A lot of you are not old enough to remember the energy crisis of the 1970s. I just barely remember it. An oil embargo by Middle Eastern states was one of the major causes, and the resulting shortage saw gas lines and gave us a president who implored us in a cardigan sweater not to keep so many darn lights turned on all the time.
It was during this time that Congress passed a ban on the export of domestically produced oil, the idea being that we needed every drop of it right here at home until the crisis pass. Well, regardless of what you think of that policy, the fact is the crisis passed long ago. Today, the United States is producing more oil than ever in spite of the Obama Administration's refusal to grant oil leases on federally controlled lands. And with an economy that's barely limping along at 2 percent annual growth, it makes no sense to continue an export ban that was passed in response to a 40-years-ago crisis.
We could really use the money that would come from selling that oil on the global market, and we've got more of it than ever to sell, which is why the House is getting ready to vote on a bill that would repeal the ban.
But as you might expect, Barack Obama's not about to let that bill become law:
Repeal backers argue the ban was passed in an era of oil scarcity, and the U.S. is now seeing an era of energy abundance that the American economy should capitalize upon. The bill calls for the removal of all restrictions on the export of crude oil, claiming this "will provide domestic economic benefits, enhanced energy security, and flexibility in foreign diplomacy."
The White House however, called the bill unnecessary and announced Wednesday the president’s advisers would recommend vetoing the bill, which is due to be voted on in the House Friday.
“Rather, Congress should be focusing its efforts on supporting our transition to a low-carbon economy. It could do this through a variety of measures, including ending the billions of dollars a year in Federal subsidies provided to oil companies and instead investing in wind, solar, energy efficiency, and other clean technologies to meet America's energy needs,” the statement said.
That makes absolutely no sense. First of all, there is no reason alternative energy sources can't be developed at the same time we boost oil exploration and export the product, and Obama knows this. He constantly throws up these this-rather-than-that arguments when he knows perfectly well that we're talking about things that are not inherently in conflict with each other.
As for the claim that we're giving "subsidies" to the oil companies, those "subsidies" really come in the form of tax breaks that are part and parcel of a complex tax code that the oil companies have learned over the years how to take full advantage of. The Democrats would have you believe the federal government is writing checks to the oil companies just to help them out. Not the case. If the Democrats would like to throw out the federal tax code and replace it with a new, simpler one that eliminates loopholes, deductions and exemptions, we'd be the first to sign on in support.
Liberals think nothing can ever happen unless government "invests" in it, which frames their argument against any sort of policy that's favorable toward oil companies. Why, that support could go to wind and solar! In reality, there are these people called private investors who will bankroll wind and solar technology if they believe it can get to the point where it's a real contributor to America's energy needs - irrespective of how the oil industry is doing. In fact, successful oil companies might be the best people to make those investments because they understand what it takes to consistently deliver power to the grid. But Democrats would rather do everything they can to make sure there are no successful oil companies.
But in an even more basic sense, where is the White House's argument that the oil export ban is a good thing for the country? They don't even offer one. They argue instead that they don't like the repeal because they'd rather see Congress focus on this or that, which is not an argument for the merits of the export ban itself. Some liberals argue that lifting the ban would raise gas prices, I guess on the presumption that you'd increase demand for the product by expanding the markets where it can be sold. This is a classic example of liberals half-understanding supply and demand. Yes, U.S. oil producers could see an increase in demand for their product. But by adding to the overall global supply of the product, they would also introduce greater global competition for all buyers, which would have the effect of lowering prices - thus offsetting the dynamic that has liberals so worried.
There is simply no serious argument to be made for keeping the oil export ban in place. Lifting it would produce a potential economic boom for the states seeing the biggest production increases, particularly North Dakota. Obama's veto promise is all about an ideological hatred of oil, and we've had about enough of government driven by Obama's ideologically driven delusion.
