Obama’s Absolutely Inexcusable (NON)-Energy Plan

Barack Obama had this to say the other day on July 11:

I’ve often said that the decisions we make in this election and in the next few years will set the course for the next generation. That is true of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true of our economy. And it is especially true of our energy policy.

The urgency of this challenge is clear to anyone who’s tried to fill up their tank with gas that’s now over $4 a gallon. It’s clear to the legions of scientists who believe that we are nearing a point of no return when it comes to our global climate crisis. And with each passing day, it is clear that our addiction to fossil fuels is one of the most serious threats to our national security in the 21st century.

…An even more immediate and direct security threat comes from our dependence on foreign oil. The price of a barrel of oil is now one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Tyrants from Caracas to Tehran use it to prop up their regimes, intimidate the international community, and hold us hostage to a market that is subject to their whims. If Iran decided to shut down the petroleum-rich Strait of Hormuz tomorrow, they believe oil would skyrocket to $300-a-barrel in minutes, a price that one speculator predicted would result in $12-a-gallon gas. $12 a gallon.

The nearly $700 million a day we send to unstable or hostile nations also funds both sides of the war on terror, paying for everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the bombs that go off in Baghdad and Kabul. Our oil addiction even presents a target for Osama bin Laden, who has told al Qaeda, “focus your operations on oil, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off on their own.”

If we stay on our current course, the rapid growth of nations like China and India will rise about one-third by 2030. In that same year, Middle Eastern regimes will be sitting on 83% of our global oil reserves. Imagine that – the very source of energy that fuels nearly all of our transportation, controlled almost entirely by some of the world’s most unstable and undemocratic governments.

This is not the future I want for America. We are not a country that places our fate in the hands of dictators and tyrants – we are a nation that controls our own destiny. That’s who we are. That’s who we’ve always been. It’s what led us to wage a revolution that brought down an Empire. It’s why we built an Arsenal of Democracy to defeat Fascism, and stopped the spread of Communism with the power of our ideals. And it’s why we must end the tyranny of oil in our time.

Notice the last sentence. “It’s why we must end the tyranny of oil in our time.”

Obama doesn’t say, “the tyranny of Middle Eastern oil,” or “the tyranny of oil controlled by terrorist and totalitarian regimes.” He says, “the tyranny of oil.” Period. “Oil” is a tyrant. Hope you knew that.

Please understand the history that Barack Obama foolishly ignores even as he attempts to cite it. One of the key stratagies we used to defeat Nazi fascism was to systematically deny them the fuel they needed to keep their war machine running. Had the Nazis had adequate oil supplies, it is almost certain that they would have broken through the American lines during the Battle of the Bulge. Conversely, had the United States not had adequate oil, we would not have won the war.  Citing the defeat of fascism with cutting ourselves off from oil is historical revisionism that borders on criminal irresponsibility. Oil made us strong. Oil helped us defeat fascism.

It is with this fact in mind that I consider Obama’s last sentence, “And it’s why we must end the tyranny of oil in our time” in light of Neville Chamberlain’s now infamous “peace in our time” statement. Chamberlain has gone down in history as being the ignominous fool who actively prevented England from arming itself and standing up to the real tyranny of Adolf Hitler even as the threat of Hitler loomed ever larger and ever darker. Barack Obama is a fool in the same mold as Neville Chamberlain, because he urges the same pathetic mindset that characterized Chamberlain. Obama refuses to allow drilling to develop a stable domestic supply of what the United States absolutely needs to remain strong.

Barack obama ignores the lessons of history. And he views oil as a moral evil rather than as a vitally needed source of energy. That’s why he can run an ad like this:

SCRIPT: Announcer: “On gas prices, John McCain’s part of the problem. McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years. McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil. He’s voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. Barack Obama will make energy independence an urgent priority. Raise mileage standards. Fast track technology for alternative fuels. A thousand-dollar tax cut to help families as we break the grip of foreign oil. A real plan and new energy.”

Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

You see, oil is “a tyrant” for Barack Obama. And John McCain – like that evil George Bush – support drilling. Drilling to provide the world with still more oil, and therefore still more tyranny. Barack Obama is a clever speaker, but the simple fact of the matter is that he is taking the far left position that fossil fuels – which contribute to global warming – are therefore evil and their use contributes to “tyranny.” Let me tell you what: an attitude like that may be as politically correct as the sky is blue, but it most definitely won’t fill your gas tank.

Obama acknowledges the dilemma we now find ourselves in: that of facing the prospect of $12 a gallon gasoline because of our dependence on foreign oil, the volatility of a Middle East that could erupt at any moment, and the increased global competition for dwindling supplies. [Note: I’ve already written about why we face $12 a gallon gas].

The answer to this dilemma, according to Barack Obama, is to absolutely refuse to increase our domestic oil production, and to instead wave a magic wand that will give us a powerful new alternative source of energy that will somehow meet all our needs and solve all our problems.

John McCain is “part of the problem” because he – like that George Bush – “supports a drilling plan that won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years.”

Well, a few things. First, I can not even begin to comprehend the irrationality of claiming that any attempt to increase our own oil supply – and we have massive oil potential – must not be considered as a solution to obtaining energy independence from foreign oil. Apparently as part of his plan to end “the tyranny of oil,” Barack Obama is literally in favor of preventing private corporations – using private money – from increasing our domestic oil supply while at the same time decrying our dependence on foreign oil. This is absurd. It is insane.

Second, Obama – joining a chorus of other Democrats in claiming that drilling “won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years” is equally irrational. Had people like Barack Obama gotten the heck out of the way seven years ago – instead of using the power of government to prevent drilling – we would not be where we are now. To use a criminally stupid policy that prevented us from drilling seven years ago in support of an even more criminally stupid policy to therefore not drill now is simply incredible. How on earth can everyone not see this? Had we drilled seven years ago we would have increased supplies now. If we don’t drill now, we will for a certain fact place ourselves in an even more dire situation in seven years. Period. End of story.

As a further note, oil experts say they could have some production on line in as little as one year. And many financial experts say that – to whatever extent “speculation” is driving up the price of oil – a firm commitment to increase our supplies would dramatically reduce the problem.

Third, Barack Obama is literally blaming George Bush and John McCain for attempting to do what would have worked had we only done it earlier, and would still work now but for obstructionist Democrats who have no energy plan at all.

House Democrats have literally been blocking any vote on energy at all for fear that Republicans would introduce a vote requiring domestic drilling. This is the epitome of not having a plan. (Maybe blocking any bill on energy is part of Nancy Pelosi’s brilliant “commonsense plan” that has seen the price of gas double since she began to implement it?)

Now, at this point, a liberal (I don’t use the word “progressive” because that would imply they want “progress,” when these people stand in the way of genuine progress) will probably stand up and say, “Obama DOES have an energy plan.”

Well, keep in mind that Barack Obama himself has said that he was all in favor of gas becoming more expensive; he only regretted that the price rose so steeply and thereby ignited the ire of Americans.

But let’s look at Barack Obama’s plan to solve our energy dilemma. Let’s see who is really “part of the problem.”

What is Obama proposing?

Well, he absolutely stands against increasing the amount of the stuff that fills our tanks and keeps our economy flowing.

In place of “the tyranny of oil” (and especially “the tyranny” of domestic oil), Obama proposes:

* A second, $50 billion stimulus package that would send energy rebate checks to every American.* A $1,000 middle-class tax cut that will go to 95% of all workers and their families.

* A crack down on oil speculators who may be artificially driving up the price of oil.

* A fast-track $150 billion of investment in a clean energy fund to help create the fuel-efficient cars and alternative sources of energy that will secure this nation and jumpstart a green economy.

* Doubling fuel mileage standards over the next two decades utilizing much of the technology we have on the shelf today – a step that will save this country half a trillion gallons of gasoline, the equivalent of cutting the price of a gallon of gas in half. And I will provide tax credits and loan guarantees for our automakers to help them make this transition.

* A Venture Capital Fund that will provide $50 billion over five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies out of the lab and into the marketplace.

* Requiring that 25% of U.S. electricity comes renewable sources by 2025, and that the U.S. produce two billion gallons of advanced cellulosic biofuels by 2013. (Pointedly, he says that the U.S. will “also invest in finding cleaner ways to use coal, our nation’s most abundant energy source, and safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.”

* Using the U.S. clean energy fund to invest over $1 billion a year to re-tool and modernize our factories and build the advanced technology cars, trucks and SUVs of the future.

* Calling on businesses, government, and the American people to make America 50% more energy efficient by 2030.

The first two proposals have nothing to do with energy whatsoever, apart from essentially subsidizing the frightenly high cost of gas. I enjoyed my last $300 handout from the government, and would enjoy the next one just as much. But that money in my pocket is going to have to be paid by the next generation. We do have a nearly $10 trillion national debt, and eventually this kind of debt level is going to implode this country.

As for Obama’s $150 billion investment in clean energy – which by the way would come on the backs of those evil oil companies who produce that “tyrant” substance oil (and which would drive up their costs and thereby drive up the price they charge for gasoline) – how long will it take before we’re driving happily along with cheap fuel? He ridicules drilling because it will take “seven years,” after all. Well, by his own incredibly stupid logic, let’s ridicule investment in alternative energy! It will take YEARS before we have any significant energy from such alternatives.

Keep in mind, alternatives such as ethanol (which is E-85, aka “flex fuel”) has been fool’s gold. It is incredibly expensive to produce, relies on huge government subsidies to bring the cost down to level’s that Americans are willing to pay, and has caused enormous increases in the price of our food. If that isn’t bad enough, desperately poor people around the world are literally starving for this insane government-propped “alternative fuel.”

Ethanol truly IS an “alternative”; it is an alternative to what actually works. It is an alternative to sanity.

Every other part of Obama’s plan is tantamount to an act of bowing down before the pagan idol of big government. Private enterprise is irrelevant for Barack Obama, other than the fact that they are obstacles in the way, who must be forced by the government in order to do what is right and good as decreed by the standards of political correctness.

The idea of getting out of the way and allowing the private sector to produce the innovations we need is shockingly absent from Obama’s plan. Instead, the private sector is “required” to do one thing, and “called on” to do another.

Keep in mind, Democrats in the Senate couldn’t even run a freakin’ cafeteria without running it into the ground.

And how much energy will Obama’s plan actually produce? What kind of energy? How much will it cost?

This isn’t an energy plan. It is a typical liberal NON-energy plan from a typical liberal politician.

It’s not lack of government money that has prevented nuclear power and clean coal-burning technology, it’s been Democrats and their innumerable laws, restrictions, and regulations. Private money would flood in if Democrat’s would quit imposing one burden after another upon energy providers and let them produce energy.

We don’t have nuclear power because liberals and environmentalist foolishly despised it and demonized it twenty years ago. We don’t have it because Democrats have imposed so many hurdles, so many regulations, so many restrictions, so many environmental studies, so much bureaucracy and so much red tape, that it has been unprofitable – and even impossible – to build a nuclear power plant (or, for that matter, an oil refinery).

Barack Obama went to Las Vegas and had this to say:

Under the bleach-bright Las Vegas summer sun, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday checked out the solar panels that shade cars in the parking lot of the Springs Preserve while powering the facility.

“What we are seeing here … is that the green, renewable energy economy is not some far-off, pie-in-the-sky future,” Obama said in a speech at the local nature attraction. “It is now. It’s creating jobs now. It is providing cheap alternatives to $140-a-barrel oil now. And it can create millions of additional jobs, entire industries, if we act now.”

Really? How much? What’s it going to cost? Will it keep my car running?

Keep in mind, liberals recently blocked a massive solar panal plan on federal land. They have blocked wind mills. Ted Kennedy has personally done everything he could to block a wind farm in Massachusetts. They have blocked nuclear power for decades.

But the problem with alternative energy isn’t just obstructionist Democrats. It goes far, far deeper.

Obama went to Las Vegas to sing Kumbaya to solar energy. So let’s look at solar energy:

Can renewable energy make a dent in fossil fuels?

4.2 billion. [Emphasis mine]

That’s how many rooftops you’d have to cover with solar panels to displace a cubic mile of oil (CMO), a measure of energy consumption, according to Ripudaman Malhotra, who oversees research on fossil fuels at SRI International. The electricity captured in those hypothetical solar panels in a year (2.1 kilowatts each) would roughly equal the energy in a CMO. The world consumes a little over 1 CMO of oil a year right now and about 3 CMOs of energy from all sources.

Put another way, we’d need to equip 250,000 roofs a day with solar panels for the next 50 years to have enough photovoltaic infrastructure to provide the world with a CMO’s worth of solar-generated electricity for a year. We’re nowhere close to that pace.

Great googley moogley! That’s a whole bunch of solar panels. Particularly with liberals blocking the ones we’re trying to build now. Clearly, solar energy won’t even scratch the surface of providing a real solution to oil.

Well, beyond solar energy, there’s also wind power. And Obama talked about nuclear power, too. Could they provide us with a real alternative to oil? Not even close:

But don’t blame the solar industry. You’d also have to erect a 900-megawatt nuclear power plant every week for 50 years to get enough plants (2,500) to produce the same energy in a year to equal a CMO. Wind power? You need 3 million for a CMO, or 1,200 a week planted in the ground over the next 50 years. Demand for power also continues to escalate with economic development in the emerging world.

“In 30 years we will need six CMOs, so where are we going to get that?” Malhotra said. “I’m trying to communicate the scale of the problem.”

The article above, by Michael Kanellos, has a neat little pie chart for you “a picture’s worth a thousand words” types:

The problem is that abandoning the use of oil and then relying on the “alternative” solutions that we currently have is analogous to draining all the oceans dry and then trying to refill them by spitting. And there just aint enough spit to make a hill-of-beans’ worth of difference. And there aint enough “alternative energy.”

Michael J. Economides, writing for China Daily, says in an article titled, “Fossil fuels still the best,” writes:

Of the world energy demand 87 percent comes from fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal. This fraction has not changed much since the 1970s and the first “energy crisis”, while energy demand has more than doubled.

By almost everybody’s estimates by the year 2030, the total world demand will increase by 50 percent and oil, gas and coal will still provide 87 percent of the world energy. The reason we use them is not because of some evil conspiracy headed by a dark knight. We use them because they are the easiest, most flexible, most reliable and most efficient forms of energy.

Biofuels as done today, cause a negative energy balance not even considering their impact on food prices. I have no aversion to wind or solar. I love the sun, I am Greek. But they are eminently unreliable and, even in their best case, without government subsidies, they make $200 to $2000 oil still attractive. It is that simple.

But here is how we are ridiculous in the developed world and it would have been funny had we not run the danger of committing societal hara-kiri. We have let dazed environmentalism of the most outrageous variety put on a tie and become mainstream, dominate the covers of national newsmagazines and, predictably as of late, earn Oscars, Emmys and Nobels.

There are no alternatives to fossil fuels for decades and the transition will be long and painful. Nothing will happen overnight. We will continue to be a fossil fuel-dependent economy for the foreseeable future.

We desperately need oil. But Barack Obama stands in the way of obtaining the oil we need. We can not possibly maintain any semblance of the lifestyle that we have come to enjoy without oil. Ergo sum, Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

And Barack Obama, due to the brand of pure foolishness he shares with his fellow Democrats, requires the United states remain completely dependent on foreign oil – and Middle Eastern oil – for decades to come. Ergo sum, Obama is a clear and present danger to our security.

In concluding, let me state that I am a religious person, and I believe that God gave us oil for a reason. I also believe that He gave us more than enough to meet our needs.

I am in favor of genuine, practical, clean alternatives to oil. I am in favor of providing tax breaks to ALL current and potential producers and suppliers of energy – including oil companies (in order to develop shale oil technology, clean coal technology, etc.). I believe that we will find the solutions that we need in a timely manner if we act wisely.

But demonizing the oil that sustains us, and pursuing a liberal-socialist radical environmentalist agenda that literally keeps us in the dark is not wisdom. It is in fact the very worst kind of foolishness.

See my other articles on Democrats and their obstruction to our energy supply:

Democrat’s ‘Commonsense Plan’ Revealed: Let’s Nationalize the Oil Industry

Blame Democrats for Sky-High Gas Prices

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat’s Ideological Stand Against Domestic Oil Terrible for US Economy & Security

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

My articles on the pseudo-menace of global warming:

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

The June 22, 2008 program of ABC’s This Week had an interesting panel discussion consisting of George Stephanapoulos (the host of the program and former Clinton communications director); Democrat Rep. Ed Markey, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence; Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; Jeffery Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute; and Red Cavaney, the President of the American Petroleum Institute. Their discussion was a good window into the positions of the Democratic and Republican political positions, as well as into the liberal environmentalist groups and the conservative-friendly oil industry.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And let’s play off the summit this morning in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have announced that they’re going to increase production by 200,000 barrels a day. Say they may even do more. But Congressman Markey, King Abdullah also took off after speculators. Is this increase in production going to be enough to bring prices down?

REP. ED MARKEY: It may have a marginal impact. There is, without question, in my mind, speculation going on. Manipulation going on. The Democrats are going to put bills on the House floor this week to deal with that issue. But in the end, this crisis is really caused by 12 years of Republican control of Congress. We’ve gone from 46% dependence when the Republicans took over the House and Senate in 1995 to 61% dependence upon imported oil today. We’ve had an oil and gas agenda. They’ve thwarted the renewal energy agenda. They are still blocking in the Senate the tax breaks for renewable wind and solar and geothermal and other renewal energy technology. We only have 2% of the oil reserves in the United States. OPEC has 67%. That’s our weakness. Our strength is that we are technological giants. We have not yet unleashed it. The Republican White House and House and Senate are still blocking that revolution.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well of course, I would say that the Democrats have thwarted every effort we have made to increase our supply. This is a supply and demand issue. The demand has skyrocketed mostly because of global increases. And we have not done anything about supply because we’re thwarted in nuclear power, we’re thwarted in using our own national resources. Drilling offshore on a state-by-state option is something that I think we could do very environmentally safely. And yet anything that says production is killed by the Democrats. What I think we ought to do to get the speculators to stop thinking that the prices are going to go up is for Congress to show that we are going to take action with a balanced plan, with renewables, with nuclear power with expanded refineries, with drilling and exploration of our own natural resources. If we did that, yes, it would take five to ten years to get those things in line but the speculators would be out of the market.

RED CAVANEY: It is fundamentally, because unless you had very tight supply and demand, you wouldn’t create the platform that would allow people to think that there was an opportunity here to make an investment, and then that could lead to other kinds of things. So you must address the base global supply and demand situation in order to bring some sort of order. Like right now we’ve had civil disruptions of Nigeria. A million barrels are offline that are not available.

JEFFREY SACHS: We have to move fast on a number of fronts. We need conservation. We need long mileage automobiles which was delayed forever. We do need alternative energy sources, renewables. We need the nuclear. That’s got to be part of the mix. We are going to have to work together internationally. We ducked that issue entirely. Climate change is also part of the equation. This administration hid that from view for eight years. And so we never had a balanced plan. We never had a strategy at all. It was oil from first day. That’s been the big mistake.

Let me come in at this point and say that the basic parameters are all in place here: the Democrats do not view oil as part of the solution to the energy problem. They demand alternatives to oil. The Republicans do – and have for years – viewed domestic oil as a critical part of any solution to our short- and long-tern energy needs, and have tried largely without success due to implement a policy of increased domestic oil production.

Red Cavaney points out that the speculation that drives up prices only enters into the cost equation when the supplies aren’t meeting the demand. When supplies are abundant, you don’t have people betting that the prices will go up.

Rep. Markey attempts to attack Republicans for the increase in dependence on foreign oil; but do you see how absurd that is? It’s analogous to me beating the hell out of you with a baseball bat and then blaming you for being in poor health. Of course we’re more dependent on foreign oil than we were 12 years ago: a determined Democratic minority has been allowed to block any – and I mean ANY – significant effort to increase our domestic oil production. And – in absolute refutation of the Democrat’s mantra – we have NEEDED, now NEED, and will continue to NEED oil for the foreseeable future.

Markey goes on to say, “They’ve thwarted the renewal energy agenda. They are still blocking in the Senate the tax breaks for renewable wind and solar and geothermal and other renewal energy technology.” And that is partially true (although Democrats and their environmentalist allies have been responsible for overturning wind technology, and liberal environmentalists recently sued to stop the use of solar technology, so let’s not go too far blaming Republicans); but Democrats ought to look in the mirror when they demonize Republicans for blocking alternative energy by blocking tax breaks.

Democrats routinely shoot the country’s national interests, and then put the gun in the Republican’s hands.

Markey said we have only 2% of the world’s oil reserves. This is patently false, although one can measure “oil reserves” in so many different ways that virtually any figure is true depending upon one’s definitions. However, a significant percentage of the United States domestic oil reserves is contained in fields that will require new or improved technology for cost-efficient production. We are on the verge of being able to cleanly obtain oil from coal (the United States has the largest coal deposits in the world); we are on the verge of being able to obtain oil from shale (we have massive shale oil deposits in the Bakkan , and we are on the verge of being able to profitably employ deep-water drilling and slant drilling techniques. If and when the Demcrats allow the American people to obtain the oil it has, that “2%” figure would increase very dramatically. The fact of the matter is, if the Democrats allowed us to simply access the oil that is already readily available in ANWR and offshore, we could very quickly go from being the 12th largest producer of oil to the 4th largest producer of oil.

Another area that should be considered is the Democrat’s approach to “conservation.” Requiring automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars is nothing more than an indirect way of forcing Americans to buy small, underpowered cars that they have historically not wanted. It is their way of attempting to force their will on the market – just as preventing domestic drilling is a way for the Democrats to force their will upon the market.

If they came out and imposed legislation requiring Americans to buy dinky little hybrid cars, Americans would be outraged. By trying to force automakers to produce the cars that they want Americans to drive, they are essentially doing the same thing, but most Americans haven’t quite figured that out yet.

I drive the speed limit, and I routinely see two things: 1) a lot of SUVs, trucks, and large-engined performance vehicles on the road; and 2) the aforementioned vehicles and virtually everyone else whizzing past me on the freeway going 10-20 mph beyond the 70 mph speed limit. The fact of the matter is that most Americans simply do not want to have draconian energy conservation policies imposed upon them – which is precisely the approach that Democrats favor.

In their constant attempts to manipulate the oil producers, and to manipulate the automakers, to do their bidding, Democrats show a fundamental distrust of the market and of the market forces that made this country great. And I would ask, based on what do they believe that big government bureaucracy can do a better job than the free market? Senate Democrats couldn’t even run their own cafeteria; just why on earth should we trust them to run anything?

Another interesting exchange:

REP. ED MARKEY: It’s kind of a sad day in American history. We were given one week’s notice to go over to Saudi Arabia today to beg the Saudi Arabians and OPEC to please produce more oil we can purchase. We have 700 million barrels of oil in our strategic oil reserve. The president should say to OPEC, that he is going to begin deploying 100,000 barrels of oil per day out of that strategic petroleum reserve to drive down the price. And he should also say to them like President Kennedy said to Khrushchev in 1961, that we are going to put a man on the moon. We are not going to allow the communists to control the skies. He should announce today a crash program that we are going to have automobiles that are dramatically more efficient. That we’re going to have wind and solar and geothermal. That we are going to use our technology in order to break our dependence upon Saudi Arabia and the rest of these countries. But that is not happening instead we’re over there with a tin cup begging them to sell more of our weakness to us, imported oil.

RED CAVANEY: Look, our concern is that what you need are permanent solutions. That’s the signal the market’s looking for. Opening up, providing some access, doing everything. We support all of the alternatives. Our companies are some of the largest players in that. Any scenario you look at, you will find that you need all the energy we can get of every kind and to take some off or to marginalize others is going to end up hurting the consumer. The consumer, when we went past $3 a gallon of gasoline, up to $4, they connected the dots. And that’s why you’re now seeing them asking for urgent action on the part of the Congress. They understand that we need more energy.

JEFFREY SACHS: It’s so interesting how there’s a, you know, a rough consensus on the things that need to go into this. But there’s been nothing that’s been done during this whole administration. Because they basically just turned away from realities, turned away from the alternatives, turned away from massive investments that are needed in the science and technology. They turned away from really investing in long mileage automobiles, millions of dollars rather than billions that are needed to get these going.

SEN KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Well first of all, we have made major investments in renewables and research. We have. We have increased huge amounts. However, let me just say look at the last month just as an example. We, the Republicans, have put forward a balanced plan. The Democrats came forward with a plan that had no energy production at all. It was sue OPEC. Congressman Markey has just said oh, we’ve gone over there with a tin cup. Well, at the same time, the Democrats are passing in the United States Senate a bill that would sue them. Now what kind of reaction are we going to expect from Saudi Arabia which is today, looking at trying to help the world market if we are going to sue them? That’s not a way to try to make friends and increase our supply. In addition the Democratic plan had two other things. A windfall profits tax which has been shown not to work and form a commission to investigate price gouging which is being done by the CPSC right now. So I do think we could come together. But not if the Democrats refuse to have any increase in supply. And the Republicans are willing to certainly do more in research, more in renewables, more in conservation, and I think you have a point. We haven’t done enough in conservation. But make those investments.

What is truly sad is that the United States has to go to Saudi Arabia and beg them to produce more oil when we could have been producing that oil ourselves. In a way, Markey – who is ostensibly blaming this situation on Bush and the Republicans – is actually lamenting that Democrats have been successful in implementing their agenda!!! If Republicans had had their way – and if they had not had their bills blocked by Democrats – we would not have had to go beg the Saudis, would we? Even by the liberals incredibly stingy figures on our oil reserves (the oil companies who actually know what they’re talking about claim we have much more), there is no question that we could have produced the amount of oil in question just by opening up ANWR.

One of the things that I always marvel at about Democrats is that they believe that only government money matters. They despise the free market system, and therefore consistently seek to impose big government bureaucracy in place of the free market system they fear, hate, and misunderstand.

The reality is this: why does the government have to invest in all these alternative energy sources? Why aren’t private investors doing it? I mean, by all accounts Barack Obama is going to raise $500 million dollars for his campaign; why can’t all these people put their money where their mouth is and invest in their vision of alternative energy? Answer: because their solutions don’t work, won’t work, and the market knows that.

I remember several years back when the State of California obtained $6 billion dollars for government-sponsered research in embryonic stem cells. How many cures has that $6 billion resulted in? ZERO. NADA. NEIN. BUTKUS. We needed that huge sum of money because private money wasn’t going into embryonic stem cell research. Apart from the fact that embryonic stem cell research has killed innocent human life, it hasn’t produced squat. So government money came in to fill the void, and the government funding hasn’t produced squat either. We might as well have dug a big hole, thrown in $6 billion, and then filled in the hole.

If a research program actually promises to produce a positive outcome that will result in an investment profit, private money will pour in. You can always spot a financial black hole by the cries for government funding. And the greater the cries for government funding, the bigger the black hole it is.

Contrast this with financing for oil exploration, drilling, and alternative source techniques. First of all, we are talking about a proven resource that WILL work, not some pie-in-the-sky useless liberal crap, and not some product that will require a massive overhaul of our entire energy infrastructure. But second, the reason these areas are underfunded is not because they won’t produce a positive return on investment, but due to the fact that they can’t produce any return at all because Democrats block any oil production! When the government won’t allow oil companies to produce oil, there is far less incentive for investment to fund the new technologies they will need. If Democrats would just get the hell out of the way, our market system would start working and producing the vital oil and energy that this country desperately needs.

Markey cites Kennedy vs. Khrushchev, when the United States beat the communists to the moon. The problem is, Markey and his fellow Democrats are today playing the role of Khrushchev and the communists, rather than actually helping the United States of America to accomplish its goal of energy independence. They are blocking the free market and imposing their bureaucracy in a matter very reminiscent of the communist state-managed economy (i.e. the folks who lost in the race to the moon, and then went bankrupt and collapsed altogether).

The real problem is, as Sen. Hutchison says, “The Democrats came forward with a plan that had no energy production at all.”

We need to make oil prices the albatross that we hang around the neck of Democrats. Barack Obama is in lock step with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who says:

“Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, it’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world.”

(See my article discussing that little pearl of wisdom).

Democrats routinely demonize oil. They routinely demonize oil companies who produce the vital resource we desperately need. They steadfastly refuse to allow the United States to increase either it’s domestic oil production or its refining capacity. It is directly due to their “commonsense plan” that we are in the situation we are in, and that we will continue to remain in the situation we are in.

If you want $12 a gallon gasoline, vote Democrat. They will offer “global warming” solutions up the whazoo that will undermine and eventually gut the American economy by starving our economy of the oil we need for our survival. If you want to lower the price of gasoline by means of effectively increasing our oil supply, vote Republican.

It’s as simple as that.