Minority Principles

As I affirmed over at Beth's blog: Back to our regularly scheduled political blogging

It is in the minority where political principles are defined. Consider that at present the Republicans are on the losing side of the political fence. Not only literally but ideologically as well.

Now, I've been a staunch conservative critic of the president (and a great many other Republicans) for some time. It is for the very reasons that many other conservatives have been critical of him. And, with respect to those very reasons, the key litmus test issue for me with respect to the GOP and the current crop of Republicans has been on the environmental issue and their "trendy" position on it. It is not, in my opinion, sensible to put the proverbial cart (which is environmental policy) before the horse (in this case energy policy). And yet, Republicans in their quest for Sierra Club endorsements and the backing of big agriculture firms such as ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) are selling us out by doing just that.

And so, with Republican party members going green quicker than a New York minute all the while their party is at present losing support amongst voters leading them towards an anything but certain November win, president Bush reaffirms the party's principles during yesterday's speech on Energy Policy and Environmentalism.

Now, the question becomes, do Republicans like John McCain, Tim Pawlenty, Charley Crist, Charles Grassley, Norm Coleman, et al., adopt the Bush solution to this government induced problem of which we find ourselves in??? Or, do they adopt the Nancy Pelosi/Newt Gingrich (God have you seen that commercial yet?) view of further fostering and inducing this hazzard?

Excerpts from the president's speech:

Americans are concerned about energy prices, and I can understand why. I think the last time I visited with you, I said it was like a tax increase on the working people. (It is. These are the regulatory tax increases of which I've previously spoken)

The past 18 months, gas prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. Electricity prices for small business and families are rising as well.

I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems. Yet time after time Congress chose to block them.

One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production, yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.

They’ve repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons — gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. (Drilling ANWR would replace the amount of oil we receive from Saudi Arabia)

That would be about a 20 percent increase of oil — crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices.And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked. (John McCain is one such blocker)

Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries. (One such refinery in Arizona is facing these hurdles)

As electricity prices rise, Congress continues to block provisions needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power.

Instead, many of the same people in Congress who complain about high energy costs support legislation that would make energy even more expensive for our consumers and small businesses. (MN Governor Tim Pawlenty [R] and MN Senator Norm Coleman [R] supported and endorsed Minnesota's latest energy proposal which mandates wind, solar, and other renewables. Energy companies, in an effort to meet the demands of these government mandates have thus passed those costs on to consumers such as myself.)

Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants and increase reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even further.
The cost of these actions will be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills. (Right you are Mr. President)

Instead of increasing costs and imposing new road blocks to domestic energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.
Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately, Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem.

The bill Congress is now considering would fail to eliminate subsidy payments to multimillionaire farmers. (In this bill, you can make upwards of $2 million and still receive a government subsidy) America’s farm economy is thriving. The value of farmland is skyrocketing. And this is the right time to reform our nation’s farm policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies.

It’s not the time to ask American families who are already paying more in the checkout line to pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers.

Congress can reform our farm programs, and should, by passing a fiscally responsible bill that treats our farmers fairly and does not impose new burdens on American taxpayers.

Getting back to Energy:

They ought to say, you know, why don’t we — I proposed, and you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries.
I mean, if we’re genuinely interested in moving forward with an energy policy that sends a signal to the world that we’re not — we’re going to try to become less reliant upon foreign oil, we can explore at home as well as continue on with an alternative fuels program.

The problem is there’s been a lot of focus by the Congress in the intermediate steps and in the long-term steps, the long-term steps being hydrogen, the intermediate steps being, you know, biofuels, for example, and research into biofuels, and battery technology, but not enough emphasis on the here and now.

And so you ask — you say that people think we can’t — there’s not any more reserves to be found. Well, there are reserves to be found in ANWR. That’s a given. (New off-shore reserves have been discovered off the coast of Brazil as well)

You know, I just told you that there’s about 27 million gallons of diesel and gasoline that could be from domestically produced crude oil that’s not being utilized.

And not only that, we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for — to be able to drill like we’ve never been able to do so before; slant-hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site — a single drill site to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn’t damage the environment.

And, yet, this is a litmus-test issue for many in Congress. (And Republicans as well I say) Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don’t care about the environment.

Well, I’m hoping now people, when they say ANWR, it means you don’t care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.