Democrats are running a bit lean these days. Some would say they're on nothing more than vapors.
Although it seems that proponents of more oil drilling have the upper hand in the energy debate at the moment, getting a single drop of oil from the ground is another matter altogether. Opponents have pulled out all the stops, resorting to parliamentary maneuvering and intellectual dishonesty to avoid bringing the subject up for a vote. It's clear they have no intention of engaging in compromise or cooperation to reach a speedy, comprehensive solution to our short and long-term energy needs.
Strangely enough, Democrats are
always pushing "comprehensive" legislation down our throats. Remember comprehensive immigration reform? Democrats recognized the stark reality that there was no way they could bestow citizenship upon millions of illegal aliens and still survive politically.
Unless, of course, they had a comprehensive strategy in place to secure the border and enforce the law before citizenship or even normalization was given consideration. Thus, immigration reform is dead, having been buried alive by Democrats afraid of it even seeing daylight.
I recently caught a debate by a group of younger Democrats, the "30-Something Working Group", over the future of U.S. energy policy. Named for their tender years, the 30-Somethings are supposed to bring a fresh, new perspective to the party, but they are of the same mold as their predecessors; rewriting history to fit their arguments and being generally dishonest about matters of serious consequence to our economy and national security.
During the debate, Democrats Jason Altmire (D-PA) and Tim Ryan (D-OH), ever cognizant that cameras were rolling, took numerous liberties with the truth. Altmire, Ryan and their contemporaries contend that efforts to divert 70,000 barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) into the market lowered prices back in July, so they want to increase that to 70 million barrels (a full ten percent of the entire reserve) and release them not at once, but over time. They say it would have an immediate short-term impact on oil prices. They also contend Republicans are trying to have it both ways by calling for more supply and then rejecting a bill to put oil from the SPR on the market.
Democrats also argue that Oklahoma oil man, T. Boone Pickens' admonition that " We can't drill our way out of this" and his subsequent call for investment in solar, wind and other green technologies is even more evidence that the call for more offshore and Alaska drilling is the wrong one.
Democrats also argue that the oil companies already have leases on 68 million acres of land that they're simply sitting on. They say the oil companies know there's oil there otherwise they wouldn't continue to hold the leases and pay for them. The say that they've opened an additional 23 million acres in Alaska known as the National Petroleum Reserve (formerly the Naval Petroleum Reserve) for the oil companies to drill to their heart's content.
Stubborn Things, Those Facts...
Just to keep things in perspective, The U.S. produces over 5 million barrels of oil
per day. We consume over twenty million barrels
per day. The vast majority of our foreign oil comes, not from Arab countries, but from Canada and Mexico. Only about 10 percent of foreign oil is from Arab countries.
Did the release of a mere 70,000 barrels of oil have an impact on gas prices? According to the very same statistics that Altmire and Ryan cite, oil prices continued to climb for another 2 weeks after their token release. A number of factors contributed to the drop in oil prices, not the least of which was a dramatic drop in the number of vehicles on the road and fewer miles driven by those who continued to move by automobile. People were simply forced to drive less and seek out cheaper alternatives such as bicycles and mass transit.
Suppose we did listen to the Democratic plan and they dumped 70 million barrels of oil over a few weeks or months onto the world oil market. Suppose that it actually has the effect they've been pontificating about and oil prices fall even further...
Consumers would once again be able to purchase more fuel. And if they purchased enough, supplies would again tighten and the price would again climb. The Democrats' plan would not increase the supply of oil. It would do nothing other than put the oil on the world market. In other words, not in the pockets of greedy U.S. oil companies. It would lower prices temporarily until market forces, speculation or supply interruptions once again brought them back up.
Democrats are also hailing T. Boone Pickens' "We can't drill our way out" mantra and his call for green energy initiatives. They are once again trying to redefine the terms of the debate, but their characterization of the position of those who want more drilling is simply a gross distortion of the facts. Show me a conservative who says that drilling is the solution to our energy problems. What we want is a short-term increase in domestic oil supply to keep our country moving until the next generation of energy sources can come on line and be widely available at affordable prices.
Democrats also fail to mention that The Pickens plan is narrowly focused. They fail to mention that it does nothing to promote a wide range of energy sources. They won't tell you that if the Pickens Plan is implemented, like Al Gore before him, who also hypocritically made lots of money off of oil, Mr. Pickens stands to make millions along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so why wouldn't he try to sell it to Congress and America?
Finally, concerning oil leases, what Democrats aren't telling you is that the geological and technical research necessary to actually find oil isn't an exact science. They aren't telling you that no one knows precisely where it will be found until they start poking holes in the ground. Just this year, BLM conceded that until more exploratory drilling is done in the National Petroleum Reserve, no one can say how much oil can be found there [1]. Democrats tried to force legislation through that would compel oil companies to "use it or lose it" with respect to oil leases. But nearly all of the leases come with intensely burdensome environmental restrictions and requirements. Activity has been halted there before due to environmental concerns. Significant portions of the Northeast section of the 23 million acres remain closed to all drilling activity, tied up in a morass of environmental litigation, although another round of leases is finally scheduled to be up for bid in September.
Democrats are trying to argue that because leases were signed, oil companies must think there's oil there. But only a fool would believe that oil companies are sitting on the oil hoping to bolster their profits even further, especially considering that Democrats are moving at breakneck speed to eliminate oil as a fuel source altogether and push greener alternatives. Who are they kidding?
If you signed a contract that said you agreed to lease a car or apartment for 5 years and you realized that you really couldn't afford the car plus the insurance, maintenance and fuel costs, or you realized the commute from your new neighborhood was three hours instead of the 30 minutes the agent said; or even if you simply wanted a different car or to live elsewhere, would you give the car away or just leave the apartment while still paying for either? No. In addition to being more expensive, it just defies common sense to relinquish control over that which you must pay for. But then again, I guess that's just what liberals expect from America - to surrender their wealth for redistribution to the needy.
No American in their right mind wants to continue to remain dependent upon oil. But you have to wonder what Democrats are up to considering their rhetoric. Oil is so entrenched in our lives, we could never get rid of it altogether. Even if we eliminated it as a source of motor fuel there are literally thousands of everyday products we couldn't live without that are made from oil. Nearly every synthetic fabric and plastic, just to name a few. A comprehensive energy strategy that addresses both short and long-term goals as well as needs demands a slow, well-formulated approach that considers all of the existing and future technological know-how we can muster, including oil.
The path to complete energy independence consists of a series of carefully-planned baby steps, not some unpaced sprint to the finish line. Democratic efforts to rapidly force immature, expensive, non-standard technologies on America in their quest to save the planet could very well wreck our economy leaving us vulnerable to much worse than the whims of oil-producing countries.
