For The Hugh Hewitt
Daily Brief
What's Hot | Search |
Back to Townhall.com Hugh Hewitt Home Page
Friday, August 08, 2008
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Democrat Plan for Losing
by Charles Krauthammer
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 

WASHINGTON -- Let's see: housing meltdown, credit crunch, oil shock not seen since the 1970s. The economy is slowing, unemployment growing and inflation increasing. It's the sixth year of a highly unpopular war and the president's approval rating is at 30 percent.

The Italian Communist Party could win this election. The American Democratic Party is trying its best to lose it.

Democrats have the advantage on just about every domestic issue from health care to education. However, Americans' greatest concern is the economy, and their greatest economic concern is energy (by a significant margin: 37 percent to 21 percent for inflation). Yet Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of 2-1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the last 27 years.

Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected?

Barack Obama remains opposed to new offshore drilling (although he now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package). Just last week, he claimed that if only Americans would inflate their tires properly and get regular tune-ups, "we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

This is bizarre. By any reasonable calculation of annual tire-inflation and tune-up savings, the Outer Continental Shelf holds nearly a hundred times as much oil. As for oil shale, also under federal moratorium, after a thousand years of driving with Obama-inflated tires and Obama-tuned engines, we would still have saved only one-fifth the oil shale available in the United States.

But forget the math. Why is this issue either/or? Who's against properly inflated tires? Let's start a national campaign, Cuban-style, with giant venceremos posters lining the highways. ("Inflate your tires. Victory or death!") Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.

Do everything. Wind and solar. A tire gauge in every mailbox. Hell, a team of oxen for every family (to pull their gasoline-drained SUVs). The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that's been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Be the first to read Charles Krauthammer's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: Windfall Profit Taxes
Against it, fully. And I think it's very important to distinguish between Palin's taxes in Alaska and Windfall profit tax that the Dum's are proposing. Palin's was a permanent tax increase, it's not based on profits. Dum's proposal is based on meeting a certain profit point. I'm for doing away with tax incentives for big oil. They have enough money. But a windfall profit tax is a slippery slope considering there a many more corporations in America that may also fall into the Dum's excessive profit category. When does that equation get to me, the small business owner. The Dum's truly want us to be a socialist state. Crazy.

Bryce and his math...
Bryce keeps saying "The simple fact is that US exports represent a tiny portion of the worldwide market." I don't have any charts or graphs and am relying only on common sense.

But what do I care about how much the US exports. According to Boone Picken's add, if true, we import 70% of our oil. So thta would mean to me, that we use 30% of our own oil. Who cares how much of it we export? With ANWR, off shore drilling, the shale, etc along with moving forward with alternative energies, consevration etc, I would think we could get to the point where we were using much less foreign oil. Could we get to the point where we use 85% to 100% of our own resources, who knows?

But anything we do to reduce dependancy on foreign oil is a good thing and will help to reduce prices at the pump.

By the way, in 2006 Exxon paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of all taxpayers. And those windfall profits are used to expand, research, etc. And oil comapnies aren't just investing in oil. There are investing in alternative energies as well so that they can maintain profitably and stock prices as we move forward. Finally, those evil oil companies are owned by us, the public with our retirment and investment accounts. Anything done to hurt the oil companies financially, hurts all Americans in the form of higher fuel costs and reduced values in their retirement accounts.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.