Why Hillary's Wall Street Speeches Are Important

Short version: if there was nothing significant in the paid speeches she would have published the transcripts when she first said several months ago that she would think about it. The chances she made a Romney-like remark indicating the disdain and contempt her class feels towards working people is virtually certain. Yesterday the twitter Hill-bots were mindlessly regurgitating the ugly, anti-working class rhetoric of far right commentator Katie Pavich. Does anyone think the Republicans don't have tapes of those Wall Street speeches and are just waiting for her to win the nomination before releasing them... with much fanfare?

Yesterday, on his blog, Robert Reich posed the simple question, Why is there so little discussion about one of Bernie Sanders’s most important proposals-- to tax financial speculation? "Americans are fed up with Wall Street’s financial games," he wrote. "Excessive speculation contributed to the near meltdown of 2008-- which cost millions of people their jobs, savings, and homes. So why is it only Bernie Sanders who’s calling for a financial transactions tax? Why aren’t politicians of all stripes supporting it? And why isn’t it a major issue in the 2016 election? Because a financial transactions tax directly threatens a major source of Wall Street’s revenue. And, if you hadn’t noticed, the Street uses a portion of its vast revenues to gain political clout. So even though it’s an excellent idea championed by a major candidate, a financial transactions tax isn’t being discussed this election year because Wall Street won’t abide it. Which maybe one of the best reasons for enacting it."

Except Hillary. The Finance Sector has pumped far, far more money into her campaign ($42,160,423) than they've given to their most craven errand boys, from Chuck Schumer ($24,578,358), John McCain ($38,306,487) and John Boehner ($12,233,548) to Mitch McConnell ($11,496,601), Marco Rubio ($8,698,799), Kirsten Gillibrand ($7,598,433), Paul Ryan ($6,008,853) and Steny Hoyer ($5,506,748). And that doesn't even count the millions of dollars in direct personal bribery they've given her and her husband in the form of fees for speeches. David Dayen was busy yesterday too. His piece for the New Republic made that point that even without release of her bankster transcripts, everyone already knows-- who is willing to open their eyes and ears-- that Hillary gives, as he puts it, priority of place to Wall Street.

Bernie's 3 strongest counties were Clinton (73.5%), Essex (73.2%) and Franklin (69.5%), all up near Vermont. NY has 62 counties and Hillary won the 13 where party machine bosses report any vote totals they're paid to report. Bernie won all the rest.

The actual transcript is unnecessary because we already have enough in the public domain to know the real issue with these speeches: the rapport and camaraderie between political leaders and financial institutions, which results in a frame of mind that accepts their arguments and privileges their views. In fact, the best example of this comes from a speech that Clinton habitually touts as an example of her get-tough approach to Wall Street.

On the stump and in debates, including last week’s in Brooklyn, Clinton highlights a speech she made at Nasdaq in December 2007, in the thick of the foreclosure crisis. “When I was serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks,” Clinton said last week. “I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.”

In the speech, available here, she castigated Wall Street for “playing a significant role in the current problems,” for fueling irresponsible mortgage lending through securitization, and for having “shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.” Clinton has been criticized for this speech, however, because of a few lines where she said “there’s plenty of blame to go around” for the housing bubble, and that “homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads.”



You can read this as a throwaway nod to personal responsibility, a typical politician’s remark, when the thrust of the speech indicts Wall Street. I would argue that spreading around responsibility for something that was a demonstrably criminal action by lenders fits with Wall Street’s moralizing about deadbeat borrowers who should have known the risks. It’s a form of public shaming. And it arguably led to the lack of accountability we saw for the financial crisis-- after all, if everybody is responsible, then ultimately nobody is responsible.

...When something could have been done to pressure mortgage servicers, Hillary Clinton, like many politicians, adopted their argument that they were prevented from helping homeowners. She believed their claims that they were hamstrung, when they weren’t. And I have to believe that’s attributable to proximity, access, and whose arguments get priority of place.

Wall Street purchases that priority of place simply by donating to campaigns, bringing politicians in for chats, marinating them in its worldview. Finance executives can make very compelling arguments about the complex intricacies of the financial system. They can sound charming and smart and logical. And in a moment of truth, they can get the payoff, when a powerful politician like Hillary Clinton makes a reasonable-sounding statement about mortgage servicers needing legal immunity.

That’s what the fuss over the Goldman Sachs speeches is all about: who you believe and who you trust as a politician. As Barack Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “I can’t assume that the money chase didn’t alter me in some ways… your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.” Nobody is perfectly objective and unmoved by the people around them. It’s why politicians need a diversity of opinion and experience in their inner circles, to fight through the inevitable bubble mentality. And it’s why spending hours giving talks to financial elites matters.

We have a chance now to chase the money-lenders out of the temple of democracy. That chance doesn't come around every few years or even every decade. Hillary is no more fit for the presidency than any of the other conservative candidates of the status quo. Bernie-- and the congressional candidates running on his issues-- need our help against the full force and might of the establishment. That's what the thermometer is for... click it, please.

Romney Contributors Are The Hedge Fund Managers And Commodities Speculators Driving Up The Price Of Gas

Last week we tried drawing attention to the fact that it is the same hedge fund managers and commodities speculators funding Mitt Romney's profligate campaign who have pushed the price of gas up for their GOP allies. Every time you buy an increasingly expensive gallon of gasoline, you're funding Mitt Romney's shameful attack ads. Bernie Sanders-- whose reelection efforts you can support here-- has been fighting this battle for years-- and this week he stepped it up.

Bernie penned a letter to Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the other 4 members, asking them to crack down for real on excessive oil speculation. Both senators and House Members are stampeding to sign on to the letter. Not Republicans of course. Here's the letter:

Dear Chairman Gensler, and Commissioners Chilton, Wetjen, Sommers, and O’Malia:

We are writing to urge you to immediately enact strong position limits to eliminate excessive oil speculation as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. As you know, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that your agency promulgate and enforce such limits no later than January 17, 2011. We are disappointed that, more than a year later, the Commission has not fulfilled this important regulatory duty.

Congress determined that speculative position limits are an effective and critically important tool to address excessive speculation in America's oil and gasoline markets. It is one of your primary duties--indeed, perhaps your most important--to ensure that the prices Americans pay for gasoline and heating oil are fair, and that the markets in which prices are discovered operate free from fraud, abuse, and manipulation.

There has been a major debate over the last several years as to whether spikes in oil prices are caused entirely by the fundamentals of supply and demand or whether excessive speculation in the oil futures market is playing a major role. It is clear to us that debate has ended. Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs, the Saudi Arabian government, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and even a report last year from the St. Louis Federal Reserve have all indicated that excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gasoline prices. According to a February 27, 2012 article in Forbes, excessive oil speculation “translates out into a premium for gasoline at the pump of $.56 a gallon” based on a recent report from Goldman Sachs.

The facts bear this out. According to the Energy Information Administration, the supply of oil and gasoline is higher today than it was three years ago, when the national average price for a gallon of gasoline was just $1.90. And, while the national average price of gasoline is now over $3.70 a gallon, the demand for oil in the U.S. is at its lowest level since April of 1997. Nor is the global supply of oil at issue. According to the International Energy Agency, in the last quarter of 2011 the world oil supply rose by 1.3 million barrels per day while demand only increased by 0.7 million barrels per day. Yet, during this same period, the price of Texas light sweet crude rose by over 12%. Meanwhile, oil speculators now control over 80 percent of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the past decade.

As the cost for American people to fill their gas tanks continues to skyrocket, the CFTC continues to drag its feet on imposing strict speculation limits to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Although the CFTC has adopted initial position limits, they are not strong enough and not yet in force owing to industry opposition, delays in swaps oversight and data collection. This is simply unacceptable and must change.

We urge you to take immediate action to impose strong and meaningful position limits, and to utilize all authorities available to you to make sure that the price of oil and gasoline reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand. This could entail promulgation of rules only with regard to the currently regulated exchange markets. Swaps rules should also be implemented immediately, but even so, waiting for swaps rules to trigger all position limits is simply not adequate to protect consumers. We urge you to develop alternative methods of moving forward and to do so as swiftly and expeditiously as possible.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the price of oil is no longer allowed to be driven up by the same Wall Street speculators who caused the devastating recession that working families are now experiencing. That means that the CFTC must do what the law mandates and end excessive oil speculation once and for all.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to receiving your response.

Many of the Blue America candidates have been campaigning against speculators manipulating prices of gas and other commodities all year. Lee Rogers (D-CA) has been using the argument effectively in discussions with voters in Santa Clarita, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley in Southern California:

"Oil speculators gamble on Wall Street and we pay the price at the pump. The price is not governed by supply and demand. The supply is not our problem. Fuel was America's largest export in 2011. Our oil output is higher now than it has been in decades. But speculators who bet that oil will be a higher price in a month from now, based on turmoil in the Middle East, rising global demand, or refinery capacity, end up causing an artificial supply problem even when one doesn't exist. This is because those who own the commodity, hold on to it waiting for the price to raise. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that makes both the speculator and the oil company rich. Oil is one of our most valued commodities. It affects the price of nearly everything we purchase from fresh produce, to shipping, to airplane tickets, to taxi rides. In some cases those who gamble with speculation, also own the commodity. Talk about a conflict of interest!


"Big oil and the Republicans solution is to 'drill, drill, drill.' Since high gas prices isn't really a supply problem, drilling for more oil and increasing the supply won't solve our problems. It will just make more money for the oil companies already raking in record profits, because speculators will keep the price high and there will be more oil to sell at that high price. Plus, if we start drilling today, the real effects at the pump will take months or years to feel. On the other hand, ending oil speculation will have an immediate effect on gas prices.

"Speculation causes volatility in the market price for oil. Let's restrict oil trading like other goods, in the open market based on real stock investments. I'm calling for an end to oil speculation and when I get to Congress, some of my first actions will be fighting to remove this stranglehold around the necks of consumers at the hands of big oil companies and speculators trying to get rich."

Straight across the country, Nicholas Ruiz makes a similar argument against the right-wing tag team Sandy Adams and John Mica:

"Senator Sanders' letter illustrates that there are members of Congress that understand the problems of trade and speculation, and who are working on solutions to these problems. For my part, I not only support the objectives of the letter, but urge the nation to consider that we must move forward with a New Deal agenda that tethers the investment activity of Wall Street to the viability of Main Street. An important component of the New Deal agenda I propose is the institution of the Public Trust, a new federal trading institution which ensures that the American people's interests are protected against excessive speculation."

A couple dozen senators-- from the best of the best, like Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Al Franken (D-MN), to the real bottom of the barrel, your Mark Pryors (D-AR) and Joe Manchins (D-WV)-- have signed onto Bernie's letter, giving him the clout he's needed to get this show on the road. Over in the House there is a great ideological span, from stalwart progressives to sleazy Blue Dogs supporting this-- though no Republicans, of course. These are the Democrats who have signed on so far:

Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Louise Slaugher (D-NY)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Sale Kildee (D-MI)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Brian Higgins (D-NY)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
Rosa LeLauro (D-CT)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
John Conyers (D-WA)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
David Cicilline (D-RI)
Lucille Royball-Allard (D-CA)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

My new congressman, craven corporate shill and Blue Dog, Adam Schiff hasn't bothered to sign on. He might fear losing a nickel from some corporate lobbyist. How about your congresscritter? Did he or she sign? Paul Ryan (R-WI) would probably rather cut his hand off than sign anything like that. The Democrat running against him, Rob Zerban, would have been glad to sign it-- and help push it. He told us that "Paul Ryan and the GOP are looking at the jobs numbers and they know our country is rising and our economy is growing. None of this progress is due to their help and instead all they have done is obstruct and get Congress sidetracked. This effort to shift the conversation from encouraging job growth figures to gas prices is a desperate attempt to distract the American people. Ryan has pushed for tens of billions in tax breaks to oil but refuses to see that now, more than ever, we need to end our dependence on foreign oil." And Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), who narrowly lost her congressional seat today, told us that "With gas prices causing real concern among Ohio's working families, it is time for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to get to work and make sure that Americans are not being taken advantage of at the pump. Speculators hurt industry and businesses from airlines, to trucking, to grocery stores and restaurants, as unfair gas prices drive up the price of goods and services. Regulators need to do their job, a lesson we should have already learned from the financial collapse of 2008."

Today's newest Blue America endorsee, Montana national security expert, Rep. Franke Wilmer sees the situation from another perspective: "For 40 years we have considered oil and energy independence to be national security issues. If that's still true-- and I think it is-- then of course we must prevent excessive speculation. Would we speculate on the future probability of nuclear war or another terrorist attack? Of course not." Norman Solomon (D-CA), also devoted to national security as a priority in his campaign told us that "The myth that rising gas prices are mere results of supply-and-demand is very useful to oil cartels. What we need from Congress is the clarity and commitment that insists on regulatory integrity instead of corporate-friendly passivity." All of these candidates want to stop excessive speculation and they all agree with Bernie Sanders approach. The way Alan Grayson (D-FL) put it was that "I have this quaint and hopelessly old-fashioned view that when the law sets a deadline, it should be met." All they candidates are on the same page-- and all on this page too (if you'd like to see them in Congress next year).

Let me leave you with a few words from someone who will hopefully be in Congress next year, Darcy Burner (D-WA), who would have not just signed the letter, but would have offered to help Bernie draft it:

"It's long past time we cracked down on people who make money by manipulating markets to rip Americans off. Hard-working Americans deserve fair prices, and Senator Sanders is right on in calling for the CFTC to live up to it's legal obligations."

Republican Speculators And Hedge Fund Manipulators Driving Up The Price Of Gas

The 15 most corrupt Big Oil whores in the history of the House-- 13 Republicans & 2 slimy Blue Dogs

Thursday we took a brief glimpse at how Romney's billionaire backers-- hedge fund dealers and speculators-- are driving up the cost of gasoline. That will cover the cost of their contributions to Romney (much the way Enron paid for the Bush campaign by over-charging California rate-payers) and it will have the bonus effect of slowing down the recovery and giving the Republicans an opportunity to try to blame Obama and the Democrats. Obama has been successfully pushing back against this perfidy but so have Democrats running for Congress. Thursday evening I went up to Santa Clarita to hear Lee Rogers, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running against Big Oil whore Buck McKeon, speak to CA-25 Democrats. What he had to say resonated with everyone in the room:

"Oil speculators gamble on Wall Street and we pay the price at the pump. The price is not governed by supply and demand. The supply is not our problem. Fuel was America's largest export in 2011. Our oil output is higher now than it has been in decades. But speculators who bet that oil will be a higher price in a month from now, based on turmoil in the Middle East, rising global demand, or refinery capacity, end up causing an artificial supply problem even when one doesn't exist. This is because those who own the commodity, hold on to it waiting for the price to raise. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that makes both the speculator and the oil company rich. Oil is one of our most valued commodities. It affects the price of nearly everything we purchase from fresh produce, to shipping, to airplane tickets, to taxi rides. In some cases those who gamble with speculation, also own the commodity. Talk about a conflict of interest!

"Big oil and the Republicans solution is to 'drill, drill, drill.' Since high gas prices isn't really a supply problem, drilling for more oil and increasing the supply won't solve our problems. It will just make more money for the oil companies already raking in record profits, because speculators will keep the price high and there will be more oil to sell at that high price. Plus, if we start drilling today, the real effects at the pump will take months or years to feel. On the other hand, ending oil speculation will have an immediate effect on gas prices.

"Speculation causes volatility in the market price for oil. Let's restrict oil trading like other goods, in the open market based on real stock investments. I'm calling for an end to oil speculation and when I get to Congress, some of my first actions will be fighting to remove this stranglehold around the necks of consumers at the hands of big oil companies and speculators trying to get rich."

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire Ann Kuster took a solid swing at longtime Oil Industry shill Charlie Bass, who she's opposing in November. Bass has taken $419,490 in "contributions" (really nothing more than blatant legalistic bribes) from the Energy/Natural Resources Sector and has completely toed their line, even when that line, as it often does, is to the detriment of his own constituents. Like McKeon, he's an adamant supporter of continuing transferring billions of taxpayer dollars into the oil companies as they continue to make obscene profits. Congressmen like Bass and McKeon get direct kickbacks for their support of these payments in the form of campaign "contributions." Kuster is fuming that the already super already profitable oil industry is being subsidized by tax dollars while New Hampshire residents are paying painfully high prices at the pump (and for heating oil). Her campaign put out a statement saying that “While families are struggling on tight budgets, it’s getting harder to fill the gas tank and Congressman Bass is giving taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are already making record profits. Families here in New Hampshire are already tightening their belts and the last thing they want is to continue giving billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies. Congressman Bass not only continues to support the subsidies, he is getting rewarded for his support with campaign cash.”

Last May, both Bass and McKeon voted to bypass consideration of the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2011 (H.R. 1689), which would repeal key taxpayer-funded subsidies for oil and gas companies. Ann Kuster and Lee Rogers are on the same page in terms of ending taxpayers subsidies to Big Oil-- and they're both on the same page here as well, the Blue America ActBlue page.

How Willard's Hedge Fund Managers Are Over-Charging Us At The Gas Pump To Pay For Romney's Campaign

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich had posts up Monday and Tuesday that I found not just interesting but very related as well. But Reich did explicitly connect them. Monday was, at least in part, a post about all the multimillionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers who are financing Willard's run for the Republican nomination. "Mitt Romney’s super PAC raised $6.6 million last month-- almost all from just forty donors. Bruce Kovner, co-founder of the New York-based hedge fund Caxton Associates, gave $500,000, as did two others. David Tepper of Appaloosa Management gave $375,000... Julian Robertson, co-founder of hedge fund Tiger Management, gave $250,0000." And that doesn't even go into notorious hedge fund criminals like John Paulson, Paul Singer, Jim Simons, Edward Conard, Robert Mercer and Julian Robertson (a cool million each to Willard's PAC) who gave in previous months. Other shady hedge fund crooks pouring massive cash into Romney's bid to take over the White House include Chris Shumway ($750,000), Miguel Fernandez ($500,000), Steven Webster ($500,000)... the list stretches endlessly from Boston to Wall Street to Salt Lake City and beyond.

OK, we all know... the one percent's class war against the rest of us has turned into a freak-fest of unregulated financial sector cash flowing into Romney's campaign war chest. The long dreamed of Mormon quest to seize the White House is being financed by people who aren't even aware of what a Mormon is. But it was Reich's Tuesday column, The Gas Wars that alarmed me most. It's the very same hedge fund managers who are writing checks for millions and millions of dollars to bankroll Romney's campaign who are driving up the price of gasoline at the pump, thereby threatening the economic recovery, something they expect will help Romney even more than their checks-- while helping them recoup the money they're giving the campaign!

Nothing drives voter sentiment like the price of gas-- now averaging $3.56 a gallon, up 30 cents from the start of the year. It’s already hit $4 in some places. The last time gas topped $4 was 2008.

And nothing energizes Republicans like rising energy prices. Last week House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans to take advantage of voters’ looming anger over prices at the pump. On Thursday House Republicans passed a bill to expand offshore drilling and force the White House to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The tumult prompted the Interior Department to announce on Friday expanded oil exploration in the Arctic.

If prices at the pump continue to rise,  expect more gas wars.

In fact, oil prices are rising for three reasons-- none of which has to do with offshore drilling or the XL pipeline.

The first, on the supply side, is Iran’s decision to cut in oil exports to Britain and France in retaliation for sanctions put in place by the EU and United States. Iran’s threat to do this has been pushing up crude oil prices for weeks.

The second, on the demand side, is rising hopes for a global economic recovery-- which would mean increased oil consumption. The American economy is showing faint signs of a recovery. Europe’s debt crisis appears to be easing. Greece’s pending bailout deal is calming financial nerves on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Bank of England and European Central Bank are keeping rates low. At the same time, China has decided to boost its money supply to spur growth there.

Neither of these would have much effect were it not for the third reason-- overwhelming bets of hedge funds and other money managers that oil prices will rise on the basis of the first two reasons.

Speculators have pushed crude oil to $105.28 per barrel, up 35 percent since September. Brent crude, Europe’s benchmark, is now $120.37 a barrel-- also worrisome because many East Coast refineries use imported oil.

Funny, I don’t hear Republicans rail against speculators. Could that have anything to do with the fact that hedge funds and money managers are bankrolling the GOP as never before?

Obama can't say he wasn't warned. Bernie Sanders-- the only Senate incumbent Blue America has endorsed for reelection-- has been warning about the dangers of oil and gas speculators for a very long time. Sanders says he has been disappointed by the "lack of urgency" by the Commodity Future Trading Commission and he and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have been threatening congressional action if the CFTC doesn't curb oil speculation.

Not photoshopped

Do You Ever Get The Idea That Big Oil Runs The Country?

A lot of people noticed that news of the Libyan civil war had barely hit the newspapers when the price of gasoline in our neighborhood stations started steadily shooting up. Odd, many of us thought, since that gasoline came from crude that had been pumped and refined and shipped a month ago when the price was much lower. In fact, the price wasn't even higher yet, just starting to be driven higher by unregulated commodities speculators. And the many of us who ruminated on that were proven right when the Oil Industry explained patiently that although the price of crude has dropped by a lot, prices at the pump will not drop-- and may even continue to rise a bit-- because the high-priced oil is in the pipeline. Makes sense.

It would have also made sense that some Oil Industry top executives would have been indicted, tried and punished for their crimes over the years. Not doing so, is absolute permission for them to continue robbing us blind. And we don't even have to go all the way back to when Standard Oil was in bed with a rising young political figure in pre-War Germany (yes, the Adolf guy... but there was no way to do that without arresting prominent American traitors with household names like Rockefeller, Bush and Dulles). Just go back into the really recent past-- remember the ExxonValdez? The boat ran aground and spill oil all over. Everyone knew expensive lawsuits were coming so all the oil companies-- what a coincidence, since price fixing and collusion is clearly illegal-- jacked up their prices by a third, claiming a shortage of crude. Good thing it wasn't two boats!

I know you've been hearing this from me for years, so let me quote someone else, the nonprofit watchdog group, Public Campaign, who also tracks the legalistic bribes our Members of Congress takes from the corporations they're supposed to oversee and regulate and protect us from. Last week when the House Republicans were determined to pass H.R. 1230 to restart offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, Democrats responded with a Motion to Recommit that would have required that all the oil and gas pumped would be offered for sale in the U.S. and not go to China and India or wherever Big Oil could get the most profits from it. "If oil is taken from land owned by the American taxpayer, it should benefit American families. Democrats want to lower the price of gas, put consumers first, and strengthen our economic recovery," is how Nancy Pelosi explained it. It may sound reasonable but it lost 171-238, only one Republican, Walter Jones (NC), crossing the aisle to vote YES, while 4 Democrats crossed in the other direction. When the underlying legislation-- to force through the leasing-- came to a vote, it passed 266-149-- two Republicans, Jones and Key West Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, joining the Democrats, while 33 of the most corrupt Democrats in the House crossed the aisle to curry favor with Big Oil, like for example, virtually all the Blue Dogs.

U.S. House members who defeated a measure to begin debate on legislation to end certain subsidies for oil companies received five times more in campaign contributions, on average, from the oil and gas industry in the 2010 election cycle than those who voted to proceed with the motion, according to campaign watchdog Public Campaign Action Fund.

This afternoon, House Democrats tried to pass a motion that would allow a vote on a provision to end certain subsidies to oil companies, but it was defeated 241-171, with just seven Democrats joining with Republicans to oppose the measure.

“Americans are struggling with the high cost of filling their gas tanks, but some members of Congress seemed only concerned with their Big Oil donors,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director for Public Campaign Action Fund.

According to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics:

• House members who voted to continue the subsidies received, on average, five times more money in 2010 from oil and gas interests. Those voting to block debate received $36,066, on average, in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests. Those who voted to begin debate received, on average, $7,192 in campaign contributions from the industry.

• Overall, members that voted to continue the subsidies received more than $8.7 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests in 2010 while those opposed raised just $1.2 million.

• 16 of the 18 U.S. House members that received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from the industry in 2010 voted to block debate. One voted to proceed and a second did not vote.

...The five largest U.S. oil companies-- Exxon, Conoco Phillips, BP, Shell, and Chevron-- made over $30 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011, yet they continue to get generous government subsidies and tax breaks. Today’s House vote would’ve ended these unnecessary handouts.

“Voting to keep these wasteful subsidies for oil companies might be good for campaign bank accounts, but it won’t solve our deficit,” said Donnelly. “Members of Congress should be standing with their constituents instead of their big oil donors.”

I'd like to point out the dozen most Oil-corrupted Members of the House. These 12 have taken the most in direct, legalistic bribes from Big Oil in their political careers. All of them-- surprise, surprise-- voted against the interests of their constituents and for the interests of the Big Oil companies that bribe them:

Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,510,280
Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,188,092
Don Young (R-AK)- $1,000,913
Mike Conway (R-TX)- $678,818
Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $677,164
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)- $651,310
Kay Granger (R-TX)- $646,307
John Sullivan (R-OK)- $596,000
Ralph Hall (R-TX)- $549,426
Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $489,947
John Culberson (R-TX)- $456,761
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)- $448,222

The bill referred to above, the one that was meant to strip away the billion in tax subsidies to the mega-profitable oil industries was written by Tim Bishop (D-NY) would have resulted in $12 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next decade. Conservatives, who cry a lot about the deficit when it means paying a living wage to teachers and other public servants but never find any tax giveaways to their Big Business contributors too outrageous, disagreed. “We’re in this situation because of this administration’s policies that have shut off energy supply,” Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA), one of Congress' most blatant Oil Industry whores, said on the floor before the vote. He argued that the oil industry would pass on their extra costs to consumers if their tax subsidies are repealed. Just a week ago, both Speaker John Boehner and Budget Chairman Paul Ryan said publicly that they thought Big Oil should pay their fair share. I guess they must have felt a lot of pressure because they both voted against their constituents and for Big Oil on all three votes last week. Watch Ryan and some of his sleaziest colleagues in action:



[Time to dump Paul Ryan? Oh, absolutely-- and we have an Act Blue page dedicated just to that project. His own read on this is a lot like most Americans': "The GOP (greedy oil people) keep fleecing the American people by supporting the special interests of Oil and Gas companies with subsidies. This is not a path to fiscal responsibility, but a continuation of corporate welfare." Voters in WI-1 will have a real choice in 2012.]

Meanwhile the League of Conservation Voters sent out an e-mail to their list this week that I want to share with anyone not on that list. "Enough is enough," they begin.

ExxonMobil has reported 1st quarter profits of nearly $11 billion. Shell announced $6.9 billion in profits. BP earned over $5 billion during the first three months of the year.

Meanwhile Americans across the country are struggling with near-record prices at the pump.

And do you know the worst part? While the Big Oil companies rake in obscene profits, they’re also getting billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Tell Congress: It’s time to end Big Oil handouts. Click here to add your name to the petition.

Over the past decade, the big five oil companies-- BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell-- have enjoyed more than $900 billion in profits. Let me repeat that. Since 2001, the world’s biggest oil companies have made over $900 billion in profits.

At the same time, these oil companies benefit from more than $4 billion in special tax breaks every year. Why are we subsidizing one of the most profitable industries? Why does ExxonMobil get a tax break while we get stuck paying higher gas prices?

The House of Representatives has already cast several votes this year related to ending oil industry subsidies, but each time Big Oil’s congressional backers successfully beat back those efforts. In fact, pro-polluter lawmakers in the House are instead pushing irresponsible drilling that puts our economy and our environment at risk-- demonstrating their energy policy is simple: oil above all.

But momentum is building for action. Senate Majority Leader Reid has said that the Senate may vote as soon as next week on legislation that would strip the biggest oil companies of the government handouts they enjoy.

Mixing Oil And Coffee-- To Elect Republicans

When I was a child I hated the treacley bitter-sweet taste of Coffee-Time in my milk. But it's the closest I ever came to drinking a cup of coffee. Nope-- never had one. But lately we've been revisiting the Republican filibuster of the anti-speculation rules passed by the House in terms of oil and gas. In reality the attempt to get sociopath Wall Street speculators under control was about commodities in general, not just gasoline. And the damage they're doing to the American economy may be a dream come true for GOP election planners in terms of wrecking the economy but... the price of gasoline isn't the only commodity being driven through the roof because of the filibuster. Take coffee.

Starbucks is the biggest coffee chain in the world so, of course, they're concerned that coffee prices have hit a 34-year high last week. CEO Howard Schultz points out that food prices are rising across the board. He points out that there is absolutely no problem with supply.

Q: It's all about speculation you've been quoted saying?

Well I just gave a key note address at the National Coffee Association in New Orleans about a month ago. I met one-on-one with key suppliers. There wasn't one supplier that indicated to me that there was any supply issue. So we're living at a time right now where financial speculation index funds, hedge funds have created a rush of very, very high prices. And not only coffee, corn, sugar, cotton and obviously oil, and unfortunately it has to hit the consumer. We're working very hard not to put us in a situation where there's going to be pain for the customer.

Q: So you're holding back passing it on to the customer?

We are. We've also told the Street that regardless of where coffee prices go, we'll be able to navigate through this in 2012 but it's challenging.

Q: How do you manage the volatility in the meantime?

Well, I think there are other ways we can mitigate costs and we've lots of different levers. The fact that just this year alone, we have significant cost pressures. We are having a great year. We've been doing this for forty years. We've seen other cyclical changes. The only difference this time is there's no supply issue.

Q: If coffee prices continue to push higher, will it turn consumers off drinking coffee?

Well I think the question you have to ask yourself is the elasticity of pricing. And I think given the economic downturn, and the pressure on global consumers, we all have to be very conscious of it and that's why I don't want to raise prices.

Like I said, I don't drink coffee. But even though I drive a Prius, I do use some gas and I'm following the way the GOP and their allies have been driving up the price (while driving down the economy). Thursday Robert Reich called out Exxon-Mobil, one of the biggest contributors to the Republican Party of any entity on earth. The taxpayer-subsidized corporation made $10.7 billion in profits since January, a gigantic spike over last year. And, although Exxon denies it, Reich makes the point that it's very much related to the increase in the price of oil and he makes the case that there are a lot of ways taxes could be better used than GOP insistence that it be handed over to Big Oil. Remember, for all his whimpering about when cornered like a rat in his town halls, Ryan's budget bestows another $40 billion in our taxes on the big oil conglomerates!

This gusher is an embarrassment for an industry seeking to keep its $4 billion annual tax subsidy from the U.S. government, at a time when we’re cutting social programs to reduce the budget deficit.

It’s specially embarrassing when Americans are paying through their noses at the pump.

Exxon-Mobil’s Vice President asks that we look past the “inevitable headlines” and remember the company’s investments in renewable energy.

What investments, exactly? Last time I looked Exxon-Mobil was devoting a smaller percentage of its earnings to renewables than most other oil companies, including the errant BP.

In point of fact, no oil company is investing much in renewables-- precisely because they’ve got such money gusher going from oil. Those other oil companies also had a banner first quarter, compounding the industry’s embarrassment about its $4 billion a year welfare check.

American Petroleum Industry CEO Jack Gerard claims the gusher is due to the “growing strength in our economy.”

Baloney. If you hadn’t noticed already, this is one of the most anemic recoveries on record. $4-a-gallon gas is itself slowing the economy’s growth, since most consumers are left with less money to spend on everything else.

Gerard then claims the giant earnings “reflect the size necessary for [American] companies to be globally competitive with national oil companies” around the world.

Let’s get real. The crude oil market is global. Oil companies sell all over the world. The price of crude is established by global supply and demand. In this context, American “competitiveness” is meaningless.

Republicans who have been defending oil’s tax subsidy are also finding themselves in an awkward position. John Boehner temporarily sounded as if he was backing off-- until the right-wing-nuts in the GOP began fulminating that the elimination of any special tax windfall is to their minds a tax increase (which means, in effect, the GOP must now support all tax-subsidized corporate welfare).

Boehner is now trying to pivot off the flip-flop by reverting to the trusty old “drill, drill, drill” for opening more of country to oil drilling and exploration. “If we began to allow more permits for oil and gas production, it would send a signal to the market that America’s serious about moving toward energy independence,” he says.

This argument is as nonsensical now as it was when we last faced $4-a-gallon gas. To repeat: It’s a global oil market. Even if 3 million additional barrels a day could be extruded from lands and seabeds of the United States (the most optimistic figure, after all exploration is done), that sum is tiny compared to 86 million barrels now produced around the world. In other words, even under the best circumstances, the price to American consumers would hardly budge.

Whatever impact such drilling might have would occur far in the future anyway. Oil isn’t just waiting there to be pumped out of the earth. Exploration takes time. Erecting drilling equipment takes time. Getting the oil out takes time. Turning crude into various oil products takes time. According the federal energy agency, if we opening drilling where drilling is now banned, there’d be no significant impact on domestic crude and natural gas production for a decade or more.

Oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored. Why would they seek more drilling rights? Because ownership of these parcels will pump up their balance sheets even if no oil is actually pumped.

Last but by no means least, as we’ve painfully learned, the environmental risks from such drilling are significant.

Let’s not fool ourselves-- or be fooled. There’s no reason to continue to give giant oil companies a $4 billion a year tax windfall. Nor any reason to expand drilling on federal lands or on our seashores.

But there are strong reasons to invest in renewable energy-- even in a time of budget austerity. Use the $4 billion this way. And why stop there? Why not a windfall profits tax to the oil companies, to be used for renewable energy?

Senator Bernie Sanders has very similar feelings and he sent Obama letter this week demanding real action on speculators. “The skyrocketing cost of gasoline is causing severe economic pain to millions of Americans who have already suffered through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," he wrote, going on to ask the president to intercede with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal regulatory body that has failed to rein in the rampant speculation artificially driving up oil prices.

The Wall Street reform law enacted last year required the commission to impose so-called position limits, which would restrict the amount of oil that speculators could trade in the energy futures market. The law called for the tough new regulations to take effect by Jan. 22. The commission balked. Now, three months later, the price of gasoline has gone up 80-cents a gallon because of the commission’s hands-off approach to the markets it is supposed to regulate.
 
Only two of the five sitting commissioners support strong limits that the new Wall Street law envisioned. It takes three commissioners to adopt a new rule. The president, Sanders said, should insist that the law be enforced and demand the immediate resignation of commissioners who refuse to do their job.
 
“I urge you to make it clear to the CFTC that they must obey the law and establish strong oil speculation limits as soon as possible,” the senator wrote. “I would also urge you to ask for the immediate resignation of any CFTC commissioner who refuses to obey the law and nominate someone else who will.”

And this morning President Obama addressed the nation on radio agreeing that taxpayer subsidies for oil companies should end. He contradicted the shrill oil company claims that their profits don't go up when the price of gasoline is jacked up.

Of course, while rising gas prices mean real pain for our families at the pump, they also mean bigger profits for oil companies. This week, the largest oil companies announced that they’d made more than $25 billion in the first few months of 2011-- up about 30 percent from last year.

Now, I don’t have a problem with any company or industry being rewarded for their success. The incentive of healthy profits is what fuels entrepreneurialism and helps drives our economy forward. But I do have a problem with the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies we’ve been handing out to oil and gas companies-– to the tune of $4 billion a year. When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right. They aren’t smart. And we need to end them.

...[I]nstead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, we should invest in tomorrow’s – and that’s what we’ve been doing. Already, we’ve seen how the investments we’re making in clean energy can lead to new jobs and new businesses. I’ve seen some of them myself -- small businesses that are making the most of solar and wind power, and energy-efficient technologies; big companies that are making fuel-efficient cars and trucks part of their vehicle fleets. And to promote these kinds of vehicles, we implemented historic new fuel-economy standards, which could save you as much as $3,000 at the pump.

Randian Greed-Based "Free" Markets Driving Up Gas Prices In Orlando, Driving Political Instability In The Middle East... And Hunger Worldwide

I thought the most expensive gas in America was in my neighborhood. I was wrong. Orlando, Florida has that distinction this weekend.

Suncoast Energys, located near the Orlando International Airport, was charging $5.69 a gallon for regular gasoline on Friday. That's the highest of any gas retailer in the nation, according to price tracker gasbuddy.com.

Overall, Orlando has about the same gas prices as the national average, still under $4.00 a gallon. Thursday President Obama announced a new working group to look into and combat fraud and manipulation in the oil and gasoline markets, although many worry that he needs to put more focus on Wall Street political donors in the commodities sector, who are the worst of the predatory speculators.

In 2008 the Democratically-run House overwhelmingly passed an anti-speculation bill but it was filibustered to death by the GOP in the Senate at the urging of their allies in the Oil industry and on Wall Street. Anyone paying $5 a gallon in Orlando this week should remember that Florida's two senators split along party lines on this vote. Bill Nelson opted to protect consumers from criminal speculators. Republican Mel Martinez decided it was more important to protect the right of predators to fleece the public.

According to a Marist poll last week "36% of U.S. residents think the volatility in the Middle East is at fault while 34% say U.S. oil companies are the culprits." You may have missed the brilliant reporting last February by Ryan Grim and Zach Carter on how Wall Street speculators destabilize the world. That's because they focused on how unjustifiable but galloping food prices were undermining stability in places no one cared much about: Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen, Algeria... "Food price hikes typically have a muted impact in the United States, where consumers spend only a small fraction of their income on what they eat. But in many other parts of the world, ordinary citizens spend as much as 80 percent of their earnings on meals, and such increases can have a devastating impact." Today, though, the same Randian Wall Street forces embraced as religious icons by the Republican Party, are driving up the price of gasoline here in America.

Since July, the price of corn has jumped 62 percent. Wheat has climbed by two-thirds, and soybeans are 38 percent more expensive. For many of the world's poorest citizens, the costs of both basic necessities and things that make life bearable are climbing out of reach: sugar has jumped by 81 percent, tea by 42 percent and arabica coffee by more than a quarter. Soybean oil has risen by half and fuel, overall, is a quarter more expensive than it was this summer.

In Tunisia, protesters' demands for lower food prices helped spark a revolution. In Egypt, the government's most significant concession to the uprising-- before President Hosni Mubarak stepped down-- was to offer major increases in food subsidies. On Feb. 3, the Bahrain government responded to protests with generous food subsidies, before adopting a violent strategy against demonstrators. Demonstrators have gathered in Algeria, Morocco and Yemen to protest food prices, as well.

There's no question that people in the Middle East and northern Africa are hungry for freedom. But people are also simply hungry. "We're in an era where the world and nations ignore the food issue at their peril," Josette Sheeran, the head of the World Food Program, told Bloomberg in a prescient January interview.

The current crop of deposed heads of state may have Wall Street to thank for their forced retirement. While the causes of helter-skelter commodity prices are complex-- natural disasters such as floods and droughts can play a big role, as can interest-rate shifts engineered by central bankers around the globe-- rapid-fire trading and speculation on the Street can magnify the problem.

In an era when vast pools of capital shift in and out of markets for basics like food and oil with the a few computer keystrokes, trading can cause prices to see-saw in ways that are sometimes harrowing and hard to control... [D]erivatives trading remains a largely under-regulated affair, even though such gambling was a major cause of the financial crisis in the United States and broadened the severity of the entire debacle.

Last year's Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory legislation sought to address the problem speculation can play in commodity markets specifically and financial markets more generally, requiring federal regulators to police the massive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives game.

But to be effective cops, regulators will need a bigger budget, something Republicans are already lining up against.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which will shoulder much of the burden for monitoring derivatives trading, currently only oversees about $5 trillion worth of trading on commodities exchanges. Dodd-Frank envisions the CFTC empowered as the primary regulator of a much vaster market that involves more than $500 trillion worth of trading.

That's an ambitious goal even with the new funds the Obama administration proposed in its budget Monday, which would increase the CFTC's annual funding by 77 percent, from $168.8 million to $298.8 million. The Securities and Exchange Commission, another keyregulator of Wall Street trading, would get a $300-million boost to its $1.12-billion annual budget, a jump of 27 percent.

Despite plans for a dramatically broader regulatory mandate at these agencies, Republicans now openly plan to defund key elements of Dodd-Frank, legislation which most of the congressional GOP opposed. Among the budgets that Republicans are seeking to kneecap? Those the regulators need to do their work.

...Commodities traders have wielded huge influence over the lives of farmers and manufacturers for more than a century, and the Populist movement of the late 19th century was one of the first mass protests against the growth of that influence. Regulations were eventually enacted to temper the role traders could play in the markets.

Today, thanks to trillions of dollars worth of financial speculation in commodities -- which are bounced around on computer screens and loosely regulated -- Wall Street's role is even more entrenched and potentially more destructive.

"Commodity markets functioned fairly and effectively for over sixty years," wrote David Frenk, executive director of the market-transparency advocacy group Better Markets in a June paper. "In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act deregulated commodities markets ... providing loopholes for speculation through completely unregulated shadow markets."

The lion's share of that speculation is taking place in an unregulated, multitrillion-dollar dark market that was born in 2000, when Congress passed the CFMA. A sweeping piece of legislation, it placed many financial derivatives beyond the reach of regulatory supervision. Secret trades were explicitly legalized, ensuring that most players in this so-called "over-the-counter" market would be unable to access key price information.

...Too much speculation, however, can wreak havoc. When the amount of speculative capital in these markets overwhelms their usage by farmers and commercial firms, speculation itself has the opportunity to drive prices.

"The recent flood of speculative money into commodities markets is increasing price volatility and pushing up further the prices of raw commodities and food products," 10 Texas A&M economists wrote in a 2008 report.

Speculation in other commodities can push up the price of food, since the commodities are often "indexed" together. Speculation in oil is particularly important, since transportation costs are a major factor in the prices food, and oil is a key ingredient for many fertilizers.

"Paper oil and physical oil are about the same thing, economically. If you're going to have speculation, you're going to have some impact on the price of physical oil," said economist John Parsons of MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. "We can have speculation in the share of a high-tech stock. If people believe that a stock is going to be worth more in the future, they can bid up the price now. We can have similar speculation in housing or oil or other commodities."

And speculation in commodities took off after the deregulation of 2000. The over-the-counter market exploded from about $674 billion in 2001 to $13.2 trillion by June 2008, according to the Bank for International Settlements. The more transparent, regulated forms of speculation grew with the over-the-counter gambling. Between June of 2000 and June of 2008, the U.S. futures market for oil grew from bets on 517 million barrels, or $16 billion, to bets on 1.44 billion barrels, or $202.5 billion, according to a 2010 paper by Parsons. Commodity index funds-- new speculative vehicles that allowed fund managers to bet on "baskets" of multiple commodities all at once-- jumped in popularity, growing from $15 billion in 2003 to $200 billion in 2008, according to a 2009 report by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations.

...[L]ow interest rates combined with a very weak economy-- creates the potential for problems. Without a big new source of demand in the American economy-- the only plausible source is higher government spending-- the Fed's low interest rates for big banks encourage traders to plow money into assets well beyond levels suggested by supply and demand.

"So long as you have money available to banks at zero cost, no long-term productive outlets for investment, and the capacity to make money by manipulating commodity pools, the situation is ripe for speculative excess," University of Texas economist James Galbraith told HuffPost.

"The reality is, as commodity prices go up, there's only a finite amount for food aid and things. People really are going to start dying," Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who took Blanche Lincoln's seat in November, told HuffPost, adding that the danger of speculation is "a legitimate concern."

Boozman said the Fed deserves some blame. "One of the problems that we've got is the Fed doing the things that they're doing, keeping the interests rates down, is devaluing the currency, so people are fleeing into commodities," he said.

Whatever happens to the recovery at home, soaring food prices appear certain to drive the global poor deeper into destitution this year, Kane said. The Maryknolls currently have missionaries in 35 countries all over the world, and conditions are already deteriorating.

"These are countries where chronic hunger has been a problem for decades," Kane said. "They're used to living on very little, and the fact that spontaneous food riots broke out all over the world demonstrates how desperate things got in 2008, and how desperate they are now."

Who's To Blame For High Gas Prices? Is It Qaddafi? Or Mitch McConnell?

Although America doesn't buy any oil from Libya, the problems there may be adding a couple of pennies to the cost of gasoline here. But what accounts for the fact that drivers in California are looking for service stations that are only charging $4/gallon-- looking and not finding. Is there someone to blame? There sure is! On July 25, 2008 the Senate took up a cloture resolution to break the Republican filibuster on S. 3268 (Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008), which was meant to amend the Commodity Exchange Act in order to "prevent excessive price speculation with respect to energy commodities." Only two Republicans-- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine-- voted to end the Republican fillibuster. The rest of them followed Mitch McConnell's lead in making sure speculators would have the "right" to manipulate the price of oil, manipulation that we are feeling at the pumps today. Even shameless oil industry shill Mary Landrieu had to draw the line on this one and vote against the speculators. But Orrin Hatch (UT), Dick Lugar (IN), Bob Corker (TN), John Barrasso (WY) and Roger Wicker (MS) all voted to continue the filibuster. Why mention these 5 galoots? They're all up for reelection next year and even if the price of gas hit $10 a gallon they represent constituencies that would never hold them accountable for their votes anyway.

The anti-speculation bill had passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, 402-19, every Democrat (including even the worst Blue Dogs) plus all the Republicans except 19 deranged extremists voting YES. Among the Republicans who put the rights of speculators over the rights of consumers-- and the economic well-being of the nation-- were the current Republican candidate for the open Arizona Senate seat, Jeff Flake, as well as fellow extremists Steve King (R-IA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Mike Pence (R-IN), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Dan Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX).

Nevertheless, I haven't heard a peep out of the DSCC about the Republican battle to protect speculators. This is a shame, since back in 2008, they certainly understood its significance as an issue. Here's a press release the DSCC put out then against McConnell:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators-- institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil-- now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

Speculation is driving rising oil prices past where they should be, even with flat supply and rising demand. Economists and energy experts believe that speculation is helping drive the sudden spike in oil prices, which rose more than 50% between February and June.

Both OPEC (and the Saudis) and the White House are blaming the avarice of speculators. "The problem is," said President Obama yesterday, "is that oil is sold on these world markets, and speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there's a 20 percent chance that something might happen in the Middle East that might disrupt oil supply, so we're going to bet that oil is going to go up real high. And that spikes up prices significantly." Last month a dozen senators-- Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jay Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Bill Nelson (D-FL)-- called for a crackdown on the Wall Street gambling that is enriching them while draining billions out of the pockets of American consumers. They're asking the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to crack down on oil speculation. Cantwell has taken the lead on this and wrote that “Washington drivers are paying at the pump for reckless Wall Street oil speculation. Last year, we gave the financial cops the tools they need to rein in rampant Wall Street speculation. Today, we’re asking them to put those tools to use. It’s time for Wall Street to stop the reckless gambling on what it costs for Washingtonians to fill up their gas tanks.” She points out that the price of oil has less to do with the traditional laws of supply and demand, and more with speculators artificially inflating the price-- and perceived demand-- of oil. Since the latest round of civil unrest began late January in North Africa and then the Middle East, oil trades by speculators have jumped dramatically 35% to 50% in some markets. During that same period, U.S. gas prices have soared by almost 40%. By the way, only 8 members of Congress have gotten over a million dollars in legalistic bribes from Big Oil so far. All 8 are Republicans of course:

Selling Off America, One Piece At A Time-- The Bush Economic Miracle

Yesterday I went to lunch with a senior VP who works at the largest bank in the world, Citigroup. She mentioned that last year Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who was, at the time, one year into his reign as ruler of Dubai, decided to buy his newest and youngest-- his fourth-- wife a present for her 28th birthday. He bought her Barney's. Actually he had his UAE front company, Istithmar PJSC, outbid a legitimate Japanese firm and close the deal for a paltry $942.3 million. My VP friend has nothing against Sheikhettes or any Arabs-- their money is as good as anyone else's and, after all, her own place of employment's biggest single shareholder happens to be a Saudi bandit calling himself "Prince" Al-Waleed bin Talal; all that gas you pump into your tank bought him a 4.4% stake. But she did note that our ruling class seems to have done something very wrong to set things up so that in the last 7 or 8 years a vast amount of American wealth has been transferred from U.S. control to Middle Eastern control. I think she's a Republican who's had her fill and won't be voting for John McSame in November.

Republican energy policies-- remember the top secret meetings in Cheney's office?-- have been absolutely ruinous for our economy and perhaps for our nation. They certainly drove us into this catastrophic and destabilizing war in Iraq. Before I go further, I want to say that although the energy policies-- billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil, deliberate hobbling of alternative energy advances, and regulations that have led to gasoline increases from $1.51/gallon on the day George Bush took office to... well, I paid $4.29 today-- may be supported by every single Republican in the federal government, but they have also been championed by more than a few bought-off Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, particularly Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA- $616,744) and Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK- $379,860). Like I've pointed out before, 75% of the massive bribery program Big Oil has used to buy off Congress ($221,843,888 since 1990) has gone to Republicans-- Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX- $2,126,025), Phil Gramm (R-TX- $1,679,314), John McCain (R-AZ- $1,642,810), John Cornyn (R-TX- $1,317,825), Joe Barton (R-TX- $1,246,411), James Inhofe (R-OK- $1,090,023) and Don Young (R-AK- $957,263), being the biggest beneficiaries and the most steadfast shills for the industry's agenda. But that other 25% has gone to buy Blue Dogs and other corrupt, reactionary Democrats' fealty.

And that brings us to a story on the front page of the Washington Post this morning: A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading. Wow! And I thought the mass media had decided that story had no legs or was too complicated and made it go away. You see, just before they broke for the summer holiday, senators were confronted with S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008, sponsored by Harry Reid and co-sponsored by 14 Democratic senators. Its express purpose was "to amend the Commodity Exchange Act, to prevent excessive price speculation with respect to energy commodities." Big Oil whore Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $673,861) promptly filibustered the bill. When the Democrats tried to end the debate and vote, all of Big Oil's biggest shills gave the finger to the economically hard-pressed American public and stuck with McConnell and their buddies at Big Oil who have been so very, very generous to them.

The only Republican to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats was Maine's Olympia Snowe, who isn't up for re-election but who is very aware what heating oil is going to cost her constituents in a few more months. Her colleague, Bush's "Sweet Susan," was never as bright or as quick on the uptake. She's is in a tight re-election battle and after taking $134,393 in "donations" from Big Oil & Gas, she voted to support the filibuster. If you are following the Senate election campaigns you will have noticed several Republicans like Susan Collins shouting about how Democratic opposition to more drilling is what is causing the high oil prices. Is that why they all oppose the "Use It Or Lose It" legislation proposed by Democrats to force oil companies to drill on the millions of off-shore lots they've already been granted? Among the happy filibusterers are 6-figure Big Oil prostitutes like Lindsey Graham (R-SC- $115,525), Thad Cochran (R-MS- $205,435), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA- $209,842), John Sununu (R-NH- $238,530), Norm Coleman (R-MN- $247,900), Roger Wicker (R-MS- $262,710), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC- $277,756), Gordon Smith (R-OR- $295,325), Pat Roberts (R-KS- $327,900), Lamar Alexander (R-TN- $364,675), and Big Oil's 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse: crook Ted Stevens (R-AK- $476,540), Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $673,861), James Inhofe (R-OK- $1,090,023), and, of course, John Cornyn (R-TX- $1,317,825). Big Oil's biggest and most dedicated shill, John McCain (R-AZ- $1,642,810), was conveniently out of town and able to avoid going on record.

Post reporter David Cho explains how a very small number of firms have been able to control the ebb and flow-- and price-- of gasoline and other commodities while avoiding scrutiny from the purposely shackled federal regulatory agencies, the diminishment of which has been one of the grandest-- and most disastrous-- "achievements" of the Bush Economic Miracle.

Some lawmakers have blamed these firms for the volatility of oil prices, including the tremendous run-up that peaked earlier in the summer.

"It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency's laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was "difficult to comprehend how the CFTC [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] would allow a trader" to acquire such a large oil inventory "and not scrutinize this position any sooner."

...The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as "swap dealers" who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms.

To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC's purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn.

Using swap dealers as middlemen, investment funds have poured into the commodity markets, raising their holdings to $260 billion this year from $13 billion in 2003. During that same period, the price of crude oil rose unabated every year.

This was all made possible by the hard work of Texas Senator and Big Oil shill Phil Graham (R-TX- $1,679,314) and his Enron Loophole, officially known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. "The law formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators;" it was signed into law by... Bill Clinton.

The exemptions for swap dealers and the development of overseas markets allowed big brokerages to open the door for more hedge funds, pensions and big investors to move into commodities.

In the coming years, commodity investments by funds could grow to $1 trillion, veteran hedge fund manager Michael Masters said in testimony before the Senate earlier this year. In an interview, he said this trend could raise commodity prices for everyone in the coming years and "have catastrophic economic effects on millions of already stressed U.S. consumers."

Meanwhile, commodities have been good business for big Wall Street brokerages. Its commodity trades helped keep Goldman Sachs profitable during the credit crisis, said Richard Bove, a banking analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann.

"Business is lousy right now," Bowie said of Goldman Sachs. "Commodities and currencies are clearly the strongest business they have right now."

In the coming months, swap dealers expect to have yet another venue for oil speculation. The CFTC has stated it would not stand in the way of trading in U.S. oil contracts overseas in Dubai. Goldman Sachs and Vitol are among the major investors in this new exchange.

I guess we don't get Barney's back, do we?

Senate Republicans Block Gas Price Reduction And Housing Crisis Measures-- Right-wing Ideology Trumps Common Sense (Again)

Lunsford & McConnell: different eating habits/similar energy policies

Only 13 Republican senators voted against the bill that would allow the federal government to keep hundreds of thousands of American families from being kicked out of their homes by foreclosures. The voted succeeded, 80-13. So who were these radical right extremists who would rather see millions of Americans made homeless than compromise on their discredited and dangerous ideology? Well, most of the Republican rubber stamps who are up for re-election in November were the first to jump ship and scurry across the aisle and vote with the Democrats. But not all did. Among the 13 are 4 die-hard nut cases who do have to face the voters in November but just do not care what their constituents think. As far as these guys are concerned Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will tell their constituents what to think and that's that. The four are:

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
John Sununu (R-NH)

The other extremists who voted with them are Kit Bond (R-MO), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Corker (R-TN), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John Thune (R-SD) and David Diapers Vitter (R-LA).

Earlier in the day, the Republican radicals were able to stop a bipartisan plan to keep excessive oil speculation from driving up gasoline prices by manipulating the futures markets. Every Democrat plus Lieberman and the one actual moderate Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe, voted to stop manipulative speculation while 43 Republicans voted, in effect, for higher gas prices at the pump, including fake moderates like Maine's other senator, Susan Collins, as well as Norm Coleman, and John Sununu. The DSCC targeted Republican closet queen/Bush chief Senate obstructionist Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who has taken $230,900 in "donations" from Big Oil and Gas this year alone.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators-- institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil-- now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

Speculation is driving rising oil prices past where they should be, even with flat supply and rising demand. Economists and energy experts believe that speculation is helping drive the sudden spike in oil prices, which rose more than 50% between February and June.

Unfortunately for Kentucky Democrats, McConnell's opponent, conservative multimillionaire Bruce Lunsford is from the far right end of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and advocates many of the same tired and discredited policies advocated by McConnell and the GOP. He was the lizard-brained choice of Chuck Schumer and that choice was based on his millions, not on his policy positions. Today's Lexington Herald-Leader:

To lure voters weary of high gas prices, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford is embracing a GOP-led push for oil shale drilling, one policy goal Congress already achieved and one proposal that received mixed reviews from both parties.

...McConnell is running television ads highlighting the fact that Lunsford pushed for automatic state gas tax increases as an aide to Democratic Gov. John Y. Brown Jr. in the early 1980s.

One of Lunsford's key proposals is to create a federal gas tax holiday, which would remove the 18.5-cent levy from the cost of each gallon. Republican presidential candidate John McCain and former Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton support the idea.

But presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and others have dismissed it as a political ploy, saying it would do little to ease prices while taking away needed federal money to repair and build roads.

”I see this as an immediate relief for people who have this noose around their necks,“ Lunsford said. ”If people were out there and could see this, they'd understand how tight it is for people right now.“

Lunsford also reiterated his support for lifting a moratorium on drilling for oil shale in Western states, something that McConnell and Republicans are pushing.

Schumer has successfully saddled the Kentucky Democratic Party with a candidate who is re-inforcing Mitch McConnell's and John McCain's reactionary perspective on energy. But what could you expect from the reptilian Schumer? He also saddled America with the current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, although he claims to be "disappointed" now.