Good Tuesday afternoon, one and all (or good Wednesday morning, depending on when you open your e-mails from us). Regardless of when you open your newsletter e-mail though, I'll go ahead and warn you right now, today was one of those days.... one of those days where, try as I might, I just couldn't help but get up on the soapbox and preach a little bit. Today's sermon? The federal government's inexplicable decision to start selling down some of the nation's emergency oil reserves. Not the "What," But the "Why" In case you haven't heard, the U.S. government is planning to dispose of a decent-sized chunk of its so-called Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the course of the next several years. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (or SPR) is exactly what it sounds like... crude oil owned and stored by the federal government as a way to keep some of our own destiny in our own hands when supply lines might get cut off. Possible reasons for such a need are waning oil output elsewhere, war-driven supply cuts, unaffordable prices from places we can get it, etc. In other words, emergencies. The SPR isn't a long-term solution to any foreseeable oil impasse. But, it's enough to smooth prices and supplies out until we as a nation can regroup and figure out how to survive with a limited (or no) supply of crude. Supporters of the plan argue - and I don't disagree - that with the advent of fracking and new drilling technologies our need for a deep reserve is greatly diminished; we can make enough of the stuff at home to survive for decades. My problem is with the reason the government is doing. Care to guess where the proceeds for the sale of oil are going? It's to be "deposited into the general fund of the Treasury." Translation: Our elected officials are once again getting even more money that's ultimately not theirs to spend despite having in no way, shape, or form proven they can intelligently spend the tax money they're already getting. In other words, this is a way to increase the budget without raising taxes. As is so often the case, this is a band-aid when we need surgery. With all of that being said, I suppose I have an even bigger problem with the fact that the U.S. government just threw our struggling oil companies under the bus. The amount of oil earmarked for sale beginning in 2018 is about 48 million barrels. For perspective, the U.S. burns about 7 billion barrels of crude per year, and our oil industry produced about 3.2 billion barrels of the stuff last year. So, it's not like this 48 million barrels is going to inject a crushing supply of crude into the market, and even then it's not going to happen until 2018 - oil prices may have significantly recovered by then. Or, they may not have. Either way, this puts U.S. energy companies at a slight disadvantage, and does so for a reason that's simply distasteful. If the U.S. government wanted to save a few bucks, why not rethink the $606 million the DOD is planning on spending per plane to buy between 80 and 100 new long-range stealth bombers. I'm a huge supporter of the U.S. military's superiority at most costs, but it's tough to believe that's the best way $606 million - each - could be spent keeping our country and its interests safe. Alright, I'm getting off the soapbox now. Yep, That's the Same Guy I don't know how many of you have been following the saga of the Hillary Clinton tweet from September 21st that's basically crushed the biotech sector in the meantime. But, I've been keeping close tabs on it since the beginning just because one of the names in the sordid story was a name I recalled from a few years back surrounding another sordid story. I just want to make sure you also recognize "this is the same guy." Just to make sure we're all on the same page, back on September 21st, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton tweeted "Price gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous. Tomorrow I'll lay out a plan to take it on." Although it seems like Valeant Pharmaceuticals (VRX) has been the biggest victim of the threat so far, the tweet itself was referencing a little company called Turing Pharmaceuticals - led by CEO Martin Shkreli - that had jacked up the price of a meaningless drug called Daraprim that sold for $13.50 per pill before Turing started to make it to a stunning $750 per pill after Turing became the only manufacturer of the 60-year old drug. I'm not interested in the price-gouging debate today; we'll save that discussion for another time. I'm more interested in the name "Martin Shkreli", which some of you (if you've been reading the SCN newsletter for more than three years) will recognize as the guy who most likely, somehow, talked the FDA out of approving Mannkind's inhalable insulin Afrezza back in 2011 when it was almost assuredly a slam-dunk. We covered it back then; you can read the whole thing four yourself right here. We just wanted to make sure you knew that if the name rung a bell, that's probably why. (Shkreli clearly found/made a new job in the meantime.) Still on the Fence Once again the market found a way to avoid making a decision.... to avoid making any kind of real commitment. I can't say we're surprised. Stocks have had a real knack for headfakes of late, and Friday's cross above the 200-day moving average line - which is normally a bullish clue - hasn't done a bullish thing yet. Take a look. Maybe it's nothing. Maybe the buyers just need some time to catch their breath. Or, maybe investors innately know (without even knowing they know) the market's overvalued right now, making it difficult to move meaningfully higher. There's still more support than resistance, at least on the charts I see. But, from a technical perspective, the chips could still fall either way. Man am I glad I have a subscription to the Elite Opportunity newsletter.