Congress refuses to develop our oil

At the risk of being accused of being far right, I'm pasting in an article by Newt Gingrich. It's a pet peeve of mine that congress seemingly does nothing but block energy production. They don't mind begging or threatening other countries for more oil production, but yet fight against our own production. If they feel energy must be mostly or totally from renewable sources, then they need a detailed plan on how we get there from here. I think that reality might just come to the surface once the plan is developed. The country will end up being much more dependent on foreign resources than today. Prices will seem cheap today by comparison and our economy will be in shambles. IMO we are in immediate need of waking up and using what we have a lot of (oil, coal, nat gas) while much longer term development of renewables is being pursued.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less (by Newt Gingrich)

Last week, liberals in Congress voted for the equivalent of a $150 billion tax increase. They voted to make your next trip to the gas station more expensive; to make your next airplane ticket more expensive; to make heating your home more expensive -- even to make feeding your family more expensive.

How did they do it? By voting to block environmentally sound production of U.S. energy in favor of continuing to be held hostage to oil from foreign dictatorships.

"A Vote That Would Make a Difference in People's Lives"
Who's to blame for our high gas prices? The oil companies? The Saudis? OPEC? The answer, unfortunately, is closer to home: The "No-We-Can't" Left in Congress.

Last Thursday, with oil at $124 a barrel, liberals on the Senate Appropriations committee voted to block environmentally sound development of oil shale in Colorado.

According to the Investors Business Daily there are an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil trapped in shale in the U.S. and Canada. Retrieving just a tenth of it would quadruple our current oil reserves.

But the "No-We-Can't" Left in Congress -- as they're prone to do -- said no, and Americans will pay the price. Colorado Senator Wayne Allard (R) put it best when he said: "If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives."

Saudi Arabia Did More Last Week to Lower Gas Prices Than Congress Did
The Left just doesn't seem to get it. They spent much of last week ridiculing the President for visiting Saudi Arabia in an effort to lower oil prices. Here's what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Friday:

"The president seems to value his friendship with the Saudis more than his obligation to help the American people with gas prices."

But what Senator Schumer doesn't seem to understand is that the Saudis did more last week to lower oil prices than liberals in Congress did.

While liberals were voting to prevent domestic production from oil shale, the Saudis, following President Bush's visit, agreed to boost their oil output by 300,000 barrels a day. It won't fix the problem, but at least it won't make it worse, which is exactly what liberals in Congress did last week.

As Americans, we all need to ask ourselves the following: Which is it -- the Congress or Saudi Arabia -- that has a greater obligation to ease our energy prices? And which is the greater obstacle to energy independence and security?

The Left's Answer: More Pain, Not More Production
As I mentioned, the higher energy prices Americans are paying are the equivalent of a huge tax increase. One economist calculated that the price of oil rising from $80 a barrel to $100 a barrel had the same effect on Americans' pocket books as a $150 billion tax increase -- and the price of oil has risen an additional $27 since then!

So how is it that the liberals in Congress, faced with an opportunity like the one last week to lessen this burden on Americans, could reject it without a second thought?

Once again, the answer seems to boil down to three little words: "No we can't."

Change Jimmy Carter Can Believe In
Campaigning in Oregon last week, Senator Barack Obama seemed to forget his campaign theme of "Yes We Can," telling his fellow Americans that more pain -- not more production -- is the answer. He responded to a question about America's role in reducing global energy consumption like this:

"We can't tell [other countries], don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going to say OK."

I have two reactions to this.

First, I'm used to my doctor telling me I can't eat as much as I want, but it sounds eerie coming from a politician. Is the "No We Can't" Left planning to ban the buffet line as well?

Second, and more importantly, telling the next generation of Americans that they can't have the lifestyle that their parents enjoy is defeatist and wrong. It is a rejection of the energy, optimism and innovation that has made this nation great.

It's also all too similar to President Carter in February of 1977 when he called the energy shortage "permanent" and called on Americans to turn their thermostat down to "65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night."

Of course, the energy shortage was anything but permanent. Just like today, it was an artificial creation of stupid government policies. Ronald Reagan's first official act as President was to deregulate the oil industry. Oil prices dropped soon after.

I guess "Yes We Can" only applies to reenacting the Jimmy Carter presidency.

Americans Can Control Our Own Energy Destiny
Our energy and environment challenges are real. But America has the technological know-how and the entrepreneurial spirit to overcome them. And, as I pointed out last week, Americans overwhelmingly support more domestic production of energy to help ease gas prices.

We -- not the Saudis or the oil companies -- control our energy future. We just need the political will to do so.

High energy prices aren't theoretical, they have real consequences for real people. The answer, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, isn't easy, but it's simple -- so simple it could fit on a bumper sticker:

Drill Here
Drill Now
Pay Less





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Jerry

.

Relevant Pages

  • American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot
    ... American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot ... JUST three years ago, with oil trading at a seemingly frothy $66 a barrel, David J. O’Reilly made what many experts considered a risky bet. ... As gasoline prices climb beyond $4 a gallon, Americans are rethinking what they drive and how and where they live. ... Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil the United States consumes every day goes for transportation, with the bulk of that burned by individual drivers, according to the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group that advises Congress. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: embracers of lunatic economics(the free market)continue to bite us long after they are dead and
    ... The free-market inflation of oil prices will eventually lead to ... Curtailing energy consumption will slow the economy and prolong the ... for electrical power, including solar power. ... Oil prices dropped and stayed relatively stabile for two decades. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices
    ... Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices ... Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats' ... ANWR could be producing a million barrels of oil a day--5% ... Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • OT - Fuel Prices
    ... The staggering increase in gasoline prices is taking an enormous toll ... stockpile and giving oil companies more time to pay back previous loans ... While the oil companies and their apologists in Washington have blamed ... develop alternative safe and sustainable sources of energy. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT: Suing OPEC
    ... "Congress thinks we aren't paying enough for gasoline. ... That probably wasn't the only reason that crude oil prices traded as ...
    (talk.origins)