I completely understood (pretty much) all my friends when they explained to me (around the Wall Street and Banking bailout led by the Goldman Sachs people running the government under the newly elected Obama) that Obama had no choice but to spend those taxpayer's trillions. They made it clear that it was because the financial structure had to be kept in place - too big to fail. Otherwise the country would have collapsed. (Never mind the absolute absence of regulations put into place since them to stop this kind of thing from happening again. Congress was intractable, they noted. Never mind the bonuses scattered like confetti to every CEO of those institutions and to the loyal managers beneath them. Obama did speak out against this at one point - it didn't help - because, as my friends pointed out - Congress was such a mess. "Oh, those chaotic Democrats," they said over and over, "and forget about those lock-step Republicans.") There really was no other way to go for Obama.
And I guess I was able (to some degree) to bring myself to understand (with a little less clarity) when Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler. Look at all those jobs that would have gone away. Never mind that if you look at the roster of new cars coming out from GM and Chrysler now (thanks to our cash) they look just about like the same big, old, gas guzzling machines of yore - not even the designs have changed much. And the CEOs, etc. there (with their bonuses) haven't changed much either. Pretty much all the same old guys are running things over there (same guys, different money - our money). But never mind. I was able to - more or less -understand the position of most of my friends here as well. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.
I wrestled a bit more with Obama's absolute evaporation around the Public Option (which he and everyone else in Congress - liberal, Conservative, smart, foolhardy - have). Nonetheless it is true, as my friends pointed out - there is one hell of a vocal and dangerous right wing. What was Obama to do, really? Better to try meet them part way. He is a pragmatist, after all. And he has been a brave, brave soul to take them on and get this bill through at all. Had I been aware, they asked, of the rage towards our young President?
And yes, the Health Care Plan was a patriotic victory, a victory for America. I have even admitted this to most of my friends (and here on the Huffington Post). And it felt good to do it, too - for once to be able to feel that I wasn't just a bitter and angry guy, that I could be - at least somewhat - grateful to my government for bringing about real change.
Never mind that my Congressman, Rep Henry Waxman put it a bit differently, when he told the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that they had "invested well" in this past Presidential election (having supported Obama - as well as McCain). The message between his lines? You got your man - either one - to do exactly what you wanted - a new infusion of government trillions into your bank accounts. It was - under the circumstances - the best that President Obama could do, though, I was told.
Oh, and then there's the war in Iraq. I mean the two wars: Afghanistan. I mean the three wars (a new "secret" war in Pakistan now). And I'm taking the promise of closing Guantanamo Bay off the table. Unfair. I'm not going to even bring it up. I'm not an idiot.
So let's just recap.
Trillions of dollars for the top guys to use on Wall Street, to use in banking, for automobiles, for pharmaceuticals, for insurance and - yes - yes - for new weaponry and more troops in the Middle East. Trillions Okay, who's left? Who's been left out?
Well, the students. Terrific.
With great fanfare - some billions went to the students this past week.
Anybody left?
I shouldn't have been surprised, or shocked or completely horrified - to have learned that Obama has now opened up all these new drilling fields for oil - the east coast, Alaska. The Jeb Bush politicos et. al. must be so pissed off. Obama's outflanked them with their primary constituency and patrons, the oil gang. Brilliant!
Only I'm wondering how my friends will now explain this to me. I want to understand. I do. More jobs? National security? Enough gas into the future so that the big cars still being built in sad Detroit will remain cheap to drive?
What's fascinating is there doesn't even seem to have been any public argument or discussion for making this drilling decision happen. No melt down can be pointed to; no bankruptcies; no skyrocketing medical costs. Why now? Why at all?
I need a little help here again. I'm open to listening. I like my friends. And I really like that hope springs eternal. I could really use a little hope about now.
Follow Stephen Gyllenhaal on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stephgyllenhaal
Other puzzling features: most of the areas discussed do not contain vast amounts of petroleum. Are these lease sites going to be used for wind power generation?
In order to force China to agree to US sanctions for phony trumped up charge against Iran,
We have to guarantee 5 million barrels of gas for China that would come from Iran.
We won't be pressuring China to unpeg the RMB from the dollar.
We'll suffer economically, and destroy our reefs.
For war mongers.
What price Israel?
See Running on Water at: http://www.aesopinstituteorg
See also the website of parallel technology developer BlackLight Power.
We don't agree with their theory and we are developing technology to run auto engines rather than create power plants based on heat.
However, we agree that water utilized as fractional Hydrogen allows one barrel of H2O to replace 200 barrels of oil!
Rowan University has published experiments that confirm excess heat which defies conventional explanation. National labs and other universities should do the experiments and design their own.
FORD completed a bomber every 59 minutes beginning a few months after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The fractional Hydrogen technology, although hard for scientists to believe until verified, is much less complicated.
Once radically new science is accepted, it can revive the auto industry by allowing a few gallons of water to propel a car 1,000 miles, but it can also turn parked cars into power plants that sell electricity to the local utility.
24/7 development would replace fossil fuels at a pace governed to some extent by the time it takes to complete development and gear up for mass production. Demand for such cars and trucks would be huge!
Bush Bush Bush....
This is Obama land now baby and he's got to own it. It's his.
We bought the ticket by electing him and now we have to take the ride.
As they say, it's in Obamas hands now and lets hope he's washed them.
Bills are passed in a public trail, held in the court of law called "Congress".
The jury is the American public.
They tell their Congressmen how to vote, else lose their job.
What Obama has just done is prejudice the jury in favor the upcoming energy bill.
It's brilliant, but you expect a lawyer to know how to control and use the court.
The Repubs can object, but there's no one who can sustain it.
But, if my interest in the environment got traded away for some corporate interest or for health care, I will be very angry.
Listen folks, as much as us greenies would like to decrease the supply of oil in order to raise the price and force conservation, this is a politically untenable solution. While gas goes over $3-4 a gallon and we import more and more oil, it is political suicide to not take advantage of the resources we have in this country. It just makes sense to a majority of Americans. Refusing to make use of our resources while Americans are “suffering†(LOL—I know) from high energy prices would hurt Obama’s chances in 2012 and maybe even rub off on the Dems in 2010 too. He’s not doing this solely to appease Republicans—there are millions of independents and Dems who think it’s ridiculous not to use our resources.
Sorry guys, no president is going to be this radical. It’s political stupidity. The terms Obama has developed and the places he’s put off limits makes it a better deal than what would happen under a Republican president. This might actually end up the best possible solution for our shores. If we force companies to do it right, we can mitigate most impacts.
As China and India become oil consuming nations, millions of new customers flood the market every month, thus raising demand. The few drops of oil we produce won't begin to make a cost impact on the word market and we won't even begin to produce it for ten years, so it will have no impact on cost at all within his term of office. In the meantime, it is likely to damage our already dying oceans and fishing industries.
I suppose that by drilling, he can tell the people "suffering" from high energy costs that he is doing all he can and maybe use this to help people "get real" about our energy crisis.
However, too many Americans don't understand this. All they know is basic supply and demand economics, and they think that if we're increasing supply, price will go down.
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Politicians have to humor these folks or lose their votes.
I too tried to get behind the HCR bill after it's passage, but it's just sickening to know we could have had so much better a bill, if Obama hadn't derailed it negotiating away the public option last year. It's now apparent that all we can ever expect from this President, is Republican-lite actions.
And given the quality of the Republican Presidential candidates right now, we're probably stuck with this corporatist for another 6 years. Not that I want an actual Republican as President, you understand, but it sure would be nice to actually have a real Democratic candidate in that office for a "change."
All the democrats are willing to drink the koolaid under a D president, and therefore they can pass more regressive legislation than an R.
Right now the only difference between them is that Ds don't tell you what you can do with your sex organs.. but they are working on it.
They are actually worse though, because most R's aren't neoliberals and D's are slick liars.
When Rs are in power at least the D's don't let an R President take over the senate.
You wrote a whole article based around this one sentence. A sentence that is simply incorrect.
Obama opened up exploratory leases, not drilling leases. There is a HUGE difference. A majority of these leases are in terrain that would be cost prohibitive to ever drill. (Coincidence or cunning?) And other huge swaths are situated such that they will fail to pass the environmental impact process. (Coincidence or cunning?)
Will SOME drilling occur? Sure. But as our green energy dreams are still a long ways off from being fully implementable, we do still need classical energy sources to bridge the gap of the green transition. And this is the aim here. Unless you prefer getting our oil from totalitarian theocrats? Is that your solution? Really?
So with Obama's approach, we get a realist's solution to a short to mid-term problem. And we cut the legs off one the GOP's biggest 2010 and 2012 talking points, even though they won't really get what they want in the end.
You can get all histrionic if it really makes you feel better. But Obama's about 5 or 6 moves ahead of you on this one. Thanks, but he'll take it from here.
I could believe you, i want to believe you, I really, really hope you are right but fool me twice I aint never get fooled again (weak humor)! I just have not yet seen obama truly play that masterful hand that made me think he is some jedi night with seigfried and roy magic up his sleeve. If he proved it to me even once or even showed me a flash of it, I would find it incredibly easier to believe this.
My biggest concern here besides the idea that it seems a little vague and distant shall we say is that he made this announcement before any sort of clean energy policy has even really begun to take shape never mind waiting for the actual debate. Could he not have used something like this as leverage to his advantage?? Perhaps even more difficult is the idea that drilling here is going to be a strenuous if not nearly fruitless venture that will take years and will likely not even come to fruition until far down the line but we will somehow use this lengthy and possibly futile process to tide us over?
The US Energy Information Administration on the impact of offshore oil:
1 - Would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. (note - the report is from 2007, so tack on a couple of years or so to these figures.)
2 - Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. (It doesn't automatically get routed to a Texas refinery!)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
First, I'll say that im a big fan of the president and his team.
Is the president saying this now to keep the RNC off balance while knowing full well that the practicle impact of off shore driling is negligble? Is he counting on another huge oil spike to jump start the change over from oil to alternative energy? Have they got things on the back-burner ready to release when the timing is right? I'm begining to think that this is a smoke screen for the real agenda.
CB
So when Obama does what republicans want him to do he is being smart?
As for Obama's decision to also drill for natural gas? The U.S. is closing down wells because we have _too much_ natural gas. (With this glut, why not create technology that uses this for transportation?)
His decision to drill for oil, in my opinion, is in preparation for war with Iran; we've already sent hundreds of bunker-buster munitions to the British island of Diego Garcia in preparation: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151 . All of this and Iran is not a threat to us: http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529 .
Point by point ,line by line, you describe exactly what millions of us have experienced the last 15 months or so. The only difference between my story and your own is that it's usually ME doing the explaining to my friends rather than the other way round.
I just hate it when I hear myself being an apologist for incrementalism and "almost good enough".
And it's true, we SHOULDN'T make the perfect the enemy of the good,.....Rome WASN'T built in a day, and compromise is NOT necessarily equivilant to surrender.
Pehaps foolishly, I still tend to believe the President's heart is generally in the right place on most of the issues of the day, and hold out some hope that Obama is playing "the long game" that, longer term WILL lead to transformative positive change change for our beleaguered country.
One again, George Bush's place in history remains secure, ...as a reminder to all that "it could be worse".....
We in his "base" know that EVERY policy declaration the President makes, no matter how unequivocal, impassioned, or eloquent, is merely his opening negotiating position.
Obama loves the sound of his own rhetorical music as much as we do........but even bedrock principles are fungible in the interest of "the deal". Trouble is, the other guys know it too
We know that Mr. Obama's heart is in the right place,....it's just that his WORD isn't any good.
TM
I view the decision on offshore drilling to be a way of getting some clarity. Most of the oil experts I follow are of the opinion that there's no oil to 'drill baby drill' off the coast--that the fields we're likely to find are so deep and so inhospitable that we'd only drill them out if it were that oil or none at all.
The oil companies now have a year or so to see if there's anything worth drilling. My guess is they're going to come back and say 'well, actually...' and there will be no new rigs going up. But the ramification of this will be decisive--once we remove the 'Drill Baby Drill' arrow from the conservatives' quiver, we can start to talk seriously about energy for the first time since Inauguration day 1981.
Obama's policy change does not suggest at all that we'll see off shore drilling tomorrow. It's a chance to develop and present the data. This will be important over the summer when fuel prices spike. Obama will need to be able to take the drill baby, drill argument as gas spikes prior to an election.
One final point. I wish some of us would consider that we might be wrong about some issues. Alternative energy sources cannot solve all our problems. Some of our ideals may not be possible or even correct. We cannot conserve our way out of this mess, nor can we spend our way to quality universal health care for all. We don't have the money.