Posts Tagged ‘gas prices’

Obama Energy Secretary Says ‘I would give myself an A’ For Helping Make Gasoline The Most Expensive EVER

March 21, 2012

Let’s see:

Obama’s energy policies gave us the highest gas prices for one year EVER in 2011.

Obama’s energy policies have given us the worst January gas prices in American history.

Obama’s energy policies have given us the worst February gas prices in American history.

Obama’s energy policies have now given us given us the worst March gas prices in American history.

And it aint going to be getting any better as we live Obama’s “hope and change” moving forward.

Even the New York Times has acknowledged the grim very possible reality of gasoline averaging $5 a gallon nationwide this year:

HOUSTON — Gasoline for $5 a gallon? The possibility is hardly far-fetched.

For the record, it isn’t very far from that right now where I live in California.  I gassed up yesterday for $4.70 a gallon.

Oh, and conservatives – and frankly Obama and his handpicked energy secretary himself – actually told us that this would happen:

But suddenly the same mainstream media and the same Democrat Party that demonized George W. Bush every single day that gasoline prices were high say none of this catastrophically high gas price business can possibly be messiah Obama’s fault. Even though I pointed out that this was all simply the stated fruition of Obama all along:

You remember that quip Obama gave us that under his policies, energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket“?

Remember that Obama appointed an energy secretary named Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”??? With gasoline prices in Europe consistently hovering between $7 and $10 a gallon??? Steven Chu said that in explaining the Obama policy of “progressively” making gasoline more and more expensive in order to force Americans to turn to alternative energy sources. And one of the ways Obama wants to accomplish that dream (which amounts to a nightmare for working Americans) is to tax Americans for driving by the mile.

As you contemplate $4 and even $5 a gallon gasoline prices, let me just say one word: KEYSTONE.

Now consider what Steven Chu – Obama’s hand-picked energy secretary – is saying right now:

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House panel Tuesday that he’d give himself top marks when asked to grade his policies’ effects on energy prices. Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asked President Obama’s top energy official if he’d grade himself with an “A minus” on “controlling the cost of gasoline at the pump.”

Chu responded by saying he’d give himself a better grade than that.

“The tools we have at our disposal are limited, but I would I say I would give myself a little higher in that since I became Secretary of Energy, I’ve been doing everything I can to get long-term solutions,” Chu said.

Chu would give himself the top grade on gas prices despite that fact that the average price for a gallon of gas just hit $3.87 – the highest ever recorded in the month of March, according to ABC News.

I actually agree with Chu.  He SHOULD get an A – for making gasoline the most expensive over the longest period of time we’ve ever seen.  Which is exactly what he set out to do.

Obama said he wanted gasoline prices to rise – just not so quickly that the frog-in-the-pot-of-water-on-the-stove would notice and hold him responsible:

It was a question from John Harwood at CNBC: “So could the high oil price help us?” and Obama said, “Well, I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment, a gradual increase.”

Obama’s full statement:

OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that, ehh, this is such a shock t’American pocketbooks is not a good thing. Uh, but if we take some steps right now t’, uh, help people make the adjustment — first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers.

And yes, Youtube – owned by überliberal Google – has managed to scrub that teeny-weeny little Obama statement of his energy policy.  Because apparently Obama used his same Führer-messiah power to get the media to refuse to cover the news if it makes him look bad that has been very recently demonstrated elsewhere.

Just try to imagine what would have ensued if Bush had asked the mainstream media to literally scrub an already published story from their little Ministry of Truth complex.  The Marxists who write our news would have a) broadcast Bush’s request and framed it in terms of a Big Brother fascist narrative; and b) blared the news Bush had asked them to scrub all over the airwaves just out of pure spite. 

Now, go back to what Obama said and then allow me to explain what Obama SHOULD have said and why his answer is not only deplorable, but depraved.  Obama should have said:

“Could higher gas prices help us?  Absolutely NOT!  High gas prices hurt the American people, it hurts the American economy and it undermines the American way of life.  High gas prices are the worst form of regressive tax – by which I mean it would be a tax that afflicts poor people and particularly poor working Americans – far more than it would harm wealthier people who afford expensive gasoline.  And I will do absolutely everything in my power as president to ensure that the American people are able to purchase gasoline at prices that will enable them to get to work and live their lives.”

Do you see the difference in those two statements?

And which statement do YOU prefer as you consider voting for president this November?  Obama’s or the conservative’s?

When Obama was running for president he openly mocked Bush’s energy plan, saying ” it would not produce a drop of oil for seven years.”  And Obama was right in the limited sense that it takes time for an energy policy to bear fruit tomorrow.  And Obama’s implicit energy goal was that if he was elected president he wanted future Americans to suffer because of his refusal to pursue energy.  And – as Obama’s reverend once said – that future is beginning to “come home to roost.”

Obama has put 85% of the outer continental shelf off limits to drilling and is making only 3% available for petroleum exploration and development.  Drilling in regions like the Colorado Rockies is down fully 70% due to Obama’s policies relative to George Bush’s policies.

Why does Obama and his energy secretary Steven Chu want oil prices to be the same (about $10 a gallon now) as Europe?  It’s very simple: they have a Marxist red version of a radical environmentalist green vision of energy: they want to force the American people to “choose” the energy they WANT them to choose.  And if they can’t simply mandate that “choice” like the fascists they are – which would amount to political suicide – their only option is to price gasoline out of the ballpark and force Americans to buy the little green clown cars and the electric golf cart cars that they want.

People like Barack Obama and Steven Chu sit in their limousines and see an average American driving down the road in a halfway cool car and say, “That’s unacceptable.  There should be a much bigger difference between the elites who run the world and the proletariat masses.”

Let’s sum it up in a picture.  This is a Soviet Union proletariat car:

It’s the same damn kind of clown car with the same damn kind of radical environmentalist green clown car marketing that Obama and Chu want us in today.  It’s a little tiny gutless piece of crap.  And you ought to be driving one instead of something better, because frankly you’re a faceless nobody AND YOU SUCK.  That’s the statist view of “an automobile for the people.”

So please reflect on the man that Barack Obama appointed to “get an A” with his current energy prices.  Consider that Obama knew Chu had said:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Consider that the very same Obama who is now our president said that he was going to make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

And decide what kind of future that you want.

Six In Ten Americans Think Obama’s Policies Are Driving Gas Prices Higher; Half Say Unemployment Is Going To Go Up

March 20, 2012

It’s long past time that Americans started blaming the Blamer-in-Chief:

Poll: 58% say Obama’s policies driving gas costs higher, 48% expect unemployment to rise
posted at 11:35 am on March 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

While the national media focuses on polls from Reuters and Pew that use skewed samples to show Barack Obama’s approval rating going back up, The Hill takes a look at what might come in the future — and it’s not pretty for the President. In a survey of 1,000 likely voters in the 2012 general election, almost half expect the Supreme Court to overturn ObamaCare, with only 29% confident of its constitutional legitimacy. And that’s not the worst of the poll, either:

Half of likely voters expect the Supreme Court to strike down President Obama’s signature healthcare law, and strong majorities see other major policies coming from the White House making life more difficult for themselves and the country, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.

The poll indicated that 49 percent of likely voters said they expect a court ruling that is unfavorable to the Affordable Care Act, while just 29 percent think it will be upheld and 22 percent aren’t sure.

On economic issues, 62 percent of voters say Obama’s policies will increase the debt, while 25 percent think they will cut it, and by a 48-percent-to-38-percent margin, voters believe those policies will increase joblessness rather than put people back to work.

On energy, 58 percent say Obama’s policies will result in gasoline prices increasing, while just 20 percent expect them to cut prices — and by a 46-percent-to-36-percent margin, voters believe they will cause the United States to become even more dependent on foreign oil.

The sample in this case is a little skewed, but in an unusual direction. The D/R/I is 32/36/32 for an R+4 advantage, one of the rare occasions when a pollster favors Republicans. The four-point advantage for the GOP has low odds of becoming reality in the fall, though; the midterm elections, without a Democrat defending the White House, had a 35/35/30 split in CNN exit polling. Republicans will do well if they get to that kind of parity in November with Obama at the top of the ticket.

Even adjusting for the R+4, these numbers look very bad for the President, especially on gas prices. Overall, blame for increases in gas prices falls on Obama by 38 points, which means he’s especially vulnerable if prices shoot up this summer as they did in 2008 and 2010. Younger voters put even more blame on Obama, 70/8, as do lower-income earners ($40-60K is the worst for Obama, 75/13 but the under-$20K is almost as bad at 62/15), perhaps because they feel the loss of disposable income and capacity for independent travel even more. Independents blame Obama 61/13, while only a plurality of Democrats think Obama has made gas prices lower, 31/42.

Rasmussen also polled likely voters on ObamaCare, and finds that support for repealing it has remained remarkably consistent:

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the national health care law next week, and the number of voters who Strongly Support the law’s repeal is now at an eight-month high.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording,click here.)

Overall support for repeal is up three points from two weeks ago and is at its highest level since last September. The number that Strongly Favors repealing the law is at its highest point since July of last year. Since the law’s passage, most voters have favored repeal in nearly every survey, with support running as high as 62%. Opposition to repeal has ranged from 32% to 44%.

Strong support for repeal hit an eight-month high, but the range on overall demand for repeal in those eight months has been very steady indeed. Today’s number is 56%; the lowest it has gone in those eight months is 51%, and the high was 57%. Opposition to repeal has never gone above 42% in the past two years. At the moment, independents back repeal 57/39, with almost half (48%) strongly supporting its repeal. Even among Obama’s natural constituencies, support for repeal is strong or at a dead heat with support for ObamaCare: women (51/42), 18-29YOs (47/45 split), black voters (48/49 split), under-$20K income (50/35), $20-40K (53/39), and so on.

Given that the only real accomplishments of the Obama term has been ObamaCare, the failed stimulus bill, and Dodd-Frank, the fundamentals of this election look very bad for Obama — and will get worse if the Supreme Court throws out ObamaCare and gas prices continue to rise.

Update: I almost missed this from the Washington Post, which looks even worse:

Most Americans want the Supreme Court to invalidate at least part of the landmark health-care law that was passed in 2010, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. …

More than four in 10 — 42 percent — want the high court to throw out the entire law, 25 percent want to do away with the mandate alone and a similar proportion wants the justices to uphold the entire law.

Overall, among general population adults, 67% want the Supreme Court to partially or completely overturn Obama’s signature accomplishment. That number rises to 70% among independents, and it’s 48% among Democrats.

Hope ObamaCare goes down in flames and then Obama goes down in flames right along with it.

Tax Breaks For Oil Companies? Barack Obama Continues To Be A Liar And A Demagogue On Energy

March 19, 2012

Let’s provide the facts first before we hear what the Liar-in-Chief has to say:

Are oil companies benefitting from tax breaks???

The record says otherwise:

FACTCHECK.ORG
Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
Posted on February 28, 2008

Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas?

A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil Company Tax Breaks?

Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

-Emi Kolawole

Sources

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Change We Can Believe In. 3 Nov. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.

ECONOMY: Policy Address on America’s Economic Challenges. 19 Nov. 2007. Hillary Clinton for President. 26 Feb. 2008.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Taking Our Government Back
. 22 Jun. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.

Democratic Presidential Debate. 23 Jul. 2007. CNN Transcripts.

Congressional Research Service. “Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis.” Washington: GPO, 2007.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Offshoring of Services: An Overview of the Issues,” Nov. 2005.

Which is to say that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were dishonest pandering liars in 2008 and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to remain pandering liars to this day.

Note that to whatever extent oil companies get “tax breaks,” they got them in conjunction with a tax policy that takes more away than it gives them.  Some “break.”  And I would personally enjoy it very much if every Democrat got the same kind of “break” the oil companies got where we give them a free monocle just before we gouge one of their eyes out.  Oh, and then afterward I could demand that we take the monocle back.

Here’s an ad from Barack Obama in which Obama personally demonizes George Bush for $3.50 gasoline (note: it’s going on $4 a gallon under Obama now):

Now let’s hear what our lying demagogue slandering weasel in chief has to say now:

Obama : End tax breaks for oil companies
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Saturday, March 17,

President Obama said Saturday he can’t do much to lower gas prices, and renewed his call for Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies.

“The truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand.”

The president didn’t mention one of the few direct actions he could take to try to lower gas prices in the short term — releasing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Obama called for that solution as a candidate in 2008 when gasoline prices neared $4 per gallon, and he reportedly discussed the option earlier this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Instead, Mr. Obama said his administration is cracking down on oil profits — on traders who “distort the price of oil, and make big profits for themselves at your expense.” And he called on Congress again to eliminate $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies.

“Your member of Congress should be fighting for you,” Mr. Obama said. “Not for big financial firms. Not for big oil companies.”

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last year found that eliminating the subsidies would likely result in higher gas prices in the short term.

The address was the president’s second speech on gas prices and energy in three days. Public opinion polls are showing that the president’s job-approval rating, on the rise earlier in this election year, has dipped again as gas prices have risen. Retail prices on Friday rose a penny to a national average of $3.83 per gallon.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has pledged to enact policies that he said should lower gasoline prices to $2.50, a notion that Mr. Obama scoffs at.

“It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices,” the president said in his address. “There just isn’t one. Anyone who tells you otherwise — any career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas — they’re not looking for a solution. They’re just looking for your vote.”

In 2008, Mr. Obama stood in front of a gas station near Indianapolis and pledged to “take steps to reduce the price of oil.” He focused on long-term actions such as increasing fuel efficiency standards and promoting clean energy, which he has done as president.

“I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all,” he said at the time.

And let me repeat: Barack Obama is a lying weasel.

Do you notice that the same dishonest liar who said, “I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all” – and the same dishonest lying demagogue who attacked George Bush for gas prices when they were less than what they are now under Obama’s regime – is now saying, “It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices.”  He should know – given all the damn quick fixes this lying hypocrite promised when he was lying and demagoguing his way into the White House.

Here’s more of Obama being Obama (read: here’s more of a dishonest lying demagogue being a dishonest lying demagogue).

For those of you who are more intelligent than a rodent (i.e. for those of you who don’t vote Democrat), let me ask you a question: if Obama increases taxes on oil companies, just why in the hell do you not think that the oil companies won’t pass those taxes right on to your dumb ass in the form of higher gasoline prices???  Which is another way of pointing out that not only does Obama want you to pay more for your gasoline, but he thinks you’re a complete idiot, too.

It’s past time for you to swing by the neck from your own damn noose, Obama you little weasel.

Make Him Wear His Own Words: Video Of Barack Obama Demonizing George Bush Over $3.50 Gas

March 14, 2012

I’ve written a few articles on gas prices (here’s one example).  And in every one, liberals have swarmed like cockroaches and said, “How DARE you hold the president responsible for the price of gas?”

I dare because Barack Obama dared before me.  And, yeah, I’m a guy who says, “Do unto Obama as liberals did unto Bush.”

Obama in his own demagogue words:

“Since the gas lines of the 70′s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing has changed except Exxon is making $40 billion dollars a year and we’re paying three fifty for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyist and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits; will invest in alternative energy; will create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it is time Washington worked for you not them.” – Sen. Barack Obama 2008

If you’ve got any decency in you (yes, I know that qualifier excuses you, Democrats), you will hold this lying demagogue responsible for his own lying demagoguery and vote this turd out of office this November 6.

Barack Obama has given $100 billion to his crony capitalist fascist buddies in the green energy boondoggle industry.  And a whopping load of it has been pissed away to corrupt companies like Solyndra who gave a little to Obama and got a LOT back.

As Gasoline Prices Soar Out Of Control, Yet ANOTHER Obama Energy Boondoggle Pisses Away Taxpayer Money By Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars

March 2, 2012

Barack Obama giving away $2 billion in stimulus money on July 4, 2010:

In fact, today, I’m announcing that the Department of Energy is awarding nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments to two solar companies.

The first is Abengoa Solar, a company that has agreed to build one of the largest solar plants in the world right here in the United States. After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America. In the short term, construction will create approximately 1,600 jobs in Arizona. What’s more, over 70 percent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA, boosting jobs and communities in states up and down the supply chain. Once completed, this plant will be the first large-scale solar plant in the U.S. to actually store the energy it generates for later use – even at night. And it will generate enough clean, renewable energy to power 70,000 homes.

The second company is Abound Solar Manufacturing, which will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already underway, and an Indiana plant will be built in what’s now an empty Chrysler factory. When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year.

Obama’s “investment” today:

Earlier today I mentioned Energy Secretary Chu’s statement to Congress that the administration didn’t care about lowering gas prices, just pushing alternative energy. Now we have the latest failure as part of that scheme, Abound Solar Manufacturing, has announced it will lay off 70% of its workforce. The company received a $400 million loan guarantee through the Obama stimulus.

Oh, and by the way, Abound got that $400 million loan even though it was obviously a huge credit risk:

A month before Abound Solarannounced it would be laying off nearly half its workforce, Congressional Republicans alerted the U.S. Department of Energy that they had questions about the decision to loan the Colorado firm $400 million.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to explain how the solar panel manufacturer had qualified for the loan after the ratings firm Fitch had determined the company would make a “highly speculative” investment.

“Fitch describes Abound as lagging in technology relative to its competitors, failing to achieve stated efficiency targets, and expecting that Abound will suffer from increasing commoditization and pricing pressures,” wrote Rep. Darrell Issa, R.-California, the committee chairman. “DOE’s willingness to fund Abound, despite these concerns, calls into question the merits of this loan guarantee.”

Obama is demonizing oil companies (you know, the people who are the only reason ordinary Americans are able to get into their cars and drive somewhere) while he continues to give away billions of dollars to his crony capitalist fascist friends at the useless green energy companies.  Oh, and he’s demonizing the $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies that keep this country going while he is proposing to give away $5 billion more to green energy that produces virtually nothing.

That should seriously piss you off, because gas prices – you know, the stuff that the oil companies Obama demonizes produce – have more than DOUBLED under this failed president’s failed policies:

The day Barack Obama took office, the average national price of gasoline was $1.84 a gallon.

As of today, March 1, 2012, the average national price of gasoline is $3.74 a gallon.

Oh, and gasoline may very well hit $5 a gallon by Memorial Day.

While even Bill Clinton is urging the Failure-in-Chief to “embrace” the Keystone Oil Pipeline that Obama has refused to alllow even though it wouldn’t have required ONE PENNY in taxpayer money.

Beyond Solyndra – which devoured more than half of a BILLION dollars in taxpayer money before going completely bankrupt – there have been many other massive Obama failures.

Just a couple:

Green energy company given federal stimulus funds lays off 125 workers, gives pay raise to executives
Published February 26, 2012 | FoxNews.com

An electric car battery company reportedly has laid off 125 employees since receiving $390 million in government subsidies, but is still handing out big pay raises to company executives.

A123 systems, which was touted as a stimulus “success story” by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the Washington Examiner’s “Beltway Confidential” blog, citing a report from the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

A123’s primary customer, Fisker Automotive, is also struggling financially. “Yet, this month A123’s Compensation Committee approved a $30,000 raise for [Chief Financial Officer David] Prystash just days after Fisker Automotive announced the U.S. Energy Department had cut off what was left of its $528.7 million loan it had previously received.”

This month has seen significant pay boosts for other A123 executives, as well, including vice presidents Robert Johnson and Jason Forcier.

The raises were reported by the company in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the Mackinac report.

“It looks highly suspicious,” Paul Chesser, associate fellow for the National Legal & Policy Center, told Mackinac. “It looks like they are trying to pad their top people’s wallets in case something really bad happens.”

Click to read the Washington Examiner blog.

Click to read the Mackinac Center for Public Policy report.

And far, FAR worse:

Obama Gave Billions to Green Energy Companies with Ties to His Administration and 2008 Campaign
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 16, 2012, 1:13 PM

The RNC released this infographic today showing that billions in taxpayer dollars were were given to firms with close ties to the Obama Administration.

The Washington Post reported:

Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

Obama’s program to invest federal funds in start-up companies — and the failure of some of those companies — is becoming a rallying cry for opponents in the presidential race. Mitt Romney has promised to focus on Obama’s “record” as a “venture capitalist.” And in ads and speeches, conservative groups and the Republican candidates are zeroing in on the administration’s decision to extend $535 million to the now-shuttered solar firm Solyndra and billions of dollars more to clean-tech start-ups backed by the president’s political allies.

White House officials stress that staffers and advisers with venture capital ties did not make funding decisions related to these companies. But e-mails released in a congressional probe of Obama’s clean-tech program show that staff and advisers with links to venture firms informally advocated for some of those companies.

David Gold, a venture capitalist and critic of Obama’s investments in clean tech, said that even if staffers had been removed from the final decision-making, they had the kind of inside access to exert subtle influence.

“To believe those quiet conversations don’t happen in the hallways — about a project being in a certain congressman’s district or being associated with a significant presidential donor, is naive,” said Gold, who once worked at the Office of Management and Budget. “When you’re putting this kind of pressure on an organization to make decisions on very big dollars, there’s increased likelihood that political connections will influence things.”

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the companies won awards based on merit, not political connections. He said the staffers and advisory board members reviewed by the Post had no role in funding decisions, nor did they have any personal financial stake in the companies. One of those administration advisers had first been appointed to his position by the Bush administration, LaVera said…

Thousands of agency and White House e-mails released as part of the Solyndra investigation show that venture capitalists who held advisory roles with the Energy Department were given access to Obama’s top advisers.

Read the whole thing. It will make you ill.

Obama is selling this country out even while he works to implode it by starving us of energy while spending us into bankruptcy.

Democrats Are Hypocrite Demagogue Fools When It Comes To Gas Prices

February 29, 2012

Rush Limbaugh offers a rather entertaining look into how the Democrats 1) managed to demonize George Bush when the gas prices were actually far less of a problem/crisis than they are now under Obama while simultaneously asserting that Republicans have no right whatsoever to do to Obama what they themselves did to George Bush; 2) believe that Obama should a) open the strategic petroleum reserve and/or b) push Saudi Arabia to increase drilling – both of which are means to increase the supply of gasoline – yet simultaneously insist that the US’  increasing its own gasoline supply by drilling would have absolutely no impact on gas prices whatsoever; 3) are somehow conveniently forgetting how astonishingly stupid and vacuous Obama’s “solutions” to the problem of high gas prices truly were.

The Democrat Gas Hypocrisy
February 27, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Michael Janofsky at the New York Times, April 24th, 2006, about six years ago: “Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices.” This is back in 2006. The Democrats were running for office in the midterm elections trying to talk us into a recession. This is after they had failed at trying to talk us into failure in Iraq. “Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country. With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places…” We’re now over $5 in California. In 2006, with “prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it ‘is one of the first things people bring up’ at her campaign stops. To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.”Yep!”‘It’s a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers,’ said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York…” What else do we have, Chuck-U? Oh, Chuck-U is in the news today, folks. Chuck-U tells Clinton to pressure Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Senator Chuck-U Schumer “wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press…” She’s got her own section in the program todayfor her own rampant hypocrisy. (We’ll get to that in due course.) Chuck-U Schumer “wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press Saudi Arabia to boost output as rising prices are hitting consumer at the gasoline pump.” Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!Wait a minute. More oil? Chuck-U wants more oil? Is that what he’s asking the Saudis to do, pump more oil? Is that right? Is that what that means? Senator Schumer tells Clinton to pressure Saudis to pump more oil? He wants more oil? Then how come this regime vetoes the Keystone pipeline and has a drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico and makes fun of/mocks the concept of producing more oil in the United States? So Senator Chuck-U Schumer is asking Senator Clinton to make us more dependent on foreign oil! That’s what he’s doing when he’s asking her to pressure the Saudis, pump more oil. He wants us to be more dependent. He doesn’t want to use our own oil. Obama doesn’t want to use our own oil.How come Chuck-U is not out there saying, “Everybody go buy a Volt?” How come Chuck-U’s not saying, “Hey, everybody go buy a Prius, go buy a hybrid”? How come Chuck-U’s not out there saying, “Get your tire gauge out and make sure the pressure is right and get a tune-up”? That’s what Obama does. So the Democrats want more oil. They want the price to come down with more supply. Funny how that never works domestically. So 2006, New York Times: “Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices” — at $3 a gallon. From BigGovernment.com Wynton Hall with the story: “Seven Gas Facts Obama Cannot Escape — “1. In September 2008, Barack Obama’s ‘Nobel-prize winning physicist’ of an Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal: ‘Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,'” which is much higher than what we pay. Obama has said he wants high prices. Why don’t these guys come out and say, “This is exactly what we want”? Steven Chu, the energy secretary, Nobel-prize winning physicist has advocated for higher prices. So has Obama. Now they’re getting higher prices. You know why? They want higher prices so you’ll have to go out and buy a Volt or a hybrid or get on a bus or get on a subway or take mass transit and become like a number. A robot. An interchangeable part of the system, like a Chinese citizen taking orders and dictates from the state and their command-and-control economy.

The truth is, they want higher prices. The problem is it’s an election year. Can’t advocate for higher gas prices in an election year. “2. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama admitted that, like his future Energy Secretary Mr. Chu, he believed that high gas prices would be a good thing because they would force Americans to ween [sic] themselves off of oil, but that he would have ‘prefered [sic] a gradual adjustment.'” We had the sound bite last week. We reminded you of it when gasoline hit four bucks and Obama said: It’s okay; it’s okay. I’m just a little upset how fast it got there. “3. On January 19, 2009, the day before Barack Obama [immaculated] gas prices were $1.84 a gallon. As of February 20, 2012 a gallon of gas cost $3.59,” and now it’s close to $5 a gallon. And don’t forget, in 2006 it was $3 a gallon, and the Democrats are out exploiting it and trying to turn it into a big political issue. “4. As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson points out, ‘Offshore drilling permits are being issued at less than half the rate of the previous administration. The average number of leases issued on public lands is less than half than during President Clinton’s term.’ 5. In 2008, Barack Obama seemed perfectly comfortable with soaring energy prices if they meant curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“As Mr. Obama confessed: ‘Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'” In their hearts and minds, Obama and the left are LOVING gas prices go up. They just can’t say so. But they love it. And that’s why there’s not a huge effort to bring them down. There’s a huge effort to make you think they want to, but how many stories have you seen where Obama says, “Ah, there’s really not a whole lot the president can do”? And Jay Carney says, “Well, there’s not a whole lot the president can do.” In 2006, don’t forget, Chuck Schumer and John F. Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) were mocking Bush for asking the Saudis to pump more oil! Arabs producing more oil makes prices go down, but somehow the US pumping more oil won’t make any difference.

That’s what they tell us. “Nah-nah-nah. That’s the stupidest thing we ever heard of! That’s a tired, worn-out cliche. ‘Drill, drill, drill,’ and for 30 years they’ve been saying that. That’s what the Republicans always say. Just drill, drill. That’s gonna take us two to three years!” Well, where would we be if 30 years ago we had just started drilling, drilling, drilling? Chuck-U Schumer in 2008: “Schumer to Bush: Stop ‘Coddling’ Big Oil, Saudis,” and get on ’em and make ’em pump more. And Chuck-U wants Hillary to do the same thing now. Obama, he can lower the sea level but he can’t lower the price of oil. “7. Try as he might, President Obama’s campaign will try to distance themselves from the fact that a central pillar of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign was a pledge to reduce the ‘pain at the pump’ caused by high gas prices.”

We can go back and we can get all of that audio that was a centerpiece of his campaign, a pillar, to reduce pain at the pump. But missing no opportunity to invoke class warfare, Obama said, “For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they’re a huge problem, bordering on a crisis. Here in Indiana gas costs $3.60 a gallon,” he said in 2008. Now it’s 2012, we’re over $5 a gallon, and there’s not much we can do about it.

And from MSNBC: “8 Reasons Why Gas Will Hit $5 a Gallon This Year.” I’ll just read through them. Not gonna give you details. Number one, Strait of Hormuz. Number two, Iran. Number three, refiners raising prices. Number four, other geopolitical risks. Number five, the European Union may save itself. Number six, the US economic recovery means higher oil prices. Number seven, summertime. Number eight, supply risk. In all eight of these reasons, not one of them mention Obama or his energy policies. So we have every effort in the world being made to shield Obama from any relationship to high gasoline prices, despite what the Democrats did all during ’05, ’06, ’07, and ’08. We even have some Republicans now saying, “We really don’t want to try to tie the president to this, market forces no president can control.”

We said back in 2006 there’s nothing Bush can do about it. The president does not have a magic wand. Releasing from the strategic reserves doesn’t make a significant long-term difference in the price of oil. And people who said that back then want us to say something consistent now. “Well, come on, let’s not jump on Obama for this. We all know honestly that presidents can’t do anything about it.” Bush was not choking the supply, however. Obama is. Obama is a factor in the price of gasoline. See, that’s the difference, Obama is a factor in the price of oil. Obama wants higher oil prices, his energy secretary and he have both said so. They want higher oil prices. This is not making it up. They want higher oil prices. It’s less freedom. It’s less mobility. It forces you into alternative buying decisions when it’s time to get a new car. So, Obama does have something to do with high oil prices.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Eric in Glen Arbor, Michigan, you’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Longtime listener from the early Clinton years.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: The reason why I’m calling is about the oil prices and what we’re paying at the pump. Lots of news about it, and if we go to five-, six-dollar-a-gallon oil, that’s gonna sink the economy, and I think it’s time to fight back, and I think we can fight back by several perspectives. One, we, as a consumer, can cut back slightly on our fuel usage. And, two, instead of just releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic energy reserves, we need to do it in a strategic manner. For example, release seven million barrels of oil at, say, $89 a barrel. It’s about 109 bucks a barrel today. Release it at below the market price and then make several subsequent releases without telling anybody —

RUSH: There’s not enough oil there to make any difference. The real question is what is the price of algae by the gallon, because Obama has suggested pond scum as the next alternative fuel for oil. We cannot, by the way, and I appreciate the big-heartedness here in wanting to conserve, but there’s gonna be forced conservation at five dollars a gallon. There was a four. People will drive less because they can’t afford it. By the way, the economy’s already sinking. But you get to five or six dollars a gallon, the choice to conserve will not be something you have to force on people, it’ll be happening naturally. But even at that, conserving is not growth, and growth is what our economy needs. Growth and supply, growth in expansion, demand, all these things, that’s what this country and this economy needs. We can’t conserve our way to growth of anything.

END TRANSCRIPT

One look at the record of gas prices between George Bush and Barack Obama is all it takes – it is literally as simple as looking at a picture to understand how badly Obama has failed America.

2011 was THE most expensive year for gasoline prices in the entire history of the United States.  And then Obama began 2012 by giving us THE most expensive January in the history of the country, and followed that up by giving us THE most expensive February in the history of the country.

And Obama just threw the Keystone oil pipeline into Canada’s face and demanded that Canada sell its oil to China.

Gasoline prices have now DOUBLED in the three years of the failed Obama regime.

“Hope and change” means $6 a gallon gasoline in Florida and gas prices that are very likely going to be that high across the entire nation by Memorial Day.

And consider how this president DEMONIZED his predecessor in speeches like this one in which he said:

What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we’re facing gas prices over $4 a gallon – gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That’s how badly folks are hurting. That’s how badly Washington has failed.

And now the same man who attacked Bush isn’t responsible for the very same thing he attacked Bush over even though the situation is now WORSE under his completely failed leadership.

Because – to quote Obama himself – “that’s how badly OBAMA has failed.”

Bush Vs. Obama On Gasoline Prices In One Very Simple Picture

February 28, 2012

Update, September 11, 2012: my new article on gas prices looks at Bush’s entire presidency (average price $2.14/gal) and his first four years (average price $1.68/gal) to DOCUMENT that he was FAR BETTER at gas prices than was Obama thus far in his first four years (average price $2.99/gal).  Please read it too.

Update, September 4, 2012: Given that liberals are genuinely idiotic people, it is apparently necessary to point out that the article and the accompanying chart that I cite below was compiled in March of 2011. How long had Obama been president as of March of 2011? If you do the math, you will find that March 2011 occurred 26 months into Obama’s presidency. Which is to point out that every single liberal who has bitched about my “cherry picking data” is an astonishingly idiotic dumbass. The Heritage article that I cite below compares the first 26 months of Obama’s gas prices – which was all they had available in March 2011 – with the EXACT SAME PERIOD DURING BUSH’S PRESIDENCY. That is as apples-to-apples as you can get.

At this point in September 2012, Obama has been president for 43 months. If we compare Obama’s first 43 months in office to Bush’s first 43 months in office, you will find that Obama has still been awful in comparison.  At this same point during Bush’s first term, in September of 2004, gasoline cost $1.89 a gallon.  Versus with Obama and gas prices of $3.82 a gallon today.  There is absolutely no legitimate comparison that will make Obama look anything other than terrible.  Barack Obama is the “Under my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” president.  Barack Obama is the president who has literally said he WANTED gas prices to go up as long as the increase was gradual so he wouldn’t get blamed.  Barack Obama is the president who appointed an Energy Secretary who is literally on the record saying he wanted to see U.S. gas prices at $9-$10 a gallon.

The shocking gas prices Bush faced in 2008 were due to the fact that Democrats took over both the House and the Senate in 2006 and refused to allow ANY domestic oil production or refinery construction WHATSOEVER until Bush finally issued his executive order in frustration.  The shocking gas prices Obama has faced and will continue to face are due to the fact that Obama is a leftwing ideologue.  Which is why Obama is setting records for high gas prices and will continue to set such records if the American people are foolish enough to allow him to remain in office.

What liberal ideologues want to do – and you see them doing it in the comments – is cite the very worst gas prices for Bush that occurred during Bush’s SECOND term. If you want to consider gas prices over a long period, it is OBAMA who has set the record for high gas prices.  LIBERALS are the ones cherry picking their data to selectively compare the second Bush term with a nonexistant second Obama term. Obama hasn’t HAD a second term to compare with Bush’s second term and I hope he doesn’t get one; but if he does I predict we will be seeing $8 gas prices rather than the $4 we saw at the worst of the end of the Bush second term. As just one example, Iran is by all accounts at the threshold of attaining nuclear weapons because Obama has abjectly failed to deal with this crisis that the Democrats once blatantly mocked Bush for warning us about. That means that either we (and Israel) do nothing and Iran becomes a nuclear weaponized power and is free to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and drive up international oil prices at will with impunity, or else Israel – hopefully with the aid of the United States – will attack Iran to destroy its nuclear capability. Either way, I guarantee you we will be seeing gas prices skyrocketing during what would be an Obama second term.  That’s the first thing you should know.

The second thing you should know is that when oil prices reached their high under Bush, President Bush took a conservative path which resulted in a wild success.  I have documented this elsewhere:

You can see the impact that America drilling for its own oil has on prices – and how despicable the mainstream media can be in covering up the truth – in the following CBS piece entitled “The Immediate Benefit Of Offshore Drilling” from July 17, 2008:

After trading at a record high of $147 a barrel Friday, the price of oil saw its largest one-day drop since the 2003 beginning of the Iraq war on Tuesday, falling $6.44 a barrel. Wednesday, it fell another $3.71, to $135.03, and at one point was trading as low as $132.

So what happened? As is usually the case with markets, a variety of factors caused this dramatic drop. According to the Associated Press, the Energy Information Administration announced that U.S. crude-oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels; beleaguered banks have been selling off valuable energy contracts to pay for other debts; and there’s even some speculation that computer programs used by Wall Street may create a “cascading effect” once prices start to drop.

But bizarrely, the AP didn’t mention that on Monday – again, the day of the single biggest one-day drop in oil prices in five years – President Bush removed the executive order imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States.

To think that this dramatic and unexpected move by the Bush administration didn’t have a significant effect on oil prices is folly. Even Democrats admit that relatively small margins in oil production could have a huge impact on prices.

The price per barrel of crude oil – which was at an all-time high the day Bush signed the moratorium that ended the ban on offshore drilling after going up and up and up to that point – continued to drop and drop. By September, it was below $109 a barrel. By October it had dropped even more. And it kept dropping.

See my comment to this article here and my article here for still more documentation to this fact that Bush’s executive order that ended the offshore drilling ban directly resulted in the price of oil/gasoline plunging.

And there is also this:

The price of a barrel of oil IMMEDIATELY dropped by $9.26 AS BUSH WAS SPEAKING [when he ended the federal moratorium on offshore drilling].

In the few days that followed, the precipitous upward climb in the price of oil went down, down, DOWN:

Update: July 18, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $128.88 a Barrel

Update: July 17, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $130.73 a Barrel

Update July 15, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $138.74 a Barrel Biggest drop in 17 years

We had the price of oil dropping by ten bucks a day every day after Bush ended the moratorium.

You can look at the link that has the NYSE prices to keep watching the trend.

George Bush began his presidency with gasoline prices at $1.40 a gallon.  When they got over $4 a gallon in 2008, George W. Bush finally used a conservative solution to the problem – and oil prices IMMEDIATELY plunged that very day and then continued to go down.  That is simply a documented fact.  Such that when Bush left office and Obama began his presidency, the average national price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline was $1.85 a gallon.  So if you look at the entirety of Bush’s presidency, gasoline went from $1.40 a gallon to $1.85 a gallon.

Obama began his own presidency with gasoline prices at that $1.85 a gallon and they have gone up and up and up.  And the difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama will NEVER take the type of conservative solution that Bush took and frankly that Bill Clinton took and allow the domestic drilling that America needs to get control of its gas prices.  Obama has now repeatedly attempted to take credit for oil leases that were signed and granted by George W. Bush even as he himself has refused to sign such leases himself.  To sum up Obama’s failure, I need only use one word: “Keystone.”

End update.

I’m not a tease.  Here’s the picture:

It’s a truly remarkable picture – particularly given the way the media attacked Bush for his high gas price increase and then largely refused to attack Obama for his ridiculously insane gas price increase.

Heritage nails it in an article (which is where I got the above chart from):

 In Pictures: Bush Vs. Obama On Gas Prices
Rory Cooper
March 4, 2011 at 4:00 pm

As Americans continue to feel the effects of President Obama’s anti-oil agenda at the pump, defensive liberals are circling back to a familiar line of counter-attack: blame Bush. The media vacuum on gas prices has made this line of attack all the more promising with very little national coverage being given to the president’s destructive domestic drilling agenda. Unfortunately it misses an obvious point.

President George W. Bush was mostly attacked for wanting to drill too much (or being “cozy” with the oil industry), while President Obama’s policies are rooted in unilaterally shutting down the domestic oil industry amidst rising prices and a struggling economy.

Yes, the price of gasoline reached historic levels, rising above $4/gallon during Bush’s second term, but that wasn’t due to a lack of trying to increase domestic supply. U.S. domestic supply is but one factor in the global price of oil, and thus gas prices. But when a president purposefully chooses to decrease our domestic supply by 13%, with hopes of driving that supply even lower, and objects to U.S.-Canadian pipelines and new forms of exploration, discovery and friendly importation, the price consequences are real, and should be scrutinized.

During the first twenty-six months of President Bush’s first term in office, the price of gasoline increased by 7%. At the end of his second term, the price had decreased by 9% from the time he took office (adjusted for inflation). During the first twenty-six months of Obama’s term in office, the price of gasoline has spiked over 67% with no relief in site.

Clearly, other mitigating factors were at work between those two time periods. U.S. demand is one such factor, as is global supply disruptions, cartel pricing and the cost to refine and distribute, but the current price spikes obligate serious people to scrutinize our nation’s energy policy.

President Bush’s response to $4/gallon gasoline was to lift presidential and congressional moratoriums on expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, a move that many critics say came too late. But what about Obama?

Some on the right have criticized Obama for having no energy policy. This is wrong. Obama’s energy policy is working exactly the way it is designed. This administration knows that unless the price of fossil fuels skyrocket, expensive alternative energy sources, no matter how heavily subsidized, will continue to be unattractive to American consumers.

Obviously, this risky desire to have high gas prices is a punitive policy that foolishly ignores how Americans use petroleum. While oil is largely a transportation fuel, solar and wind can only contribute to our electricity demands. Oil accounts for less than 1% of our electricity demand.

The liberal fascination with developing expensive vehicles that run on electricity doesn’t change that: 1) Solar or wind powered vehicles don’t commercially exist; 2) The cars that do run on electricity, or even battery-powered hybrids still require gas; and 3) the high cost of the alternatively fueled vehicles makes them largely insignificant in the auto market and cost-prohibitive to the average consumer.

Sure, it would be ideal to have a national fleet of cars that are inexpensive and run on cheap and widely available alternative sources of energy. But the markets have demonstrated this reality is nowhere close to fruition. And when you try to hasten that reality by artificially jacking up the price of gas, the economic effects are felt largely by the poorest among us and disincentives business owners from hiring as their fixed operating costs increase.

Think about it, who feels the pain of an extra $1 at the gas pump? The rich guys that the left demonizes or the middle-to-low income wage earners who balance their budgets by the penny, not the dollar? If the only cars available on the market were $40,000 Chevy Volts, would a Lexus or BMW consumer be hit hard, or would the family looking for a barely affordable mode of shuttling their family be affected? Consumer Reports said Obama’s heralded Volt “is an expensive way to be green.”

This economic, energy and transportation reality—the here and now—is why President Bush called for more domestic oil exploration at the same time he called for an end to our “addiction” to oil. You cannot shut down one job-creating industry while you hope another emerges. Hope is not a smart energy strategy.

This week, the Obama administration began floating the idea that depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is a viable response to rising oil prices. The SPR is where America stores roughly 700 billion barrels of oil in case of a catastrophe. Its drawdown would have a marginally positive affect on gas prices for a very short time period. Once that supply is partially or completely eliminated, we would be back to square one. In other words, the action would be purely political and designed to politically disguise a terrible energy policy.

President Obama must stop killing energy jobs, hurting American business owners and penalizing taxpayers at the pump in order to score unrelated points with his environmental base. Obama needs to end the EPA practice of imposing regulations on refineries that increase the cost of oil production. He must stop looking to raise taxes on oil producers while heavily subsidizing other energy industries.

And Obama must at least end his de facto moratorium and get America back to the domestic supply capabilities we had just two years ago. As Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in a hearing on oil prices this week: “In January 2009 there were 16 permits issued. The next year there were 12 and this January, only two. We’re so far off the historic level. We’ve got to get it back up as quickly as possible.”

This time, in this economy, with these transportation and energy realities is not the time for Obama to curry favor with eco-liberals by raising the cost of living for the average American family. President Bush may have wanted to increase the drilling status quo by too much in your opinion, but surely we can all agree that intentionally decreasing our domestic supply makes little sense today.

Gasoline is over $4 a gallon across the state of California; it is over $5 in Los Angeles; and in some places in Florida it is over $6 a gallon.

On June 24, 2008, Obama said in demonizing Bush:

What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we’re facing gas prices over $4 a gallon – gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That’s how badly folks are hurting. That’s how badly Washington has failed.

YOU peddled a whole whopping load of false promises, Obama you liar.  You want to tell us about “irresponsible policies” now, Mister Solyndra???

Gas prices could very well hit $6 by summer.

Obama ‘Hope And Change’ You Can Take Right Out Of Your Own Pocket: Florida Drivers Are Paying Nearly $6 A Gallon For Gas (You Will Too Soon)

February 25, 2012

Many Americans heard allof Obama’s “promises” and listened to the mainstream media praise him as a “transformational candidate” who was “sort of God.”  They wanted to know what an Obama presidency would be like.

Well now they know:

Florida Drivers Shelling Out Nearly $6 A Gallon At Some Gas Stations
By Matthew L. Higgins
February 22, 2012 11:47 AM

TAMPA (CBS Tampa) — Talk about pain at the pump! Some Florida drivers are spending nearly $6 a gallon to fill up their gas tanks.

According to GasBuddy.com, motorists are shelling out $5.89 for a gallon of regular gas at a Shell station in Lake Buena Vista, topping out at $5.99 a gallon for premium. It doesn’t get better at a Suncoast Energy station in Orlando, where drivers are paying $5.79 for a gallon of regular.

“Prices over in the Disney World area are much higher than any other place in Florida,” Jessica Brady, AAA spokeswoman, told CBS Tampa, adding that people regularly complain about gas prices in that area.

The Sunshine State is opening up its wallet, paying an average of $3.67 a gallon of unleaded gas, 12 cents more than the national average. And it’s only expected to go up.

“It doesn’t look like we will have relief at the pump anytime soon,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “I do think we will see prices surpass $4 a gallon. I think we will see that closer to spring time.”

One reason for the high prices is the conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has threatened to disrupt oil shipments through the waterway due to the European Union sanctions leveled against the country over its nuclear program, causing the price of crude to skyrocket. Trading on a barrel of crude today is a little over $106.

Another reason for the high gas prices: positive economic news. The drop in the unemployment rate and improved housing market numbers have caused gas and oil prices to rise.

“I know it frustrates quite a few consumers why positive news will lead to higher prices,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “It really just comes down to speculation.”

A third culprit behind the gas price boom is Greece. The EU’s bailout for the indebted country only adds to the global fuel demand.

And because of these reasons, Brady believes that Florida and the rest of the U.S. could see historic gas prices.

“I think this year we will see much higher highs.”

Believe it or not, those prices aren’t the highest in the nation. According to GasBuddy.com, motorists in Alaska are paying a whopping $6.34 for a gallon of regular at some gas stations. The cheapest gas can be found in Wyoming at $2.75 a gallon.

Obama is a pathologically dishonest weasel who is trying to take credit for BUSH’S ENERGY POLICIES to claim that we’re drilling more of our own oil than ever before.  Meanwhile, Obama has doubled down on PREVENTING drilling over every federal area that he can control:

Since taking office, he has declared 85% of our offshore areas off limits, decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies by 70%, rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, and has 10 federal agencies planning more regulation of hydraulic fracturing…. The president’s ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ approach to energy security is hurting consumers.”

As one fellow furious blogger notes:

Here are the facts. Offshore is down 30% since Obama took office. Rocky Mountain federal lands are down 70% under Obama. He has held 85% of the outer shelf off limits. Only 3% of federal lands are available for lease. Obama says domestic production is up. It’s up due to francking and many in his party and administration want to stop that.

Here’s a quote from his energy secretary, Chu. President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Obama is a truly evil man.  He lies so outrageously it is beyond unreal.

Four years ago he was demonizing Bush for the price of gas.  Now all of a sudden everyone and everything is to blame except the same office of the president.

Gasoline Prices Have Nearly DOUBLED In Just Three Years Of Failed Obama Presidency – Exactly As Conservatives (And Obama) SAID WOULD HAPPEN.

February 21, 2012

When we say that Democrats deserve all the demonization that they handed out, we meant it.

Let no one ever forget how Democrats – including Barack Obama – demonized Bush when gasoline prices went up:

What Ever Happened to All Those ‘Price-Gouging’ Investigations by Democrats?
by Wynton Hall

With gas prices now almost double what they were on the first day of President Barack Obama’s presidency, we’re left to wonder: what ever happened to all those “price gouging” investigations Democrats launched four years ago to relieve pain at the pump?

In 2006, Rep. Nancy Pelosi promised that Democrats would enact plans to bring down the price of gas. But as this GOP ad makes clear, that didn’t happen.

Then, with the presidential election heating up in May 2007, Rep. Nancy Pelosi rolled out the tried and true “blame Bush” tactic and said that high gas prices were the result of “the Bush Administration’s failure to enact a comprehensive energy strategy.” Furthermore, Rep. Pelosi said that the Democratic Congress would “take America in a new direction” and “make up for years of inaction” by Republicans. The San Francisco Congresswoman went on to tout the actions taken by the Democratic Congress within the first 100 hours of their taking power.

The day Rep. Pelosi made those comments, the national average price for a gallon of gas was $3.07. Today, in 2012, it’s $3.39 a gallon.

Rep. Pelosi, however, was not alone in promising to right the wrongs of the “two oil men in the Oval Office.” Then-candidate Barack Obama promised that, if he were elected president, gas prices would plunge because he would impose a “windfall profits tax” on any oil producer who sold oil above $80 a barrel. But no sooner did he win the presidency than did Mr. Obama ditch the proposal altogether, even going so far as to remove mention of it from his Transition Team’s website.

Of course, anyone who was paying careful attention in 2008 to then-candidate Barack Obama should hardly be surprised that energy prices have skyrocketed on his watch. After all, during the last presidential election, Mr. Obama admitted that he was perfectly aware that his own energy policies would result in skyrocketing prices–and that he was fine with that.

Indeed, Mr. Obama flatly stated that he preferred that gas prices rise–albeit “gradually”–in order to reduce American reliance on oil.

But the Democratic sound and fury over removing our pain at the pump signified nothing. With just 10 months until the 2012 presidential election, gas prices are almost twice what they were when that oil-loving meany George Bush left office.

Why? Because oil prices hinge on basic supply and demand, not a price-fixing conspiracy by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the owner of your local gas station, as many Democrats would have voters believe. To be sure, OPEC has an enormous influence on the price of a barrel of oil. But Energy Forum Director Amy Myers Jaffe of the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University says that so-called price-gouging investigations are just a political shell game. “That’s just camouflage,” Ms. Jaffe told CNN. “That’s just ‘I want to pretend I’m doing something even, though I’m doing nothing.’”

With petroleum analysts now predicting that the price of a gallon of gas may well reach $4 a gallon by summer, Mr. Obama’s reelection hopes may rest on whether he can make manifest the promises he made four years ago to relieve America’s pain at the pump. If so, he better hurry. Summer gas prices will soon be here–and will further underscore Mr. Obama’s failure to make good on yet another campaign promise.

So with that record of Democrat demonization, let us just point out that these people deserve to get punched right in the mouth as nobody ever deserved to get punched right in the mouth.

Consider the following facts:

Gas prices are highest ever for a February
by Chris Kahn – Feb. 19, 2012 12:43 AM
Associated Press

NEW YORK – Gasoline prices have never been higher this time of the year.
 
At $3.53 a gallon, prices are already up 25 cents since Jan. 1. And experts say they could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April.
 
“You’re going to see a lot more staycations this year,” says Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. “When the price gets anywhere near $4, you really see people react.”

Already, W. Howard Coudle, a retired machinist from Crestwood, Mo., has seen his monthly gasoline bill rise to $80 from about $60 in December. The closest service station is selling regular for $3.39 per gallon, the highest he’s ever seen.
 
“I guess we’re going to have to drive less, consolidate all our errands into one trip,” Coudle says. “It’s just oppressive.”

February follows January, of course, and according to an LA Times headline, January 2012 was similarly THE MOST EXPENSIVE JANUARY FOR GASOLINE IN AMERICAN HISTORY:

2012 begins with highest January gasoline prices ever

Well, let’s get in our time machine and go back to last year (2o11) and see how Obama fared in gas prices:

Gasoline prices were higher last year in America than they had EVER been:

U.S. drivers spend record amount on gasoline in 2011
Despite lower demand, more than $448 billion has been paid so far for fuel — $100 billion more than in 2010. Consistently high oil prices are blamed.
December 09, 2011|By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times

American drivers this week broke a record that will bring them no joy.

They collectively spent more than $448 billion on gasoline since the beginning of the year, according to the Oil Price Information Service, putting the previous record for gas expenditures — set in 2008 — in the rearview mirror with weeks of driving still to go.

It’s also a huge jump over last year, when U.S. drivers spent more than $100 billion less on gas.

The major reason for the record-setting gas spending in 2011 was that oil prices were consistently high all year. And that probably brought joy at the other end of the pipeline. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is on pace to top $1 trillion in net oil exports for the first time, or 29% more than last year.

But suddenly the same mainstream media and the same Democrat Party that demonized George W. Bush every single day that gasoline prices were high say none of this catastrophically high gas price business can possibly be messiah Obama’s fault.  Even though I pointed out that this was all simply the stated fruition of Obama all along:

You remember that quip Obama gave us that under his policies, energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket“?

Remember that Obama appointed an energy secretary named Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”??? With gasoline prices in Europe consistently hovering between $7 and $10 a gallon??? Steven Chu said that in explaining the Obama policy of “progressively” making gasoline more and more expensive in order to force Americans to turn to alternative energy sources. And one of the ways Obama wants to accomplish that dream (which amounts to a nightmare for working Americans) is to tax Americans for driving by the mile.

As you contemplate $4 and even $5 a gallon gasoline prices, let me just say one word: KEYSTONE.

Thanks For ‘Necessarily Skyrocketing’ Gasoline Prices, Obama: Gas Prices Expected To Rise ANOTHER 60 Cents A Gallon By May

February 6, 2012

I recently preserved for the record (in an age when media articles that reveal liberalism for the failure and fraud that it is tend to “vanish”) stories that documented that Obama’s regime gave birth to THE MOST EXPENSIVE YEAR FOR GASOLINE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

And all you have to do is go to the main page of my site and click on “oil” and see THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN ALL ALONG.  As I have predicted over and over again.

And you aint seen nothing yet from the failure of the Failure in Chief:

Gas prices to spike 60 cents or more by May
By Gary Strauss, USA TODAY

Get ready for another round of pain at the pump: $4 (or higher) gasoline.

After rising 19 cents a gallon in the past four weeks, regular unleaded gasoline now averages $3.48 a gallon, vs. $3.12 a year ago and $2.67 in February 2010.

Prices could spike another 60 cents or more by May. “I think it’s going to be a chaotic spring, with huge price increases in some places,” says Tom Kloza of the Oil Price Information Service. Kloza expects average prices to peak at $4.05, although he and other industry trackers say prices could be sharply higher in some markets.

Rising prices are an annual spring ritual, largely because of seasonal demand.

Refiners also switch from winter formulations to more expensive seasonal formulations to meet stringent environmental standards, which can tack on 15 cents a gallon, says Brian Milne of energy tracker Televent DTN.

This year’s earlier-than-usual run-up is more about anticipation than current supply and demand. Last week, the Energy Department reported anemic U.S. consumption — the lowest levels since September 2001. Domestic crude oil prices, now about $98 a barrel, are near six-week lows.

Renewed tensions in the Middle East are bolstering crude prices, while speculators are boosting futures contracts, betting on global supply disruptions and tighter refining capacity. Kloza notes that several U.S. and overseas refiners have experienced temporary or permanent closures.

So far, $4 a gallon has proven to be the upper limit consumers will pay. Last April, national prices peaked at about $3.98 a gallon. In 2008, a sharp run-up ended when prices hit an all-time average of $4.11 a gallon that summer.

“Higher demand, Iran, lost refining capacity are all potential problems,” Milne says. “We’ll get over $4 a gallon, but it’s going to be tough to sustain that level. People will drive less.”

Energy analyst Patrick DeHaan of price tracker Gasbuddy.com expects prices to rise to about $3.55 a gallon by the end of February and peak around $4 by Memorial Day weekend.

“You could see prices in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington and other major metropolitan areas at $4.60 or higher,” DeHaan says.

Lisa Margonelli, author of Oil on the Brain: Petroleum’s Long, Strange Trip to Your Tank, says consumers will be vulnerable to rising prices until the U.S. develops alternative fuels such as natural gas.

I pointed out in the article I already referenced that these sky-high gasoline prices are no accident or coincidence.  You voted for them when you voted for Obama:

You remember that quip Obama gave us that under his policies, energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket“?

Remember that Obama appointed an energy secretary named Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”??? With gasoline prices in Europe consistently hovering between $7 and $10 a gallon??? Steven Chu said that in explaining the Obama policy of “progressively” making gasoline more and more expensive in order to force Americans to turn to alternative energy sources. And one of the ways Obama wants to accomplish that dream (which amounts to a nightmare for working Americans) is to tax Americans for driving by the mile.

Barry Hussein can file 2011′s gasoline prices under the category “mission accomplished.” But, of course, he’s really only just getting started.

Go back to something I wrote back in August of 2008 – Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do? – and ask yourself the same questions I asked back then.  And remember that one of those questions involved what would America do if gasoline cost $12 a gallon in the wake of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

What’s that going to do to our economy?  What’s that going to do to you and your family?

You’d better have an answer to those questions.  Because you stupidly and wickedly voted for a fool who will bring that reality to pass.