After years of downplaying conservation as part of a comprehensive energy policy, President Bush’s wishy-washy statement urging Americans to conserve gas could not have been more hypocritical or ineffectual.
“I mean, people just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption and that if they’re able to maybe not drive . . . on a trip that’s not essential, that would be helpful,” he said.
Um, is there any real policy behind this? Such as increased fuel efficiency standards for autos, which the administration has long resisted? This from a president who believes you can have it all — wars, disasters, deficits — and never have to really sacrifice anything.
More faith-based policy from the Bush team.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
31 Comments
Randy, the attitude that permeates your blog is hardly helpful. You want the President to support conservation, but when he makes a move in the direction, you call him a hypocrite. Sounds like you’re the hypocrite in this case. Bash Bush either way. Sheesh! Even the NYT had a decently balanced article on Bush’s comments .http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N42/42long1.html
It’s easy to understand why the administration has avoided the usual notions of “conservation” — a term made disagreeable by environmental extremists who want nothing less than an end to oil drilling, refineries, nuclear power, and “ugly” wind farms; and made even less palatable by conservationists who want to tell us all how to live, what we can buy, and how to sort and fold our garbage.
The President simply mentioned that it would be helpful, while the fuel industry works around the clock to overcome hurricane disruptions, if people would not use any more fuel than necessary.
So, Randy, you’d prefer maybe Bush make another 55 mph national speed limit like Nixon did? distribute rationing cards? commandeer the fuel transport industry to “assure” that every politbureau has its own fuel truck? force carmakers to make vehicles that hardly anybody wants? I hope not.
We have had fuel “crises” since 1973, and no administration has manged to formulate a decent energy strategy that assures ready supplies of reasonablly priced motor fuels even in stable times, let alone times of major natural disasters or terrorist attacks. But like everything else, it’s Bush’s fault.
Not helpful at all.
Obviously, the business trends of the last 20 years — to minimize inventories and to operate as closely as possible to maximum utilization of capacity, in order to maximize return on investment — have made many companies extremely vulnerable to disruptions. Oil companies are no exception.
When the consequences of these disruptions are potentially broad and severe, an argument can be made for treating the producers as something like utilities. This is a place where government has a role. But government is a terribly blunt tool, so its role needs to be carefully proscribed,
After all, KG&E is a controlled utility that has a history of fiscal thievery and widespread disruption of services after every wind storm. Obviously, placing key services under the purview of a utlilities commission does not assure either good management or good service.
Still, just like the FAA has rules to assure that airplanes are safe, there could be rules and controls to assure that fuel supplies are stable.
That will come at a cost, though. A more evenly distributed refining and fuel transportation network won’t be free. Will people happily pay a little bit more per gallon forever in order to avoid disruptions and short term price runups such as we see now?
That’s the real issue, and the answer is probably yes. This policy issue — how to stabilize supplies and prices while maintaining a free economy — is where the discussion belongs.
Oh yeah, just a few more cents added forever to offset the damage from the hurricane. Major oil companies are posting record (say unusally high)profits since Iraq and now they need just a little more. But with two oil pimps in the White House, what do you expect.
Policy and Bush just don’t go together.
So, you don’t like the suggestion of limiting casual driving? Would you prefer a federal order banning personal autos? Or would you find fault with that?
The biggest problem with the professional Bush Bashers is that no matter what he says/does, you are going to find fault with it. He could cure cancer, and you would complain that he didn’t do it sooner. He could end discrimination, and you would complain that he didn’t also do it in China or something equally negative.
Everytime he says/does anything, you professional Bush bashers complain. He is not perfect–no president ever has been perfect. He has a very difficult job, made more difficult by people who live solely for finding fault with aboslutely everything about him.
Such animosity accomplishes nothing.
I keep wondering why folks keep thinking something truthful or intelligent is going to come out of GW’s mouth.
Bush has an American mouth with a Zionist tongue.
Bush bashers don’t bash Bush just the stupid things that he does. What’s wrong with that?
If you’re a Zionist, then of course you need to protect him, he’s your “boy.”
Those who tell what to do and say sure protect him.
We don’t hear much about Karl Rove anymore. Wonder why?
He is not perfect.
Ray, that the funniest thing you’ve ever said. Kudos.
Bush was the guy who made sure that 8,000 pound super-SUV’s got “tax relief.”
He encourages people to drive Hummers with his tax policy and then when gas prices PREDICTABLY sky-rocket, he asks the people in their Honda Civics to cut back on driving.
That’s what you get when you vote for stupid.
Galahad
“That’s what you get when you vote for stupid.”
You get Bushed.
What should really happen is banning most driving in Iraq till we get our people out of there.At least the bombs would have to be small enough to carry.
We need to stop this Israeli driven expansion and stop bringing our soldiers home in coffins or with limbs blown-off. That number of dead and maimed has reached over 22,000 and increases daily.
Bush gave Ariel Sharon an old map of “Greater Israel” which stretches all the way from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq.
Bush is trying to help Sharon with that expansion and that is why we are in Iraq now. The evangelicals are on board because their religious beliefs are being exploited. Other Christian Churches are divesting investments out of Israel because they know what the secular Zionists are up to.
There was no legitimate reason to pull troops out of Afghanistan without first securing that country and diverting them into Iraq. That’s why all those manufactured lies were bandied about. Establishing a permanent presence in Iraq for Israeli expansion is why we are there. None of the other phony reasons given are true. I think that all of you know that.
Establishing a Greater Israel will cost the United States trillion in taxpayer money and monies borrowed against out Treasury. That will bankrupt this nation. Is that something Americans will knowingly want to do? Of course not and that’s why it’s shrouded in secrecy.
Israel has cost the United States 1.7 trillion dollars since 1973.
On Channel 3 in Israel, Bush threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and because Iran supplies 60% of the world oil, the price of crude spiked to over $70 dollars a barrel.
Pakistan threatened to come to Irans’ aid and the price of crude oil dropped somewhat. This is a very dangerous game Bush is playing, by allowing Israel to push him into it.
Bush tells the American People one thing and tells the Israelis another.
The time has come to stop this charade and let the truth be known.
This so-called war in Iraq needs to stop now.
Galahad agains posts a mistruth. Bush gave a tax break for 8,000 super SUV’s is not true. Bush signed a tax bill last year closing a loophole allowing the large tax deduction for SUV’s.
Huzzah! Huzzah!Write this down Galahad.It’s the first item to be put on the list of things GW has done right.You know, the list we’ve been trying to get the GOP supporters to make for us so we can compare it with the ever growing list of screwed up crap he does.
OK that’s #1 Darrel.Attn. GOP:Help us fill in the list with all the good stuff GW has done since his landslide victory over what’s-his name. Stand back Ed, this stuff is really going to come flying in now!
DD–
You have information newer than this? Jan. 30, 2004?
“In a controversial move, the U.S. government decided to allow taxpayers to write off up to $100,000 for the purchase of a new SUV in the year it is purchased so long as the vehicle is used for business purposes and weighs more than 6,000 pounds.”
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/tax-myths.htm
Yeah, I tried to deduct our vehicle for buisness purposes last year, but it didn’t weigh enough. D’oh!It takes a big SUV to get this break – Suburbans fit the bill.
D’oh! Indeed.
Galahad,
Yes, I am afraid I do have better information. The deduction they are referring to is the section 179 expensing election, which has be available for several years on everything but “listed property”. Vehicles are “listed property” unless gross vehicle weight exceeds 6,000 pounds. In 2000 the amount was limited to $20,000 increased to $24,000 for 2001 and 2002 and raised to $100,000 in 2003. The rule is for business property and this would include vehicles used in business. To get this they must be used over 50% for business or they don’t qualify as for the 179 election.
Well, that’s very informative, DD.
But it backs up my last post exactly. Anybody who owns and runs a “small business” can claim a Humvee as a business vehicle and write the gas-guzzler off.
It’s a subsidy FOR the rich, a subsidy FOR excess gasoline consumption, a subsidy FOR greehouse gas emissions.
Meanwhile, President Cuckoo Bananas intones that people shouldn’t drive so much.
Thanks for proving the point, DD.
My boyfriend drives a graval truck that squashed a little car like a bug once. Noone was in it but the owner wasn’t happpy. Now he drives a Hummer and its real nice and safe. Why do people complain about them?
Now Galahad would not allow you boyfriend to drive a gravel truck. By doing so and the company writing this off it makes Bush look bad, allowing a deduction for the gravel truck then asking people to conserve gasoline. My how we can twist anything once our mind is made up.
People complain about Hummers because of class envy. They can’t stand the fact that someone else is rich and they aren’t. They want to see that rich person’s wealth distributed to everyone so that there are no poor people.
I probably struggle the most with people who have money – in terms of people whom I don’t like – but it’s an area that I’m working on to change in my thinking.
NoJo–
How is it that you can look into someone’s heart and say what motivates them?
As my mom always says, “anybody can make payments.”
I don’t envy people with Hummers.
I think they’re just stupid and poor stewards of our limited resources.
We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging people to buy super-SUV’s with our tax policies, which is what Bush has done.
Heh, DD–
Way to shift the argument away from your losing one.
A gravel truck is a necessary business expense. If someone can make a real case that a Hummer is a necessary vehicle that meets REAL demand that a smaller SUV type car/truck cannot meet, then it too should be a legitimate business expense.
I see a lot of potential for abuse with the way this tax reg. is written though. It seems deliberately to encourage fudging.
I don’t see the shift, the law is for business property. If a person requires the vehicle for business why should they not be able to deduct it. I guess only if Galahad gives his stamp of approval that it is needed.
STILL WAITING….AND WAITING…AND
Gasoline prices are high because Zionist Israel is threatening to nuke Iran.
Iran supplies 60% of the world’s oil. We have to rid ourselves of Zionist Israel or get Bush to shut them down. 3 dollar Jew-gas is wrecking our economy. The rich don’t care but working people { those who are still working } need to have a president who puts Americans and their interests first. Not the greed of Isael.
Oil futures are traded openly on all world markets and only supply and demand can move price.
In your Zeal to protect Israel at all costs, truthful statements destroy your arguement.
When oil supplies are under threat, prices move up. As threats to supplies are removed, prices go down.
If prices were able to be controled any other way, the Bush adminstration would bring the price down and take the credit.
They can’t.
You need to reseach facts before running-off at the mouth, but the truth about oil markets won’t help keep the heat off Israel, so you mouth-off crap instead.
We all understand what your doing.
Although the Bush administration backed-down somewhat about an all-out strike against Iran and oil prices started down, the hurricanes pushed prices back up somewhat.
Oil traders are still biding high prices, as they think the Jews might act alone and strike Iran. If such an attack took place, knocking out Iran’s oil, the price of oil would easily climb to make gasoline cost $50 dollars a gallon.
Demand would push oil prices out-of-sight.
It’s almost ironic that wall the Israelis built would protect the Palestinians against the blast of a nuclear strike on Israel, as the world’s atomic powers would be left with little other choice.
Okay, Darrell, you win.
Because your guy is sitting in the White House (or choking on a pretzel as the case may be), you get to pay 2.60 to 3.00 a gallon, almost twice as much as when Clinton was pres.
Enjoy your victory.
Once again, Galahad has nothing to add, but had to show us. Typical for a halfbreed wetback with a 2 bit degree from a fourth tier school.
Traditional Jews Are Not Zionists.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/