I do it, hoping they multiply. However, I do have the hope that somewhere down the line I will be able to afford to pay for my own retirement, and if I can't I'll know that I was dealt a decent hand in life and it's no one's fault but mine if I'm a pauper at age 75. But I'd like to think that I've still got a shot at being a prince. Nowhere but America would someone be able to say that. Nowhere else do people have as good a chance of making their own successes. We are only endowed by our creator with the right of the PURSUIT of happiness. That's all we need.

I'd like every Generation Xer reading this to think about the following scenario and ask your friends and co-workers what they'd do. I am willing to sign on the dotted line right now and say that I forfeit all future claims for social security income, but will continue to pay social security taxes at the current rate for the next ten years, after which I will be fully exempt. No more social security payments by the age of 35. I would bet that most of my generation would say the same thing.

However, if we went to congress with every one of our signatures on a mile-long scroll, each one of us pledging ten years of taxes to buy our way out of the system, we all know what would happen. Nothing. And the reason why nothing would happen, although no one would say it to your face, is that it's not enough. Deep down we know that's true, and when put in that perspective, it gives a pretty clear picture of what kind of system we have to deal with, and what kind of massive buyout might be required.

Well what is enough? That's what we all need to know. We're a generation that wants to clear our debts and move on, and make our own successes and failures, without letting someone else fail for us. What I want is to stand before the President and Congress and the AARP on behalf of our generation and say, "We don't want any. How much will it cost to end it?" If we could get a straight, honest answer to that question (I'm young and allowed to indulge in fantasy), then we could deal with it. I'm not saying we could afford it, but we could at least get started in taking care of it. The next two generations might end up having to pay for some of it. However, we will have drawn a line in the sand, saying social security ended back there, and here's the future.

Despite what Hollywood and Madison Avenue want you to believe, Generation X is not about skateboarding, body piercing and the Seattle sound. Most of us actually have more intelligent questions to ask the President than "If you had to do it all over again, would you inhale?" We need to show the world that we are a hard-working, intelligent generation that wants to make a difference. The way we can make a difference is to make some noise, plant some seeds for the future, and show we mean business as voting body.

There are harsh realities in this world that we need to come to grips with and handle ourselves, and we can't be afraid to do so. Mary Poppins is a senior citizen now. And we'll take our medicine without a spoonful of sugar.

Strangely, I think the part that I least recognize now is the strong identification with my generation. At any rate, it was a nice stroll down memory lane, but an unpleasant reminder that despite many years of GOP control of the White House and Congress, we've made zero progress in the intervening decade.

Misinterpreting George Will (with a Silver lining)

I'd never read Nate Silver at the FiveThirtyEight blog before, but happened upon his take on a recent George Will column today. Although I think he missed Will's point on this one, I've been missing out by not reading Silver before.

The bad first: Here's the part (a part) of Will's argument against a public option for health insurance that Sliver has a beef with:

Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers.

Conservatives nod their heads. Silver does not, and offers this interpretation:

Will's argument is apparently this: The government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That's unfair!

In fairness to Silver, Will leaves a bit unsaid in his column. Like the difference between price and cost and who will bear what burden. I think most conservatives would (perhaps grudgingly) admit that a public option that truly delivered the same service for less money would be a worthwhile solution to be explored (Constitutionality notwithstanding... that horse has left the barn). However, the problem is that we are skeptical that we will get the same quality and quantity of service, and are certain that "less money" will only be less in terms of what is paid by the recipient of care, not "less money" paid in total, with the difference of course being picked up by taxpayers.

That said, after reading several posts, I found Silver to be a very bright center-left free marketeer who people from all parts of the political spectrum would do well to read. Silver's site was founded for purposes of political predictions (he has a background in making such predictions in another place dear to my heart: Major League Baseball), and does his best to leave ideology at the door.

We need more voices of Silver's demeanor in our collective national dialogue. Civility and honest analysis are all we can ask for, and FiveThirtyEight delivers both. Kudos.

New look, new life?

Posting has been, at best, sporadic since the 2004 election. That's a long time to be dormant. We've refreshed the look a bit (left-justified alignment seems to work better for mobile browsing) and hope to be posting more often in the weeks and months ahead.

Test post via text message.

Refreshing diplomacy

Genius. Simply genius. So after telling the Russians we'll forget about missile defense in Eastern Europe for unverifiable "help" with Iran, and Joe Biden makes the gaffe of saying we want to "reset" US-Russian relations (don't get me started on that one), Hillary Clinton seals the deal by presenting the Russian Foreign Minister with ...

A button to push!

Because naturally when we think about them pushing a button we think of Joe Biden, and his "reset" comment and ha! it's a "reset button!" Everybody will get that joke! I'm sure nobody will have any other ideas about Russian-button-pushing. Who remembers " Duck and Cover" anyway?

The incompetence is mind-numbing.

Enough, part 2

I apologize to Robert Downey, Jr. for my comments last July. I saw the movie Iron Man recently, and the reviews are dead-on...Mr. Downey was phenomenal and the movie overall is a must see.

I also take back what I said about seeing Lindsay Lohan on screen again after her conduct unbecoming during 2006 and 2007 (and which may have spilled over into 2008 but I've stopped keeping track.) What I did not see coming was this. Only in America.

The worthlessness of Wiki

A popular method of comparing political ideologies today is by placement on a horizontal straight-line continuum, where Left of the exact center of the line is classified as "liberal" and Right of center is "conservative." For most, such an overly simplistic approach is enough when debating two presidential candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Newt Gingrich. But I do find some interest in more complicated methods which add more depth to a given position or belief by adding a vertical axis. However, before you go researching the definitions of the horizontal and vertical axes in "the free encyclopedia" Wikipedia, consider my experience in just the last half hour.

I was directed to Wikipedia's entry on "Right-wing politics" from another website and noted Fascism and Nazism were listed as right-wing ideologies. I navigated to the links for each and found an extreme and near-violent divide in the wiki-contributorsphere over their definitions. I bounced back and forth to various entries and noticed some changes, some rather significant, based upon the opinions of users lobbying their positions. Which gave me pause to wonder how our high school youth can cite to Wikipedia as a legitimate source if definitions can change at the whim of some volunteer who feels it necessary to be sure the uninformed know that George W. Bush has the same political mindset and agenda as all our enemies in World War II...so to wiki-speak.

In politics, 2+2 doesn't always equal 4

Mark D. Lay was recently sentenced for his role in "managing" investments for Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The losses for which Lay has been found accountable make the highly publicized Tom Noe "Coingate" case seem like a misplaced $20 (not to mention how much additional it cost Ohioans in a civil lawsuit filed against Lay by former AG Marc Dann.) I add this sad political chapter to the book on how government can't seem to do much of anything right, especially with democrats in charge (see current Congressional Approval Rating.) And I continue to be baffled by the continued demands, primarily from the Left, for things like nationalized health care and, more recently, a federal takeover of the oil industry. How has it become so difficult to identify the quacking, waddling, beak-sporting waterfowl in its broadest and simplest terms?

"An-Waar" we're not drilling??

Somebody in Congress please read this. No, wait, you are all too busy so let me cut to the chase - there is a 95% probability of recovering 5.7 BILLION barrels of oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is estimated to equate to somewhere between 250 and 400 million barrels of oil per year (for about 65 years), beginning 7 to 12 years from the time approval was granted to explore the area. These estimates, from 1998 and based upon 1998 technology, suggest that in 5 years from opening the area, we'd have 200,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil PER DAY at our disposal. In 10 years, we'd have 400,000 to 600,000 barrels of oil. Per day. We'd reach maximum production in 20-30 years (600,000 to 1.9 million barrels of oil per day.)

Did I mention the area where this 5.7 BILLION barrels of oil is located, called 1002 Area, is also just 8% of the total acreage of ANWR? That means if every square foot were completely and utterly destroyed, the caribou would still have over 17 million acres upon which to roam, forage, reproduce and do whatever else caribou do.

The U.S. imported 4,905,234 barrels of oil in 2007 while only producing 1,862,440 barrels itself. Our federal legislators must realize gasoline is not the only reason we need oil, and we need to finally come to our senses and tap the 1002 Area of ANWR. Now. And not by raising taxes but by allowing Big Oil to spend their windfall profits on the exploring, drilling and refining of this 5.7 BILLION. After all, we still need to grow our domestic social programs and bail out ignorant homeowners.