It's Oil Lies I Tell You

This week's mid-week rant is late, (and will probably be a bit short) for good reason, in that my health has been suffering for a couple of days.  Just as I get back into the swing of things however, I find that the truth is suffering far more than I have while I have been regaining my strength.  It's campaign season after all, and whether you're running for a nomination, or already running for the highest office in the land, it seems to be a requirement for the truth to take far more of a beating than my tired old carcass has taken this week.

The same president who refused to let the Keystone XL pipeline become part of a Congressional bill a couple of months ago and deferred approval to 2013, now has the political temerity to stand in front of a pile of pipe in Oklahoma and say that he's trying to expedite the process.  In typical campaign fashion, he blamed political opponents for attempting to circumvent a process that he felt needed more time three months ago; while now telling applauding audiences that he will cut regulatory red tape (that his Administration created) to speed the process up.       

Note:  The president and candidates for office are likely to see much more in the way of applauding audiences this year, since recently passed legislation makes it illegal to protest in the presence of someone guarded by the Secret Service ... like the president and presidential candidates.

He went on to say that he's going to order federal agencies to expedite the approval process that he once delayed (after all, the project has only been under review for three years).  Curiously, few in the media seem ready to point out that President Obama has no dog in this hunt, as the section of pipeline being built does not require federal approval; and none seem ready to use the term 'flip-flop' in discussing the President's restatement of his previous strongly held position, one which greatly appealed to his core constituencies in the environmental movement.

In a CNN piece offered today, he also said "Anyone who says that we're somehow suppressing domestic oil production isn't paying attention".  Now for those of you not paying attention, this is one of the lies by omission.  Oil production is not being suppressed by the Administration, since it comes from wells whose drilling began long before the President took office.  Fewer permits are being issued for new exploration however, and vast tracts of land have been placed out of reach for exploration by this Administration.  This bodes ill for future long-term domestic production. 

There was more 'creative truth' forthcoming in the Oklahoma speech, when the president said "the price of oil is set by the global market", going on to blame unrest in the Middle East for the higher prices.  Curious then, that the price of oil is higher now than during the Arab Spring or the Iraq War; nor did they reach current pricing levels even during Egypt's popular uprising and the uncertainty of its ability to control the Suez Canal.  

What wasn't mentioned in the speech however, is that oil is traded in US dollars; and that as our unaddressed national debt continues to go up faster than a 'shovel ready project' and the government printing presses held by the Federal Reserve continuing printing this fiat currency at a record pace, the value of those dollars continues to diminish in value for real goods like gold, silver, and OIL.  Hence this inflated currency will not buy as much oil as it used to, and prices effectively go up. 

It's not all lies however. Some is merely a misleading way of telling the truth.  For example, the President said in a speech in Columbus later today that, "America's dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year." (since he took office in 2009) This statement has some truth to it, if you use the excuse that the current floundering economy requires less oil to fuel it, and therefore depends less on foreign production.  This however, is like saying 'My out of pocket expenses were down this year, because I was dead'.    

Now before those of you flying your Republican flags dislocate your arms by patting yourself on the back, try and remember that none of your candidates has yet to put together a cohesive energy policy.  They remain content to castigate the man in the Oval Office, while presenting no alternatives other than 'Drill baby, drill'.  Newt Gingrich, mostly irrelevant now in the process anyway, has gone so far as to make $2.50 gas part of his stump speech; as if his wishing it were so will make it so.  

How then will he achieve this objective? More drilling would certainly bring up production and reduce prices, but as we've been reminded far too often, it take 5-7 years to bring a well into production; long after the first term of an Obama replacement were to end.  Oh sure, price controls mandating $2.50 per gallon for gas could be instituted, but not only would this have a negative impact on future drilling; but it hardly seems the reaction of someone who calls himself a  Capitalist and small government Conservative.

Rick Santorum is calling the current Administration policy that of "N-O", but this seems a strange attack from another supposed small government candidate who is already talking about calling out a new morality police to end pornography.  He also has failed to produce what anyone would even laughingly call an energy policy as part of his bid for the highest office in the land, being too concerned with winning the religious right instead of the fiscal right; something that's long been his Achilles heel.

The Republican frontrunner Romney is quick to slap the Administration around on what it's doing, inferring that this is about making gas on par with an alternative energy agenda that they've been pushing (which may the only truth being spoken here), but is much slower on the draw in describing what he'd do instead.  Perhaps this former business executive (and not career politician) thinks that this is situation is like what we were told about the now two year-old Patients Affordable Health Care law (Obamacare) that might be his opponent's largest achievement in office.  It's a situation where we should vote for him before we learn what his energy policy is.

The truth of the matter is that 75% of the potential Republican nominees energy position amounts to little more than, 'The other guy is a bad man, doing bad things'.  (I thought about using 'The other guy's a bad man and a doo-doo head'; but didn't want to slander the President for fear that I would quickly find myself doing an interview with the Secret Service.) 

I won't go into Ron Paul's position in great detail, in spite of the fact that it agrees with mine (or is it vice versa).  He believes that the real culprit in the oil crisis is inflation.  He in fact went on "The Tonight Show" earlier in the week (no, I don't watch Jay Leno, but read about it after the fact here), and described the problem rather succinctly.  Holding up a silver dime, he went on to explain that based on the current value of silver (approx $30 per ounce) that you could buy a gallon of gas (even at its current price) for the precious metal value of the weight of this 10 cent coin.  The cost of everything unfortunately, goes up when our currency is no longer based on the real value of real things, and when we allow the Federal Reserve and the Federal government to play games with the value of currency and the credit rating of the nation.  (But of course Ron Paul's opinions are crazy.)

The bottom line here is that with this one rare exception, everything that you're being told about the price of oil, and the subsequent price of a gallon of gas ... is Oil Lies.

                      

Will The Real Conservatives Enter And Sign In Please

A little over a year after I was born, a TV show premiered on CBS called "To Tell The Truth". (Yes, they did have TV that far back, though the screen was small, round, and only showed pictures in black and white.)  The premise of the show was simple, three people would claim to be something that only one of them actually was, and the game involved figuring out which of the three was not an impersonator. 

Each of the contestants not telling the truth about who or what they were schooled enough to be able to answer questions about their false claim.  Some pulled it off pretty well and fooled a panel of pundits put in place specifically to see through them.  Others were pretty obvious as lame set-ups and were quickly unmasked.

Because we are now entering the heart of the Republican Party Primary season, you've probably decided that what I'm talking about are Republican presidential candidates ... but you'd be wrong.  In fact with one exception, there is nothing that any of the Republican candidates for President can tell me at this point that will make me believe that they tell the truth when they say that they're Conservatives.  I'm far more concerned with those who entered Congress two years ago, and those that will soon be running this year for office in both the House and the Senate.  Which of those in office has proved to tell the truth with regards to their Conservative credentials and which newcomers to the process can lay claim to such truth?  Tea Party supported or not, far too many seem to have proven to be little more than a 'storm in a teacup', have fallen far below the standards that they espoused when running, and are a far cry indeed below the ideal that one might have assumed based on the rhetoric of the 2010 election.

Each of House of Congress is firmly in the grip of one of the two major political parties, and both seem incapable (or more likely unwilling) of changing the direction in which the nation is going.  Regardless of party affiliation or supposedly declared principles, we continue to see the national legislature function under the concept of 'business as usual', with little or no impact felt by the introduction of these so-called Conservative elements. 

*  So-called spending 'cuts' still have little to do with the reducing even government's natural increase in spending, and nothing at all to do with an actual reduction of the amount this nation spends from one year to the next. 

*  Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare continue to go bankrupt, and increasingly appear to have the potential of taking the rest of the country with them.  Instead of attempting to address the situation however, the best that those in power can suggest are 'premium' holidays that only speed up the death spiral process.  (Don't even let me get started on where Obamacare fits into this.)  

*  Government Bureaucracy continues to increase at an alarming rate, with the legislators finding it politically expedient to turn over their Constitutionally Mandated Authority to an ever greater number of agencies and ever larger gang of unelected paper pushers.  After promising before each election to eliminate these bloated, ineffective, and wasteful agencies, they instead add to the total number of bureaucratic drones collecting a government paycheck. 

*  Government regulation likewise continues to increase with the National Register (the big book of federal regulations) in fact growing at a record pace.  Few should be surprised at such growth, as much of this new regulation is generated by the out-of-control bureaucracy that seeks to gather more power unto themselves, with their mandates taking effect without the approval or perhaps even the knowledge of legislators whose province such rules once were.

Though much was made of their entry in 2010, after sufficient cajoling and scolding it appears that the professional politicians have once again brought their young and inexperienced members to heel.  Having carefully explained to them about 'the way things are done' and how to gain 'real power for real change' in Congress, these freshmen now seem content to pass meaningless votes that show some level of intestinal fortitude; knowing that even these lackluster efforts will be compromised the first time that their opponents denigrate them for doing so. Actually shaking up the way things are done in Washington with ground-breaking legislation now seems but a dream. 

Basking now in the pay and privilege afforded by their recent elevation to Congress and showing little understanding of the definitions of 'fair share' or 'compromise' (and especially that of 'personal responsibility'), they continue to follow a path of destruction while rolling up the national deficit at a pace never dreamed of in this nation's past. 

Living by their own special set of rules (like those on Insider Trading) and showing no memory or understanding of the burden that they assumed when seeking elected office, they allow themselves to get 'schooled' (or perhaps more accurately 'punked') by their wiser, more experienced, and perhaps more jaded colleagues.

So perhaps while we are still some ten months from the election, it's time to ask those seeking office if they are the real deal where conservative principles of a small government defined and limited by the Constitution are concerned; or are they something that merely masquerades as a Conservative for the benefits of the cameras and the political game.

Many of us out here find that it's a game we've long since grown tired of. We've discovered that we're no longer entertained by claims about whether you're 'red' or 'blue', or affirmations that you represent the party of elephant or the jackass (we're coming to believe that members of both are jackasses).  We don't care any more what party's banner you carry and which you claim to represent, since in practice there's little difference. What we really care about is whether this time is if you're truly going to represent us, rather than betray both us and the principles that you claimed to hold to the agendas of the two major political parties like so many before you.

So before we all but write you, your re-election efforts, and your little clubs off completely, would the real Conservatives enter and sign in please ....