To some, lower gas prices might just be about working towards a stronger economy and a better life for the average American.
For others, thinking about drilling is simply idolatry. We wonder why the Democratic party is a little out of touch.
Here was my response (posted as a comment):
"Energy is an incredibly important issue this election and I applaud your posting on the issue. However, your post suffers from a few factual errors in addition to some assumptions that have neither economic nor political reality. I'll address them point by point.
Your characterization of Sen. McCain's Lexington Project is not only sarcastic (really, it isn't that bad), but it undermines the principle goal of a policy discussion - to actually look at what the policies are. In this way your critique of Sen. McCain's policy on energy suffers from your own criticism, and I quote, "an appalling example of infantile simplicity".
For a comparison of Sen. McCain's energy plan to the "details" of a plan offered on Sen. Obama's website, I point you to this post where I surmise that Sen. McCain has a better plan to address the energy problems facing the nation.
Addressing your concern about "Drill! Baby! Drill!", it's simply a slogan. The policy has changed since the slogan was adopted, but it does represent a key difference between the two candidates energy policies. I don't attack chants of "Yes We Can!" by pointing out that in a Republic people really can't, only their elected representatives can. Attacking a slogan is like attacking a person, it simply gets away from the issues.
So, getting to the issues, I'll address your enumerated points.
1) A more foundational question might be, why are oil companies charging so much? The obvious answer is supply and demand. We can't do much about demand because most of the increase is from China and India. In fact the amount of oil that Americans use has significantly declined over the past several years. Oil companies are profit maximizing entities, they face the pressures of scaring people off gas by raising prices too much. (Prices go to high, I become a much better bicyclist and no longer use Oil). This is generally good for the environment, but bad for Oil companies because they lose money. The bottom line: Oil Companies will increase supply if able because it isn't in their long term interest to raise the price of gas. (In economic terms, Oil is a long-term elastic good... raising the price higher than the market will allow gets Oil Companies in trouble).
2) Windfall profits are silly. At what point is a profit windfall-ish exactly? Why would you remove an incentive (by taxing profits) for more people to compete with oil companies? We don't need painfully taxed monopolies, we need lower taxation and more competition to keep prices low for the average American (not to mention American industry). Not to mention, as detailed in another posting, Oil companies aren't who you think. Raising taxes on Oil Companies will only have the effect of raising the price of oil at best, and at worst taxing the retirement benefits of our senior citizens. Finally, your contention about Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain on taxes is severely distorted. Your claim about Sen. McCain's tax "breaks" are really just the effects of his policy to cut the corporate tax rate across the board (thereby helping job creators create jobs). In fact, it was Sen. Obama who voted for Big Oil tax breaks just a few short years ago.
3) Except for a few key areas, Oil Companies face several barriers in off-shore oil drilling. Specifically, there is a Federal ban on states issuing drilling permits to drill off-shore. (Ironically signed by President George H.W. Bush). Oil Companies can't obtain new licenses to drill until this ban is lifted through congressional action (there were Republicans in the House who stayed behind during recess to demand that Speakerwoman Pelosi reconvene the house, thereby making this point well known).
4) You miss the point about economic speculation. As we've seen over the past 9 days, events can effect the future price of oil, which also effects the present price of oil. As far as your assumption, refer to the logic of point number 1. Oil suppliers and gas producers have an interest in keeping their prices relatively low given the other, long-term, options that are available. Regarding a few cents a gallon - for the individual, it doesn't make the biggest difference in the world. However, across a macro-economy a few cents a gallon amounts to billions in energy savings. Not to mention all the new jobs and industry created by allowing further drilling. Finally, the point of an "all of the above" approach that Sen. McCain has proposed is that you do everything you possibly can. In other words, every little bit helps.
5) Regarding the costs. High gas prices cost jobs, livelihoods, industry, innovation and further our national debt by increasing reliance on the welfare state. Drilling off-shore, and/or in ANWR, may or may not cause pollution - depending on the requirements and safeguards implemented. Regarding the natural beauty of our coastlines, nothing emphasizes this like the majestic wind turbines towering over Cape Cod. (end sarcasm) Finally, the fishing industry cannot survive high gas prices and the tourism industry in ANWR is simply incredible, millions flock to that barren wasteland annually (ok... now an end to sarcasm).
No one is saying we DESERVE cheap oil. Only a person centered on entitlement thinking would believe that (maybe I'm just reading too many posts on this blog). However, cheap ENERGY is necessary to a stable, vibrant and innovative economy. Not to mention it has national security connections. I'm not bent on Oil. I'm bent on facilitating an economy where the impoverished can work themselves up to a better standard of living. To do that we need good jobs. To have good jobs, we need to have a vibrant economy. A vibrant economy is facilitated by low cost of production (cheap energy). Cheap energy is facilitated by lower gas and oil prices. Lower gas and oil prices are made possible by expanded supply and further exploration.
The bottom line is that the last paragraph gives a laundry list of things that only certain people can afford to do. That's a problem. To alleviate that problem, let's kick our economy into high gear... imagine a leader who has the gumption to advise realistic solutions to these problems. Then, maybe one day, individuals can make the choice to engage in creation care outside of a government mandate."
I'm sure these folks would even label Ole' Jed Clampett an idolator.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment