Democrats’ Failed Energy Policies

While accurate, I don’t think that this meme is entirely fair.  It’s true that gas prices have gone up dramatically under the Democrat-run Congress, but that is primarily driven by the cost of crude.  The cost of crude is being driven up for a lot of reasons, only some of which are the result of American policy.  So it’s not fair to blame the Democrats for the increase in the price of gas.

That being said, it IS fair to blame the Democrats for doing nothing to help counterbalance the other factors that are driving up the cost of crude.  They have not done anything to increase supply.  They have not done anything to decrease demand.  They have done nothing but sit on their rumps and bitch.  Their inaction is their folly.

Furthermore, it is also fair to blame the Democratic Congress for doing nothing to shield America from its dependence on the global market by making America more self-sufficient.  If America increased its domestic oil production enough to provide for America’s needs, then the price of oil wouldn’t matter so much.  Yes, domestic companies would have to make the choice to sell the oil domestically or export it, but at least America would be able to provide for our own needs. 

The Democrats need to realize that the oil companies are not evil.  They provide a resource that is vital to our economy.  Yes, we need to diversify our energy portfolio with alternative means of energy (including nuclear), but we also need to properly manage our oil resources.

And… this is the height of hypocrisy.

The DNC would like to save money for their convention and so they have decided that they’re going to buy it from the State gas pumps.  You know where the police officers and State troopers and everybody else, you know, the snow removal trucks, where they gas up.  The DNC has struck a deal that they can gas their cars up during the convention and they’ve already started this, to avoid the $0.40 a gallon gas tax.  From the same people who said the gas tax won’t make any difference, the gas tax means nothing.

1. For the dems - this isn’t failed policy - they want gas prices to be as high as possible. They prefer that we go back to living like cavemen - and dependent on them anytime we want to move more that 10 feet.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2008 at 1503 hrs




2. T

   hey have not done anything to increase supply.  They have not done anything to decrease demand.

   Sure they have Owen:

   They tell us each and every day that we cannot have more. Which in their mind decreases demand and increases supply.

   I call it Liberal fuzzy math.

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on July 26, 2008 at 1637 hrs




3. Owen, you know better than than to make such an ridiculous argument. This past week alone Dems introduced two bills in the Senate to reduce gas costs. One would have cracked down on energy speculation, the other called for a withdrawal from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both would have caused gas prices to drop almost immediately, but both were killed by Republicans.

   You can debate the wisdom and effectiveness of these attempts, but claiming that Democrats are doing nothing is absurd.

   On offshore drilling, I’d be a lot more sympathetic if the oil companies were actually utilizing all the leases we’ve already given them, but they’re not. Oil is a mighty good investment, so in many cases they’d rather sit on it than drill. That’s fine if the oil companies actually owned the oil they’re speculating on, but if it’s our oil on a lease that we gave them so they would increase domestic production and reduce prices, then I have a problem with that.

   Seems to me the solution is to include a time limit, say twenty years, in all future leases. A use-it-or-lose-it provision would force the companies to actually pump oil rather than just speculating on future oil prices.

   Of course, Republicans have opposed that idea as well.

   Posted by Russell Wallace on July 26, 2008 at 1737 hrs




4. I’m sorry but that’s rubbish.

   Taking a tiny amount of oil out of the strategic reserve isn’t going to move the prices more than a penny or two if that.

   If taking oil out of the reserve will lower gas prices - than why won’t drilling in ANWR do even more?

   The reason they aren’t drilling on the leases is that there isn’t any oil there.

   If we opened up the drilling instead of letting the Chinese pump our oil - all this speculation stuff would be out the window.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2008 at 2110 hrs




5. Owen,

   That was genuinely a great post. I have to agree almost 100%.

   Fascinating how it differs from what Limbaugh says about the economy these days. Somehow he’s pinpointed the exact date the roots of our problems took place - November of 2006. Nothing that took place before then had anything to do with it.

   Bravo.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2008 at 2140 hrs




6. So when gas hit $2,00 it was Al Gore’s fault, in fact it was called Gore gas in Bush’s campaign against the then sitting VP in 2000.  But when gas didn’t come down that was market forces.  Then when it went up it was 9/11.  Then when it kept going up it was the fault of the wars, the second of which was entirely necessary and sold to the country on the level.  Now it is Dems fault.

   But no where along the way has any of the blame fallen at the feet of a congress that was run by the GOP for over a decade, or at the feet of the guy who has been in the White House for the past 7 plus years.  Nope, if the economy is going bad it has to be the Dems, because we all know that GOP economic policy brings us nothing but prosperity, growth, cheap fuel, and kittens and puppies playing together (I mean other than the last 7 years, the entirety of HW’s term and half of Reagan’s two terms).

   YAAAAAWWWWWNNNNN.  Tell me another bed time fairy tale Uncle Owen, I’m ohh so sleepy.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2008 at 2212 hrs




7. Lefty:

   Now I know this will come as a complete and total shock to you, but have you ever noticed that whenever the mortals are upset at any policy, the congress that happens to be in power gets blamed for it. (Which since 11-06 Just HAPPENS to be DEMOCRATS, whose motto is BTW, we are such pansies…)

   Was gas EVER at 4.00 dollars a gallon when the GOP was in charge?

   Was the Economy this bad when the GOP was in charge?

   Me thinks the answer is NO, these things only started happening when the Democrats took charge promising all the radical reforms after November 2006. And what exactly has the Democratic controlled Congress done since then?

   Oh yea they raised the minimum wage. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE! (In 2 plus years) and this is somehow the GOPs fault? I think not!

   Yep thats the platform of a winner!

   Are you so blind as to not realize that when things start going bad it is ALWAYS the party in control that gets blamed?

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on July 27, 2008 at 0018 hrs




8. Are you so blind as to not realize that when things start going bad it is ALWAYS the party in control that gets blamed?

   So then where is the blame against the party in control in Owen’s post?  The GOP runs the White House, and the executive branch still is the right bower in this here land.

   Its funny how the power of the bureaucracy, the power to set policy, the veto, the bully pulpit, the most powerful office in the most influential country in the world, apparently means nothing when there’s blame to go a spreading.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 0105 hrs




9. Even if the Democratically controlled Congress did what you wanted and opened up all of America to drilling (including downtown Los Angeles) there still would be no effect for the next ten year.

   So what’s the point except to make a cheap shot that is as usual off the mark?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 0650 hrs




10. Even if the Democratically controlled Congress did what you wanted and opened up all of America to drilling (including downtown Los Angeles) there still would be no effect for the next ten year.

    I am SO sick of this stupid excuse. If the lefties would not have blocked drilling for the last 10 years, we WOULD be seeing results now. So your answer is to never start drilling? Figures.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 0838 hrs




11. C’mon, Calvin, the Dems are just following in the footsteps of JFK, who realized we wouldn’t be able to put a man on the moon within 10 years and decided not to challenge the nation…oh, wait…bad analogy.  Never mind.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 0936 hrs




12. I am SO sick of this stupid excuse. If the lefties would not have blocked drilling for the last 10 years, we WOULD be seeing results now. So your answer is to never start drilling? Figures.

    The ineptitude of the GOP would get me off their bandwagon if I were you guys.  They controlled all three branches of government for 6 years, yet to hear you all tell it they were stone walled time and again by the most inept brand of the Dem party in a century.

    I’m not against drilling, but I don’t get too excited by anyone who touts it as a solution.  In addition to waiting 10 or 15 years before we could reach peak production, all rational estimates project an net impact of maybe 10 cents a gallon in that time.  And even that is followed with the caveat that OPEC could easily reduce supply to push the price back up.  And that’s ANWR and off shore drilling combined.

    Seems to me that a policy based on drilling is about as flimsy as you can get.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 1134 hrs




13. Lefty, if drilling is such bad policy, Nancy Pelosi could score huge political points by letting it come up for a vote, showing the country where her party stands on the issue.  She won’t. 

    Why do you think that is?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 1202 hrs




14. I am not going to totally blame the Dem’s for past mistakes as there were liberal Republicans, so I’ll just blame liberals in general.
    George Bush oveerturns the executive ban on drilling and the oil price drops dramitically in a week.  I know you Bush haters won’t give any credit to that, but facts are facts.
    Besides lowering the price, it will help the economy.  How many jobs will be created?  How many more taxes will be created? How many communities will see their community grow and improve.  But now, the liberals don’t want this to happen.
    Drilling is not the long term solution, but it certainly will not hurt.  Conservation, new and cheaper technology are also important.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 1327 hrs




15. The 2 party system is failing.  It is sad to see that dems and repugs just play the blame game. while the country is falling apart.  Both parties are simply to sides of the same coin.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 1351 hrs




16. While you guys fight over who is to blame, I’d focus on the second part of the post.  How come the DNC officials somehow get to now buy gas for 40 cents cheaper than the rest of us?

    Isn’t that really a simple issue that needs to be discussed this week?  Why somehow they get a gas tax Holiday but we don’t?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 1802 hrs




17. malbosher:

    And the usual suspects will get on their knees and service them every election cycle, indeed all year ‘round.

    Amazing, eh?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2008 at 1955 hrs




18. While you guys fight over who is to blame, I’d focus on the second part of the post.  How come the DNC officials somehow get to now buy gas for 40 cents cheaper than the rest of us?

    Isn’t that really a simple issue that needs to be discussed this week?  Why somehow they get a gas tax Holiday but we don’t?

    A quick google search provides the following information.

    This was a deal between the DNC host committee (convention logistical team) and the city.  The DNC most likely contracts out for much of the event logistics, as it has little need for full time event staff with the level of expertise necessary to put on a convention of this size and production when they only do it once every four years.

    As part of the deal negotiated by the DNC and its host committee with the city this provision was included.  The city anticipated the host committee purchasing over $450,000 worth of goods and services as a part of this agreement.

    To date the host committee had purchased nearly $10,000 worth of gasoline from the city.

    The DNC will be charged the full amount of taxes they owe when they close the books and pay their bills at the end of convention.  (Granted, this is due to political pressure, but for facts sake I thought it was worth noting).

    Tax free gas was not available to every delagate and attendee of the convention.  Just purchases for host committee use.

    Now lastly, let me ask you all this.  If Milwaukee was in the running to be the site of a convention for a corporation that was going to drop nearly a half million directly into the city’s coffers, bring in tens of thousands of tourist/visitors for a week, visitors who would then pump millions of dollars into the community, all while putting the city on national television in prime time for 3 straight nights, would any of you be upset that the city council or the mayor cut a deal to save the organization putting on the event $2,000 in gas taxes?

    Now I’m not sure how Denver officials thought they could suspend state and federal gas taxes for a private organization, regardless of that organizations tax status.  But it seems to me that this was a purely incentive based provision to land the contract for Denver.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2008 at 2330 hrs




19. Opening up additional lands for drilling would have an immediate impact on oil prices, although the size of that impact would be unknown.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0809 hrs




20. Opening up additional lands for drilling would have an immediate impact on oil prices, although the size of that impact would be unknown.

    Then why does this report cast serious doubt on that statment in regards to ANWR?

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

    That would be a report from a division, within an agency headed by a Bush appointed cabinet secretary.  That isn’t a link to some lefty group who hates oil and greenhouse gases.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1012 hrs




21. You’re link doesn’t work.  In any event, oil is traded on a spot and futures market based on supply and demand.    The price of oil on the futures market is impacted by, among other things, expected future supply.    The effect of opening up lands to drilling is to increase the expected future supply and thus lower futures prices now from what they would otherwise be, regardless if any oil has been extracted yet or ever is.    The spot market price is also influenced by expected future supply in that suppliers use the futures price, among other things, to determine if they want to sell oil now or wait.    A lower futures price is an incentive to increase supply now while the expected price is higher.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1024 hrs




22. Try that again, for some reason the end got cut off, but it works if you copy and paste it in your browser

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

    Market forces are taken into account by the EIA report.

    Again, there are many reasons to advocate for drilling, but having a significant impact on reducing the price of gas doesn’t appear to be one of them.

    Maybe someone should run on the China plan, and remove 1.2 million cars from the roads permanently.  That seems to have had a bit of an impact on global demand.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1046 hrs




23. 1.  The report only considers ANWR, no other areas.

    2.  The report does not consider market forces because neither they nor we know what estimates the actual traders (buyers and sellers) are putting on future supply and demand.  Nor do we know what current estimate they have put on the probability of these lands being opened up to drilling, etc. and it is these estimates that drive the futures price.    Opening up lands to drilling will drive the price down immediately by some unknown amount.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1102 hrs




24. 1.  The report only considers ANWR, no other areas.

    2.  The report does not consider market forces because neither they nor we know what estimates the actual traders (buyers and sellers) are putting on future supply and demand.  Nor do we know what current estimate they have put on the probability of these lands being opened up to drilling, etc. and it is these estimates that drive the futures price.  Opening up lands to drilling will drive the price down immediately by some unknown amount.

    I pointed out in the original post that this report only discussed ANWR.  I was using it as an example.  There have been several media reports quoting similar estimates with offshore drilling.

    And while I once held out hope that the Keith Olberman’s of the left were on to something when they started railing on speculators, the futures market and the Enron loophole, I’ve seen enough commentary by economist on the left and right (including the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and New Yorker), debunking the speculator boogy man, that I’m having a hard time believing that to be the root cause.

    Seems more likely speculation has had a small impact, as investors chased oil as a safe short to medium term place to put cash while the dollar tumbled, than being a driving force artificially inflating the price and running roughshod over the traditional market forces like supply and demand.

    But the Dems will ride speculation and the looming shadow of Enron through November, no doubt about that.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1454 hrs




25. And the republicans will ride off shore drilling through November.  And both sides will approve more “stimulus” nonsense in an effort to delay a recession until after November.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1503 hrs




26. Why would you want to rail on the futures market?  Futures are a blessing.  No greater stabilizing mechanism exists in the economy.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1512 hrs