Congress is a never ending battle of words. Thankfully one party usually has a majority and legislation gets passed. Sadly, our current majority is more like Pop-eye without his spinach. The Democrats are lead by Speaker Pelosi, the mascot and perfect case study for weakness. If the Republicans, lead by Gilligan George Bush (AKA Bluto), are the bullies; then the Democrats are the silent majority capable to taking on the bullies but too scared to do so.
Since the Dems took over Congress in 2006, the party has identified itself only as “the party for people who aren’t Republicans”. The GOP has remained organized and with the help of a veto pen kept the Democrats at bay. For the last two years Wonder Woman (Pelosi) and the Justice League (other Congressional Dems) have tried to initiate legislation via half-assed statements meant only as a symbolic jest to the Right.
Case in point: Pelosi stands firm on the policy to ban new exploration of oil. Rightfully so, she blames the Bush Administration for all their faults and falicies as the cause of high oil prices. But Pelosi also cites existing leases to oil companies that aren’t drilling as evidence the oil companies are hoarding oil. Big mistake since its her Congress that refuses to allow the oil companies to expand production and refining. Last week, our little California Raison sent a letter (how quaint) to President Bush requesting “to draw down a small portion” of the strategic petroleum reserve. That’s like asking for your lunch money back from the bully.
The White House took advantage of the opportunity to again slam the Dems’ weakness. Pelosi was right in that the flow of black gold from our SPR has reduced prices in the past. However its only used to flood the market during urgent supply interruptions. Katrina put some rigs out of order in the Gulf, so we let it flow to keep the supply steady. The SPR is not intended to be used to meet demand. There has been no supply interruption, just a demand spike.
Her letter opened up the door for the White House to go back to their tried and true arguments. She was just asking for this from her GOP rivals:
“It’s unfortunate that the only place Democrats in Congress can find to explore for more resources is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,” said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. “It is time to put aside these politically-motivated band-aids offered by the Democrats and do something that will improve our energy security in the future like expanding access to American energy in” the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Now whether you support Alaska and off shore drilling is irrelevant. The point is the Republicans have an idea and Pelosi was just looking for new ways to poke and prod them to her own advantage. The GOP tag-team continued when House of Representatives minority leader John Boehner acknowledged the Pelosi just admitted increasing supply is the resolution to high gas prices. Failblog should put up a picture of Pelosi calling her, or at least her letter, an “Epic Fail”.
If Pelosi is a true believer that alternative energies are the way to go in solving our oil addiction, she should welcome the high price of gas. Automakers are ramping up production of more fuel efficient cars, accelerating development of hybrids and diesels, and canceling programs for gas hogs. The tax revenue from the oil profits and the reinvestment by “Big Oil” are both providing the financing necessary to develop wind, solar, and all those other green technologies. Democrats, generally, are lower income earners and that is why Pelosi feels obligated to ask Bush for another hit of the good stuff. The lower income groups feel the pinch worse the higher paid folks. Its a hypocritical predicament to refuse offshore and Alaska drilling citing the need to develop alternative energies for the long term, only to ask the president to flood the market in the short term to meet demand.
I completely believe we must remove our addiction to oil over the next half-century, and therefore have no problem with $4 gas. It reduces our demand, forces changes in urban development, and provides the capitalistic incentive to create cheaper sources of energy. That being said, I also support the increase in production and drilling capacity. As we move on to hydrogen, electric, mass transit, nuclear, and all the other energy solutions other countries will still need oil. We might as well get a piece of that pie while the going is good.
 By The Weakonomist |
The Weakonomist is the founder of Weakonomics. Clicking the picture of the puppy will tell you more about him. If you like what you're reading consider subscribing to the blog, following him on Twitter, and checking out the related posts below. Please consider a donation if you really enjoy Weakonomics. Also keep in mind that nothing I say can be construed as financial advice. |
| Related Websites |
Said,
Said,
I agree with you that democrats are completely handitarded in their attempts to pass legislation, and they’re basically just poking rather than throwing uppercuts & throat punches. However, this country has a big problem in trying to fix both domestic & international issues because leaders (policymakers, executives, marketers, etc.) draw attention to, and attempt to alleviate the symptoms rather than the actual causes. Those who govern what we do, whether it be through law or what we buy, adopt the “learn to live with it” mentality rather than actually trying to change. It’s indicative of who we are as a people in that everything we do is reactionary, and we’re never ahead of the curve. The obvious example is 9/11, so now we have to live with crayola terror alerts, the DHS, and the lasting effects of Desert Storm: The Sequel.
But in the case of energy, I think that it’s much more unnoticed. Auto-makers had the technology to drastically increase fuel efficiency in the 1970s, but did nothing. Rather, they decided to make cars bigger, heavier, and thus less fuel efficient. Energy companies (for decades!) have felt the outside pressures of becoming greener/more environmentally friendly, and only now are they starting to adopt strategies & policies to change public opinion of them. Even so, I feel like these companies aren’t adopting these policies intrinsically to be more socially & environmentally responsible, but rather to sway their image in public opinion.
Congressional democrats have almost adopted a stockholm syndrome-type relationship towards “change.” You know, the syndrome where the captive/hostage starts to show signs of loyalty towards the captor? Instead of standing strong on issues they bring to the table, they habitually back down, and whimper away full of shame.
I most likely veered off course a tad in this response, but I think you’ll get the picture.
Contemporary politics often makes me stabby.