Existing users please login

 

Home / Markets / America's Road to Recovery

McCain's VP Pick Brings 'Energy' to Campaign

 
Ray Hennessey
FOXBusiness
     
    Senator John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

    John McCain was trying to bring energy to his campaign. Figuratively and literally.

    The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate highlights the importance of energy in the upcoming election. Palin, a political newcomer, has been mostly unknown on the national stage, except on one issue: oil drilling. As governor of Alaska, she’s been one of the leading advocates for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to reduce the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil.

    It’s an issue where the Obama-Biden camp has found itself on the short end of the polls lately. Most polls indicate a clear majority of Americans want more drilling offshore, particularly as spikes in crude futures have forced gasoline prices up at the pump.

    Here’s the pitch: We rely on oil for our energy needs, and will continue to do so even if we increase alternative fuels. We don’t produce enough of that oil here. Therefore, we are at the mercy of foreign sources of oil. It has caused high prices and also threatens our security.

    But we have oil here and Washington won’t let us drill. (“Washington” is going to be the watchword in this sales pitch. You can’t get a candidate further away from Washington than Sarah Palin.) Why can’t we drill? “Washington” doesn’t want to disturb the environment, particularly in ANWR. There are, after all, caribou at risk.

    Enter Palin. She loves the caribou, loves drilling, and is about to convince us that we can effectively love both. Last month, in an interview with FOX Business anchor Cheryl Casone, Palin was a forceful and elegant advocate for that majority of Americans that wants both.

    “Washington doesn't understand that we're at a real critical crossroads here in the history of this nation,” she said. “And we're going to go one of two ways. We're either going to become more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy, or we're going to be able to secure our nation and drill domestically for safe, stable, clean supplies of energy that we have here. We have them in Alaska.”

    And, about those caribou? “When we talk about drilling in ANWR, we are talking about a 2,000-acre plot of land, which is a smaller footprint than, say, LAX, the airport there in L.A.,” she said. “It's a sliver of land. And it's very, very rich in resources. And, again, we're ready and willing and able to tap these safely and help secure the U.S.”

    “Secure the U.S.” That’s key.

    McCain is the security president already, the war hero who has made foreign policy and domestic security the centerpiece of his campaign, even openly admitting he isn’t a leading light on economic policy. Now, in this election cycle, McCain can keep the security message going, and also tie it to the number one economic issue for voters: the price of oil. And there is no one better to make the case for increased domestic drilling than Palin (even though McCain has been, in the past, opposed to ANWR drilling).

    To be sure, Palin is a risky choice. Few know her, and the McCain camp forfeits some of the ability to play up Barack Obama’s lack of experience. And oil isn’t her only issue. She has become a champion of the pro-life movement, particularly after giving birth to her fifth child, son Trig, despite knowing the child would be born with Down syndrome.

    But timing is everything, as the cliché goes, and oil has become volatile again as the hurricane season heats up. And the higher the price goes, the more that becomes the most important issue of the 2008 election -- and the more Palin’s pitch potentially resonates with the electorate.

     

    Fox Business Video


     

    FOX Translator

    Detach

    No data currently available.

    No data currently available.

    No-Load Funds

    Some mutual funds want you to pay for the privilege of them (or your investment adviser) taking your money to invest. It's called a load, and it works like a cover charge to get into a nightclub. Luckily, there are such things as no-load funds. As the name implies, shares of these funds are sold without a fee paid to a broker or investment advisor.

    The entire amount you invest in no-load funds goes to work for your returns. On the other hand, with load funds, right off the bat you're charged commission (not to mention other fees incurred over the life of the investment). Let's say, for example, you invest $25,000 into a load fund that charges a 5% commission. This costs you $1,250 off the top, bringing your actual investment down to only $23,750.

    The often-cited horse race analogy argues against investing in load funds. Here's the logic behind it: Would you place a bet on a horse that had to start a race 200 yards behind the others? Well, maybe you would if you got a tip from a sketchy, trench coat-clad man in a dark alley. However, under most circumstances, it's not smart to put your money on that handicapped horse.

    But some argue that at times that man in the trench coat (aka your broker) knows more about the horses than you do, and has a better shot at picking a winner. Also, sometimes these fees are unavoidable because some funds are available only through investment advisers.

    Cost-benefit analysis can help determine when a load fund is worth it (in other words, when it will score you a load) and when it is better to "do it yourself" and avoid the fees. Load-fund fees range depending on share class and can cover a variety of costs, such as paper work and fund management.