A couple nights ago, I posted a quick entry here about Barack Obama on domestic oil.
Levi Pearson, a friend and a fellow local geek, got right on my case
about some issues he had with what I said and left some comments. He had
some really good points and most people will miss out on these because now
they're buried in the thread of comments attached to the original
article.
Also, this weekend, Pete Ashdown, owner of Utah Internet service provider XMission and former candidate for US Senate, posted a status update on his Facebook site that the Salt Lake Tribune had published an opinion
piece he wrote about Utah's national GOP delegation and their...
seemingly hypocritical grandstanding on energy and domestic oil production
issues.
As a result of the back-and-forth with Levi and Pete, and my own research
and introspection, I decided it would be best to write another entry
explaining what I've learned and what I've concluded.
I'll admit, looking over what I originally wrote in my previous
entry, it was a fluff piece. I was ranting without any facts or figures to
back me up. That's not to say I think I was wrong. In fact,
I think I've found information to back me up.
Pete's opinion piece was a pretty level-headed argument that
Utah's GOP representatives (and presumed congressman-elect) and
senators are unfairly pointing fingers at democrats and generally just
adding to the dysfunction that is our congress.
Rob Bishop
I completely agree with Pete that Sen. Hatch and Sen. Bennett have
way too much non-action under their belt to answer for to be out touting
their newly discovered position on energy policy. This is especially the case for
Hatch who has plenty of seniority. They both need to be voted out of office as soon as possible, in my
opinion.
Rep. Bishop, I actually like. I looked at his voting record both since
the Democrats have gained majority control of congress and before and
found, while he treads a little closer to the party line than I would like,
he votes the way I would like on most issues.
Now, I was concerned that I saw he vote NO on a bill last year (HR 6),
the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation act. This sounds
like the kind of bill I would want an elected official representing our
state to vote for, but then I looked at the details. This was one of the
"first 100 hours" bills that Pelosi pushed when the Democrats
first took control and contains broad, sweeping legislation to enact price
controls on oil companies, remove select subsidies and deductions given
to oil and natural gas producers, and add taxes on oil imports and
domestic production to fund investment in alternative fuels and alternative
energy.
California representative Wally Herger had some remarks on this
legislation that were spot-on:
"A truly balanced energy bill would begin with the serious problem of
record gas prices and reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of
energy and then proceed with creating incentives that would unleash the
power of American inventiveness and creativity in order to develop the next
generation of energy technology and supplies. H.R. 6 relies on an outdated
and failed belief that Washington knows best. Over 1,000 pages of
legislative text contains little in the way of broad-based incentives, but
is chock-full of new regulations and a higher tax burden, which will do
little, if anything, for consumers. A better approach would get Washington
out of the way and allow market-oriented solutions to provide for an
affordable, diverse, and secure energy supply for America."
-- 17 December 2007
Another representative, Don Young of Alaska made a more ideological
remark about the proposed legislation.
"I am wearing this red shirt today; it's the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking."
-- 23 January 2007
Anyway, back to Pete's article! It's probably just a
coincidence this opinion piece came out the Sunday after a group of House
republicans took to the floor of the house after the House
had adjourned, to protest Pelosi not allowing an up or down vote on a bill
that would allow more domestic oil production. Rob Bishop was the only
member of the Utah delegation to join this group and I applaud him for
standing on the issue like he did.
Where was Chris Cannon? Who cares? There's a reason he got tossed
in the primaries and his absence almost says it all.
Jason Chaffetz
Pete threw a barb at Jason Chaffetz for going on a trip to Alaska
telling the press he believes all our energy woes are attributable to the
democrats. I agree with Pete that such a comment is, well, stupid. I went
and looked for a media report on Chaffetz's comments. Sure enough,
it's a pretty glaring comment and shows Chaffetz is, in some regard,
just like every other person who has ever run for office and made vague,
unsubstantiated criticisms of the opposition party.
"There's no doubt that Democrats are the problem. We've done what
they've suggested, and look at the results -- since (House Speaker) Nancy
Pelosi took over, gas prices have doubled,"
-- 18 July 2008
I know enough about the factors that have fed into the rising gas prices
over the last five years to know that a Democrat majority in congress
beginning January 2007 isn't to blame. However, I do think the
factors that led to the Democrat Party wresting power from the Republicans
is part of the problem.
That being said, Chaffetz was quoted in the same article saying
something that reminded me why I'm glad I helped make him the GOP
nominee for the congressional race:
"We have to explore every facet of development that's available --
wind, solar, hydro, nuclear -- we have to move forward on all
fronts."
Pete's proposed solution... Re-run Carter?
Pete praised Jimmy Carter (which makes me a little worried about Pete)
and his energy policy.
"It is more revealing to look further back to the much-maligned President Carter who, in 1979, during the first oil crunch, set goals for our country so we'd never see a second energy crisis.
"Carter proposed that U.S. automakers attain a whopping
48-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency by 1995. He demanded that we curtail
imported oil by imposing fees. Finally, Carter proposed windfall taxes on
oil companies to fund alternative energy and a goal of generating 20
percent of our power from solar by 2000. "
I think we now know solar power still isn't a viable
source of "core" electric power. Otherwise, Pete would be
running XMission on solar power, right? I've read some estimates that
solar power might begin to be viable in as little as five years. I
think it's fair to say President Carter's plan was a wee bit
unrealistic.
And then there's Carter's "double-edged plan" to
impose fees or tariffs on imported oil and then tax the heck out of
domestic oil compnnies or penalize their profits.
I fail to see how this would have helped anything or how doing the same
thing today would help anything. All this would do is hurt consumers more
(with even higher prices at the pump) and possibly result in gasoline
shortages.
Hurray for Jimmy Carter!
Oh, and while we're talking about windfall profits, consider that oil companies make about 8.5% profit. If that's going to be considered a windfall profit, what happens to companies in other industries like Publishing (34% average profit), Health Care Facilities (48% average profit), or Hotels (10.6% average profit)?!
Generally, I agree with Pete that we need to do something big, akin to
the Apollo program or the Manhattan project, to get our country into a
better energy situation. I also believe it will take years to accomplish
the goal.
I believe the solution is for the government to get out of the way of
business, within reason. Pete seems to think a massive government program
is called for and he even insinuates that we may need a repeat of The Great
Depression before the public agrees with him.
Maybe the ideal solution is something in between.
Levi and relief from gasoline prices
Levi criticized my claim that simple policy changes could lower gas
prices to as low as $3.00/gallon or $2.50/gallon. That would represent a 33
to 42 percent drop in price. Yeah... Levi... I think you're right on
this one. I don't know what I was smoking, but that's clearly
quite a long shot.
That being said, I do believe that a combination of Summer driving
season ending within the next month and, possibly, congressional policy
changes on increased domestic production, could very well result in lower
gas prices. Perhaps a more realistic estimate would be 10-15%. That would
bring us down to the neighborhood of $3.65/gallon. You won't be
hearing much complaining from me if that happens.
Levi, facts, media, and Glenn
One thing in Levi's comments really hit me hard:
"Most of my googling turned up articles reporting on opinion polls,
which show that a majority of respondents believe that drilling for oil
will reduce gas prices in the short-term. This, frankly, disgusts me. We're
not lemmings, we should get facts and draw our own conclusions, not get our
coverage of the issue solely based on some vague percentage of support in
the polls. What a tremendous failure of the media!"
Levi's right. There's a symbiotic relationship between
elected officials, public opinion, and media coverage of issues. The rise
of a plethora of cable news sources, Internet news sources and more has
resulted in news (and opinion) that is short on facts. In fact, it seems
increasingly obvious that opinion makes the news as much as news does.
Levi has commented to me before that he thought a certain stance I had
on an issue was indicative of "Glenn Beck thinking." I took
that to mean he was inferring that I didn't really have a
substantive opinion of my own on the issue, that I was just repeating what
I had heard from talk radio.
Talk radio does get a bad rap for that -- that listeners are
nothing more than lemmings or foot soliders lined up for marching orders.
I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot. That was before I got hooked on Glenn Beck. Looking
back, I think Rush is more of, dare I say, a shill for the Republican
Party, than I was willing to admit. He's been very vocal about not
liking John McCain this year and that would represent some independence
from the party, but I think he's still quite beholden.
But Rush Limbaugh isn't the "blowhard" a lot of people
like to make him out to be. If a caller phones into Rush's program
and whines about this or that and says something like "Rush, I know
we live in a democracy, but this is insane!" Mr. Limbaugh will stop
everything and take five, ten minutes, however long it takes, to help this
caller (and all the people listening) understand that we do
not live in a democracy, we don't
want to live in a democracy, and here's why: bam,
bam, bam. He'll lay it all out and I have to respect the guy for
using his forum to actually educate his listeners and not just indoctrinate
them.
Anyone who has listened to (or watched) Glenn Beck for any significant
length of time knows he's got a pretty cool team of researchers
working for him on both his radio program and his TV show. They fact-check
just about everything before it goes on the air. In addition, Glenn seems
very sensitive about the typical talk-radio rumors that always go around.
For example, lately it's that Barack Obama won't pledge
allegiance to the flag, that he's not a Christian, etc. In fact, this
last week, a guy called into Glenn's radio program to point out
Obama's hypocricy in saying he was embarrassed that Americans
don't know many foreign languages but that he delivered all his
Europe speeches in English. Then, the caller thought it would be funny to
add a little something. Read below and observe as Glenn deals with it.
CALLER: Well, you know, I'm not really sure about when he went to, oh,
the Muslim countries. But I have a feeling he speaks their language,
though.
GLENN: See, now wait a minute. I don't even know what that means. Why
would you even go there?
CALLER: Well, because I'm just the evil conservative.
GLENN: Well, you know what? You know what? You give conservatives a bad
name when you -- no, listen to me, Cliff.
CALLER: Okay.
GLENN: When you insinuate that Obama is a Muslim and he's not a Muslim,
you give conservatives a bad name. You give people a bad name because that
is the kind of argument where you lose immediately. You say something like
that and nobody worth their salt listens to you anymore about what you have
to say about Barack Obama. Don't say those things. There's no reason to say
those things. You know what? You say something like that and then I stop
looking to see if Obama ever, the elitist, ever did say, "You know what,
you go over to other countries, I'm sick of these Americans" because I no
longer believe you. I don't think you have any credibility at all.
--28 July 2008
To kind of get back on topic here, I admit a chunk of my opinion is
shaped by what Glenn Beck says, but I'm willing to go with it because
I know he (and his people) have done their work. Plus, Glenn encourages his listeners to learn for themselves and often gives them the sources where they can find the facts themselves.
Facts to back me up
So, I went out looking for articles written by "experts" in
energy policy and found a lot of what I was looking for at The Heritage Foundation.
And here are a couple other articles I found.
Whew. I'm tired.
10:17 AM
under
chris cannon
,
congress
,
energy policy
,
gasoline prices
,
glenn beck
,
levi pearson
,
media
,
nancy pelosi
,
oil
,
orrin hatch
,
pete ashdown
,
politics
,
rob bishop
,
windfall profits