>Adelson to the Rescue, Funds Republican Ads Against Democrats

>A hat tip to the Gleaner for spotting “The Fix” this morning, and its report that Nevada’s very own Sheldon Adelson is taking over a movement conservative position once firmly held in Texas – bankroller par excellence angel-sugar-daddy to the radical right’s campaign against any and all Democrats. Adelson’s White House front group Freedom’s Watch is running radio ads in 16 congressional districts the gist of which is that any and all inflation is due to the Democrats in Congress.

Adelson’s perspective demonstrates no understanding that the presidential candidate who told the country on January 26, 2000 he had an inside track on managing energy policy and prices could have been so completely wrong?

“Bush: No, I don’t. I think I agree with the energy secretary that the strategic petroleum reserve is meant for a national wartime emergency. What I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up. OPEC has gotten its supply act together, and it’s driving the price, like it did in the past. And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. And if in fact there is collusion amongst big oil, he ought to intercede there as well. I used to be in the oil business. I was little oil — really little oil. And so I understand the — I understand what can happen in the marketplace.” [CNN transcript] (emphasis added)

Somehow that “jawbone” didn’t secure much, not once, but twice in 2008, as President Bush found it much more difficult to demand what candidate Bush had implied would be so easy. [Perrs]

By April 29, 2008 the President was reduced to whining in the Rose Garden that energy prices would be more palatable if Congress would pass (1) a bill allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; {Study: “Anwar Oil would have little impact” MSNBC}(2) bills to build more refineries; {If increasing refinery capacity were profitable then wouldn’t the energy companies have done this already?} (3) bills to subsidize nuclear power plants; {and, of course put all the nuclear waste in Nevada} and, not pass (4) any “new and costly mandates on producers;” nor (5) any emission controls on coal powered electricity plants. A concise summation of the President’s position is “if you’ll let the energy companies do anything they want, and subsidize them for doing so, then prices will drop.” Logically speaking there’s a large “undistributed middle” in this assertion.

Meanwhile, Nevada’s own little “Checkbook” for the polluters, exploiters, and movement conservatives will continue to pour money into a swampy politics of his own creation.

>The FISA debate: H.R. 6304, punishment or prevention?

>I’m beginning to harbor a fantasy in which Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann are left together somewhere in the Idaho-Oregon-Nevada country where they would be free to debate the FISA legislation at the tops of their lungs without disturbing much more than some antelope, deer, a few mountain lions, and assorted badgers. [Salon] Both are correct in claiming the Bush Administration has played fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution, international law and treaties, and Heaven Only Knows how many U.S. statutes.

Unfortunately, both have also launched themselves into screeds that purport to define a “real” Democrat, or a “real” defender of the Constitution, or related categorizations – none of which gets us much closer to determining what, if anything, ought to be done with the current legislation. Mr. Olbermann is sure to launch round (whatever it is now) during a ‘special comment’ tonight, and Mr. Greenwald will surely offer another rejoinder.

First, we probably ought to separate what the law is supposed to do from what we might all like to see happen. The bill, in its most current incarnation, is now designated H.R. 6304, and it mainly seeks to address issues raised in Sections 701-703,707 of the FISA statute. Leaving immunizing the telecom corporations, impeaching the president, suing the socks off AT&T, storming the Bastille, and other matters aside for the moment, it is instructive to look at the actual bill:

Section 702 allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize the surveillance of targeted persons who are “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States” for one year. Except: (1) no one known to be in the U.S. at the time of acquisition can be intentionally targeted; (2) a person outside the U.S. can’t be targeted to “get at” a person known to be in the U.S.; (3) no U.S. citizen can be targeted outside the U.S.; (4) the government “may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the U.S.; and (4) surveillance “shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” [Thomas] Short version: No targeting U.S. citizens, no reverse targeting of U.S. citizens, no blanket electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens; no messing with the provisions of the 4^th Amendment.

Oversight and Review: Additional provisions of Section 702 concern targeting procedures, requiring the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to develop guidelines which “shall be subject to judicial review.” The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence must develop minimization procedures, also subject to judicial review. Guidelines for compliance must be submitted to the congressional intelligence committees, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Short version: There are to be reviewable targeting, minimization, and compliance rules.

Section 703 deals with surveillance of those persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. There is one provision repeated in different contexts that warrants citing in full:

USE OF INFORMATION- If an application for approval submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) is denied, or in any other case where the acquisition is terminated and no order is issued approving the acquisition, no information obtained or evidence derived from such acquisition, except under circumstances in which the target of the acquisition is determined not to be a United States person, shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such acquisition shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Section 707 requires regular reports from the Attorney General to the intelligence committees, and to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees at least twice annually. Further, there is to be an amendment to Section 102 including “a statement of exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted.”

Those who were primarily concerned about (1) targeting, (2) reverse targeting, (3) minimization, (4) compliance, and (5) exclusivity, as they relate to FISA programs should find some comfort in the provisions outlined above.

What the bill does not do is settle political and Constitutional questions regarding the behavior of the Bush-Cheney Administration, and herein lies the source of considerable controversy.

Those who believe that the full extent of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s misbehavior can only be determined by full judicial review of its intelligence programs, policies, and the actions of its minions as revealed in open courts, will not be satisfied with the contents of this bill. However, thanks to the cases already launched and the whistles already blown we have a relative good idea of what happened.

We know that the Total Information Awareness program in the Pentagon was shut down in 2003 after questions about its constitutionality were raised. [DB] The National Security Analysis Center’s penchant for regression analysis has been questioned. [DB] The MATRIX (Multi-State Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange System) is now public knowledge. [DB] The Pentagon was embarrassed by the disclosure of its TALON program. [DB] “Genisys,” “EELD,” and “Scalable Social Network Analysis,” and CIFA are no longer secret. [DB] The fact that the Bush-Cheney Administration has been trying to create the “largest database ever assembled in the world,” is now common knowledge. [DB] And, we know that the Bush-Cheney Administration proclivity for operating like a police state caused major problems in the Department of Justice. [WaPo]

Greenwald and others have some justification for believing that unless this kind of outrageous violation of American civil liberties is punished future administrations may be tempted to replicate the literally unwarranted domestic surveillance of the Bush-Cheney Administration. After all, the entire point of punitive damages in civil law is to cause perpetrators to think several times before engaging in such practices. Olbermann, on the other hand, has recently emphasized the prospect that criminal prosecutions can be attempted to make the Administration minions divulge their participation. Both are ultimately seeking the same information: What did the Bush-Cheney Administration do? And, Who did it?

One possible political question then becomes: “Which deserves more emphasis: the punishment of the Bush-Cheney Administration and its minions (including the telecom corporations) for their violations of American civil liberties? Or, the prevention of this kind of unconstitutional and extra-constitutional behavior on the part of future administrations?” A person could argue that while the former is desirable, the latter is essential.

There is an argument to be made that if the price tag stapled to the legislation by the Republican Party for the prevention of future examples of such mis-administration is the immunization of their donors in the telecom industry, then this may well be worth the cost. After all, the telecoms haven’t paid out a dime yet – and will no doubt “fight like Exxon” to keep from doing so. If we may not ultimately have punishment, perhaps prevention will have to suffice.

Another argument worth considering is that the ultimate punishment for any politician or political party is to be so discredited by its actions and policies that the voters turn away from it in droves. The contention that after Operation Shamrock, Nixon’s Watergate fiasco and the Bush-Cheney attempts at a police state, the Republican party and its candidates should never again be trusted to support the Constitution and the civil rights and liberties it bestows, harbors no small amount of validity.

This ‘solution’ requires more from each of us as citizens – that we keep the issue of privacy rights alive and contemporary, and that we demand that those who can keep us informed are protected with appropriate reporter shield laws, and similar 1^st Amendment and whistle-blower protections. Perhaps the most difficult part of this perspective is convincing others that “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine.

>Hersh’s New Article on Iran, H.Con. Res. 362, and The March of the NeoCons to November

>One more request for vigilance, and contact with members of the Nevada congressional delegation concerning H.Con.Res. 362 and the companion piece S. Res. 580. [DB] Constituents may want to inquire of Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) why she has signed on as a co-sponsor of this potentially escalating resolution.

Unless, of course, a person is in favor of a U.S. (or U.S. approved) attack on nuclear facilities in Iran. The Kyl Amendment, (S.Amdt 3017 to S. 2011) set “things’ up. The verbiage of H. Con. Res. 362 pushes the U.S. further into the neo-conservative morass of “more war to bring peace” to the Middle East. Why remind readers of this legislation? Read “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran,” by Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker Magazine.

There is something eerily familiar about reports of administration secrecy, administrative intrafund transfers to fund off budget operations; of promises to keep Congress informed and then deliberately failing to do so; and, of escalating the rhetoric while pushing “resolutions” to get members of Congress ‘on the record.’ Two snippets from Hersh’s article offer some flavor – but the article should be read in full.

“Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference.”

“He (Admiral Fallon) was charged with coming up with an over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”

Hersh’s previous articles have been dismissed by the White House by declaring them “inaccurate,” or “preposterous,” without the Administration actually providing evidence to substantiate its claims. Hersh’s reporting has been challenged because of minor discrepancies, or at least because the Bush-Cheny White House claimed there were discrepancies, but again without offering substantiation. The Bush Administration has also been generous tossing out labels such as “inaccurate,” or “unsourced,”– dismissing Hersh’s articles because he cites anonymous sources. The Administration has applied no such stringent standards to its own reporting of events and issues.

Before we travel once more down the road the mile posts of which read, “inadequate understanding of the adversary’s demographics,” “misinterpretation of the adversary’s political system,” “failure to take into consideration opposing interpretations of evidence,” “failure to satisfactorily analyze the nature of our supposed allies,” “inadequate analysis of possible unintended outcomes,” and “failure to accept or consider divergent views and scholarly analysis” – it’s time to put an end to the incremental Administration creep toward expanding the war in the Middle East.

Resources and References:

Other outlets have picked up Hersh’s reporting, or are covering similar territory:
“Bush’s covert game in Iran,” Los Angeles Times
“US escalating covert operations against Iran, Report” Reuters
“Report: US preparing the battlefield with Iran” CNN “US officials decline comment.”
“Crocker denies U.S. operations in Iran” UPI
“Will Israel bomb Iran?” Mark Tran, Guardian UK

Neocons:

“Richard Perle: Too many cooks confronting Iran?” SacBee
“Daniel Pipes: Obama vs. McCain on the Middle East” NatlPost

Reactions:

“Neocons gone wild,” Joe Klein Time
“McCain on Iran: Bush All Over Again” Salon
“Talking to Iran is our best option,” Daalder & Gordon, WaPo
“John McCain and Charlie Black’s October Surprise,” J.A. Palermo, HuffPo

Foreign Reactions and commentary:

“The strike against Iran in electoral considerations,” Al Hayat (Lebanon)
“Telegraphing an attack against Iran” World Politics Review

>The Sunday Deck Bass

>
Another Sunday, another Desert Beacon Sunday Deck Bass, awarded to the politician or public figure deemed most reflective of the flip flopping of a caught bass. The candidates for northern Nevada’s least sought, totally unwanted, and uncoveted prize are:

Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-AZ) who, obviously not content to be awarded his nomination on a purely automatic basis, earned it by flip-flopping in the space of one single speech to his Las Vegas audience. McCain first ardently intoned his objections to ethanol, adopting the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association position, only to reverse himself moments later and call for the utilization of more flex-fuel (aka ethanol). [DB]

Not content to indulge in merely one in-speech flip, Senator McCain repeated his performance before members of the Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; advocating both “immigration reform,” and “an enforcement first policy” in the space of the same remarks. [TP] McCain’s also been allowed to continually get away with his ‘360 roll’ on public financing (opting in, opting out, opting in again) while the corporate media wrings its hands over Senator Barack Obama’s decision not to accept the funding. [HuffPo]

Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons is another candidate who could easily attain Senator McCain’s status as an automatic nominee, but he, too, earned this week’s nomination by first announcing that he would present a “21 Point Plan” [LV Sun] to solve the state’s severe budget deficit. The “21 Point Plan” didn’t survive a single news cycle, instead devolving into a laundry list speech drawing heavily on agreements already reached by Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley.

Faux Snooze anchor Sean Hannity earned a place on the Olbermann “Worst Persons” List for his performance during an interview with never-confirmed ambassador John “Bomb’em” Bolton. He can now add a Deck Bass nomination to his résumé. Hannity first praised the Bush Administration for its negotiated deal with North Korea, and then after only one salvo from the risible Mr. Bolton promptly reversed himself. [video link] [Digby]

Florida Election Officials get a nod this week for smugly assuming their state’s electile dysfunction problems had been taken care of by abolishing no-trail touch screen voting machines. Not so. During an election for the West Palm Beach City Commission the new machines managed to “drop” 707 or 14% of the votes in the initial count, which wasn’t caught until a computerized audit the next day “signaled a problem.” The happy talk: “Nothing was lost, all the votes were counted,” Adams (candidate adviser) said. “I know it was a lot of votes, but it was just three cartridges, and we found them, and we’ve counted them.” [SunSentinel] Eventually.

President George W. Bush secures his nomination for his administration’s often incomprehensible energy policy – were it not for the fact that it’s always all about oil. On February 23, 2006 Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman proudly announced President Bush’s “Solar America Initiative,” to “accelerate the widespread acceptance of clean solar technologies throughout the U.S. by 2015.” [DoE] The left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth? The Bureau of Land Management, citing a “need” to “evaluate” the environmental impact of solar panels, has now placed a two year moratorium on new solar projects on public land. The announcement affects projects in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada. [NYT] Granted there is very likely a need to evaluate the impact of these projects on water resources and wildlife, but to put a screeching halt to the entire process while API lobbyists are roaming the marbled halls of Congress seeking permission to drill in more places more often seems to be a bit too obvious?

Our Winner This Week: For the incredible speed with which he can flippy-flop, doing so with flexuous dexterity and lightning quickness – our winner is Senator John McCain. For those keeping score, this is the 9^th Deck Bass for the Grand Oil Party presidential nominee, tying him with President George W. Bush, and Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. Please check to see if there might be a John S. McCain Memorial Sunday Crappie, or a sighting of an Eel Pout.

>H.R. 6251: Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act Fails House

>On June 26, 2008, H.R. 6251 (Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act) failed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill. Thus, it needed a two-thirds majority. The totals were 223 Ayes, 195 Nays, 16 Present/Not Voting. Dean Heller (R) and Jon Porter (R) voted ‘Nay’ along the Grand OIL Party line, Shelley Berkley (D) voted ‘Aye.’ I specifically wrote Heller about this bill asking him to vote ‘Aye.’ I haven’t gotten Heller’s written reply yet, but I’m sure Heller will feign concern for our welfare and suffering at the pumps and claim that this bill would have somehow been bad for our economy in some way, shape or form.

H.R. 6251 would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from authorizing any new lease for exploration or production of oil or natural gas unless the lessee:

1. Certified for each existing lease that the lessee has diligently developed the lands in order to produce oil or natural gas, or is producing oil or natural gas from such lands; or
2. Has relinquished all federal oil and gas leases that are not being diligently developed.

H.R. 6251 would have instructed the Secretary to promulgate diligent development regulations that:

1. Included benchmarks for oil and gas development to ensure that leaseholders produce oil and gas from each lease within the five-year original term of the lease; and
2. Required each leaseholder to submit a diligent development plan showing how the lessee will meet the benchmarks.

H.R. 6251 also would have established a civil penalty for noncompliance with this Act.

H.R. 6251 would have set up regulations for Big Oil companies similar to those that have been imposed on Coal companies for decades. Under H.R. 6251, they would have to ‘use it or lose it,’ but the Grand Oil Party protected their pals. I guess it goes to show that the Republicans know where their bread is buttered … or said another way … I guess they didn’t want to offend their cash cow during an election year.

I specifically wrote to Heller asking him to support H.R. 6251, but his allegiance appears to be with the Grand OIL Party and their big Oil contributors, not the voters who are not only suffering at the pump, but in the grocery line as well. With H.R. 6251 out of the way, they’re now free to open up even more leases for the big Oil Companies to gobble up and stash away along side their already-amassed 68 million acres that they’re doing nothing with. If the Big Oil Companies wanted to drill, they could drill on the leases they’re already holding, but they don’t. They just want to gouge us for unrealistic profits. They can claim all day long that they’re ‘reinvesting’ them, but I don’t buy it. If they were reinvesting, they would have ‘expenses’ associated with that ‘reinvestment.’ Thus, those monies would have been spent and wouldn’t show up as a ‘profit’ on their books. So, in my eyes, they’re not reinvesting in infrastructure to drill or refine oil, or anything else for that matter.

This is yet another disappointing vote by our GOP members in Congress that is clearly opposed to the interests of their Nevada constituency. So here’s my personal solution: Heller can have my ‘NAY’ vote in November when I vote for his replacement.

cross-posted from RockSpot

>Legislature tackles problems, Gibbons claims credit

>

The Nevada Legislature finished its business last night – approving the budget slashing proposals hammered out by Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley and Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio. The Las Vegas Review Journal provides a list of the funds transferred and the reserve funds drained. However, a person has to be at least a bit amused at the following statement by Governor Jim Gibbons: “Except for three or four items, Gibbons said, the compromise reached by the Legislature was no different than the solution he advanced. The governor said he did not favor cutting textbook spending, but quickly added: “Politics is the art of compromise.”

The “solution he advanced?” Would that be the speech which was advertised as a 21 point plan, but changed in light of the compromises reached by Buckley and Raggio? And, “art of compromise?” The paper his budget chief Andrew Clinger handed out? [LV Sun] How could Gibbons pontificate, or even comment, on the compromising necessary when both Buckley and Raggio have acknowledged that Gibbons played little or no role in the earlier deliberations?

In short, the Governor appeared to contribute two major items yesterday: (1) A draft plan that hewed closely to the work already accomplished by legislative leaders; and (2) Continuous recitation of his ideological “No New Taxes” mantra. Neither was particularly useful.

If his suggestions for the 2009 session of the legislature are to be taken at face value, spending caps and a no growth budget, then we can likely expect a repeat performance of the governor’s futility. While Gibbons does in office what he did during the 2006 campaign (spout bumper sticker slogans and offer vague generalities), it will be left to the legislative leadership to administer the state by proxy.

Sloganeering will not fix a shortage of health inspectors, not alleviate over-crowded public school class rooms, repair worn roads, hire state patrol officers, or keep open our public parks and libraries. Unfortunately for the citizens of the state of Nevada, its governor has adopted the elitist notion that those who have must be protected from spending on behalf of those in need; and, that the function of government is to encourage the delusional privatization of any common enterprise on the theory that individual or corporate gain necessarily yields public benefit. We’ve had nearly 8 years of a national administration example proving the exact opposite. The more the Bush Administration privatized, the more expensive everything became.

If the political situation isn’t likely to improve by the opening of the 2009 session, it isn’t any more probable that Nevada’s economic situation will either. We tax tourists; tourism is down. We tax real estate; property values are dropping. We tax sales; spending is declining. And yet, our population keeps growing. [LVRJ] So, how does the governor propose to address this situation – with Churchillian aphorisms and bumper sticker slogans? And, most likely of all, leaving the Legislature to clean up the mess.

>Ensign votes to sustain filibuster of Medicare Bill

>The U.S. Senate could have passed a bill that would have prevented physicians who accept Medicare from “getting hit with a 10.6% pay cut.” [WaPo] Senator John Ensign (R-NV) was among those voting to sustain a Republican filibuster. H.R. 6331 failed by two votes to break that GOP filibuster; 58-40 with two not voting – Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who is ill, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was attending a fund raiser.

“A group of Republican senators followed the direction of the Bush administration and voted to protect health insurance companies at the expense of America’s seniors, disabled and military families,” American Medical Association President Nancy H. Nielsen said in a statement.” [WaPo]

The full statement from the American Medical Association press office is a bit stronger:

“The physicians of America are outraged that a group of Republican senators followed the direction of the Bush Administration and voted to protect health insurance companies at the expense of America’s seniors, disabled and military families. These senators leave for their 4th of July picnics knowing that the most vulnerable Americans are at risk because of the Senate’s inability to act to stop drastic payment cuts for health care services that are needed by our Medicare and TRICARE patients.

“The House voted to preserve access to care for Medicare patients in a bipartisan landslide vote to pass H.R. 6331 by an overwhelming margin of 355 to 59. The House made seniors, the disabled and military families a top priority. The AMA appreciates the courage of the 59 Senators, including 9 Republicans, who voted to put patients ahead of partisan politics and vote for H.R. 6331.

“Today, thanks to some senators, we stand at the brink of a Medicare meltdown. On July 1 – just four days from now – the government will slash Medicare physician payments by 10.6 percent, forcing many physicians to make the difficult choice to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices. “The Senate must return from their recess and make seniors’ health care their top priority. For doctors, this is not a partisan issue – it’s a patient access issue.”

Among that “group of Republican senators” who voted at the direction of the White House to “protect health insurance companies,” and whose vote to sustain the filibuster places our elders, and members of the U.S military in peril – none other than Sen. John Ensign (R-NV).

>Assembled Wisdom near Sine Die

>

Thanks to the fine efforts of the Reno Gazette Journal’s Anjeanette Damon, we find out that Nevada Senate Republicans have voted not to process a bill that could save the state $100 million in tax refunds to casinos on the sales and use tax on comped meals.

However, Sine Die is Nigh, “The Assembly has passed the bulk of the bipartisan plan to cut $275 million.”

>Heller’s Provincialism Shines Through: Rural NV Rep. votes against public transportation

>Cross posted at Helluva Heller

Representative Dean Heller (R-NV2) was the only member of the Nevada congressional delegation to vote against H.R. 6052, the “Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, on June 26^th. [vote 467] H.R. 6052 is a straight-forward enough bill, providing funding for public transportation authorities to receive grants for expanding and improving their services, or to reduce fares for their riders.

The Los Angeles Times reported that public transit systems recorded their highest ridership levels in the last 50 years, and during the first quarter of 2008 ridership on light rail increased 10% while vehicle miles traveled decreased 2.3%. The American Public Transport Association reports that Last year 10.3 billion trips were taken on U.S. public transportation – the highest number of trips taken in fifty years. In the first quarter of 2008, public transportation continued to climb and rose by 3.4 percent. [APTA]

“Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.) complained that his constituents not only must pay higher gas prices, “but now they have to subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public transportation.” [LAT] Evidently, it hasn’t occurred to Rep. Lucas that if more people in urban areas use less gasoline, the demand drops and by the free market standards he claims to uphold – if demand drops so do the prices.

Increasing the use of “the luxury” of public transportation (Perhaps Rep. Lucas hasn’t been on the Metro, MARTA, BART, or the T during rush hour?) also has the salutary effect of diminishing green house gas emissions. But, then, Rep. Lucas is from Oklahoma where global warming is a giant hoax. Unfortunately, it is with this kind of parochial provincialism that Representative Heller has chosen to associate himself. Perhaps it didn’t occur to Representative Heller, as it did to Representatives Berkley (D-NV1) and Porter (R-NV2) that a gallon of gas saved in Las Vegas or Reno (or Boston, New York, Chicago, or Atlanta) might be a gallon of gas just slightly cheaper in Winnemucca, Lovelock, and Elko?

>Heller and Porter support Oil Corporation Profitability

>

One of the contentious parts of the proposals to open up more public lands for oil development is that the major oil companies have not utilized the oil lands they already have under lease. Nevada congressional Representatives Heller (R-NV2) and Porter (R-NV3) have helped defeat a measure that would have required oil companies to develop properties on a timely basis. [vote 469]

H.R. 6251, the “Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, garnered 223 votes, but not enough to secure a 2/3rds required to suspend the rules. The vote was 223-195. H.R. 6251 is a short bill, requiring simply that the Secretary of the Interior not issue new leases for the production of oil or natural gas unless (1) the lessee has diligently developed Federal lands, or (2) has relinquished leases for lands not being diligently developed.

Diligent development is defined as oil and gas development that “will ensure that leaseholders produce oil and gas from each lease within the original five year original term of the lease; and development for which there is a plan submitted to the Secretary of the Interior showing how the lessee will meet production benchmarks.

The Oil Corporations’ lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, claims that current leases are on lands that cannot be exploited efficiently, which one might assume translates to “there is no way to make a desirable profit from extraction” at present. However, it should be noted that the API has not said its members are willing to let those leases expire. [BM]

Representatives Heller and Porter appear to have sided with the Oil Corporations who wish to both retain their leases on lands currently technically unproductive or unprofitable, while securing yet more leases for exploration in more profitable domains.

By voting against this measure, Representatives Heller and Porter clearly demonstrate that addressing the issue of actual increased production to alleviate the shortage of crude oil isn’t part of their agenda. Should Representatives Heller and Porter seek to further promote the lease of public lands in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in coastal waters – someone might want to ask: Why did you vote against requiring production of oil and natural gas on leases already in hand? By voting “yes,” Representative Berkley (D-NV) won’t have to face this particular question during this campaign season.