High energy prices are “the” policy?

Well, so says this NR post, which makes the case that the Obama WH has purposefully engaged in an agenda to cause higher energy prices when it failed to get “Cap & Tax” forced through congress to push its “green” energy agenda:

A new report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details a disturbing “pattern of evidence” indicating that not only are the Obama administration’s energy policies responsible for higher oil and gas prices, but that the administration’s energy policy, in fact, is higher gas prices.

The report’s findings are the result of an extensive committee review of public records, policy analysis, statements and e-mails from administration officials, and reveal “a pattern of actions [that] shows the Administration is, in fact, pursuing an agenda to raise the price Americans pay for energy,” according to a copy of the report obtained by National Review Online.

“What President Obama failed to accomplish through the so-called ‘cap and trade’ program, his administration is attempting to accomplish through regulatory roadblocks, energy tax increases, and other targeted efforts to prohibit development of domestic energy resources,” the report concludes.

Energy prices are currently artificially high, despite the fact that we are still in a recession that the Obama administrations seems to be doing its best to drag on as long as possible, and while the WH and the democrats have made a concerted effort to blame everyone but themselves, this House committee points out that the WH itself has obviously been creating the artificial shortage to drive up prices. Pretty ugly stuff:

According to the report, the administration’s “concerted campaign” to keep energy prices high extends “across government agencies” and constitutes a complete disregard for governmental transparency, much less the pocketbooks of all of those affected by the increased cost of energy. “An effort to intentionally raise the costs of traditional energy sources is a dangerous strategy that will harm economic recovery and job growth,” the report asserts. “If past statements of key administration officials are indeed reflections of the policies they are pursuing, this strategy is playing a quiet but significant role in the higher energy prices Americans are currently paying.”

Its obvious that as long as our energy policy is to make it as hard as possible to get real energy of any kind to push this green mendacity the left hopes will make so many of them rich, that the prices of energy will stay high. The next time you hear one of the scumbags tell you how the oil companies or the traders are screwing us, remember that it is the policy to prevent us from getting our own resources that’s doing the most to push prices up. At this point I think the WH even feels their aids in the MSM will deflect the blame with enough effect to avoid hurting them at the polls in the next election, which in terms of new energy generation is very close, because they seem unwilling to really do more than talk.

The next time you pay an arm and a leg at the pump, or when you sign a new heating oil contract that makes you feel like you are yanking out a kidney with a butter knife, remember why this stuff is really so expensive.

Comments are closed.

  1. InsipiD

    While I sure don’t think Obama has done anything to make energy cheaper, I sadly realize that they’re doing about the same thing as Bush was. Even worse, this says more about Republicans than it does about Obama. We expect Obama to screw things up.

    Thumb up 0

  2. InsipiD

    I’m not aware that Bush went out of his way to sell any new oil leases in the Gulf, and during his tenure was when China began drilling there in league with Mexico and Cuba. Bush did little to bring energy prices down, Obama has done even less. Better?

    Thumb up 0

  3. Mississippi Yankee

    What was the highest pump price for gas during the entire 8 years of the ‘Blame Boosh’ presidency?

    Thumb up 0

  4. hist_ed

    Hmmm, let’s see the Gulf: and again



    Outer Continental Shelf:

    Bush relaxed regulations on oil production (ie: made it easier):

    That took about 30 seconds with google. There are, of course, many many more (I didn’t get past the first page of results). Don’t you remember Bush the despoiler? Bush in the pocket of the oil companies? The Gulf spill was all Bush’s fault ’cause he gave them big bad oil companies whatever they wanted?

    Guess you weren’t paying attention.

    I’m not really a big fan of Bush (don’t hate him either), but Bush the oil company sell out was a pretty common media theme for 8 years or so. Ceratinly more could have been done (with a GOP Congress he didn’t get ANWAR opened up?), but he did actually work to increase production unlike our current energy hater.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Don’t forget Bush invaded Iraq to steal oil for his oil company buddies.

    Seriously. Bush tried harder than Obama did to open up drilling exploration, especially in the gulf and Alaska, got hammered for it by the left and the usual bureaucrats in government, and didn’t get anything done consequently. In fact, I still remember every lefttard telling us that even if Bush got all these new sources open for drilling, we wouldn’t get any extra capacity for 5 years, so it was a waste of time.

    That argument was used in 2003 to block any new exploration or oil drilling. Then, in 2007/2008, when we saw the first really big spikes in oil prices, right before the elections too, and because the markets were reacting to the US not trying to find any new sources, many people like me reminded these lefttards that had we started drilling in 2003, that we would have had the capacity to block the drastic price hikes. Funny thing is that Bush, when gas prices jumped over $4, by executive order, eased the restrictions and promised more drilling, causing the prices to drop quickly.

    A year later when Obama came into office he not reversed all of that, he went bonkers and “used the crisis” as Rham told us they would, and against recommendations by the people in the know, put a permanent moratorium on all sorts of drilling, after the BP incident. Not only that, he has seriously undermined any other type of fossil fuel exploration/extraction as well. And guess what that then did?

    Yeah InsipiD, as hist_ed pointed out, Bush tried real hard, should have done more, but he couldn’t because of the same people now setting our energy policy. The Obama administration is doing their best to limit our access to oil/gas/coal, and even nuclear, despite the talk to the contrary, and that’s a strategy IMO that now is evident. And they are doing it to make that expensive and inefficient/ineffective green bullshit they are pushing, competitive. Basically government is picking the winners and the losers yet again, ad we the consumers are getting scewed in the process.

    Thumb up 0

  6. loserlame

    The sly discreet plan is to get people to start buying those affordable magnetic (=green) solar panels for their cars (invented non-profit by real scientists in Europe, manufactured in the enduring Workers’ Paradise of Cina) long proven to raise fuel efficiency to many hundred miles/gallon.

    Just clip em on and go, rain or shine (good luck with them in record AGW-caused weather, tho).

    The only trick remaining is to get Americans to comprehend and accept metric conversion – kilometers/liter. well, actually, our measuring length/liquid volume to determine fuel consumption is rather typically unscientific, as true science overseas goes with “x amount of liquid volume per 100 km”.

    miles/gallon Is some of the stupidist math they’ve ever heard of in Germany, I was told there.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Seattle Outcast

    miles/gallon Is some of the stupidist math they’ve ever heard of in Germany, I was told there.

    Well, who really gives a rat what they think? All it takes is a little math to convert from one measurement system to another, and both are equally valid.

    Perhaps they’d like it if we went “chains per hogsheads” instead?

    Thumb up 0

  8. Kimpost

    I regard it as another unnecessary piece of information I need to keep in my head. Just because you guys are too stubborn to use the metric system for what it’s actually designed for – making communication easier.

    Now, repeat after me.

    Celsius (or use Kelvin if you want to be scientific)


    Thumb up 0

  9. loserlame

    Well there you go. Metric is easier.

    I still think “distance (x)/liquid volume” is far “easier” for me to determine how far gas (“petrol” spells easier, sounds better and is more scientific a term than gas, I hear) gets me and how much it costs.
    I buy 10 gallons once or twice, set the mileage odometer to “zero” and see how far it gets me = miles driven/10 = x. Then I use x and the trip odometer forthwith to buy and budget gas and distance.

    i drive some 250 miles per week, thats ca. 8 gallons, about $32 bucks.
    Consumption varies a bit and the trip odometer tells me if i’m gonna make it.

    Euros are more scientific as ever: Their cars get 13.4 liters/100km. If they have to drive 347 kilometers, and a liter costs $.68832 per, therefore (347/ (13.4/100)) x .68832… uh….. or simply 13.4 x 3.47 x .68832?

    Anyway, Euros can do that in their heads….all those different numbers.

    Thumb up 0