Nathan Moore's Thoughts
A Peculiar Promise
I have looked askew at the various political puff pieces by Harold Ford, Jr. and his supporters, implicitly promising he would single-handedly reinstate gasoline prices to somewhere near 77 cents a gallon (that’s 85 cents if you don’t get your gas from Raceway). How he intends to do this is still a mystery. The bigger mystery is how it’s the Republicans’ fault that gas and energy prices are high in the first place.
It’s Republicans who wanted to drill in ANWR (first under Ronald Reagan, then the 104th Congress, before Bill Clinton vetoed the bill).
It’s a Republican president who want to expand exploration and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
It’s a Republicans president who supports our present foreign engagements so as to not endanger the world’s first and primary source of fossil fuels.
It’s a Republican president who is supportive of the expansion of nuclear energy.
It’s okay to say you’re for these things, too, but to cavort around the state acting as if you are the sole fix-it candidate for our energy concerns is too much to swallow. The Democratic Party is the party beholden to the extremist environmental groups that have stopped any expansion of exploration for domestic reserves. Ford ought to get off his high horse about the subject before he falls off.
UPDATE An addenda - it’s worth noting that 1/3 of American oil consumption is non-transportation. All sources of energy that can act as substitutes, whether it be natural gas, nuclear power, or coal (also a Republican supported source), reduce the demand for oil, and the price at the pump.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:30 am
While all of that may in fact be true, you neglected to mention that the Bush administration completed research and development on the “Weather Dominator” weapon back in 2002. Since that time the world has experienced numerous catastrophes, artificially driving up energy prices, which in turn has prevented Ford from delivering on his promises.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Pardon the tongue-in-cheek response, but my theory is as plausible as any being floated by the Left.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Its also a Republican president who refuses to increase fuel effeciancy standards, leading to an increase in demand, leading to an increase in prices. Had we acted sooner, and had more fuel efficient cars on the market, the prices either A) would be lower, or B) would not have hit consumers as hard. Granted I can choose whatever car I like to drive, but if 50% of other drivers have cars that get 10 MPG, than the price is going to go up regardless of what I do as a person.
BTW, its also a Republican president who flip-flopped on Offshore drilling in Florida in order to help get brother Jeb re-elected.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Sean:
Many people would love to buy a more fuel efficient car, but can’t afford it. I would like one, but alas, I’m in college. It’s not going to happen for a while.
The point Nathan was trying to make was that, yes, energy problems need to be addressed, but Dems like pointing fingers and that’s not going to solve anything.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Kara, if the fuel efficiency standards would be raised, than the prices of more fuel efficient cars would drop. And within a few years, the demand for gasoline would either drop, or at least not rise as quickly as it would without a raise in CAFE standards.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Small economy cars gets better gas mileage than hybrids. Those are cheaper than any other vehicle.
Yes, you TOO can afford a gas-efficient vehicle.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Won’t the natural desire of people to save money lead them to buy more fuel-efficient cars? (SUVs are still popular, but wait) When gov’t imposes extra fuel-efficiency standards than what is economical, that would seem to make cars less safe (lighter weight, lower acceleration, etc…). Let’s worry about the safety standards most of all.
Concerning overall fuel consumption, won’t higher prices actually decrease dependency on oil? As gas becomes more expensive, fuel-efficient cars become more popular, things like ethanol are taken seriously, people carpool, and more people take mass transportation. Is this not exactly what we want to happen? I’d rather the market determine gas prices, which are based somewhat on supply and demand, than rather politicans arbitrarily pick numbers when it comes to taxes (which is very regressive as the poor spend more % on gas than the rich)?
I can respect the objections to ANWR drilling, and that’s fine. Personally I am willing to pay slightly higher gas prices for the environment. But I’m not the one complaining.
So, it seems if you ask most of the American people, they want low prices, oil conservation, no ANWR drilling, AND higher oil company taxes. Oh well, politicians promises are rarely based in reality.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I am no economist or nothing, but it seems that it would be safe to assume that fuel prices are at the perfect price, or an equilibrium.
If you are really fed up with these outlandish gas prices do something about it. Change your behaviour.
If enough people are truly fed up with high gas prices, they will drive less, therefore consuming less gas and saving money.
You see, I am an expert on these matters because I took econ in high school. We can talk about politicians all day and their corresponding promises to do something about the problems, but whenever they meddle in the economy bad things happen.
I know that it is fun to get fired up issues that the Fords talk about on TV, but they do not hold the answers to the economy.
We should have all learned by now that you cannot fight mother nature, or the free market.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Rich Hailey is going to the debate and may live blog it depending upon setup.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2006/06/blogging_tonigh.shtml
Rich’s blog,
http://shotsacrossthebow.com/weblog/