Pages

Monday, March 21, 2011

Gabrielle Giffords Told By Husband She Was Shot:

RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI   03/11/11 07:11 PM   AP

HOUSTON — She can talk, even saying short sentences. With some help, she can walk. She also knows that she was shot.
But for doctors, some of the greatest moments in treating Rep. Gabrielle Giffords occur when her true personality shines through and she shares big grins and excitement over milestones in her recovery from a devastating gunshot wound to the head.
"That's Gabby. It's a constant, wonderful thing," said Dr. Dong Kim, a neuroscientist.
Doctors provided the new details about Giffords' condition Friday, their first official update since she began intensive rehabilitation in Houston on Jan. 26. Until now, tidbits of information came from friends and family, but the doctors, those with the understanding and knowledge of what each setback and step forward means for long-term recovery, remained tight-lipped.
Kim and two other members of her medical team described several breakthroughs in Giffords' recovery from her brain injury, saying she has made "leaps and bounds."
He breathing tube was removed last week, a "fist-pump" moment, said Dr. Imoigele Aisiku, a neurosurgeon. She also can express desires, such as "I'm tired. I want to go to bed."
Giffords can't remember the shooting, but her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, has told her about the incident, though it remains unclear whether she knows six people were killed and 12 others injured at the Jan. 8 political event outside a supermarket in Tucson, Ariz.
The demeanor of the news conference was largely subdued – until the doctors were asked whether Giffords' personality was starting to surface. Then, the three men grinned and nodded simultaneously. They snickered with affection.
"She has a personality that's already showing through," Kim said. "She's very upbeat, focused on getting better. She hasn't shown us depression, and she's just been very forward-looking and even with the speech she's not showing much frustration."
"I feel like I know her very well. She's able to express her personality, she's able to express what she wants and doesn't want," said Dr. Gerard Francisco, the head of Giffords medical team.
That Giffords is showing emotion is especially encouraging because the bullet pierced the front of her head, an area that controls personality. Some people shot in the front may recover their ability to speak but never truly show emotion again, said Dr. Steve Williams, chairman of rehabilitative medicine at Boston University.
"So the fact that she actually is able to show emotion is good because many people have very flat personalities," after being shot in the front of the head, Williams said.
While doctors were enthusiastic about Giffords' progress and Francisco said it was better than they had expected, they refused to commit to her being well enough to travel to Cape Canaveral, Fla., to watch her husband rocket into space as the commander of the Endeavour space shuttle when it launches on its last mission next month.
"We're going to be assessing this over the next few weeks, but we think there's a good possibility," Kim said.
Dr. Richard Riggs, chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said Giffords' recovery is "spectacular" relative to where she started – unable to get out of bed or take care of her most basic needs – and considering the almost impossible odds she overcame when she survived being shot in the head.
Still, Riggs said he was surprised the doctors publicly stated she wouldn't likely have memory loss problems in the future but refused to commit to her traveling to Florida.
"I'm a little perplexed by the positivity on one hand and the reservations on the other," Riggs said.
Traveling, however, is a multifaceted event that includes many complexities, other doctors said.
Williams noted that while most patients have a "social outing," it is usually to a restaurant not far from the hospital. Even that, he said, can be stressful for a patient who may have scarring or disfigurement.
Giffords had a piece of her skull removed shortly after the shooting to allow room for brain swelling, and has been wearing a helmet adorned with an Arizona state flag. Doctors said they expect to reattach the skull in May, but she would be able to travel before that happens.
Williams agreed she could travel before that surgery, and noted therapists would almost definitely accompany her to Florida, as they would any other patient.
"Going to a launch could be a community outing, but it would be a big one," he said.
Friends and family say they are planning for her to attend.
The news of her progress has been welcomed in her hometown of Tucson, where her supporters held a benefit concert on Thursday night to raise money for a fund created by a survivor of the attack. Rockers Alice Cooper and Jackson Browne were among the headline acts.
The suspect, 22-year-old Jared Loughner, has pleaded not guilty in federal court. Authorities described him as a mentally unstable college dropout who became obsessed with carrying out violence against Giffords.
He appeared in court this week in Tucson at a hearing attended by at least three survivors of the attack.

Mark Kelly hopeful wife will attend space shuttle launch

By ZAIN SHAUK Copyright 2011 HOUSTON CHRONICLE

photo
From Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' Facebook page: "Like most days, Mark jump-starts Gabby's morning by bringing her coffee & a newspaper before a busy day of speech therapy. (Decorated cup thanks to Starbucks staff.)"

March 15, 2011, 9:05PM

Astronaut Mark Kelly on Tuesday called for more Americans to learn the life-saving skills that likely kept his wife, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, alive after she was shot in the head Jan. 8.
Kelly, in a conference call with reporters, also said Giffords' recovery since the shooting has been encouraging, and he remained hopeful that she would be able to attend the final launch of space shuttle Endeavour, scheduled for April 19. Kelly will command that launch.
"We're looking at that right now," he said. "We'll have to get approval from her doctors, but I'm hopeful that that could happen."
Kelly was participating in a teleconference for the American Red Cross' Gabrielle Giffords Honorary Save-a-Life Saturday, a set of more than 100 free training sessions for CPR and other life-saving skills taking place across the nation on Saturday.
Kelly said the skills being taught at the event are "critically important to get people trained to respond to an emergency like we saw on Jan. 8."
Thirteen people were wounded in the shooting, as the Arizona congresswoman met with constituents outside a Safeway in Tucson, and six others were killed.
"I'm certain that the fact that we had folks at the ... event that had prior CPR training and first-aid training, that it saved people's lives," he said. "In particular, Daniel Hernandez, Gabby's intern, has a certain level of first-aid training and the fact that he was there and was able to treat her in those first critical seconds even from the time she was injured — I mean, it was what saved her life."

'She's doing well'

photo
AP
FILE - In this undated file photo provided by the office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Giffords, left, is shown with her husband, NASA astronaut Mark Kelly.
Kelly also made his first comments to the media on Giffords' progress since Feb. 4, when he commented on his decision to command Endeavour while his wife rehabilitates.
"She's doing well," he said. "She continues to improve daily. Her doctors and nurses are really encouraged. I'm really encouraged on how far she's going to get. She's going to make a really, really strong recovery."
Kelly has not set a deadline on making a decision about whether his wife can attend the launch.
Kelly said he and Giffords have had busy schedules, between his preparation for the launch and her rehabilitation at TIRR Memorial Hermann.
Giffords engages in rehab from about 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. daily, but Kelly sees her before and after, he said. Although he has a home in League City, Kelly has been staying with a friend downtown so he can be closer to his wife and be with her more often as she recovers.
"The time we get to spend together is pretty high-quality time," Kelly said.
He visits her each day and brings a newspaper and a cup of coffee, made for her by the staff at a local Starbucks he stops at each morning.
"We'll read some of the articles together and then I head off to work and then I'm back here usually by 6 o'clock, and I'm here until I head home."
Kelly said the Starbucks staff has made a habit of decorating cups for Giffords. A photo of one of the cups was posted on the congresswoman's Facebook page Tuesday.
"They usually put a short message on there, like 'Have a great day' or 'Good morning,' and they design it," Kelly said.
The Starbucks workers plan to get a local school to begin putting artwork on coffee cups for Giffords, he said.
"I imagine they'll be very creative," Kelly said. "And Gabby is very interested in seeing what's on her cup every morning. It's the way she starts her day."

3 area locations

The Red Cross will hold trainings on Saturday, as part of the national effort, at three Houston-area locations - in Katy, Houston and at the Johnson Space Center. Kelly has told Giffords about the trainings, and he is considering attending the event at Johnson.
The trainings will include a one-hour condensed lesson that will go over "the very same skills that were used by those who helped save lives in Tucson," including hands-on CPR, controlling external bleeding and managing shock, said Gail McGovern, president and chief executive officer of the American Red Cross.
"What we'd like to be able to accomplish at the Red Cross someday is to make the words 'innocent bystander' go away," McGovern said. "That nobody will just stand by, that people will know how to react during an emergency and know exactly what to do when emergencies happen around them. We know that this training will ultimately wind up helping to save lives."

Al Lee, Army Veteran, Dedicates Purple Heart To Congresswoman Giffords


Gabrielle Giffords
Huffington Post  Gabrielle Canon  First Posted: 03/18/11 06:23 PM Updated: 03/18/11 06:28 PM

Inspired by her dedication to military service members, Army veteran Al Lee gave his Purple Heart coin to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being attacked during a "Congress on Your Corner" event on January 8.
As reported by an article in the Tucson Sentinel, Lee was awarded the Purple Heart for an injury sustained while deployed in Iraq in 2003.
Lee dedicated it to Giffords, telling the Sentinel,

"I wanted her to have it because of her strong support of veterans and her ability to always recognize a military servicemember such as myself."
According to Lee, Giffords deserved the Purple Heart for the injury she sustained "in the line of duty."
Throughout her political career, Giffords has been an ardent supporter of both active military members and veterans. Prior to her injury, she advocated heavily to support military personnel and their families.
A statement released by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) on January 10 highlights the military community's appreciation for her work:

"She represents nearly 100,000 veterans in her district, and we are grateful for her dedicated leadership and commitment to our community. This past year, Giffords authored six critical bills addressing veterans' transition home, mental health, housing for military families and upgrades to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Recently, Congresswoman Giffords introduced two key bills to fund scholarships for mental health professionals serving at Vet Centers and expand Department of Defense/VA grants for nonprofits supporting active duty service members and their families."
Giffords serves on the Committee of Armed Services and is the founder of the Congressional Military Family Caucus. Her husband, Mark Kelly, is an astronaut and previously, a U.S. Navy captain.


In the past year, Giffords proposed legislation to assist homeless veterans.
She stated,

"It now is essential that we, as a nation, do everything possible to help veterans who are homeless get the training they need to find employment in the civilian workforce."
She also authored a bill to ease the transition for military members returning to civilian life by providing housing resources.
This is not the first instance that military personnel have stepped up to show their appreciation for Giffords. CNN reports that soon after Giffords was attacked, the military sent two specially trained combat medics to treat her.
Another Purple Heart honoree also anonymously left a medal for her at the hospital after the shooting, the Tucson Sentinel reports. Her staff still has not identified the contributor, but keeps the medal next to her bedside. It serves as a reminder of the support and appreciation felt on behalf of military service men and women who have been affected by her work.
On Wednesday, Al Lee presented the pin to Giffords' aid, Pam Simon, who serves on Giffords' Veteran's Advisory Committee.
Simon, who was also shot during the attack on January 8, told Fox Tucson News,

"It holds extra meaning because, I've said before, that in a very small way, experiencing that trauma has given me an understanding, just a little bit, of what our men and women go through."
Giffords is still fighting to recover, but doctors have reported that she is making incredible progress. She has even recovered enough to be approved to make the trip to Cape Canaveral, Florida where her husband, Captain Mark Kelly will be commanding space shuttle, Endeavor, set to launch April 19.

Michele Bachmann, Anthony Weiner Face Off On Spending (VIDEO)

Michele Bachmann Anthony Weiner
The Huffington Post  Nick Wing  First Posted: 03/17/11 09:39 AM Updated: 03/17/11 09:44 AM

Reps. Bachmann, Weiner Spar on 'Hannity'

Lawmakers battle over federal budget cuts


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) exchanged barbs Wednesday during a heated debate about spending on Fox News.
As could be expected in a clash between two of the most outspoken members of their respective parties -- and Fox anchor Sean Hannity for good measure -- the exchange provided a few sparks, often having nothing to do with the intended topic of discussion.
After Weiner attempted to explain his belief that a large chunk of the current deficit problem came as a function of wars, lost jobs and tax cuts for the rich, Bachmann chimed in.
"I had no idea Rep. Weiner was such a reader of fiction," she said. "He's a huge fiction reader because that's all of his numbers."
Weiner quickly shot back, seemingly making reference to Bachmann's propensity to make misstatements.
"Bachmann, I don't think you want to go there. I don't think you want to go there Bachmann," Weiner said, grinning. "And by the way, for her to make fun of me not knowing fact from fiction is a bit ironic to say the least."
The congresswoman's latest gaffe came in New Hampshire over the weekend, when she implied incorrectly that the state had provided the stage for the first battles of the Revolutionary War.

Bachmann and Weiner also butted heads in January, when they shared a panel on "Face the Nation" and argued about the potential for a government shutdown.

Michele Bachmann: 'I Made A Mistake' With Historical Inaccuracy


Michele Bachmann Revolutionary War
The Huffington Post  Nick Wing  First Posted: 03/15/11 06:13 PM Updated: 03/15/11 08:42 PM


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) tried on Tuesday to explain away a historical gaffe she made during a stop in New Hampshire last weekend.
In a misstep that landed her in the headlines, Bachmann told a group of local Republicans, "You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord." The first shots of the Revolutionary War, however, were not fired in the Granite State, but rather in Massachusetts.
"I made a mistake; I should've said Massachusetts rather than New Hampshire," said the Tea Party favorite during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham show on Tuesday, according to The Hill.
According to Bachmann, her remarks captured the attention of the media because of "a double standard" against conservatives. She said, "...as we know all 3,400 members of the mainstream media are part of the Obama press contingent."
Nevertheless, the AP noted over the weekend:
Though Bachmann probably wasn't the first to confuse Concord, N.H., with Concord, Mass., her mistake was striking given her roots in the tea party movement, which takes its name from the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor by angry American colonists in December 1773, 16 months before the Battle of Lexington Green.
The gaffe from Bachmann became fodder for discussion on ABC's "This Week" last Sunday. At one point during a roundtable segment, conservative columnist George Will quipped that his wife "occasionally advises" the conservative congresswoman, but "not on American history."
Bachmann is currently mulling a presidential campaign for the next election cycle and is expected to make her plans for 2012 known early this summer. She has recently made trips to early primary states in addition to New Hampshire.

Judge puts Wisconsin law on hold

 By Laura Conaway
  -  
 
A circuit judge in Wisconsin has issued a temporary injunction against Governor Walker's law stripping public employees of their rights. At issue in the case is not the contents of the law itself, but whether Republicans violated the state's open meetings law when they created a conference committee on the fly and jammed the bill through.
"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi wrote. Ms. Sumi says that Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who brought the suit, has a good enough chance of winning to merit stopping the law for now.
The Walker administration plans to appeal, and in any case the victory is likely more of a moral boost for Democrats than anything they count on. Republicans control both chambers of the legislature. Now that they've decided the budget-repair bill contains no fiscal matters, they're free to pass it all over again without a three-fifths quorum.
Where Democrats do seem to be gaining ground is with their drive to recall eight eligible Republican senators. State Senator Jon Erpenbach tells WisPolitics that the recalls might make Republicans less eager to sign up for that particular spotlight again. "I don’t know how many times you can tell public employees and others around the state of Wisconsin that we don’t respect you and we’re not going to pay you and we’re going to break up your union and we’re going to take your collective bargaining rights away twice," Senator Erpenbach says.

Now #Indiana gets to be #Wisconsin

By Laura Conaway 
 -  Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:23 AM EDT
Sign number one-gajillion-and-three that the fight over labor unions in Wisconsin is way broader and totally national: The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee has this ad ready to go in Indiana. Hoosier Democrats in the House have been out of the state for what's going on five weeks, and they're winning. Republicans need them to have a quorum for anything, not just fiscal matters as in Wisconsin.
So far Indiana Democrat have beaten back one union-busting bill and now they're moving on one that would expand charter schools.
Now here comes the national Democratic operation. They're driving straight at Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, who's got presidential aspirations to go with the legislature that can't pass a single bill. "The new ad from the DLCC suggests Democrats think they can use Daniels' legislative plan against him," writes Evan McMorris-Santoro of Talking Points Memo, who got an early look at the spot. "It's also clear that the national Democrats intend to tie their two high-profile legislative fights in Indiana and Wisconsin together." Also, Ohio.

Comimg Home

Nothing more patriotic than troops coming home on Twitpic
Nothing more patriotic than troops coming home


The National Guard makes us so proud on Twitpic
The National Guard makes us so proud

Gas tax increase or budget gimmick?

On page 188 of the President’s budget, in Table S-8, we see a section titled “Reauthorize Surface Transportation.”  That section includes $235 B of spending over the next decade.  It also includes a line labeled “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund,” and shows a ten-year total deficit effect of –$328 B.
Because of this enormous “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund” policy proposal that would reduce the budget deficit, the President’s budget is able to show increased spending for roads, bridges, trains, and airports, yet also reduce the deficit.
What, then, is the President’s proposed “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund” proposal?
CBO apparently figured out that the deficit reduction consisted of higher revenues, but the Administration did not provide any more detail. So CBO didn’t give them credit for the –$328 B.
CBO: However, in the case of a proposal to raise new revenues to support the reauthorization of surface transportation programs, the absence of any information about the nature of the taxes or fees that might be used to produce revenues did not allow an assessment of the potential budgetary effects. As a result, CBO did not include any revenues for that proposal, which the Administration projected would raise revenues by $328 billion over the 2012–2021 period. (p. 7)
This language from CBO shows that OMB did not provide any additional back-channel information on this proposal.  There’s no there there.
$328 B is a lot of money.  You may think you know what this line refers to: a gas tax increase.  That’s what I thought. As a rough rule of thumb, the government would raise about $1B per year for each penny per gallon increase in the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.  If we match the numbers in the OMB table, it looks like about +20 +25 cents per gallon in 2012, growing to maybe +35-40 +34cents by 2021. That’s roughly equivalent to a 25 cent per gallon increase, indexed to inflation.  (hat tip: Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Reponsible Federal Budget)
A gas tax fits conceptually with increased transportation infrastructure.  There are occasional hints of bipartisan support for higher gas taxes to pay for more infrastructure spending (from Republicans who like to build highways). Higher gas taxes seem consistent with the President’s other policy goals, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  And the numbers match with commonly discussed proposals for a gas tax increase.
Update:  Expert friends have pointed out that other parts of the budget show a $438 B decline in “excise taxes.”  A gas tax is an excise tax.  There’s a scoring convention that if you cut gross gas tax revenues by $1, demand for gasoline will increase and recoup 25 cents of that lost revenue.  Applying a 25% “offset” to this $438 B gross revenue loss produces the $328 B net tax loss shown for the mysterious “financing for Transportation Trust Fund” proposal.  This is further evidence that the numbers represent a gas tax increase.  It also changes the back-of-the-envelope calculation I did above.  Looks like they’re starting out around +25 cents per gallon in 2012.
Yet in both their conversations with CBO (I infer from the text above), and in briefings of Congressional staff (I know from friends), Administration officials were explicit: this line does not represent higher gas taxes.
I can’t come up with any policy other than a gas tax increase that might raise that much money and be described as “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund.”
There is only one policy that fits that description.  It fits perfectly with the text, the numbers, the political context, and makes policy sense given this President’s policy preferences.  And yet the President’s team explicitly reject that policy.
The President’s team is trying to have it both ways: spend money on infrastructure and claim deficit reduction, but don’t take the political hit for proposing a big gas tax increase.  CBO has called them on it and is not giving them credit for the $328 B of claimed deficit reduction.  That’s a big deal.
Suggested questions for White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:
  • Is the President’s “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund” proposal a gas tax increase?
  • If not, can you describe any other “transportation financing policy,” bipartisan or not, that would raise $328 B over ten years as shown in the President’s budget?  If the President wasn’t proposing a gas tax, what else could he have meant?
  • If the President did not intend a gas tax increase, how did you come up with those specific year-by-year numbers in the budget?  Why $328 B rather than $300 B or $350 B?
  • Is this budget proposal a gas tax increase or a budget gimmick?

What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)?


Yesterday Meet the Press host David Gregory asked White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley if the President was considering releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR):
MR. GREGORY: But what about the shorter term? Does the president—there’s calls to tap the strategic petroleum reserve, which comes up during these spikes. Is the president considering doing something that can arrest that spike?

MR. DALEY: Well, we’re looking at the options. There’s—there—the spike—the, the issue of, of, of the reserves is one we’re considering. It is something that only is done—has been done in very rare occasions. There’s a bunch of factors that have to be looked at, and it is just not the price. Again, the uncertainty—I think there’s no one who doubts that the uncertainty in the Middle East right now has caused this tremendous increase in the last number of weeks.

MR. GREGORY: But it’s on the table, which I think is the significant development.

MR. DALEY: Well, I think all consider—all matters have to be on the table when you go through—when you see the difficulty coming out of this economic crisis we’re in and the fragility of it.
Let’s look at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the President’s option to release oil from it.

What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

The SPR is a bunch of holes in the ground. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a collection of salt caverns at four locations in Louisiana and Texas along the Gulf Coast.  Those salt caverns hold 727 million barrels of oil, managed by the Department of Energy.
The SPR is a national insurance policy. Specifically, it insures the U.S. against a severe oil supply disruption. Without this insurance, our economy could be even more sensitive to a big oil supply shock than it already is.
Created in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo, the SPR is designed to be an emergency reserve.  If Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez suddenly were to decide he is no longer going to sell oil to the U.S., we would face a short-term supply disruption while we waited for supplies to arrive from other producer nations.  President Bush (41) released oil from the SPR when Operation Desert Storm began in January 1991, in anticipation of supply disruptions in the Middle East.  When Hurricane Katrina damaged much of the Gulf of Mexico oil infrastructure, we suddenly lost about 25% of domestic production and President Bush (43) released oil from the SPR.  If terrorists were to blow up major elements of the global or domestic oil supply chain, that could cause a severe supply disruption.  The SPR is not a backup supply to be used frequently when gasoline gets expensive, it’s an emergency strategic supply to be used only in a crisis.
Releasing oil from the SPR is a Presidential decision, based principally on the advice of the Secretary of Energy.  The President’s White House economic and national security advisors are usually involved in the decision as well.
The U.S. relies more heavily on government stocks than private reserves.  The same is true for the Japanese.  The Europeans rely more on privately held commercial stocks.  Since their governments don’t own that oil, the Europeans mandate that commercial storage facilities hold a certain amount of emergency reserves.  Also, you can’t drain your stocks down to zero; you have to leave some oil in the tanks and especially the pipes to make the hydraulics work.
The U.S., Japan, and Germany have the biggest reserves.  Then there are the Chinese, who so far have not been full participants in the international coordination system run by the International Energy Agency (IEA).  Reserve withdrawals are more effective when they are coordinated among the countries with the largest reserves.
The U.S. government fills the SPR in two ways.  They buy oil on the open market, and they receive oil as payments in kind for drilling leases granted by the government (called Royalty-in-Kind).

How big is the SPR?

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve can hold 727 million barrels of oil.  At the moment it’s full, at 726.6 million barrels.
Here are some figures for comparison:
  • The global oil market is about 86 million barrels per day (bpd).
  • The U.S. consumes about 19-20 million bpd of oil and petroleum products.  We import about half that.
  • The Desert Storm SPR release totaled 21 million barrels.
  • The Katrina SPR release coincidentally also totaled 21 million barrels.
  • There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel.
  • A barrel of oil results in about 44 gallons of products, including about 19 gallons of gasoline, 10 gallons of diesel, 4 gallons of jet fuel, and 11ish gallons of other stuff.  This means you get a gallon of gasoline from about 2.1 gallons of oil.
As the economy grows, any fixed-size SPR gets effectively smaller. Insurance is measured in “days of import protection”: take the average number of barrels per day that we import, and divide it into the oil we have, and that’s how many days of import protection we have.
The U.S. imports (net) about 10-11 million barrels of oil each day.  At the moment the SPR is full:  there are 726.6 million barrels of oil stored in these salt caverns.  Divide 726.6 M by 10-11 M and you get 66-73 days.
Since you won’t replace lost imports barrel-for-barrel, the number is more of a relative than an absolute measure of how much your insurance is worth.  A significant SPR release might be 100,000 bpd.
We don’t worry about losing all of our imports simultaneously.  Almost one-quarter of our imports come from Canada.  Our next biggest suppliers are Venezuela (11%), Saudi Arabia (10%), Mexico (9%), and Nigeria (8%).  There are risks to each of these (much less so for Canada and Mexico).
A 2005 law requires the SPR to be increased to 1 billion barrels.  President Bush (43) proposed doubling the current SPR to 1.5 billion barrels and increasing the size of our insurance policy.  Congress has not provided significant funding for either expansion.

When should the President release oil from the SPR?

The Saudis are the first line of defense when there is a disruption in global supply.  If that worries you, then figure out ways to use less oil, because the Saudis will always have the largest and lowest cost marginal supply in the world.  The Saudis often/usually have spare production capacity that they hold in reserve.  They appear to have dialed up their production in recent weeks, offsetting most of the recently lost production in Libya.
The phrase severe supply disruption is the key to the President’s decision about an SPR release.  Oil is expensive right now for four reasons:
  1. Fundamentals — The global economy is recovering and demanding more oil.  Global supply and demand are tight.
  2. Some Libyan supply has recently gone offline – maybe 850K – 1M bpd.
  3. Oil market participants are worried that events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain could spread to other oil-producing nations in the Middle East and North Africa, further disrupting supply.
  4. Nobody is quite sure how much unused capacity the Saudis have available.
It’s hard to conclusively tease out the price effects of each factor, but policymakers need to try.  High gasoline prices alone are insufficient to justify an SPR release.  You have to look at why prices are increasing.  One expert recently surmised that about $100 of the current $115/barrel world price (Brent) results from tight fundamentals, and the other $15-ish is from actual and feared supply disruptions.
If global economic growth accelerates (oh please oh please), then global demand will increase and the price of oil will continue to climb.  That’s unfortunate and a medium-term economic problem.  It’s not a reason to tap the strategic reserve.
If supplies are further disrupted, for instance by geopolitical events, then that is a viable reason for an SPR release, if the President thinks it is severe enough to justify tapping our emergency reserve.
You also shouldn’t expect an SPR release to have a huge effect on the pump price of gasoline.    With oil around $100/barrel, if the President were to release 100,000 b/d from the SPR, that would probably lower the price of oil by about $2/barrel initially.  That’s about ten cents per gallon of gasoline, maybe a bit more if the release were coordinated with other nations and reduced the fear premium in global oil markets.  The effect would wear off over time as markets adjust to the increased supply.

Should President Obama release oil from the SPR now?

Mr. Gregory asked Chief of Staff Daley if the President is considering releasing the SPR because the price of gasoline has spiked.  He further asked if the President is “considering doing something to arrest that spike.”
The President should consider a release only if he determines there’s a severe supply disruption, not just because the price of gasoline has increased.  And if he does approve a release, it will not “arrest” the price increase at the pump.
The U.S. imports almost no oil directly from Libya – they supply about 0.6% of all our imports.  Most Libyan oil goes to Europe, and some to China.  Still, it’s best to think of oil as if it were a single big global pool.  If more Libyan production were to go offline, prices in Europe would jump.  Oil tankers in the Atlantic headed west for the U.S. might turn around and head east seeking out those higher prices, causing prices to rise in the U.S.  (The reverse happened after Hurricane Katrina – tankers headed for Europe turned around and headed for the Southeastern U.S. after prices jumped from lost Gulf of Mexico supply.)
So far it appears the Saudis are mitigating much of the lost Libyan production.  Based on public information, I think it’s hard to justify an SPR release now.  If a lot more supply goes offline (in Libya or elsewhere), and if the Saudis lack the spare capacity to offset that additional loss, then the President will have a tough call to make.

Related Posts

Gingrich Uses Possible 2012 Candidacy to Promote His Various Hustles... But Is He Faking It?


At last, Newt Gingrich has come bucking out of the presidential chute, shouting "Yippie-ty-yi-yo, here I go!" On March 3, that grizzled old cowpoke working the far-right-wing corral of American politics declared that he's raring to go for the Republican presidential nomination.
Maybe. But probably not. You see, Newt didn't actually declare his candidacy, or even declare that he had formed a committee to explore the possibility of running. Instead, he convened a national press conference to announce the exciting news that he was forming a campaign website. Yes, a website. Its purpose, he informs us, is to explore the possibility of exploring a possible candidacy. Now there's a decisive leader for you.
Actually, Gingrich has been posing as a possible candidate for a decade now, using the attention he gets to promote his books, speeches, lobbying business, and other hustles. His newly launched website, "NewtExplore2012.com," looks like just another of his non-stop money making schemes. Since it's not a real campaign committee, he can raise cash without reporting who's giving it to him and spend it all on himself.
A measure of The Newt's genuineness can be seen on the website. It features Newt and his lovely third wife Callista smiling at the camera while a large crowd of very happy, flag-waving Americans stands in the background, beaming at the couple. The crowd is a picture-perfect mix of white, black, Latino, and Asian-American citizens--as though they're right out of central casting.
They are. It's a stock photo dubbed "Large Crowd of People Holding Stars and Stripes Flags." Newt simply bought the right to use this shot of "supporters," as have several other politicians, groups, and businesses. That's Newt for you--a fake picture in support of a fake campaign by a fake candidate.
By Jim Hightower | Sourced from OtherWords 

Posted at March 21, 2011, 9:47 am

Woman Arrested for Thinking About Abortion? How Insane 'Personhood' Laws Are a Direct Assault on Pregnant Women

I am one that believes that babies are living beings at conception but these so called laws are primarily used to make it extremely hard for women to seek the advice of Doctors hospitals and clinics to get primary care during pregnancy. Because anything that could cause harm to a fetal 'personhood' could get a woman arrested, which is totally foreign to a woman's right to protect herself and her unborn child. Until that child is born, can take its first breath, it is totally dependent on the woman's body for protection and nourishment. Miscarriage and birth defects are then against the law and somehow nature doesn't have a voice in what happens. You cannot stop a miscarriage anymore than falling down a flight of stairs, tripping over something that is not foreseen as a hazard. Does that mean we as women can not do anything that could possibly cause harm to the 'personhood', that could mean so many things it is scary to even think about the list.  We as Women of the United States of America are losing our ability to decide our own fate, our privilege, guaranteed under the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

AlterNet


By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet
Posted on March 15, 2011, Printed on March 21, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150259/
Last month, legislators in South Dakota introduced a bill that was worded in such a waythat it could allow for the legalized murder of abortion providers. Under a firestorm of controversy, the bill was withdrawn, but similar bills have also been introduced in Nebraska and Iowa.
Legislators who introduce these bills invariably claim they aren’t encouraging terrorism or trying to infringe on the right to abortion, which is protected by the Supreme Court underRoe v. Wade. In fact, the argument for these kinds of laws is that they're about protecting pregnant women from violent assault. The sponsor of the South Dakota bill, Phil Jensen, laughably announced that his bill was about giving pregnant women the right to fend off attackers, even though pregnant women--like all citizens of South Dakota--already enjoy a broad right to self-defense in that state. More likely, this proposed bill, along with a broader one in Nebraska and Iowa, would work both to subtly encourage terrorism and establish a potential defense for those who kill abortion doctors.   
Even short of that, laws like these are about establishing the notion that a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, is a separate person from the woman in which it resides, and therefore has rights equal to, or in most cases, greater than her rights. This would seem most obviously an attack on women’s health, freedom and safety, but supporters always strike a pose of protection for pregnant women, claiming to have their interests at heart. But the real-world results of these laws demonstrate that, just as pro-choice activists claim, women--especially pregnant women--are being assaulted rather than protected by attempts to establish fetal rights.   
Take the more direct “personhood” bills, which define fertilized eggs as “persons” under the law. One such law is winding its way through North Dakota's legislature. Proponents of these laws admit they are laying groundwork for abortion bans, but still promote the laws as somehow being pro-woman, with Rep. Dan Ruby claiming that “women and children” will be protected by this law. Planned Parenthood disagrees, arguing that women who miscarry or suffer pregnancy complications will find themselves turned over to the police for criminal misconduct. Not very protective of pregnant women! At least four other states, including Florida, are looking at similar laws.  
If you find yourself wanting to dismiss the possibility that these laws will be used to jail women who miscarry or suffer pregnancy complications, consider a recent event in Iowa where a pregnant woman was arrested for falling down a flight of stairs. You read that correctly. Christine Taylor fell down a flight of stairs after having a fight with her husband on the phone. When she went to the hospital--to makes sure the fetus was okay--she was arrested under one of the many state laws that grant fetuses rights separate from the mother. In this case, Iowa has a “feticide” law that pertains to the second trimester and beyond, and since Taylor confessed that she had contemplated abortion but had chosen to have the baby, the nurse and doctor at the hospital decided to phone the police and accuse her of trying to terminate her pregnancy illegally. She was eventually not charged, but in light of these events, any notion that a law such as this will be used for any other purpose but to harass and punish women should be disregarded. 
Iowa is far from the only state where even pregnant women who want their babies are being punished and controlled with laws that establish a separate personhood and rights for a fetus. Nebraska banned abortions after 20 weeks on the unscientific grounds that fetuses feel pain at that gestational age. Shortly thereafter, Danielle Deaver discovered at 22 weeks she had a pregnancy that could not result in a living baby. Banned from having an abortion, she was forced to give birth to a baby that lived for 15 terrible minutes before dying. The notion that either mother or child is well served by this law should be dashed, and the brutal sadism of such laws immediately apparent.   
If a woman in Iowa can be arrested for accidentally putting a wanted fetus in danger in the second trimester, and a woman in Nebraska forced to give birth to a baby with no chance of living, then what will happen now that states such as Iowa, Ohio, North Dakota, and Nebraska find ways to claim there’s a person in there when there’s a heartbeat, or a complete strand of DNA, or even in women who aren't actually pregnant? If you can get arrested for falling down a set of stairs while in your second trimester, what happens when the law is expanded to protect embryos, zygotes and even theoretical “persons” in pregnancies that might happen in the future? 
If a woman who falls down the stairs is investigated, it’s not a leap to suggest that women could be investigated for doing anything that could harm a real or theoretical embryo--drinking, riding roller coasters, jumping on trampolines, either while pregnant or even just sexually active while being fertile. You can scoff, but consider that a moment ago you were scoffing at the idea that a pregnant woman could be arrested for accidentally falling down the stairs and then going to the hospital to make sure her baby was okay.    
These laws and incidents are just the tip of a large iceberg that makes up an all-out assault on women’s rights and health. Last month, Ms. Magazine put together a nationwide map of all the states considering legislation to restrict a woman’s right to control her own body. In many cases, there are ostensible pro-woman arguments--ultrasound laws and counseling laws are issued with claims that they are about “informed consent”--but in reality, every single one will do nothing but increase women’s pain and suffering. As the examples in Iowa and Nebraska show, even claims that these laws are about fetal life fall short, because women in situations where terminating a healthy pregnancy isn’t an option still face harassment and arrest if they end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Claims giving fetuses the rights of people are demonstrated, once again, to be cover stories for attempts to deprive women their status as full persons in the eyes of the law. 

Republican Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, said something today about running for running for president, something like that

  -  
Full text:
"I grew up a few miles from here, and back then it was home to some of the world's largest stockyards and meatpacking plants but when those plants shut down so did a big part, of the spirit and the soul of my hometown. At a young age I saw up close the face of challenge, the face of hardship and the face of job loss. Over the last year I've traveled to nearly every state in the country and I know many Americans are feeling that way today. I know that feeling, I lived it.
"But there is a brighter future for America. We know what we need to do, grow jobs, limit government spending, and tackle entitlements. We need to encourage the dreamers and innovators, the small business owners the hard workers, the brave men and women throughout this country's history that have asked for nothing more than the freedom to work hard and get ahead without government getting in the way. For the last 8 years that's just what I did here in Minnesota. We proved that we can restore limited government in America. It takes fortitude it takes unwavering faith and conviction in faith and principles that made this country great.
"This country was founded on freedom. We the people of the United States will take back our government. This is our country. Our founding fathers created it, Americans embraced it, Ronald Reagan personified it and Lincoln stood courageously to protect it. And that's why today I'm announcing the formation of an exploratory committee to run for president of the United States. Join the team and together we'll restore America."