“Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make..”
President Obama was speaking in the White House Rose Garden this past Thursday. Our nation’s energy problems –problems that, as he stated last month, have plagued our country for over thirty years – could now be addressed with one simple juxtaposition and one obvious choice for those who serve in the House and Senate.
“They can stand with big oil, or they can stand with the American people” our President claimed, as he went on to explain his plan to end what he calls “tax breaks” for oil companies. “Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits,” he continued, “profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station…”
President Obama’s remarks about oil companies amount to nothing new – neither in terms of rhetoric, nor in terms of ideas – and they are easy to ignore. Yet they are worthy of our attention, because our President is responding to a crisis with campaign rhetoric that he used years ago, and with ideas that even congressional Democrats have determined to be untenable. Equally as problematic is the fact that the President’s claims get repeated over and over throughout much of the American media, without any fact-checking, contextualizing, or questioning.
So let’s start by questioning President Obama’s logic. He characterized his proposed solution to rising gasoline prices as a “simple choice to make” on March 29th. Yet, on February 23rd of this year, the President belittled the calls from Republican presidential candidates to expand oil exploration and development here in the United States. “That’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling” the President told an audience in Miami, Florida on that day. “It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge, “ he claimed, as he continued with his disparaging remarks, “…there are no quick fixes.”
So on February 2rd there were “no quick fixes,” yet on March 29th Congress had “a simple choice to make.” Expanding the use of American oil resources is bad, but raising taxes is good. This is apparently the underlying premise of the Obama Administration’s “energy policy.”
Our President’s rhetoric about the oil industry over the past few weeks is essentially a repeat of several of his past performances. During the 2008 oil price spike, in August of that year, then-Senator Obama stood in front of a stadium full of fans in Detroit and said many of the same vilifying things:
“…First, of all..” Mr. Obama began, “You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…They..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
The spite and indignation over profitable American companies got the election year crowd fired-up. Yet candidate Obama’s proposed “solution” to the dilemma in August of 2008 was the same then, as it is now: raise taxes on oil companies. His rhetoric fails both in terms of basic economics, and in terms of sound energy policy. But this, apparently, is what President Obama knows, and he will not be deterred.
Beyond the folly of the President’s “tax our way to more energy” strategy, there is the disingenuousness – and the inaccuracy – of the President’s repeated claims of ‘tax subsidies” and “tax breaks” for oil companies. Despite the obvious political strategy of creating a evil demon from which he is attempting to rescue us, President Obama’s loosely worded claims about the oil industry and taxation rates are not only false, but it is harmful.
For the record, when President Obama decries “government subsidies” for the oil industry, what he is actually conveying is his opinion that the oil industry is not taxed at a sufficiently high rate. This is to say that oil companies are being “allowed” to keep more of their own money than President Obama thinks is fair, and he chooses to label this matter of “keeping to much of your money” as a subsidy.
Keeping one’s own money – whether we are speaking of a private individual or an organization – is NOT the same as being paid a “subsidy.” And oil companies are already taxed at a marginal rate of approximately 41%, as compared to an approximate rate of 26% among the other companies on the S&P 500. Yet journalists repeat the President’s claims about “oil subsidies” as though they were factual – which leads us further and further away from sound energy policies.
Anger, vilification, demonization, and misinformation. This is not the essence of leadership, and it does not unite our country. Indeed, it leads to further division – and more energy chaos.
What Americans need in our next president isn’t complicated. Given our nation’s pressing problems, we just need a president capable of saying “NO”. The United States is, once again, at an important turning point, brought to the brink by Barack Obama’s profligate spending. In order to reverse the damage caused by 4 years of Obama’s left-leaning, entitlement-driven, anti-business policies, the nation needs a leader who is willing to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging and just say “no”.
If America is to continue on its path of greatness, continue to be a beacon to the rest of the world, we must get our financial expenditures under control and create more private sector jobs. That is going to require an individual capable of taking a tough stance against further indulgent government expenditures, a leader willing to say – “no”.
Unfortunately, the list of projects, policies, individuals and organizations to whom “NO” must be said is growing quite long.
Say “no” to America-bashing-- Americans deserve a president who believes that we are an exceptional nation, capable of achieving everything that is good and great. We deserve a president who acknowledges and appreciates the extraordinary contributions in education, defense, industry, medicine, technology and philanthropy that Americans have made to the world in the past 236 years.
But don’t stop there—
Small businesses, entrepreneurs, and job creators are already groaning from the weight of the many and new regulations Obama has initiated in the past three and a half years, so say “no” to the regulatory stranglehold that is stifling our nation’s entrepreneurs.
Say “no” to further bailouts and allow the free market to determine winners and losers-- Solyndra's mind-boggling profligacy, squandering $523 million in taxpayer money in less than two years and filing for bankruptcy protection, should be incentive enough to--
Say “no” to subsidies for absurdly expensive energy schemes that yield little and do nothing to reduce the price of gas at the pump for the average American.
Say “no” to ethanol subsidies and the $6 billion annual gift to the ethanol lobby.
Say “no to expanding entitlements, whether they be food stamps, social security, Obamacare or Medicaid—we can’t afford it.
Say “no” to czars. With over 40 czars pre-empting and usurping the responsibilities and authorities of their Senate-confirmed doppelgangers, is it any wonder that there is no accountability and no spending discipline?
Say “no” to union pandering—and don’t blame FOX News for your problems when greedy union negotiators demand more and more.
Say no to environmental extremists, who seek to reduce, or shut down, the new production of oil and gas in the name of “greening” the planet and “sustainability”.
Say “no” to dodgy schemes that encourage voter fraud, even when those schemes are advanced by your Attorney General as a way to ensure your re-election.
Say “no” to incivility in political discourse so that our congress and executive branch agencies can return to working together for the good of all Americans. Of course, leading by example would be an excellent start.
Of course, there are many other areas in which “no” might need to be said—I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
But, as we approach November-- and unemployment remains at historic high levels, as the deficit continues to escalate, as federal government bloat continues, as entitlements expand regardless of our ability to pay for them, and as many in Washington continue to delude themselves into thinking that they can kick the can of accountability down the road for a few more years—responsible Americans , getting ready to vote for the next president of the United States, need to ask themselves one question: how good is this guy a saying “no” and sticking to it?
Sensibility – the capacity for sensation or feeling; keen consciousness or awareness.
Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. So let me suggest that the word “sensibility” might also be described as one’s “gut instincts” about their experiences.
And it may also be the case that President Obama’s recent decline in the polls is not merely because unemployment is high, or because the cost of living is rising higher. It may be that some of President Obama’s own recently stated positions are violating the “gut instincts” that many Americans have about their own country.
Let’s start with the insurance industry mandates for abortion coverage, and the alleged “war on women.” When President Obama mandated in February that medical insurance companies provide coverage for abortion, sterilization and contraception, reaction was swift and visceral. Many religious organizations – most notably the Catholic Church – responded very negatively, and characterized the decision as a threat to religious freedom.
As presidential politics go, Mr. Obama’s mandate probably achieved its intended short-term goal: it successfully re-directed the national conversation away from issues surrounding the economy, the national debt, and a faltering foreign policy, and toward a discussion of abortion and religion. But the ways in which the conversation has devolved since its initial re-direction may not be playing to the President’s favor, and may now be contradicting Americans’ sensibilities about personal responsibility.
Most Americans do not share President Obama’s enthusiasm for abortion. But, fortunately, a majority of Americans still do not share the President’s support for economic entitlements either, nor are most of us as excited about government control over private businesses as he seems to be.
Yet the abortion enthusiasts who have run to the President’s defense in the last several weeks – most notably Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke, who we now know has a direct connection to former Obama Advisor Anita Dunn – have pushed a message of support for both abortion, and entitlements. “If somebody else doesn’t pay for my abortion and birth control,” Ms. Fluke is essentially telling us, then she is being “denied access” to healthcare – and this amounts to a “war on women.”
Americans are tiring of the “somebody else should pay for my stuff” attitude. In fact, there is a growing perception that the Obama entitlement culture is damaging our economy and our future, and the reality that President Obama would intertwine abortion and economic redistribution contradicts our gut instincts about how America should operate.
Another problem for the President may be his recent handling of the military. In the aftermath of the horrific news that a U.S. Marine allegedly massacred several civilians in Afghanistan, the American people have been treated to a barrage of conflicting information. The Marine had a “brain injury;” the Marine was “suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;” he may have been “drunk,” and he was angry about another deployment. We’ve seen all these explanations emerge, with no clear comments from the President or his Administration.
Yet what we have seen and heard from the Administration has been worse than mere message mismanagement. The President and his Administration have exhibited a sense that they neither enthusiastically appreciate the men and women in uniform, nor do they trust them.
It started last Monday March 12th, while President Obama was being interviewed by a Denver television anchor. When asked about the massacre allegations, the President noted the horrific nature of the killings, but then went on to say of our troops that “you can’t help but be proud of them, generally..”
To be fair, the President is in an awful position. He commands the military, yet one that he commands now stands accused of heinous crimes.
Yet the sensibilities of most Americans regarding the military are such that we aren’t just “generally” proud of our troops. Our trust and respect for the men and women in uniform is a near-constant, and it is a rare instance when an individual solider fails to meet our expectations.
To make matters worse, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta paid a visit to Afghanistan days after the offense to address the troops and the Afghani government. But before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside.
The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.
Again, the Obama Administration appeared to be out of step with American gut instincts. While Americans trust the men and women of the military and regard them as superior to any other fighting force, the Obama Administration appears distrusting of the troops, and uncertain of the mission in Afghanistan.
Americans disagree vehemently on ideology and public policy. But, for better or worse, we still haven’t given up on the idea that collectively we are still a good country, and we try to live with a sense of personal responsibility.
President Obama has reminded us that his policies undermine personal responsibility, while advancing the cause of entitlement. His handling of the Afghanistan fiasco suggests that the nation which many of us believe is great, is perhaps for him, not so great after all.
