Dueling Plans
I’ve written alot about high gas prices here in the past week. This is another such post, this time focusing on the parties’ weekly radio addresses. First, let’s start with Peter Roskam’saddress:
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) said Republicans want to increase domestic energy production, clear the bureaucratic path for new refineries, push for more nuclear plants to generate electricity and enact tax breaks for “green” homes.
But he said Democratic leaders who control Congress have refused to advance the energy legislation he has introduced.
“Rather than hearing bipartisan solutions, the Democrats have insisted on a partisan agenda absent of any solutions that would bring real relief to the American people,” Roskam said.
The Democrats picked a father from New York to deliver their message:
Senate Democrats tapped a father of three from Auburn, N.Y., to make the case that their efforts to repeal tax subsidies for oil companies, enact tax incentives for development of alternative energy and fight climate change is the best response to the rising cost of gasoline.
Jeff Alberici said the cost to fill up his gas tank has doubled and the family’s weekly grocery bill has shot from $125 to $200.
“Republicans are spending their time blocking Democrats from getting anything done at all, including those three bills to lower energy costs,” Alberici said. “And that’s the difference: Democrats are trying to change things, but Republicans only want more of the same old ideas that got us into this mess in the first place.”
Let’s look at the Democrats’ plan for lowering gas prices. One ‘leg’ of their plan is to increase taxes on oil companies. Another ‘leg’ is to “fight climate change.” “Fighting climate change” is code for keeping vast oil reserves offlimits for oil exploration. The other ‘leg’ is to incent companies to develop alternative energy products. Developing alternatives is worthwhile but it hasn’t had a history of lowering energy prices.
Now, let’s look at the GOP plan. Republicans want to increase domestic energy production. gas prices are high because supply is low. Another part of their plan is to build nuclear power plants, which is the most sustainable green energy in the world. Yet another part of their plan is to increase refinery capacity, thereby eliminating bottlenecks in the gas ‘pipeline’. This part is especially important in summer, when boutique fuels interrupt processing unleaded gasoline.
To summarize, two parts of the Democrats’ plan to lower gas prices is to increase production costs.
It’s important to ask yourself two things:
- When was the last time you heard of the cost of something dropping when the cost of producing that something increases?
- Have you ever heard of the price dropping after you raise the cost of producing something?
One other thing about keeping huge oil reserves offlimits: it creates another bottleneck that drives up the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Remember, too, what the Democrats’ putative leader thinks about gas prices:
Sen. Obama doesn’t think that $4 a gallon gas is too high. It’s just that it got that expensive too quickly. How many people agree with Sen. Obama’s statement? I’d bet the ranch that, if that question were asked in a nationwide poll like Gallup or Rasmussen, fewer than 30% of the people would agree with Sen. Obama’s statement. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if that figure was closer to 15% than to 30%.
In fact, here’s another of Sen. Obama’s beliefs:
“If we reduce our consumption of oil, that’s what will reduce gas prices, the presumptive Democratic nominee said in a one-on-one interview with The Post-Crescent during a campaign stop in Kaukauna.
“There’s really no other way of doing it.”
“We can’t drill our way out of the problem because there’s just a finite amount of oil out there and you have got increasing demand from countries like China and India.
“And so the way we are going to see gas prices reduced is when we start using the oil
that we get, more intelligently than we are doing now.”
Conservation isn’t enough on its own to lower gas prices. For decades, Democrats have told us that conservation is the way to energy independence. That still hasn’t worked. On the other hand, every time we’ve increased energy production, costs have stabilized, if not gone down. Based on that statistic alone, shouldn’t we take a multifaceted approach instead of a conservation-only approach?
It’s worth noting that Sen. Obama agrees that China and India are contributing to the increasing demand on oil. He doesn’t say that they’re willing to consume energy efficiently. It’s indisputable that shrinking demand isn’t possible if China and India don’t use energy more efficiently.
If demand won’t shrink anytime soon, isn’t increasing energy supplies the only way to drive costs down? Based on their statements, Democrats are opposed to that. Since that’s the case, and since gas prices are the single most important issue this election, shouldn’t we vote Republican?
It isn’t like Democrats have any solutions. The best they have to offer are emotional pleas made through a school teacher.
Technorati Tags: Gas Crisis, Peter Roskam, Weekly Radio Address, Energy, Conservation, Oil Exploration, China, India, Obama, Drilling, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog