Why Midterm Election Polling Might Be Getting It Wrong

Right now, the Real Clear Politics averages of all polls that are covering the Senatorial elections have the Democrats and the Republicans holding 45 seats each; leaving 10 seats as toss ups and too close to call.  This, then, means that whatever party is able to win 6 of those 10 races will have majority control of the Senate come January.

But, the problem with almost all of these polls is that they don't reflect the historical voter demographics of midterm elections which tend to give Republicans a natural advantage.

First of all, the midterm voters tend to be older; and older voters more often vote Republican.  Also, a large part of the Democrat's base, Blacks, tend not to vote in the midterms. This also proves true for women, who historically favor Democrats. On the other hand,  non-black males show up and tend to vote Republican.

So, when you look at it from a sampling basis, women and blacks are typically over-polled relative to historical turnout rates. At the same time, men and older Americans are being under polled.  This is clearly true in Kansas that has Greg Orman leading Republican Pat Roberts 45 to 44 percent.  There, men were under polled 49% to 51% for women. Yet, historically, men have a higher turnout than women.  Also 45% of those polled were under age 45; despite more older voters expected to show up.  While it is true that sorting out the "likely voters" from those polled helps adjust for the demographic turn out rates, that action still doesn't take into account for the turnout rates of the individual groups mentioned above.

These are the reasons why I think that a Republican win is being grossly understated and why most of those "too close to call" races are probably more Republican than the Real Clear Politics averages suggest.  Thus, expect Republicans to win on the high side of the predicted 5 to 8 seats of the 10 toss up races.

References:

Real Clear Politics: 2014 Senate Races: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map.html

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why?: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/

How the Rise of Reagan Seniors Helps Republicans in November: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-25/reagan-loving-senior-voters-give-republicans-an-advantage-in-midterm-elections-and-maybe-control-of-congress

2014 Midterm Elections: More Women In The Electorate, But More Men Vote: http://www.ibtimes.com/2014-midterm-elections-more-women-electorate-more-men-vote-1712601

Women More Likely to Be Democrats, Regardless of Age: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx

Obama looks to black radio listeners to boost (black) Dem votes in midterms: http://www.theind.com/news/indnews/19331-obama-looks-to-black-radio-listeners-to-boost-dem-votes-in-midterms

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:  Current outlook: Republicans net 5-8 Senate seats: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2014-senate/

Kansas Senatorial Race: NBC/Marist Poll: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/KSpolls/KS141018/Complete%20October%2026,%202014%20Kansas%20NBC%20News__Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf

A Republican Senate Will Put Congress At War With Obama

Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has only had to use his veto power twice.  The reasons for this are quite simple.

In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress.  So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature.  Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill.  Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate.  Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.

If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans.  As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature.  Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's  political and ideological liking.  Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before.  Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist.  Not Congress.

But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills.  The President's approval rating may drop significantly.  That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes.  Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.

Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's  nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration.  As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees.  Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats.  Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.

Ah yes.  the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.


References:

Veto Counts by President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/stack-350-bills-stuck-senate-006985

Will The Label 'Do Nothing Congress' Backfire On Democrats In November

Ever since 2010, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, liberals and the liberal media have referred to them as a "Do Nothing Congress" because the President and the Democrats have been unable to get any of their liberal agenda passed through the GOP-controlled House. Of course that moniker also includes the Democrat-controlled Senate.  So, from a public opinion standpoint, they are both "do nothings".  This is why Congress, as a whole, has historically low approval ratings.

Going into the fall elections, when the Democrats desperately need to keep Senatorial control, the liberal name callers may have unwittingly set up a negative branding of their own candidates who are seeking reelection in typically GOP voting states.  And, I think this is why -- at least partly -- that 7 existing Democrat Senate seats are currently up for grabs going into November. This according to today's Real Clear Politics aggregate polling results.

Seven seats that just might give the control of the Senate to the Republicans.

References:

A 'do-nothing Congress'?: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/212041-a-do-nothing-congress

Rachael Maddow: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trying-split-the-do-nothing-congress

No surprise public approval of Congress at rock-bottom: http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2014/10/05/surprise-public-approval-congress-rock-bottom/16737691/

Harry Reid's Disingenuous Comments On The DC Court's Ruling On ObamaCare Subsidies

After two separate, but equal, federal courts ruled at odds with each other over the expansion of the ObamaCare subsidies to include those states that refused to establish their own exchanges, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt obliged to go to the microphones and admonish the DC court which had just ruled against the expansion.   Reid, arguing that the DC ruling was a partisan effort by two "activist" Republican judges, seemed to be blind to the fact that one could argue that the very same activism took place in the Virginia court where 3 Democrat Judges (Davis, Gregory, and Thacker) unanimously sided with the Obama Administration over the expansion of subsidies.

Reid also continued his admonishment by declaring that ObamaCare was lawfully passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.  However, what he is completely ignoring is the fact that the the constitutionality or the legality of the ObamaCare law was never at issue in those two court rulings.  What is at issue is whether or not the IRS had the right to re-write the law and, thereby, expand subsidies to those 36 states who elected not to provide their own exchanges.  Section 36b of ObamaCare clearly mandates that, in order to receive a subsidy, you must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311.”  The words "established by the State" obviously doesn't imply any exchange established by the Federal government like "healthcare.gov".  Otherwise, why even be so specific by using such wording?  And the reason for the IRS re-write is simple.  Too many states had refused to set up their own exchanges; leaving millions of the enrolled ineligible for subsidies.  In fact, only 14 actually did create their own exchanges. So, the Obama Administration knew the law would die on its own if millions avoided signing up for healthcare without those subsidies. Once again, it is the lawlessness of the Obama Administration that is really at issue here. 

Sadly, these opposing decisions by our courts does expose political activism in our judicial system.  If there wasn't, at least one of the 4 Democrat judges involved in these two decisions crossed party lines and would have ruled differently in what is an obvious wording intent of the law.  And, that activism is the very reason that Reid went "nuclear" in the Senate; thus, allowing federal judges and other political candidates to be appointed with a simple majority and not the previously required two-thirds vote.  This way Harry, with a majority control of the Senate, could load up our legal system with as many far-left, activist justices as he and the President could see fit. So, if Reid wants to make claims of political activism in our courts, he need only look in a mirror.

References:

Video: Harry Reid Admonishes DC Court Decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMsOvOgxzoA

The statutory text of Obamacare and the Halbig and King cases: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_econ/2014/07/the-statutory-text-of-obamacare-and-the-halbig-and-king-cases.html

U.S. Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Decisions On Obamacare Subsidies: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/22/334034284/u-s-appeals-court-deals-blow-to-obamas-health-law

Judge Andre M. Davis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_M._Davis

Judge Roger L. Gregory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Gregory

Judge Stephanie Thacker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Thacker

Upholding ObamaCare—as Written An appeals court's remedial civics lesson: Laws mean what they say: http://online.wsj.com/articles/upholding-obamacareas-written-1406070280

Why the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/why_the_halbig_decision_should_be_taken_seriously_123421.html

Senate Nuclear Option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Climate Alarmists Didn't Learn The Lessons of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and "Chicken Little

Recently, I read a news article in the National Journal that focused on the fact that some Senate Democrats are planning to pressure the Sunday news talk shows into having more coverage of  global warming and/or climate change.  This because the media god of all things extremely liberal, Media Matters, reported that only 8 minutes of Sunday talk time was dedicated to the subject in 2012.  Of course, I had to laugh because those Democrats really don't want a "discussion" of "all" the facts regarding climate change -- both pro and con -- but, rather, they want more extreme, alarmist pablum being rammed down the throats of Americans.

Last Sunday, dutiful to the will of the Democrats, all three of the major network Sunday shows had climate change discussions.  The most laughable of them was NBC's Meet the Press where Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, with a degree in home economics, was matched up with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, a mechanical engineer. Obviously, NBC was unable to scrape up a couple of experts in either meteorology or climatology to debate the issue.  I'm also assuming that Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse must have turned down their invitations as well.

What Democrats don't seem to understand is that America has "tuned out" the subject, and, the "tune out" is simply the result of people not buying into the extreme and dire predictions that clearly aren't happening.  It's as if the likes of Al Gore and other alarmists completely ignored the wisdom of the two children's fables: The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little.  This is why, the latest Pew Poll on priorities, placed global warming at the bottom; second only to dealing with global trade.

Then, of course, there was "ClimateGate" revealing that some critical data was being falsified in order to push the global warming theory.  That again weakened trust among Americans regarding the reality of this so called crisis.

Lastly,  the believability factor isn't helped when every time there is some severe weather event,  some politician, not a scientist or climatologist,  trips all over themselves to proclaim it a direct result of global warming. People understand that bad weather occurs all the time.  More often that not, the event being hyped was not as severe as some similar event in the past.  For example, when a deadly tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma in May of last year, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gave an impassioned speech blaming climate change.  Yet, after the tornado season was all said and done, we learned that 2013 broke the all-time record for the fewest tornadoes.

References:

 'Meet The Press' Shows Us Exactly How Not To Cover Climate Change: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/meet-the-press-climate-change_n_4794206.html

National Journal: Democrats Plan To Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change: http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114

Pew Research: Public Priorities: http://www.people-press.org/interactives/top-priorities/

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Oklahoma Tornado: Proof that politics and climate change are linked: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/21/moore-oklahoma-tornado-climate-change

2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/

A GOP Majority Might Be A Bad Thing

A lot of people seem to think that, if the GOP can win both Houses of Congress, all will be "right" with the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, a simple majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives won't be enough to override an Obama Veto. The GOP will still need a 60 vote majority in the Senate to do that. At best, the Republicans might only gain a slim majority in the Senate. For that very reason, don't expect legislation such as killing the remainder of the Stimulus Package, the overturning of ObamaCare, Financial Re-Regulation or Cap and Trade to get past Obama's veto without some significant help from Democrats. I just don't see Democrats assisting that effort after having put their jobs on the line to pass all that legislation.

Secondly, unlike Clinton, when he lost both Houses of Congress, don't expect the President to resolve himself to work with a Republican lead Congress. Obama isn't the pragmatic animal that Clinton was. He's an ideologue who has already gone on record saying he doesn't mind being a one-term President.

Lastly, a majority control of Congress by the GOP might actually hurt them. That's because Obama will constantly campaign against the GOP's lack of legislative responsibility in blocking his agenda. He's already doing that to influence public opinion and the GOP doesn't even have a majority.

In my opinion, the best thing for the Republicans, is to win the House and weaken, but not completely win the Senate. This will nullify Obama and his radical agenda. Also, it will somewhat disarm his argument that the GOP are always blocking his legislation. Then, I think the focus should be to oust Obama and take a 60-vote majority in 2012.

Health Care And The Keystone Kops Of The Senate

Max Sennett created the Keystone Kops of silent film fame. The "Kops" were a bumbling group of imbeciles who expended an excessive amount of energy to accomplish seemingly nothing.

Like Max Sennett, our own U.S. Senate has its Keystone Kops. They're the Democrats who are frantically pulling everything off the shelves to try and come up with some kind of health care reform by Christmas. They have arbitrarily imposed this nonsensical deadline on themselves. Because of that, they are throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks. If nothing does, they pick something else off the floor and fling that at the wall, again!

In the last two weeks, they have been on again; off again; with the Public Option. Now, we're down to increasing the size of Medicare and Medicaid -- both public health care systems -- and are now trying to convince America that the Public Option is dead. The struggle with abortion is another in, then out, problem. The latest fiasco is that caps will be put on cancer treatment payouts that are in excess of $100,000 annually. Right now, nobody knows who put that into the legislation; but, its there and many people are not too happy about it.

Yes, watching the senate attempt to pass health care reform is very similar to watching a Keystone Kops movie. It has all the attributes of trying to getting something done; even if it doesn't accomplish any of the original goals. Getting something done has become paramount and is clearly overshadowing doing something that is good. Between the Senate and the House, we have come up with the equivalent of a Rube Goldberg invention with all the flavor of the Winchester House of Mystery: A mansion renowned for its size and built with an utter lack of any master building plan.

So, it appears that we have a bunch of Keystone Kops building another Winchester House that will cost you, I, and the heirs of this country trillions of dollars in waste and inefficiency. It will truly be as historic as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi claim. As historic as the Hindenburg or the Titanic.

Look Daddy! Look at the nice big iceberg coming our way!

If Money is Fungible, So are Taxes!

Yesterday, Democrat Max Baucus rolled out his plan for health care reform. Looking much like a man with a really bad body odor problem, he stood by his lonesome on a stage to announce his plan. Nary a Democrat or Republican was there to stand by his side.

For those who don't know who Baucus is, he is a Senator from Wyoming and the supposed leader of a group of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats who have been trying to draft a bipartisan bill on health care reform.

The reason that Baucus found out that one "was the loneliest number" on that stage is because neither Democrats or Republicans are united with him on it.

The real stupidity in the Baucus proposal is how it's paid for. The Democrats don't like it because it gets a majority of its revenue by taxing health insurance companies for providing "Cadillac" health care plans -- plans like those that the union workers get. The Republicans are against it because it fails the tort reform test and because it is another $836 billion boondoggle tax scheme.

Baucus seems to think that his "paying for it" plan is a winner because he would hit the insurance companies with a 38% tax for providing certain first-class health insurance plans. Therefore, it would meet Obama's goal of not increasing the Federal deficit. His logic is that America won't balk at his taxing scheme because Americans already hate insurance companies. But, the stupidity of this Senate Finance member is that money doesn't come out of thin air. In order to pay the 38% tax on those Cadillac insurance plans, the insurance companies will have to pass that cost on to the consumer. So, in a round about way, we will all pay the price. It just won't be, technically, a hike in our taxes. It will just be higher prices that are forced by taxes. That's the fungibility of taxes when they are imposed on a supplier of any product or service.

In addition, Baucus would charge doctors and drug companies for a "hit list" of what somebody in government will ultimately determine as being luxury drugs and/or procedures. This form of punishment by taxation may, in fact, put some life saving drugs and techniques out of the reach of many Americans. The insanity of such a tactic is that most all common place medical procedures of today started out as very expensive procedures. Those would include things like stents and bypass surgery for heart patients. Kidney transplants and a variety of other procedures. For drugs, its the same. They start out as expensive "patented" medications and they ultimately wind up as cheap generics. Now, Baucus would make new procedures and new drugs even more expensive. This would either slow or completely stifle any new innovation.

Lastly on the "paying for it" bandwagon: If you don't have insurance, you will pay; and, pay big. A typical American family could get hit with as much as a $3800 annual fine for not having medical insurance. Families with kids who are just struggling to survive can't afford this type of "pound of flesh" punishment from our government.

More and more, I really think we're dealing with a complete bunch of idiots. Obama and the Congress keep telling us that the high cost of health care will break America if those costs aren't gotten under control. So, to control costs, they have insanely decided to raise the costs of health care by at least a trillion dollars. Then, to make sure health care doesn't get any better and maybe less expensive, they would stifle innovation with other taxes. Lastly, they refuse to control the awards for medical malpractice lawsuits -- awards that have been doubling almost every 7 to 8 years.

That's a great future for health care in America!

Obama's Audacity Gives New Hope For Change

When Obama wrote "The Audacity of Hope", I am quite sure that he thought he would be the instrument of change and not the object of it. But change may indeed come as a result of all the "change" that Obama is trying to force onto the American people with his extremely radical agenda.

The polls seem to be shouting a resounding "Whoa!" from those who are now becoming increasingly concerned about their country's future under the Obama Administration and the Democrats of Congress. Those same polls seem to reflect that definite change may be impending for America's current political leadership.

Polling now shows that the Democratic Governor, John Corzine, in the very blue State of New Jersey, is in trouble against his Republican challenger (Click to See: "Christie maintains lead over Corzine in poll"). In Virginia, that Democratic Governor has also fallen behind his Republican challenger (Click to: "McDonnell Leads Latest Poll in Virginia's Governor Race"). Senator Barbara Boxer has lost her normally dominant strength in that always-blue State of California. She only leads her opponent, Republican Carly Florina, by a mere 4 points and that campaign hasn't even really started (Click to See: "Poll: Carly Fiorina Closing Gap in Calif. Senate Race"). Then, there's Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. Polls show his numbers have plummeted to a 34 percent approval rating (Click to See the USAToday Story: "Poll: 34% approval for Harry Reid" ). Unfortunately, the Republicans can't seem to find a strong challenger to oppose him in 2010.

What should be more worrisome for Obama and the Democrats is the fact that, for the first time in years, people are saying that they would vote for a generic Republican over any generic Democrat (Click to See Real Clear Politics Polling Data).

Despite all this, the Democrats blindly and deafly push on with their agenda. It is as if they think they are at the Alamo and are all willing to die to save Texas; or, as in this case, save America. But, I think one Alamo in our history is enough. So do most Americans.

The Democrat Party was hijacked by the extreme left when they gained control. Once again, they did what they always do: overstep their boundaries. They have done this before under Carter and Clinton and have lost their dominant control as a result. In the case of Clinton, the complete Congress went to the Republicans.

In football, there is an expression that a quarterback will "hear footsteps" just before he's about to be sacked. If alert and agile, that quarterback will run out of the "pocket" and avoid the sack. Politically speaking, Obama and Congress might be ignoring those same footsteps and are unwilling to run out of or abandon the ideological pocket they have put themselves in.

I can't say for sure but, I think there could be a sea of change in 2010. A "change" that I think Obama couldn't or wouldn't see or hear coming. A "change" that he created for himself through his own audacity.

Shills

My guess is that Republican Senators Collins, Specter, and Snow will realize, at some point, that they were simply being used to get the stimulus package through the Senate. I'll bet money that, after the machinations of the House/Senate conference are completed and reconciled, much of what was removed to satisfy these turncoat Republicans will be back in; and, then some. That's because, what was passed in the House and the Senate are substantially different in scope while they might appear to be the same size in actual spending levels. I have read estimates that the two bills, overlapped together, will equal, on the low side, $1.2 trillion and, on the high side, $1.5 trillion. Neither the House nor the Senate Democrats are going to give up easily and just toss their portions of the bill into the abyss of compromise. Both groups are going to fight hard for their programs. I would not be surprised if the final product isn't over a trillion dollars. Maybe we'll find out later today.

The Real Story of Big Oil Profits

Last week, our major American oil company executives were, once again, marched before the Congressional "verbal firing squad" in hearings that those political morons seem to think will lower oil prices.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, there has never been a Senate or House hearing that has produced lower oil prices in the history of this country. It is all political theater for politicians who need to cover their big asses. It was political show during the Carter administration when the lines of automobiles, waiting to get gasoline, were wrapped around our city blocks. It was political show at the end of the Clinton Administration when, like today, oil prices were rising precipitously. And, it has a been similar, fruitless political carnival over the last 3 years when, in hearing after hearing, the same questions and the same "nothingless" results have taken place.

Sure, the oil company profits are high; but, relative to gross sales, the profits are in line with most other business. The fact is that most of these oil companies had little or no profits following the OPEC embargo during the Carter Administration; and, only in the last few years have they returned to a "good" profit margins. I can't remember a single Congressional hearing that was ever held to find out why our oil companies were making money. Can you?

The liberal Senators and Representatives of this country seem to think it is socially unfair that the oil compani4es should profit from high oil prices while we all suffer at the pump. Maxine Waters, a democrat from Caliifornia, actually hinted that the oil companies should be "nationalized" to keep prices low. How "maxist" is that! Does she really think that adding the inefficiency and wasteful spending of our Federal government will actually lower prices?

It appears that our lawmakers just don't understand the oil business. Just because the oil companies are making billions of dollars in profit, it doesn't mean that they are frivolously tossing dollars out the windows and raising every exec's pay. A single oil rig out in the Gulf of Mexico will cost between one-half and three-quarters of "billion" dollars to put into place. It will cost millions of dollars to operate that "rig" over its life. Often, exploratory drilling is a "bust" and millions of dollars are completely lost in this high-risk activity. As these companies drill deeper to find the harder-to-find-oil, the costs go up. It is estimated that the new "rigs" will exceed a billion dollars for any of the deeper drilling activities. Further, most people don't realize that existing oil wells and oil rigs aren't just "forever" money-making machines. Daily, many existing oil rigs and oil wells completely run dray and will no longer produce any oil or profits.

It is true that the oil companies pay their stock holders a dividend. Exxon-Mobil gives a "whopping" 1.8 percent in dividends to its shareholders. By comparison, a bank will give you closer to 3 percent on a high-yield CD (Certificate of Deposit). Most investors in oil companies aren't looking for the return they receive on their dividends. Instead, they are looking for increased business activity which will cause the stock price to go up. Like any other corporation in this country, it all comes down to stock price appreciation. Let's not forget, if a stock price is not maintained or falls significantly, a company can be "taken over" or bought out by another more profitable corporation or investment group. So, stock price appreciation is a required form of self-preservation in the world of corporate business.

The profits that these oil companies take in will ultimately find their way to new oil and gas reserves and other new forms of "marketable" energy. They need to find new oil/gas and alternative energy sources in order to survive and grow as corporations. They are very efficient at what the do so that they maximize their profits. Most of the price of oil is due to factors that even they can't control. They are just as subject to the control of oil prices by the world markets and by OPEC as we are. For example, Exxon-Mobil, while being the largest oil company in the world, only controls less than five percent of the world's oil supply. That hardly puts them in a position to control oil pricing. If they could, they would actually want lower gasoline prices at the pump so that they could "steal business away" from their foreign and domestic competitors like Shell and British Petroleum and Chevron. But, they can't. That's why the concept of "price fixing" is just so absurd.

Oil and gasoline prices are destined to continue to go up as the world demand for this increasingly scarce commodities continues to grow. And, as sure as their is a sunrise, I would expect that Congress will continue to have their useless "get togethers" with the oil execs. There will be no changes and oil prices will continue to go up. That's my prediction.