This is no surprise.

When the Democrats opposed Bush's attempt to change Social Security, and chose to do nothing but be obstructionist and dishonest, who was one of the most notorious Democrat? Hinchey! He actually said that Social Security “will be more valuable” in the future if we “leave it alone” now (i.e., do nothing, allowing it to fail, as it will unless it is saved — which won't happen from Obama's “solution” [sic]).

It's no surprise he's one of those who would repeat the lefty-excess nonsense that we were hearing after the Iranian revolution and despite lefty blunders by our own government at the time, both committed and conceived (windfall profits tax, price controls and attempted command and control of distribution of supplies, outright nationalization [federalization] of the oil companies, often accompanied by the same nonsense you could read any time in “The Energy Rip-Off,” by Gus Hall).

Are these risible, failed, decades-old failed, policies of the past the kind of “change” Obama and the other left Dems present (threaten) us with if they control the White House and Congress? The Dems lie that McCain is Bush's third term, while they advertise openly they'd be Carter's second or McGovern's first!

Ha, ha. ha.

(Can't they employ an IQ above 50 and simply wait until after the election before they advertize being crazy?)

Between laissez-faire, unchecked capitalism and communism (which isn't even .
an economic philosophy) lies a vast ocean.
Some very successful economies have governemnt-private partnership enterprises without Hugo Chavez moving in. Mixing elements of socialism with basic capitlaism, in fact, has led to the most stable societies.

Admitedly, this is above my economc expertise level, but I am concerned that the global market is weakening national governements and, increasingly, putting corporations in the driver's seat for national policies. It's not good for our nation and it's not good for global markets, either.
Our agro subsidies are way out of kilter, for example, but so are our run-amok excuses for everything on the basis of market trends.

Regarding new drilling, taxpayers will foot a big part of the bill in some form, anyway. Oil dompanies, like many corporations, are too finicky about absorbing risk as well as profit into their operations. While nationalization is going much, much too far, I wouldn't mind (I think?) the government having a voice in the decisions that will affect how much of taxpayer investment will translalte into taxpayer benefits.

Just considering new approaches is not outrageous, especially considering the pickle we're in due to not thinking things through..

It's a fine line, I don't want to see the government holding down businesses with too many hindrances, yet I don't want businesses to be able to gouge their customers without any accountability.

Something seems amiss in the oil industry and I support removing the tax breaks the industry gets, with those billions in profits they can fund their own R&D or whatever it is these tax breaks are supposed to fund.