Kickin’ The Can Down The Road
Barack “I Will Bring Change” Obama gave a speech recently called “A Secure Energy Future” attempting to explain his energy policy.
Twenty-four out of thirty-one paragraphs were the “old politics” standards of bashing his opponent and George Bush, plus the obligatory fearmongering.
When he finally did get down to specifics, here’s what he proposes:
1. A 50 billion dollar stimulus package and tax cuts for “immediate relief” from $4 gas. Ironically, he voted “present” when the last stimulus package came up for vote, and his wife is on record saying he is against these sort of “quick fixes”.
2. 150 billion investment in clean energy to reduced oil consumption by 2030.
3. 50 billion over 5 years for research on hybrid batteries.
4. 1 billion to modernize factories (WHAT factories?).
5. A requirement that 25% of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So that’s 250+ billion for—-what? Who’s gonna set the timetables and make sure they are met? Except for the stimulus package, which I assume he will vote FOR this time, Obama will be long gone before any of this happens.
Let’s get real, these are just words describing a fantasy. There is absolutely no meat in this fluffy dessert, which it seems we won’t be able to eat for twenty years anyway.
It’s obvious he’s just making stuff up—the real reason for this speech was to deliver more “old politics” style McCain/Bush bashing.
Bravo Barry! Mission accomplished!
If you ask me the money offered by Obama to formulate a real diverse energy policy is not nearly enough. I also do not agree with you comments about the lack of specificity. The reason for the program is to foster innovation and invention, which we are in dire need of. When FDR initiated the Manhattan Project he did not tell Oppenheim – here are the plans for atomic bomb now create it. As for the modernization of the factories you ask what factories, well maybe those factories that apply for a grant or loan and meet the qualifications. There is news everyday of average mechanics making new, albeit crude vehicles that run on something other than gasoline. If these individuals can do it in their garages I am confident that engineers can develop even more advanced technologies. As for the bashing of the current administration’s energy and environmental policies it is more than warranted and it is Obama’s duty to inform Americans how his policy would be different. I find it interesting how Bush likes to compare himself to Truman when Truman’s motto was “the buck stops here”. For President Bush “the buck stops at the CIA, EPA, FEMA, FBI, Congress… – anywhere but here!” I am sure this discussion will bring another round of drilling for more oil as if that will solve our energy issues, utter foolishness. We can drill to the center of the earth and nothing will change the world demand for oil, which is off the charts due to the development of China and India. Moreover, it will take years to get to whatever domestic reserves we have and the “exploration” of oil off shore will be incredibly costly. For America to maintain their economic and military advantages we have to be the country that uses innovation to find new energy sources. Drilling in ANWR is a complete smoke screen – when we have people blaming Democrats more than oil companies and the administration for the energy crisis we have a reality problem, but that is not new for the Right. Tiger, now you can fire up the creationism vs. evolution debate – still holding on to that one? QCE for proclaiming to be an equal opportunity blogger you certainly seem to be on an all out crusade against Obama. In fact, I can’t remember the last negative McCain entry – I guess I will have to go to the Oracle for that.
Comment by Rob Mellon | July 13, 2008
I doubt Obama is a “buck stops here” kinda guy either. So far, when anything has gone wrong, he blames his staff.
I just don’t think Obama is hopey & changey enough to pry special interests away from powerful Democrats–or even Republicans.
Obama has done absolutely NOTHING of note—why are you bitterly clinging to his hopey/changey bullsh*t?
I’ve been open about my politics—I’m a right-leaning libertarian or maybe a JFK Democrat. It’s possible Joe Lieberman would be my ideal candidate.
But it’s true—I am against Obama. He fooled me into voting for him three times—though not on the same day.
It’s like finding out your boyfriend is a crackhead—I used to love him, but it’s all over now.
If you demand hosannahs shouted for Obama, we have two such blogs here in the QCs and probably others in Quincy besides O.
Don’t come here if you are looking for an uncritical view of Obama—you won’t find it.
Comment by qcexaminer | July 13, 2008
Government needed to get involved with programs, grants and all the spending 20 and 30-years ago, when the market conditions dictated that private investment would not do these things.
Now, with $4.00 gas (and likely going higher), the profit is available and thus the need for government dollars is not great. The point… one does not need to incentivize ‘alternative fuels’ as anyone that can arrive at a viable alternative fuel stands to make profit beyond their imagination. Plenty of companies exist today that are already chasing these options – because NOW the profit is available.
Drill for short-term benefit.
Allow the free-market system to work for the long-term, and provide small incentive/ direction (only) if government feels as though they need to feel involved.
Government missed its chance to lead.
Comment by tiger woods | July 13, 2008
Drilling is an option, but not a short-term one. When did the government miss its chance to lead – that makes little sense. Just because executive leadership has been lacking for nearly a decade does not mean all is lost. Yes, I include the last two years of Clinton’s presidency. Government did not miss its chance in the 1860s, because James Buchanan was completely ineffective in the late 1850s. Have you completely given up on democratic government, Tiger? The market will fix all, right?
Comment by Rob Mellon | July 13, 2008
What a hoot! Buchanan=Clinton, although Buchanan=Carter would be my personal choice.
But yeah, government DID miss it’s chance in the 1860s to settle the states rights/slavery question, and war with 600,000+ dead was the result.
Comment by qcexaminer | July 13, 2008
Rob,
Let me go numerically through your mis-statements,
1. Drilling is a short-term option because (1) the fact that we start drilling will signal to OPEC and the speculators that market conditions will change, and (2) new drilling (off-shore) can have supply increased in 18-24 months (not the 7-years that the environmentalists want you to believe),
2. You state, “executive leadership has been lacking for nearly ten years” as though this is a Bush issue (thanks for throwing Clinton in there – for 2 of his 8-years?). Rob, what a blow-hard Democrat thing to say. “Executive Leadership has been lacking since the Carter Administration and includes both Republicans and Democrats.
Government needs to lead when the free-market, profit-potential is not great enough. Now that the profit-potential is great, the government does not need to push.
Comment by tiger woods | July 13, 2008
First, drilling in ANWR is one thing and I would agree that there could be some product available in the 18-24 month timeframe, but off-shore is another issue. We have to conduct the “exploration” part of the plan, before drilling can begin. I saw a show on Discovery about ocean oil exploration – it is not as easy as you make it sound. I know that you are clairvoyant – you might be able to tell them where the oil is so the exploration can be skipped and the oil companies can immediately start drilling when the equipment is in place. You are more naïve than I originally thought. OPEC has us by the cojones – drilling in ANWR, Yosemite, and in Teddy Roosevelt’s head on Mt. Rushmore will not change that. If you believe this I have an off-river bank exploration project on the Mississippi River I want you to invest in. We can start drilling in 18 months and the mere suggestion of the plan will have the Saudi royal family coming to Quincy to hold hands with us.
I completely stand by my lack of executive leadership statement – with a focus on the last 7 years.
Comment by Rob Mellon | July 14, 2008
Rob,
Please feel free to suggest where the tremendous leadership in the energy issue came from under –
Carter
Reagan
Bush I, or
Clinton
I believe that you will be hard pressed to find leadership in any of these Presidents beyond what Bush has done. I hate to always disagree with you, but the thought that there has been leadership in the Executive Office over the last 30-years is absolutely crazy.
Comment by tiger woods | July 14, 2008
This Obama energy plan, such as it is, seems like another government boondoggle.
We have the technology now to expand our energy output (i.e. nuclear, clean burning coal, etc.), but between the environmentalist lobby and the NIMBY factor, all have been shelved.
Why pour a bunch of taxpayer money into some pie-in-the-sky technology that the environmentalists STILL won’t like or the NIMBY’s still won’t want?
Like stem cell research, I think we should let the private sector take the lead where they are willing—why should taxpayers fund something others will do on their own dime?
Think about it—Jerry Lewis has been running his MDA telethon for 50 years and has raked in billions (trillions?) of dollars in private donations, yet there is still no cure.
There’s no reason to believe throwing taxpayer money after the fantasy of some “new” technology for 20 years will actually produce results.
Comment by qcexaminer | July 14, 2008