Free Markets, Free People


Rising gas prices can be directly attributed to Obama’s failed energy policy

The stated plan of the Obama administration, or at least their stated goal, was to see gas prices rise “to the level of Europe” so alternative energy sources would be more feasible, affordable and attractive.  Or that’s how I remember it.  

So here we are, headed that way.  But while the administration may find that to be a good thing, most Americans watching gas prices rise … don’t.

And who do they blame?  Well they blame the same person they always blame – the president.  Right or wrong, the reason is irrelevant.  That’s politics in America.  So the best thing to do is implement policies that will ensure this potential political landmine is kept disarmed.  Of course, this administration, despite its strident claims and outright falsehoods to the contrary, has done anything but that.

The so-called “experts” are trying to rise to the defense of Obama on this:

“This notion that a politician can wave a magic wand and impact the 90-million-barrel-a-day global oil market is preposterous,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Clinton administration official.

Well a straw-man statement like that really does make one wonder about his expertise, doesn’t it? And one wonders if this expert from the “Bipartisan Policy Center” remembers the last time politicians laid blame for gas prices on a president.

Of course no one is talking about a magic wand (although it could be argued that George W. Bush used one by announcing his intent to lift the offshore moratorium that saw the price of oil plunge in its wake) except Democrats (“tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve!”).

This isn’t about “magic wands” or immediate actions to stem adverse political results.   This is about the sum of a policy of 3 plus years that has seen us end up moving toward the administration’s stated goals.  The only thing that has kept it from being worse is the rather large increase in production of oil and gas on state and private land which has offset the overall decline in production on federal lands.

As political calculations go, though, this administration forgot one important thing about their goal of making gasoline more expensive in order to make alternative fuels more attractive.  The one thing they forgot was to get the people’s buy in (same problem with ObamaCare).  And, as you might imagine, the people aren’t buying in.  Add in the tsunami of negative stories about “green energy” companies and the cost of alternative fuels and you have a situation that is entirely predictable – Obama continues to try to sell his goals and the American people continue to refuse to buy into his pitch:

Monday’s efforts were just the latest in an aggressive messaging blitz that has included three recent swing-state speeches touting Obama’s backing for oil drilling, federal investments in green energy and his administration’s tougher fuel economy rules.

But a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday suggested the effort is falling flat with voters upset about prices at the pump, which according to AAA are now averaging $3.80 per gallon — a 30-cent increase in the last month alone.

The poll found that 65 percent of U.S. adults surveyed disapproved of Obama’s performance on gas prices, while 26 percent approved and 9 percent had no opinion.

As mentioned, this isn’t just about gas prices alone.  This is also about Obama’s energy policy goals, well documented, that want to see fossil fuels eliminated as the predominant fuel for our economy. 

Naturally, because of the obvious negative political results, the Obama administration has embarked on a campaign to shift the blame about gas prices elsewhere – leopard/spots. 

In this President’s view, only the good things that happen during his watch are his responsibility, the bad things belong to someone or something else.  Bush was the blame for high gas prices (and just about everything else) when Obama was running for President – speculators, however, are the bad guys in this particular gas price crisis.  Never mind the “permatorium” and reduced drilling on federal lands during his 3 plus years have also had a detrimental effect.  Forget the promise of the Keystone XL pipeline and the immediate effect its approval might have had on gas prices.  Oh, and approval to expand Gulf Coast refineries?  Who needs that?   Nothing to see here citizen, move along.  Its those damn speculators.

Politics is about perception, and the perception is that Obama is an enemy of the oil business (and he’s done nothing to dissuade that perception) and those chickens are coming home to roost, to quote his favorite pastor:

“Anything that is perceived by people as a problem in the immediate advance of the election has a chance to impact the election,” said Paul Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University.

The threat to Obama from rising fuel prices is likely to become more grave if the economic recovery stalls.

“It depends in part on what happens with gas prices, and it depends to some degree on the state of the economy as well,” Beck said.

Among other things.  Bottom line, as much as the Obama spin-meisters try to lay this off on others, it just isn’t working.  Its that record of statements damning the oil industry and those statistics that show that this administration has done everything in its power to slow the production of oil in this country where it could that counts.

Much to Obama’s chagrin he’s being judged on his actions, not his words.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

45 Responses to Rising gas prices can be directly attributed to Obama’s failed energy policy

  • The President is right when he refers to a “all of the above” approach, but that isn’t what his administration has been doing.

    I can see grants and loan guarantees for future development, but the switch over to new technologies will only and can only occur when they are ready for production. The administration has been trying to starve the fossil fuel industry before the new technologies are ready and by extension economical. The size of these markets is huge, so no dinky solar or wind project is going to fill the gap in any time less than decades.

    There are plenty of good reasons for a switch away from oil in a 3 to 4 decade time frame, but there is time … and it shouldn’t be wasted, but you can’t speed it up that much. What doesn’t help are governmental BS like the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption scenarios .. because reality should be good enough. You don’t have to create fiction.

    • @Neo_ Oh, come on, look how successful the Soviet 5 year plans turned out to be. Think of this as Obama’s three year plan. I’m just overjoyed that his plans for 2015, 2018, 2020 will, uh, do nothing for my expenses today….Now if I could just figure out a way to live today on the plans of tomorrow, I’d own a big house, a jet, a few vacation homes, because TOMORROW I’m going to win the lottery.

      • The man IS the embodiment of the old joke about the IBM salesman who sits on the end of the bed and tells his wife how good it’s going to be.

      • And again, head slap, I just need to become a member of Congress or the Executive branch! they’re living just fine today on the plans of tomorrow, next year, next decade, next half century where bills never come due and the can is always in the air further down the road.

        • @looker Oh, HELL no! Too much responsibility connected to those jobs. Nipple up to a nice high-level bureaucrat birth…then you can coast on down to a fat, early retirement, reload, and do it again!

        • @Ragspierre What? I know of at least one Senator who managed to become a President with a record of voting Present. How HARD can it be?

        • @looker Special case. He had been training for YEARS…!!! Starting at least in college.

        • @Ragspierre University of Manchuria?

      • @looker As I said above .. (when was the last time the government had any long term plan that didn’t mean just more debt ?) .. but if there ever was a need for a real plan, this market could use one. I know that we are more likely to payoff the national debt then have politicians make a plan that doesn’t cost more than it generates, but it would be nice .. or maybe my wishful thinking got ahead of me.

        • @Neo_ I’m not sure the government should be planning THAT. The presumption seems to be that without government intervention Exxon, for example, WON’T come up with a plan to stay in business, either to enhance or ensure it’s supply of oil, or to come up with a long term alternative to replace oil. The thought pattern clearly is that these organizations will, like a collection of 3 year olds as it were, eat all the ice cream available and then sit with awe, surprise and disappointment on their faces when the ice cream is all gone and there’s no more to be had. From a strategic perspective, I understand the government wanting to keep an eye on it all, but it’s foolish to presume that THEY are the only ones who have any reason to do it.

    • @tadcf If by “truth” you meant “Pravda”. Really, why do you embarrass yourself with this crap?

    • @tadcf First, anything out of the Center for American Progress is suspect for either being blind or not supplying the complete picture.

      The oil market is international, so the parochial view of it’s just America is a pretty bad place to start. Second, looking at “total rigs” means what total rigs looking for oil, or does that include natural gas. I’m sure it’s the latter. There isn’t a capability to convert natural gas to gasoline, so “total rigs” is useless. Third, the Keystone XL Pipeline is being built. Even President Obama praised his great efforts to make it happen, at least for the Texas-Oklahoma leg. My understanding is that they are going to build it right up to Montana (to get the oil sands there). Once that leg is in, there will only be a short, a few meters, section to make it cross the border. The environmental community will shit their pants when they figure it out.

    • @tadcf First, anything out of the Center for American Progress is suspect for either being blind or not supplying the complete picture. The oil market is international, so the parochial view of it’s just America is a pretty bad place to start. Second, looking at “total rigs” means what ?? … total rigs looking for oil, or does that include natural gas. I’m sure it’s the latter. There isn’t a capability to convert natural gas to gasoline, so “total rigs” is useless. Third, the Keystone XL Pipeline is being built. Even President Obama praised his great efforts to make it happen, at least for the Texas-Oklahoma leg. My understanding is that they are going to build it right up to Montana (to get the oil sands there). Once that leg is in, there will only be a short, a few meters, section to make it cross the border. The environmental community will shit their pants when they figure it out.

    • @tadcf First, anything out of the Center for American Progress is suspect for either being blind or not supplying the complete picture. The oil market is international, so the parochial view of it’s just America is a pretty bad place to start. Second, looking at “total rigs” means what ?? … total rigs looking for oil, or does that include natural gas. I’m sure it’s the latter. There isn’t a capability to convert natural gas to gasoline, so “total rigs” is useless. Third, the Keystone XL Pipeline is being built. Even President Obama praised his great efforts to make it happen, at least for the Texas-Oklahoma leg. My understanding is that they are going to build it right up to Montana (to get the oil sands there). The Texas to Montana portion that is all in the US doesn’t come under the authority of the President’ (actually the State Department’s) choice. Once that leg is in, there will only be a short, a few meters, section to make it cross the border. So what are the environmental impacts of a section of oil pipeline a few meters long ? The environmental community will shit their pants when they figure it out.

    • @tadcf I always enjoy people trying to prove the laws of economics wrong. Yup, you’re right, a significant increase in supply never drives down price, does it?

      • @McQandO No, course not. I mean if a glut drove prices down DeBeers would be making sure that all the diamonds they mine would be sitting in vast warehouses where….oh, wait……

  • You get an “all of the above” approach…made by the world’s biggest team…by leaving it COMPLETELY to the market. No subsidies. No “prizes”. Just let people choose, and get the FLUCK out of the way. You will be run over by progress otherwise.

    • @Ragspierre Some of these markets won’t/can’t deploy for decades, so there may need to be some sort of long term plan (when was the last time the government had any long term plan that didn’t mean just more debt ?).

      • @Neo_ Politely…because I like you…BULLSHIT. Markets do NOT need “planning”. That is assinine. Who planned the iPhone? Who planned the personal computer? Who planned the HDTV? Markets INNOVATE by nature. Nobody…no-flucking-body…COULD predict where things MAY go, much less where they SHOULD BE FORCED to go.

        • @Ragspierre “Who planned the HDTV?”

          HDTV was probably one of the most planned public ventures (except the PR campaign which sucked) since the Manhattan Project.

        • @Ragspierre What I see as a problem for the energy market is the length of patents.
          Some of these markets will take much longer than the 17-20 year patent lifespan to roll out which will penalize early adopters of some of this technology. This mean that you have to do your timing just right to actually make any money, instead of actually having a great idea.

  • “if the economic recovery stalls.” Yeah, and why would it stall, I mean, in a month everyone who buys gas saw an immediate increase in expenditures on gasoline of .10 a gallon, and will see an indirect increase in the cost of nearly every product they purchase in some way shape size or form, why would people having less money to spend have any impact on the economic recovery? It’s just a mystery.

  • Just FYI, Jay Carney (Presidential Sideshow Barker) called Gingrich a liar yesterday over the $2.50/gal. thingy. After your initial irony overload recedes, just think about that next time President Civility condescends to lecture us.

  • Gas prices are because of EVVVVVVVVVVIL big oil and George W Bush

    • @The Shark An’ “speculators”…!!! Never forget the “SPECULATORS”, man… They are ghosts who haunt investments, doood.

  • http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/03/12/barack-obama-and-the-negative-decrease-of-gas-prices-since-2008/

    Just a little blast from the past… Play along, and see how many lies you can detect!

  • What part of “energy prices will have to Necessarily Skyrocket” did everyone miss during the run-up to the 2008 election? Just in-case you missed the obvious, Øbama’s Energy Czar Steve Chu erased all doubt by exclaiming the desirability of the US have Europe’s $10/gal gas prices. So you see folks, the world is unfolding as it should according to Øbama. Who said he doesn’t give a Fluke about us little people?

    • @Constitution First But look at the Alinsky-in-action modality of what he’s doing. He will SAY “nuclear power” in speechs given from the very beginning of his term. What has he done? There is always, always the force of contradiction at work, even within a paragrah, with this guy.

  • Silver lining: A full repudiation of the global warming hoax will make ready the road. It will get that monkey off our backs.

    Prediction: More spectacular oil and gas reserve discoveries will be made worldwide in the next decade. There will be a few big ones in North America (some of them already known but not yet being widely discussed). There will be more fossil fuel available than ever and the prices will fall.

    Energy is the lifeblood of a strong howling wealth creating economy and extended order.

    As the engine roars research will take off. Things will happen.

    Socialism must be politically fought like the gangsterism it is. It is an enslaving phenomenon that is about the weenie men who design it gaining wealth and power by selling dependency to voters and paying for it with other people’s money. It is a redistribution of poverty and a stifling of prosperity.

    The coming energy glut will power the extended order past socialism if we can rid ourselves of the aggressive malignant socialists. Alternatives to public schools (http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_salman-khan.html) and universities will play a big part in that. Businesses should begin now to hire people out of high school, bring them in at entry-level, and train them before they are transformed into useless morons at universities. Then the hires can later make selective and informed choices about further formal education, after they have actually learned to do something.

  • Don’t forget that any time the price of oil->gasoline increased, it was because GWB was helping out his oil buddies. So what’s The Dear Golfer’s excuse?

    • @TheOldMan “So what’s The Dear Golfer’s excuse?” Uh, he has to fulfill the commitments made by the previous resident of the Oval Office? His hands are tied?

  • This is what Obama wants, $9 a gallon gas, to make his green energy viable. What he has done cutting drilling off shore and on public lands, shutting down the Keystone pipeline project has reduced our supply by 2 million barrels per day, an amount equal to Iran’s daily production. Fortunately, the shale oil drilling on private land and on public land approved by Bush have come on line. If Obama is reelected, we will look back on $4 gas as the good old days.

    Remember. Obama’s anti-fossil fuel policies have done this to us. Steven Chu said in 2008 he wants gas a $9 a gallon.

  • And Cue the new distraction – let’s see how much traction this gets as an issue of national importance.. Any bets?
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-poll-obamas-a-muslim-to-many-gop-voters-in-alabama-mississippi-20120312,0,334348.story

  • This Obama Administration’s energy policies are an insult to our intelligence and the epitome of stupid. Just factor in the lost oil from the Keystone Pipeline, drilling in the Gulf, and key parts of Alaska, costs about 2 million barrels per day. And that has a direct effect on the price of gasoline. Then there is the 2% lie. The U.S. has around 20 billion in proven reserves but the amount of ‘undiscovered’ technically recoverable reserves is over 7 times that and these are the governments own estimates.

    So not only has Obama squandered 2 Billion for Brazil’s off-shore drilling but 100′s of millions in failed solar schemes and subsidized wind farms, his agenda has delayed economic recovery and America’s energy independence. And this is a clear and present danger for our National Security.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet