— Bud Norman
A second term agenda has been conspicuously absent from Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. There’s been plenty of sneering criticism for some things that Mitt Romney has said he wants to do, far more sneering about some things that Obama falsely claims Romney wants to do, and a few small proposals such as the ever-popular soak-the-rich tax hikes, but nothing in the way of a grand scheme to fix the nation’s many lingering problems.
The oversight is so glaring that even the president’s most stalwart supporters have noticed, and some have gone so far as to suggest that he offer such a plan in order to bolster his recently declining electoral prospects. This seems reasonable enough, given the apparent difficulty of selling more of the same, but it’s hard to imagine what he might come up with that will woo back any lost voters.
Any plan released at this late date will naturally raise questions about why Obama has waited so very long to unveil it. Some will suspect that it was intended to avoid the critical scrutiny of the media, as if that would ever happen, while the most realistic skeptics will assume it a ploy to prevent Romney from having a go at it during the debates. Those still enamored of Obama will be thrilled with whatever he might come up with, but the rest of the country will immediately be wondering why he hadn’t attempted such a brilliant agenda to begin with. The plan would have to be rolled out in yet another Big Speech, as well, and there have been so many of those over the past four years that many Americans would pay it no mind.
Obama likely has a number of big ideas that he is eager to impose on the nation if given the opportunity, but probably has been keeping them to himself because he believes that they won’t be very popular. All of Obama’s ideas involve spending great gobs of money, a point that won’t be lost on a public that finally seems to be properly worried about the country’s mounting debt, and they always require an almost religious faith in governmental power that has lately become harder to sustain. Although Obama will occasionally hint at how very far left he would go when off the teleprompter, as in his infamous “you didn’t build that” oration, he has mostly tried to sustain an image of moderation.
Such reluctance to be frank has severely hindered Obama’s efforts to even tout the ideas he has proposed. When Obama was hammered about energy prices during the first debate he seemed itching to shout out that of course he had sought increases, that he had told people he would during the first campaign, and that everyone will someday be thanking him when we’re all driving on $20-a-gallon biofuels because he’s pumped the cost of Gaia-killing gasoline to $21 per gallon, and that if anyone out there didn’t like it they could just buy a Chevy Volt or leave the suburbs and live in the city like a real person. He restrained himself, of course, and offered an obviously bogus explanation of how much he truly loves gas and coal and all the fossil fuels, confident that his friends at the Sierra Club would know he was fibbing but hopeful that no one else would figure it out.
— Bud Norman
There’s no telling what the White House’s internal polls are saying, but the travel itinerary says the president is schedule to appear today for yet another energy policy speech in Cushing, Oklahoma, and that says he’s getting very nervous about the recent rise in gasoline prices.
Obama is not popular in Oklahoma. He lost Oklahoma by the widest margin of any state in the last election, a proud distinction that rebuts every dumb Okie joke ever told, and in the most recent voting he lost 15 counties in the Democratic primary. As frequent visitors to the Sooner State, we can attest that there’s even a good deal of loathing toward the president there.
It is safe to assume that Obama feels no particular affection for Oklahomans, either. Aside from their annoying habit of not voting for him, Oklahomans tend to cling to their guns and religion, although not at all bitterly, and have a strange preference for relying on themselves rather than the government. Many of them also work in the oil fields, rather than in a non-profit advocacy group or government-subsidized solar panel factory, and one gets the impression that Obama would find that yet another example of how very gauche they are.
Which is apparently why Obama chose such a far-flung locale for his latest attempt to prove how very pro-oil he really is. After blocking construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which proved wildly unpopular, Obama will announce in Cushing that he’s going to expedite the review process for construction of the southern part of the project that runs through Oklahoma. The construction of that portion is already slated to start by June, Obama’s intervention won’t speed its progress at all, and it still won’t reach halfway to the source of oil due to Obama’s edicts, but the fact that he went to Cushing to announce his new policy should convince a few gullible voters that he’s serious.
A sharp political operative should be able to round up a small hall’s worth of star-struck Obama supporters even in rural Oklahoma, and the president will no doubt get a cheer when he boasts that domestic oil production has increased during his term, but few other Oklahomans will be swayed. Even ABC News is forced to admit that “energy experts say his policies have little to do with those developments,” and most Oklahomans already know that from their friends in the oil business.
— Bud Norman
Legend has it that back in the Dark Ages there were kings who spent fortunes on an effort to turn lead into gold. Even at that point in western science it was known that lead and gold are tantalizingly close in their chemical compositions, and the kings assumed that all that was needed to make up the slight difference was a vast amount of the taxpayers’ money.
A similar assumption seems to underlie the Obama administration’s energy policy, which seeks to turn wind, sunshine, algae, and anything else at hand into something as powerful and affordable as oil and coal. All that’s needed to achieve this transmutation, apparently, is several billion dollars more of federal funding.
With oil prices recently on the rise, and the public’s discontent rising at a commensurate pace, Obama flew his petroleum-powered jet to North Carolina on Wednesday to defend this notion. After assuring the crowd at a German-owned truck factory in Mount Holly that his policies have increased oil production in America, Obama called oil a “fuel of the past” and prophesied a glorious future of alternative energies and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The part about his administration increasing domestic oil production simply isn’t true, as disgruntled oil producers around the country will attest. There has indeed been an increase in the amount of oil being pumped here, but it’s been on private lands beyond Obama’s control or from leases issued by previous administrations. The administration’s policy has been to keep almost all federal lands untapped, enforce a moratorium on Gulf drilling, and “slow-walk” new permits.
The part about the alternative energy-powered future might happen, but there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical about it happening anytime soon. Even Obama’s Department of Energy’s can’t offer a more optimistic projection than 13 percent of America’s energy production coming from alternative sources by 2035, and history gives no reason to be hopeful that federal funding will help us get there.
The Solyndra debacle and the Chevy Volt fiasco are but two notable examples of the government’s “green” failures, and the big successes that the administration’s cheerleaders at The Hill cite are the re-organization of the bankrupt EnerDel company and that taxpayers will recover 70 percent of a loan to the Beacon Power Corporation’s bankrupt energy storage plant. The government has been at work on alternative energy sources since at least the ‘70s, when President Jimmy Carter set a goal of obtaining 20 percent of America’s energy from solar power by the year 2000, and the results have not been encouraging. To borrow a word from the alchemists’ lexicon, more federal money is not a panacea.
Which raises the question of why it has to be federal money. Anyone who does invent a power source that is less expensive and just as efficient as oil will become very, very wealthy as a result, and that should entice the smart money into the most promising avenues of research. The inevitable technological breakthrough might be discovered by government scientists who will be paid the same if they fail or succeed, or it might be found by private entities that will be rich if they succeed and broke if they don’t, but we’re inclined to bet on the latter. The people staking their own money will also be more careful in choosing which technologies to invest in, rather than governments, which always seem to wind up backing the biggest campaign contributors.
The alchemists’ failed experiments yielded some knowledge that later became useful, but they never did figure out how to turn lead into gold. Centuries later science did figure out how to do it, but not in a way that was less expensive than the price of gold. The modern day energy alchemists will probably provide some new science, too, but don’t expect that they’ll soon be able to turn wind, sunshine, algae, and whatever’s at hand into power. They might be able to provide alternative energy at a competitive price when oil gets to $600 a barrel, but the Obama administration hasn’t achieved that yet.
— Bud Norman
No one, not even the greenest environmental wacko in the world, likes paying higher prices for gasoline.
We can state this with journalistic certainty, because back in our newspaper days the editors would send us out in search of utterly predictable man-at-the-pump quotes to localize wire stories every time the prices spiked. On one such occasion we happened to spot a fellow we know to be the greenest environmental wacko in the world as he was filling up his tiny automobile. We immediately pounced on him, notebook and pen in hand, hoping to snare the first-ever quote in praise of higher gas prices, but alas, even he offered nothing but the usual grousing.
With gas prices once again on the rise, already reaching record levels for the month of February and expected to head far past the outrage-inducing $4 barrier by peak summer driving season, all that really matters is who gets the blame. Much of the anger will likely be directed towards President Barack Obama, and this seems fair enough.
Presidents always get the blame for high gas prices, after all. The last oil shock came during the waning days of the George W. Bush administration, and he was blamed by everyone, including then-candidate Obama. If only for the sake of bi-partisanship and intellectual consistency, this venerable tradition of blaming the president should continue for at least one more term.
Bush was easily blamed because he’d once been an oil man and was thus perceived to be friendly toward the oil industry, always a mother lode of material for conspiracy theorizing, but Obama’s once-vaunted hostility toward energy producers should make him an even more plausible scapegoat. This is the man whose only regret about the last round of $4-a-gallon gas was that it hadn’t happened gradually enough, after all, and the same one who appointed a Secretary of Energy who openly yearned for European-level gas prices. He’s also the same fellow who openly boasted that his cap-and-trade plan was intended to cause to electricity rates to “skyrocket.”
As president, Obama has not pursued a cheap energy policy. He acted in contempt of a court to impose a moratorium on drilling in the gulf of Mexico, blocked the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and has continued to keep the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and other oil-rich properties off the market, and subsidized a number of “green” industries whose business models rely on higher energy prices. He’s now touting increases in domestic oil and gas production, even as he continues to play the role of environmentalist hero, but most of the increase has come on private land or because of permits issued by his oil-loving predecessor.
You can also make a strong case that the oil hasn’t become more valuable, but the dollars we’re buying it with have become less so. If so, Obama’s profligacy and his choice for Federal Reserve chairman are at fault.
One can also blame the mad mullahs running Iran, whose belligerence has spooked the futures markets into bidding up the price of crude oil, but this still does not leave Obama blameless. It is impossible to say if a more confrontational policy would have deterred Iran from its recent aggressions, but it is quite possible to say that the “open hand” approach has thus far not worked out.
— Bud Norman