The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (25 page)
Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
10.65Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Despite his view of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance as crucial tools for job creation, he threatened to veto a bill including these measures, as well as others he favored, if the Keystone pipeline were included in the legislation. In his imperious style he threatened, “My warning is not just specific to Keystone. Efforts to tie a whole bunch of other issues to something that they should be doing anyway will be rejected by me.”
98
98
Outraged by the needless delay, Congress passed a bill forcing Obama to decide on Keystone XL. He knew the American people overwhelmingly supported the pipeline, but in the end, still afraid of alienating his leftwing base, Obama rejected the project. The economic consequences of his decision are still playing out, and in fact, had kicked in with his original decision to delay a decision. Welspun Tubular Company, a steel pipe manufacturer in Little Rock, Arkansas, which had 500 miles of pipe waiting to be shipped out for Keystone XL, laid off sixty employees after the delay was announced.
99
Obama’s decision was obviously wrongheaded, and editorial pages across the nation criticized it.
100
99
Obama’s decision was obviously wrongheaded, and editorial pages across the nation criticized it.
100
Obama’s opposition to oil drilling, fracking, and other domestic energy production comes at great cost to the American economy. Wood Mackenzie, an energy research firm, issued a report in September 2011 finding that the development of new and existing resources could increase domestic oil and natural gas production by the equivalent of over 10 million barrels of oil per day, support an additional 1.4 million jobs, and raise more than $800 billion of cumulative government revenue by 2030. By contrast, continuing on the current path of policies that delay lease and drilling permits, increase the cost of hydraulic fracturing, and delay the construction of pipelines such as Keystone XL will detrimentally impact production, jobs, and government revenues.
101
OBAMA’S TWO FAVORITE ENERGY LIES101
To defuse accusations that he is hostile to oil production, Obama frequently tells us that under his administration, U.S. oil production is higher than it’s been in eight years. In addition, in his tireless effort to persuade us that we need to replace oil with alternative energy sources, he says we consume an alarming amount of oil in relation to the amount we have in reserve. Both claims are false on multiple levels.
As for the first claim, nonpartisan energy observers say Obama does not deserve credit for increased domestic energy production. Any increase in domestic drilling during his tenure has been almost entirely in areas over which the Obama administration exercises no authority. According to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), oil production on federal land—over which the president has control—declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, while oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent, and on private lands by 12 percent. “A lot of the wells that were supposed to be drilled weren’t because of the moratorium,” says the IER’s Dan Kish. “Drilling is up in the U.S. on lands he has no say over. On lands he has all the say over, drilling is down.”
102
102
According to another analysis—by the Heritage Foundation—oil and gas production on federal land is down by 40 percent under Obama’s presidency. In fact, in 2010, there were fewer onshore leases than during any year since 1984, and the administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011.
103
The vast majority of today’s oil production—for which Obama disingenuously claims credit—occurs on private land in North Dakota, Texas, and Alaska. Indeed, in North Dakota, oil production is booming and unemployment is at 3.1 percent—the lowest rate in the nation.
104
103
The vast majority of today’s oil production—for which Obama disingenuously claims credit—occurs on private land in North Dakota, Texas, and Alaska. Indeed, in North Dakota, oil production is booming and unemployment is at 3.1 percent—the lowest rate in the nation.
104
Additionally, regardless of what statistics Obama cites, experts, including EIA Administrator Richard Newell, say it takes around one to three years for any major federal policy action concerning oil production—such as issuing leases—to affect domestic oil production. Oil production was significantly higher in 2009 than in prior years, and while Obama was in office for most of that year, most of the production increase was due to action during the Bush years. The same is true for 2010.
105
105
Obama’s real attitude toward oil drilling was seen in August 2011, when a federal judge threw out administration rules that were slowing down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land. Ruling in favor of Western Energy Alliance against the federal government and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S District Judge Nancy Freudenthal reinstated the Bush-era rules that expedited these reviews. After the ruling, a defiant government attorney complained that the judge “completely discounted the government’s argument that the harm was speculative.”
106
Here, we see the cavalier attitude of this administration, decidedly at war with the industry and apparently unconcerned with the damage its policies were causing to the industry, to American workers, and to the American economy overall, as it implemented its reckless policies and then demanded the injured parties substantiate the damages beyond the level that satisfied the court. This is not the way a government of, for, and by the people is supposed to work.
106
Here, we see the cavalier attitude of this administration, decidedly at war with the industry and apparently unconcerned with the damage its policies were causing to the industry, to American workers, and to the American economy overall, as it implemented its reckless policies and then demanded the injured parties substantiate the damages beyond the level that satisfied the court. This is not the way a government of, for, and by the people is supposed to work.
Concerning his over-consumption claim, Obama argues, “Even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess—offshore and onshore—it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs. We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil. We only have 2 percent of the reserves. Even if we doubled U.S. oil production, we’re still really short.”
107
107
The United States has some 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves; “reserves” refers to “proven” reserves that are certain to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. That is, we have 20 billion barrels that are recoverable
at current prices and under lands currently available for development
.
108
at current prices and under lands currently available for development
.
108
That definition would exclude many oil reserves that Obama has declared off-limits. According to the Institute for Energy Research, we have more than 1.4 trillion barrels of oil that are technically recoverable in the United States with existing technology. The largest deposits are located offshore, in portions of Alaska and in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain West. This means the United States has more recoverable oil than the rest of the world combined, outside of North America. The Heritage Foundation says this is enough to fuel every passenger car in the nation for 430 years. Therefore, “it is merely semantics—not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce—that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy.”
109
109
When you add in recoverable resources from Canada and Mexico, the total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. “To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.”
110
110
Even by the restrictive definition of reserves Obama is using, the 20 billion barrels figure is misleading, because he is clearly implying it is a fixed, or static, number—as though with every barrel of oil we consume, we are approaching our last available barrel. In fact, the number is not static, but is constantly changing.
The Institute tells us that in 1980, for example, the United States had 30 billion barrels of oil in reserves. But over the next thirty years—through 2010—we produced 77 billion barrels.
111
Now, how can it be that we produced two and a half times more oil than we had available, consumed a great deal, and still ended up with plenty left over?
111
Now, how can it be that we produced two and a half times more oil than we had available, consumed a great deal, and still ended up with plenty left over?
Obama’s own Energy Information Administration is predicting a steady increase in reserves on land
currently available for exploration
. Heritage’s David Kreutzer says, “It projects that improvements in technology and the economics of extraction, production, and sales actually will lead to a 23.7 percent increase in U.S. reserves even after extracting billions of barrels of oil in the interim.”
currently available for exploration
. Heritage’s David Kreutzer says, “It projects that improvements in technology and the economics of extraction, production, and sales actually will lead to a 23.7 percent increase in U.S. reserves even after extracting billions of barrels of oil in the interim.”
Further, Obama’s formulation conflates two different measures. We might have only between 2 and 3 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves, as narrowly and misleadingly defined, but we don’t consume 25 percent of the world’s oil reserves, which is what Obama wants us to believe. We consume closer to 22 percent—but it’s not of reserves, it’s of the world’s oil
production
. And, as Heritage notes, “we consume about 22 percent of the world’s production of everything,” not just oil. Consumption is determined by income, not by available resources, and we also produce about 22 percent of the world’s total output of all goods and services. Admittedly, we don’t produce 22 percent of the world’s total oil output; more like 6 to 10 percent. But experts say this number will increase in the future even without accessing the other abundant sources mentioned above.
112
production
. And, as Heritage notes, “we consume about 22 percent of the world’s production of everything,” not just oil. Consumption is determined by income, not by available resources, and we also produce about 22 percent of the world’s total output of all goods and services. Admittedly, we don’t produce 22 percent of the world’s total oil output; more like 6 to 10 percent. But experts say this number will increase in the future even without accessing the other abundant sources mentioned above.
112
President Obama’s war on oil is doing incredible damage to America, costing jobs, depressing economic growth, and hindering our national security by keeping us dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other repugnant regimes. He claims to support more drilling alongside “green energy,” but don’t believe him—through all his rhetorical attacks on oil companies, through all his moratoriums and damaging regulations, through all his resistance to Keystone XL and fracking, it’s clear that he views oil as an obstacle, not a complement, to his alternative energy schemes. By developing more of our own, bountiful supply of oil, we could lower unemployment, reduce gas prices, create more government revenues to help balance the budget, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But Obama has different priorities; instead of producing more oil, he wants to reduce and—in his utopian fantasies—ultimately eliminate it.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE WAR ON OTHER ENERGY SOURCES
B
arack Obama’s mania for green energy exceeds all bounds of reason or prudence. He has dedicated tens of billions of dollars to a wide assortment of fantastic green projects, often falsely advertising them as being geared toward creating jobs and sparking economic growth. But jobs and growth, not to mention our public finances, end up the victims of his schemes, as he recklessly wastes federal money, distorts the economy by propping up uncompetitive companies and technologies, and suppresses tried and true sources of energy.
SHUTTING DOWN NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE NAME OF EXPANDING ITarack Obama’s mania for green energy exceeds all bounds of reason or prudence. He has dedicated tens of billions of dollars to a wide assortment of fantastic green projects, often falsely advertising them as being geared toward creating jobs and sparking economic growth. But jobs and growth, not to mention our public finances, end up the victims of his schemes, as he recklessly wastes federal money, distorts the economy by propping up uncompetitive companies and technologies, and suppresses tried and true sources of energy.
President Obama has paid lip service to promoting nuclear energy while doing his best to kill it. In July 2010 the Department of Energy asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reconsider its ruling that the administration could not stop the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage project without Congress’ approval. The government had already spent more than $12 billion to provide a safe nuclear storage facility for 10,000 years at Yucca, but the administration, early in 2010, unilaterally defunded the project and requested that the NRC rescind the facility’s license request.
Obama had claimed to support nuclear power, and with great fanfare had announced his intention to offer $36 billion in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. But by impeding the Yucca project, Obama jeopardized the future of the entire U.S. nuclear power industry, which needs a reliable, long-term method of waste disposal along with a more efficient regulatory scheme.
1
Congressional Democrats, always eager to help the administration’s efforts to stifle most traditional domestic energy projects, blocked a Republican bill to provide temporary funding of $100 million for Yucca for 2011. And while the administration convened a commission to make recommendations for nuclear waste disposal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu instructed the commission’s members not even to consider Yucca or any other specific site. Thus, the Yucca project was effectively killed. As the
Washington Times
editors said, “Sentence first—verdict afterward.”
2
1
Congressional Democrats, always eager to help the administration’s efforts to stifle most traditional domestic energy projects, blocked a Republican bill to provide temporary funding of $100 million for Yucca for 2011. And while the administration convened a commission to make recommendations for nuclear waste disposal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu instructed the commission’s members not even to consider Yucca or any other specific site. Thus, the Yucca project was effectively killed. As the
Washington Times
editors said, “Sentence first—verdict afterward.”
2
A year later, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Obama administration’s rush to shut down Yucca could delay the opening of a nuclear waste facility by more than twenty years and cost billions of additional dollars. According to the report, several Energy Department officials said they’d never seen such a large program come under so much pressure to end that quickly. The administration, in its zealous haste, did not provide a technical or scientific basis to justify the cancellation, nor did it bother to identify possible risks attendant to the closure process.
The GAO report confirmed that Secretary Chu’s decision to shut down the facility was based solely on policy grounds, not safety concerns. Congressman Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, commented, “It is alarming for this administration to discard 30 years of research and billions of taxpayer dollars spent, not for technical or safety reasons, but rather to satisfy temporary political calculations.”
3
3
While environmental extremists cite the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, in arguing against the use of nuclear power, the accident really underscores the importance of addressing safety issues such as nuclear waste storage, not ignoring them and pretending they will go away.
CAFE STANDARDS: “A WILLFUL REJECTION OF REALITY”In November 2011, the Obama administration settled on a proposal to require car manufacturers to nearly double the average fuel economy for passenger cars from 30.2 to 55.4 miles per gallon by 2025. Some analysts said the draconian proposal would effectively require most new vehicles sold in the United States to be battery-powered—and not coincidentally, boosting sales of battery-powered cars is one of Obama’s pet causes. But the rule, a joint brainchild of the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency that would go into effect in 2017, was approved anyway, with short shrift given to its likely impact on automakers and the economy.
4
4
Some research showed the plan stands to raise vehicle prices by more than $6,000, though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the EPA would only admit to an average increase of $2,000 for each new passenger vehicle sold by 2025, at a total cost of up to $157 billion.
5
A study released by the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, however, estimated the new standards could increase vehicle prices by $10,000. The White House, impervious to economic laws and market forces, claimed the rule would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and would save consumers more than $8,000 per vehicle in fuel costs by 2025.
6
5
A study released by the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, however, estimated the new standards could increase vehicle prices by $10,000. The White House, impervious to economic laws and market forces, claimed the rule would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and would save consumers more than $8,000 per vehicle in fuel costs by 2025.
6
During its deliberations, the administration shrouded the new standards in its usual secrecy, prompting a rebuke from Congressman Darrell Issa. “Beyond jobs that would be lost as a result of this rule,” said Issa, “there are concerns that these new regulations were crafted in a manner inconsistent with laws and basic standards of transparency that had the effect of hiding special interest agendas.”
7
7
Whereas previous administrations customarily factored in greater costs to consumers, job losses, and negative effects on safety and vehicle utility to arrive at a target miles-per-gallon figure, it appeared the administration was issuing dictates with much less concern for those consequences.
8
But there
will be
consequences. Aside from higher prices, the new rule could force automakers to lighten their cars by dumping spare tires and through other means.
8
But there
will be
consequences. Aside from higher prices, the new rule could force automakers to lighten their cars by dumping spare tires and through other means.
As critics noted, the fact that some carmakers have already jettisoned spare tires in the name of fuel economy undermines environmentalists’ claims that, thanks to new technology, carmakers no longer have to downsize vehicles to increase their fuel economy. Smaller, lighter vehicles pose a problem because they suffer more damage during crashes, resulting in thousands of additional traffic deaths per year—which clarifies the shifting priorities of environmental activists.
9
9
The
Wall Street Journal
‘s Holman Jenkins wrote a devastating critique of the administration’s zeal for raising CAFE standards, arguing it ignores engineering, the law of diminishing returns, the scarcity of materials needed for ultra-high-mileage vehicles, the likelihood that higher standards will cause Americans to drive their old cars longer, and the standards’ non-existent impact on global carbon dioxide levels. All of this, he wrote, “is a willful rejection of reality…. In the end, only a psychiatrist might explain this urge to pile up new policy excesses, destined someday to blow up in our faces, in an age when history clearly calls us to confront past excesses. But Mr. Obama is not deep. His presidency has been a presidency of shibboleths, of endless boasts that he’s delivering on the bien-pensant slogans that others just mouth.”
10
FEEDING THE MOUTH THAT BITES YOUWall Street Journal
‘s Holman Jenkins wrote a devastating critique of the administration’s zeal for raising CAFE standards, arguing it ignores engineering, the law of diminishing returns, the scarcity of materials needed for ultra-high-mileage vehicles, the likelihood that higher standards will cause Americans to drive their old cars longer, and the standards’ non-existent impact on global carbon dioxide levels. All of this, he wrote, “is a willful rejection of reality…. In the end, only a psychiatrist might explain this urge to pile up new policy excesses, destined someday to blow up in our faces, in an age when history clearly calls us to confront past excesses. But Mr. Obama is not deep. His presidency has been a presidency of shibboleths, of endless boasts that he’s delivering on the bien-pensant slogans that others just mouth.”
10
The Environmental Protection Agency has found a novel way to adopt unpopular policies—it funds environmental groups that sue the agency to force it to do so. This collusive jurisprudence, as one might call it, was revealed in a study by Budd-Falen Law Offices that found a dozen environmental groups have filed more than 3,000 “sweetheart” lawsuits against the EPA and other agencies in the last decade. “Often the suits involve things the EPA wants to do anyway,” said Jeff Holmstead, a Bush-era EPA official. “By inviting a lawsuit and then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal cover from political heat.” Congressman Ed Whitfield, head of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s energy and power panel, says that more and more environmental policy is being directed with absolutely no input from elected representatives, but by private lawsuits that are settled with monetary payoffs.
11
WATER POLLUTION REGULATIONS11
The Obama administration announced in April 2011 that it would impose stricter pollution controls pursuant to the Clean Water Act on millions of acres of wetlands and tens of thousands of miles of streams. The rules were designed to prevent the intrusion of mining waste and the discharge of industrial pollutants into the waters used for swimming holes and drinking. Republicans and others objected, among other reasons, because the affected waters were under state jurisdiction, meaning this was simply another federal power grab by this administration.
The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 to protect the “navigable waters of the United States.” But over time, as with so many other areas of our law, it has been expanded to allow regulation of matters far beyond its intended scope. Now, bureaucrats use the law to justify regulation of any pool of water that is capable of accommodating a minuscule toy boat. The term “navigable” has been inflated to include such waters that collect into a “wetland” after a storm. Thus, we have an unaccountable administrative agency that is imposing these rules, which opponents say will substantially harm the economy.
12
$57,000 PER HOME AND “NO MATERIAL IMPACT ON JOBS”12
While Obama’s opposition to conventional domestic energy sources seems unbounded, it hardly exceeds his support for frivolous, wasteful green energy projects. In his 2011 State of the Union speech, he tried to characterize his green energy fantasies as a grandiose vision on par with John F. Kennedy’s goal to get us to the moon before the end of the sixties. Obama called it “our generation’s Sputnik moment” and, as is typical of specious liberal rhetoric, argued that our newfound commitment to green energy would be the key to our national security, not to mention saving the planet. “Already,” he boasted, “we’re seeing the promise of renewable energy.”
13
Before the year ended, Obama’s boasts had fallen flat and his plans had degenerated into monumental waste and scandal, including the notorious Solyndra project.
13
Before the year ended, Obama’s boasts had fallen flat and his plans had degenerated into monumental waste and scandal, including the notorious Solyndra project.
From the outset of his term, Obama showed an almost singular obsession with green energy development. Oddly, he wasn’t pursuing this technology only because of his environmental extremism; his ideology also informs him that its development is the key to the nation’s future economic prosperity and creating “countless jobs.”
The
Washington Post
reported in June 2011 that Obama had “devoted more than half of his out-of-town private-business visits to promoting a single industry: clean technology.” He toured twenty-two clean-energy companies in an amazing nineteen trips, where the ostensible purpose was to promote economic recovery and energy independence. He visited a lighting company in Wisconsin, an electric car battery manufacturer in Reno, and a company that produces “energy-efficient lighting” in Durham, North Carolina, repeatedly praising these types of firms in his radio addresses and speeches.
14
Washington Post
reported in June 2011 that Obama had “devoted more than half of his out-of-town private-business visits to promoting a single industry: clean technology.” He toured twenty-two clean-energy companies in an amazing nineteen trips, where the ostensible purpose was to promote economic recovery and energy independence. He visited a lighting company in Wisconsin, an electric car battery manufacturer in Reno, and a company that produces “energy-efficient lighting” in Durham, North Carolina, repeatedly praising these types of firms in his radio addresses and speeches.
14
There was a stench of crony capitalism in these trips, as many of the companies Obama visited had connections to his 2008 presidential campaign. The White House dismissed these ties as purely coincidental, but there was no escaping that these appearances also served as campaign opportunities. The
Washington Post
acknowledged that some of his “factory appearances have had a distinctly political feel,” and that they were in states favorable to Obama in 2008.
15
Washington Post
acknowledged that some of his “factory appearances have had a distinctly political feel,” and that they were in states favorable to Obama in 2008.
15
Obama had laid out his full vision for alternative energy in a seminal speech following the Gulf oil spill. Americans for Tax Reform critiqued his remarks, highlighting the many evasions and mistruths underlying his energy agenda. For example, Obama lamented, “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America.” What he didn’t mention was that a staggering 80 percent of the first $1 billion of grants to wind energy firms in the 2009 stimulus bill was given to foreign companies to build turbines overseas.
16
The next $2.1 billion of grants was hardly better, with 79 percent going to foreign-based companies.
17
16
The next $2.1 billion of grants was hardly better, with 79 percent going to foreign-based companies.
17
Obama bragged that “old factories” were reopening to produce wind turbines and that small businesses were making solar panels. But, as ATR pointed out, these were all jobs created by the infusion of taxpayer stimulus money stoking artificial supply with no corresponding market demand. As an example, Obama billed the DeSoto Solar Center in Florida as the “largest solar power plant in the United States.” But it had received $150,000 of stimulus money and employed 400 construction workers to build the site, only to end up with just two employees working for the firm—a textbook example of Obama’s concept of sustainability.
18
18
In his speech, Obama touted jobs his stimulus had created for weatherizing homes. In fact, $5 billion of stimulus money was appropriated and, as of the speech, fewer than 10,000 of the 593,000 designated homes had actually been weatherized. The inspector general concluded that this project had no material impact on jobs, and the Government Accountability Office reported that the Davis-Bacon wage laws translated to the project’s expenditure of $57,000 per home involved.
19
19
Take Seattle; in 2010, Mayor Mike McGinn learned that his city had received a $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. Amidst great acclaim, on the eve of Earth Day—the secular holy day for environmentalists—McGinn traveled to the White House to make the announcement with Vice President Joe Biden. The two proclaimed the project’s ambitious goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods. More than a year later, only three homes had been retrofitted and fourteen jobs had been created, many of which were administrative positions, not jobs for low-income workers. Michael Woo, director of the Seattle environmental group Got Green, observed, “It’s been a very slow and tedious process. It’s almost painful, the number of meetings people have gone to. Those are the people who got jobs. There’s been no real investment for the broader public.”
Other books
Rachel by Jill Smith
Recruited Mage by David Fredric
Hollywood Blackmail by Jackie Ashenden
Dirty Neighbor (The Dirty Suburbs) by Miller,Cassie-Ann L.
The Christmas Stalking by Lillian Duncan
Nowhere Near Milkwood by Rhys Hughes
Madness by Bill Wetterman
Early Autumn by Robert B. Parker
Cinderella Dreams of Fire (Fairy Tales Forever #1) by Casey Lane
Inconceivable by Carolyn Savage