Congress and Energy

Again, whenever I think Congress has hit rock bottom, they pull out a bulldozer and start digging.  This time the new, highly anticipated democrat energy plan showed that democrats totally lack comprehension of reality and have no desire to improve the long-term well being of the majority of citizens.  They are interested in their core leftist constituents and ideas to make people feel good.  We should vote the whole bunch out of office.

When Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker of the House (unbelievable that someone like her can be third in line for the Presidency) she made a huge splash announcing that the democrats would introduce a “common sense” energy plan that would bring down the high cost of gasoline.  At the time, gasoline was approximately $2.33 a gallon; since their plan has not had a chance to take effect yet, obviously the evil republicans and oil companies caused the price to rise to over $3.60 a gallon.  Democrat control of Congress so far has been less than nothing, they have actively hurt the economy and the country.

This week, almost exactly two years after her announcement, the democrats finally revealed the details of their “common sense” plan.  Not surprisingly, it is idiotic; I would have been embarrassed to release it earlier myself.

Their basic plan is not to increase supply, but rather they introduced a novel three prong approach; the democrats plan to tax, sue, and investigate.  What a game plan.  They clearly have no idea how the laws of supply and demand work.

The democrats want to raise the taxes on gasoline production to modify the public’s, that is us, behavior to use less gasoline.  We finally hit the magic $4.00 per gallon which was Al Gore’s magic (and desirable to him and the democrats) goal articulated during his 2000 campaign, but this is apparently not high enough in the democratic mindset to encourage the unwashed masses to change our way of living.  Clearly more punishing taxes are in order.  The new taxes are disguised as windfall taxes on the oil companies, but I assume all increased costs will be passed on to the consumers; again that is us.  Punishing the only people that know how to find and process oil does not seem to be a rational long term approach.  The extra money raised by the government will not be used in furthering oil exploration or increasing production capability, but rather in research for alternative energy sources.  The democrat expertise in this area was recently proved by the ethanol fiasco which helped raise the price of food world wide and caused food riots.  I am all in favor of alternative energy to get rid of our dependence on the despots of the world, but we need a bridge until realistic alternative sources come on line.  The democrats know the windfall profit tax was tried between 1980 and 1986 and actually decreased US oil production significantly; it is a terrible approach but one that appeals to emotion.

A second part of the plan is to, believe this or not, sue OPEC to force them to release more oil to the world market.  This is rich.  The same people that are incensed over the current Iraq and Middle East situation want to threaten the oil despots to get them to cooperate.  The funny cigarettes must be back in vogue in San Francisco.

The final part of this colossal waste of paper and oxygen is to get the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the oil companies to ensure they don’t collude and gouge the public.  Investigating the Bush administration and others to ensure all possible embarrassing incidents are publicized is the democrat plan to getting something done.  It is an insult to our intelligence to consider this an energy plan.

The thing the democrats are so proud of pointing to as the crown jewel of their accomplishments since taking over Congress (in addition to raising the minimum wage) is the new mileage standards for the automobile fleets; the fleet standard went up to 35 miles per gallon.  Other than the fact this will do nothing to help the current situation as the new standard will take effect over 13 years, what galls me beyond belief is that the democrats are really proud of this but have publicly (and frequently) stated that we can’t drill in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) because it won’t have any impact for 10 years!!  See Senator Chuck Schumer’s defense of his votes against ANWR.  It is maddening.  All three Presidential candidates share the same view which is an indicator nothing will be done until gasoline hits $10.00 a gallon so we can be like the Europeans.

While I’m not a big fan of the republicans in Congress, the Senate republicans have finally produced a part of an energy plan that would allow for drilling in ANWR and off-shore.  I haven’t seen any details on it so it may be pure hogwash, but it at least sounds like it is an attempt to solve part of the supply side of the problem.  Hopefully they have the guts to push it through, despite the opposition of all three of the current presidential hopefuls.  We should force the idiotic environMENTALists to defend their logic often and openly and demonstrate the folly and lunacy of their actions and opinions, although it has been proven to be difficult to argue with passionate idiots.

Comments

[John J.]

The only beneficiaries of drilling in Anwar or any domestic site would be the oil companies because the oil would still be sold at the world market price to whoever wants to buy it anywhere in the world. The only reason that Bush and his fellow oilies want to drill in Anwar is to provide them with a source which does not depend on OPEC. There would be no reduction in what we pay without government price control or even government operation of a domestic oil monopoly.

[BH]

I can't believe you would have the gall to completely blame the energy crisis on the democrats! At least the democrats are open and honest about their some of their energy ideas. You might remember that Dick Cheney held his energy policy summit and refused to release ANY information from that meeting; claiming executive privilege(you also remember he claims he is not part of the Executive Branch, {"am, am not, am, am not", it must be a case of schizophrenia])

You know the democratic congress cannot do anything considering the republicans are being obstructions. Even if they got something viable through both chambers, the president would more than likely veto it. Unless of course it comes out of another Cheney Energy Summit.

The real truth is that the energy program in this country is still being run by the white house. They are the people that have the direct line to the OPEC nations. If we could keep the Bush's (41 & 43) Cheney, McCain and the like out of the Saudi's beds (literally) we ver well might see the price of oil go down.

[Timo Kokko]

BH,
Being open and honest, but totally wrong, is not a strong endorsement in my opinion. I am aware the democrat Congress can't do anything, I just find it laughable that for six years they "just say no" to any proposal, good or bad, by W and claim "vote for us, we'll cut the high gasoline prices caused by W." I believe the real truth is that there is no energy policy in the country; there is nothing being run by the White House or Congress that makes any sense.

John J,
I believe you may be mistaken on the beneficiaries of drilling in ANWR. If the supply is increased above the demand, prices will drop world wide, unless government regulations such as taxes artificially keep the prices high. Otherwise, the more oil above the demand, the lower the prices.

[Michael Motta]

What's unbelievable is that someone like Dubya could BE the President, and someone like Deadeye Dick could be next in line! Pelosi as third in line is anticlimactic.

[John J.]

Anwar does not have sufficient oil to do much to the world's supply or prices with the ever accelerating demand from China and India, each with way over a billion people. Also,if the Africans ever get their act together, then all bets regarding demand are out the window and kiss our civilization goodbye.

[BJA]

The US imports 75% of its oil, more than at any time in history. With that big a portion of our oil coming in from outside the nation, should it surprise anyone that the US no longer sets oil prices.

Instead we have given that control to OPEC, who openly engages in price fixing, and the international oil companies.

Producing our own energy would give control of this price back to our country, and at least we could get rid of the price fixing.

Plus it would cut our trade deficit, 2/3 of which is a result of importing so much oil.

On pollution, foreign suppliers of oil create more pollution because they do not have environmental regulations like we have in the US. As a result, by purchasing foreign oil we are causing more pollution of the planet than if we produced it in ANWR or other US sources.

[Randy Stewart]

The oil interests are an oligopoly which by definition have the ability to restrict supply and thus increase prices. Their incentive is to raise prices to maximize profit. The oil market is not what the public considers a market. It's structure is designed to encourage the instability necessary to force up oil prices. Restriction of processing has been just one of the industry fascets that have become controlled profit centers.

The oil industry has identified control points and manipulated them to produce the environment where, in the face of mildly increasing demand, is able to constrict supply, create instability in the markets through structure and force up prices to their profit maximizing levels.

The key is attacking the industry constriction points. Alternative energy is a possibility but we need a government solution to answer the oligopoly with injection of energy sources in ways to maintain stability and keep the energy costs in a range where production is not undercut and price and availability do not damage the economy or environment.

We and the rest of the world have more energy than we need for the history of mankind. Unrecovered US oil, new finds, oil shale, coal, hydrates, methanol, wind energy and conversions to hydrogen, solar energy, and above all- technology advances, all are available immediately. With minimal help from our federal leadership, we could have enough energy on line to force down prices in 5 years or less. Without leadership, this will become a worstening nightmare that stratifies our incomes and risks distroying the United States and the rest of the free world.

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
While W may not be the best and the brightest in the country, he is President because he ran against Al Gore and John Kerry, as big of a pair of losers as you'll see in national politics. Adding the current three running to the three above, it is hard to believe the US can't produce better candidates.

[rukidding]

Let's see. How many billions have we thrown away in Iraq? Money that could have been used to enhance and expand alternative energy research and production; money that could have been used to enhance and expand a multi-modal transportation system so that is not so dependent on the almighty automobile; and money which could have funded research and development of more fuel efficient vehicles.

This would have been the far-sighted approach to our energy problems that would have made the USA more energy independent and would have caused much less grief and pain for Americans both here and serving overseas.

Instead the republican political hacks prefer to play cowboy as the nation slowly sinks with the sun in the west.

[Robert]

More drilling won't help much without more refineries. And the combination of those two won't do anything for the environment, or the growth in global oil demand.

Isn't it time to get behind a completely new approach. Check out the link below. The ideas probably need work, so post comments. If we can improve the basic concept and get a million bloggers behind a central idea like this maybe we can get the people in Washington to pay attention.

http://DearMrObama.org

[EmersonsZen]

rukidding:

Are you kidding?

You may wish to do some fact-checking before you spew. Going to war in Iraq was bipartisan. There are a plethora of Senate Democrats (on tape) who denounced Hussein (not Barack) and supported his ouster.

You said:

"How many billions have we thrown away in Iraq? Money that could have been used to enhance and expand alternative energy research and production;"

How much money has been wasted on global warming/climate change research?

What if we took the money "wasted" on Domino's Pizza, or xboxes, or football stadiums, and spent it on the homeless, or AIDS funding?

And one final question for the cadre of Bush-haters out there:

If GWB is the devil incarnate, what does it say about your Democrat Party that is 0-2 against him?

[parrot]

emerson...it says the republicans were rich enough and devious enough to steal two elections...and will certainly try for the trifecta

[EmersonsZen]

Well then, populista, I guess the Republicans are set for the next, oh, say, 40 elections?

You and rukidding may wish to pack up and move to Europe while you can...

[Timo Kokko]

I've got to jump in on the cost issue. Prior to the Iraq war, while Clinton was in office, I didn't see billions being spent on alternative energy sources either; we waste more money on feel good earmark programs than we spend productively. The cost of the war is a total canard. In a $14 trillion dollar economy, a few billion here or there does not make that significant of a difference. The total current military spending, including the war in Iraq, is costing about 4% of our GDP. We could keep that up forever (I'm not saying that is desirable, but it not a fiscal problem). As a historical comparison, Viet Nam military spending was about 7%, Korean War spending was about 15% and WWII was about 25% of GDP. While the billions being spent is a lot of money, it is not a significant issue in Iraq.