Late(*)Monday night on C-Span, I caught some taped coverage of several House Republicans trying to make the case for offshore drilling.(*) Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia was speaking, and displayed next to him was a large graph that was so ridiculous, it nearly made me fall off the couch.

The graph(*)showed how much gas prices have risen during the Bush years.(*) With a Republican-controlled Congress from 2001 to 2007, the price went from $1.47 to $2.10.(*) Under the Democratic-led Congress that began in 2007, prices have jumped to $4.06.(*) The graph was clearly designed to(*)show one thing - that the(*)current Congress is to blame for the spike in prices.(*) Westmoreland confirmed this claim during his speech.

Let's check Westmoreland's claim versus the facts.(*)(*)Following are the five most common reasons(*)that are given(*)for the high gas prices.(*) Let's see if(*)they correspond to any actions or(*)inactions(*)on the part of(*)the 110th Congress.

1. Too much speculation.(*) This could be blamed on an act of Congress - namely, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the commodities market and allowed for much more speculation.(*) But the Congress to blame would not be the(*)current one(*)- rather, this law was passed back in 2000 by a Republican Congress.(*) It was backed by Enron lobbyists, spearheaded by Phil Gramm (who is now an adviser for the McCain campaign),(*)and signed by Bill Clinton.(*)

2. Increased demand from China and India.(*) The world is using more oil, but the supply of oil is staying the same.(*) Price increases are inevitable.(*) I don't see how this could be the fault of Congress, or of anybody in the United States, for that matter.

3. The War in Iraq.(*) Many say that our invasion(*)has destabilized the Middle East and upset the people who control the oil.(*) Is it coincidence that the surge in gas prices roughly corresponds to the time we have been in Iraq?(*)(*)It was the Republican-led Congress that authorized the war and funded(*)the first four years.(*) True, the Democratic Congress(*)has approved(*)Bush's surge strategy - but are the Republicans really going to fault them for that?(*)

4. Not enough refineries.(*) It's been 32 years since the last refinery was built in the United States.(*) How could this possibly be the fault of lawmakers who have been in power only 18 months?

5. Too many environmental regulations.(*)(*) This is the one leg that Westmoreland and the Republicans might think that they have to stand on.(*) In 2007, the Democratic Congress did pass the Energy Independence and Security Act.(*) This legislation sought to expand the production of biofuels and to set a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020.(*) A majority of Republicans opposed it, though it was signed into law by Bush on December 19, 2007.(*)

Even if it could be shown that this(*)law is bad for gas prices (which it is not, since it reduces consumption), could the Republicans possibly make the argument that in seven short months, it has been responsible for the jump to $4.00 a gallon?(*) I don't see how.

The only thing left, then, is what the(*)Democratic Congress has not done.(*) And that is(*)what the Republicans are clamoring about:(*)more drilling.(*) They argue that the Democrats are blocking efforts to drill in ANWR and off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.(*) Along with the gas tax holiday, this seems to be their main prescription for our energy woes.(*) It also seems to be the area where they are the most unrealistic and the most short-sighted.

According to The Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think tank, it would take at least 7 years of work(*)in ANWR(*)before the first barrel of oil(*)becomes available.(*) It would also take at least that long to get through all the legal and technical hurdles before any offshore drilling could occur.

Hmmm.(*) Seven years.(*) That means that if we wanted to see any positive effects from more drilling by the year 2010, it would have to have been(*)approved by the Republican Congress back in 2003.(*) I guess they didn't think about(*)more drilling(*)back then, because they were counting on that $20 a barrel oil that the War in Iraq was(*)supposed to give us.(*)

How is it that anyone is taking Westmoreland and(*)other drilling proponents(*)like him seriously when they operate completely outside the realm of reality?




(Source Link)