As a principled conservative, I felt the need to come out and say that I am against Bush’s energy bill. If you spend more than a few minutes seconds going over the bill, you will immediately see that it is nothing more than a bunch of pork spending. It is filled with subsidies, subsidies, and more subsidies to almost every unprofitable industry you can think of.
I think it was Milton Friedman who said that congress would run best if it was a Democrat President and a Republican congress. That way neither party can get their pork spending through, and only the most agreed upon measures pass. With the signing of this energy bill, and with the prescription drug plan of Bush’s last administration, I am starting to think Friedman is right. However, because the President nominates judges, I would like the ideal order switched, a Republican President and a Democrat congress, with congress being forced to give an up or down vote on any judge the President nominates. That would work for me!!
Update: I am also against the transportation bill signed today, which is filled with even more pork spending than the energy bill, if that was even possible. My favorite quote of the news release was one from John McCain:
But Sen. John McCain (search), R-Ariz., one of four senators who opposed the bill, said the estimated $24 billion lawmakers directed to special projects was “egregious.” He has cited dozens of what he calls “interesting” projects. His favorite: $2.3 million for landscaping along the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California.
“I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say?” McCain asked about the fiscally conservative president.
President Bush is no Ronald Reagan, that’s for sure.
Update: To show the magnitude of the pork spending in the Highway Bill, I quote from The Club For Growth:
“There are nearly 6,500 member-requested projects worth more than $24 billion, nearly nine percent of the total spending,” said the directors of a coalition of fiscally conservative groups including the National Taxpayers Union and the Club for Growth. “President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 because there were 152 such earmarks.”
President Ronald Reagan wouldn’t even allow 152 pork projects in the transportation bill, yet Bush allowed 6,500?!?!?!
Update: Why the energy bill was bad explained here, here, here and somewhat here.
See, we can agree on something. It’s FULL of pork. And a second thing .. whether it be a dem presidency and a repub congress or vice versa, it doesn’t really amount to gridlock. It actually, more often than not, boils down to compromise. Neither the far left or far right is able to shove thru so much partisan legislation.
I am an investigative reporter on the nuclear industry and I wrote an article on the entire history of the energy bill which might interest you, it is currently posted on my blog: http://www.ruminationsonamerica.blogspot.com
Thanks.
I agree with you here (suprise). an energy bill that does not attempt to address our overconsumption of fossil fuels, no incentives for fuel conservation, no attempts to lower our record high gas prices just trillions of dollars of tax incentives for the already profitable oil and gas companies who already abuse off-shore tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. I see why Chaney was so intent on keeping the minutes of these meetings so secret.
If we want to address a serious economic issue like the high price of gas, the best way to do this will be to address both the demand and the supply curve.
I have a question. Doesn’t the high price of oil causes more investments in energy savings devices and new energy sources? Could it be said that President Bush intentionally allow the oil market to go so high so as to create the incentive for more alternative energy sources? Doesn’t the fundementals of the economy actually create the conditions for new ways of doing things?
I bring this up because the left has villified this president so much that it seems like he is not doing anything. I do fault him for his lack of using the veto to get spending under control and his communicating of goals to include a progress report to the American people. (I guess he really does hate the MSM. Can’t blame him though. They are bias.)
Israel,
You are correct, the high price of oil does lead to more alternative uses of energy. But this is hardly Bush’s doing, this is more the result of external factors than anything Bush could directly control.
But yeah, one of the best incentives for altnerate sources of energy is higher oil prices.
I agree Bush is no Reagan. But it is funny to hear liberals complain about high gas prices. In the past liberal politicians advocated raising fuel taxes to artificially encourage conservation. A high gas price caused by natural economics doesn’t seem to please them. Some of the problem we face today is caused by self-imposed restrictive regulations on refineries, exploration and nuclear energy. I’m not for drilling off Miami Beach but if you can’t drill in Anwar then you can’t drill anywhere. The US should not burn a drop of oil to produce electricity. Alternative energy sources are great and should be pursed when the economics require it, unless it’s off Martha’s Vineyard.
Angelo,
Agreed! Great response!!!
Your theory about oil prices reducing consumption is great in theory but in actuality oil consumption continues to increase.
I agree with more research for alternative and more efficient fuel sources. The supply curve needs to be raised, but the demand curve needs to be lowered also to lower prices.
Since the governement gave huge tax incentives to the energy companies for research and exploration, why not give tax incentives to individuals who conserve energy (e.g. tax breaks for purchase of hybrid and economy cars, or purchase of energy imrovements on your HVAC systems at home, tax breaks for users of mass transit. If the government is going to subsidize the sellers it is only fair to subsidize the buyer
Oil consumption continues to increase, but at a slower pace than before, hence the reduction in consumption.