Oil spill in Gulf Coast

Obama No Better Than George W. Bush

George W. Bush could have given Obama’s speech last night, and the reaction would have been the same: it was all bluster.  Bush would not ask the country for sacrifice to pay for his wars and tax cuts.  Obama doesn’t want to ask people to pay for new energy and tougher regulations for a host of industries:  coal oil and financial, to name a few.  He certainly did not take my advice.

While Obama alluded to the need to build weapon systems for World War II as a time when the country faced a challenge, he did not mention that we sacrificed to do that.  Copper, sugar and other products were rationed.  The build-up of the space program after Sputnik required huge federal investment.  Alternative energy will require the same magnitude of investment and will require federal dollars that even Democrats are unwilling to raise.

The first part of his speech was mind-numbing with its lists of projects and their costs.  He continues to have speech patterns that are also mind-numbing in their repetitious inflections: regularly dropping his voice at the end of sentences.  It gives his speeches a condescending tone. 

When he talked about the lives upended by the Gulf spill, he seemed on the right track. He could have compared what the U.S. needs to do to help the fishing and tourism industries in the Gulf with what it has done to help other folks, including teachers and police officers, keep their jobs over the past two years.  He could have said to help those industries he needs their support for a new energy direction.  Oil and fishing do not mix.  But if a motel operator doesn’t want to stop oil drilling because his brother works on a rig, then they’ll both have to live with the consequences.  One of them—or both—need to sacrifice to solve our energy problems.  The oil employee needs to retrain for green energy jobs, and the motel operator needs to pay more taxes to help with that transition.

But Obama, like Bush, wants to make it look easy, as if all we need in determination, the same determination we need to defeat Al Qaeda.  But money and unending one’s life to take on new challenges?  No, we don’t need to go there.

He has ruined his Oval Office speech command.  The next time he schedules one, most observers will think it another bland attempt to recapture lost political momentum.  Besides, if you’re going to talk about sacrifice, better to do it when there is no live audience.  To ask for that in front of one, you risk the pundit analysis of the crowd reaction.  Since people usually don’t wildly applaud when told they need to sacrifice, the chattering class will point out that “Obama’s proposals were met with a stony silence.”

Obama may be genetically incapable of delivering passion or empathy.  But he could have said,

“Next time, government will not be able to plug the hole without massive expenditures necessary to duplicate capabilities oil companies should have. 

But government can minimize the likelihood of another disaster by instituting tough regulations and hiring tough regulators.  We need to move us away from energy sources that put the country at such risk of economic and environmental disaster. 

That will call on all of us to make sacrifices.  Oil workers will need to adapt their skills to green energy needs.  That may not be hard to do, as the manual and manufacturing jobs will not require significantly different skills.  And if the public is willing to help through higher taxes, government can help pay and deliver the necessary training. 

Furthermore, we need to jump start green energy with investments and loans to help entrepreneurs willing to invest their own money and time into the effort.  But at the end of the day, we’re not paying what oil really costs.  So right now, I’m proposing a $1.50 per gallon surcharge on gasoline to be implemented in steps over the next five years to raise the funds needed to wean ourselves from our oil addiction.  That will mean folks who rely on their car to get to work will have to tighten their belts elsewhere or find jobs closer to home or car pool or use mass transit.  These are small sacrifices for our children’s futures.

The good thing I can tell you is that if we seriously attack our addiction to oil, the price of gasoline will come down as oil companies seek to hold on to their customers.  But if we think we can fix this problem without sacrifice, we will accomplish nothing, other than give the oil industry the carte blanche they want to manacle us to their drug.”

But he didn’t go there.  He punted instead.  Obama is becoming a disappointment not only to progressives but to independents who though they were voting for a strong leader.  As of May 23, as many people think Obama is a strong leader as they did at the end of the political campaign.  His leadership reputation, except for a bump at his inauguration, has remained steady.  But if he keeps blowing chances to lead, he’ll become as feckless as Bush was in the waning years of his administration.

What President Should Say Tomorrow Night

Assuming the peg for this speech is the Gulf disaster, I think the president needs to follow the advice of Bill Maher from his last show of the season Friday night.  (see: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/37689).  (The relevant part starts at 2:10 into the video and continues to the end of the 6+ minute segment.)

This has bugged me for a long time.  Whenever we want to move forward and take meaningful steps to actually address and fix some of our problems, invariably someone says we can’t because of “jobs.”  This is Maher’s point.  According to Maher, there are about $58,000 oil industry jobs in Louisiana.  Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) says there are 300,000 jobs related to the oil industry.  The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association estimates that “each exploration and production job represents four supporting jobs in and around the region.” 

Meanwhile, 46 percent of Gulf Coast jobs are in tourism–http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/opinion/16748-oil-industry-holding-gulf-jobs-hostage, an industry that has taken a beating because of the spill.  It would be humming along nicely about this time of year if there were no oil drilling in the Gulf.  Don’t those jobs count?

You hear the same argument from lawmakers who pass appropriations bills for defense spending the Pentagon doesn’t want.  Congress says we must continue producing planes no one wants because otherwise jobs will be lost.

Moreover, the jobs “related” to the oil industry include caterers who service the oil rigs and many others that are dependent on those oil rig jobs but could service other energy jobs.  In other words, they are service related that don’t necessarily need to be servicing oil  jobs.

Which brings me back to Maher and the president’s speech.  Basically, Maher said, “fuck those jobs.”   That was a little inelegant, but he has a point that I wish President Obama would articulate tomorrow night.

We cannot continue to support programs that are destroying our environment as well as other industries such as fishing and tourism in the Gulf Coast just because jobs will be lost.  As Maher put it, “Maybe your job needs to go when in it starts killing things.”  Or in a more graphic comparison, he notes there are jobs in the kiddie porn industry, but we prosecute offenders even if jobs might be lost. 

What we need to do is create jobs in clean energy industries where those displaced oil rig workers can work in the green energy field.  I don’t know his source, but Maher says the 58,000 oil industry workers in Louisiana alone would require $5.5 billion to pay them their same salaries in the clean energy field.  Can’t their skills, such as they are, be used in clean energy?  Isn’t $5.5 billion a drop in the bucket to begin transforming our energy industries?

The president needs to make that case, and not only about the oil industry.  The same holds true for mining jobs, aircraft mechanics and other skilled labor jobs that can easily be adapted to new energy industries.

An oil spill of this proportion will not come again soon, but it will come.  Obama needs to make the argument that we need to prevent it by moving to green energy and taking the oil industry workers with it.  But we can’t save jobs that are hurting the country.  He needs to say that upfront.  It’s time for leadership, Mr. President.

Cuts and Tax Hikes

Looming deficits will require both tax hikes, especially on the upper class who have seen their tax responsibility slashed over the past 30 years while their incomes soared, and spending reductions in the biggest program elephants in the room.  Michael Gerson, of course, doesn’t, speak of tax fairness or returning to the levels when America’s economy was at its zenith.  It needn’t be one or the other.  But at least Gerson has the cuts right.

There can be no serious reduction in federal spending without entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare eventually will need to be transformed from middle-class entitlements given because of age to entitlements given to those with lower incomes.

…Necessary changes will not resemble the relatively painless deficit reduction deals of 1990 or 1993. This round may require not only the means testing of Social Security and Medicare but also the reduction or elimination of middle-class entitlements such as the mortgage interest deduction and the employer health-care exclusion.

I agree with all four cuts.  But then he suggests the number of public employees must be reduced.  Do we really need fewer financial and environmental regulators?  Do we need fewer teachers and police officers?  Can we get buy with fewer road repairs, snowing plowings, median mowings and parole officers?

I bring up the last four because they are of particular interest in my locality.  I’m attending a meeting tonight about what local organizations can do to get the grass mowed on our highway medians, which grows so high due to dwindling funds in the highway department responsible for maintaining them that site lines are obscured, creating traffic hazards.  My neighbors were upset about the lack of snow plowing during the past winter’s storms, which left many streets pot-marked—and still that way three month later.  And last week, some neighbors learned that a convicted sexual offender had rented a house immediately across from our local elementary school.  They were all up in arms and contacted the local parole office.  Within a day or so, the parole officer apprehended the man for violating the terms of his parole.  There are  a lot of communities who can’t afford that level of service. 

With more oil spills, stock meltdowns, and sexual predators in our communities, if Gerson gets his way, people may yearn for the days when we had adequate government.

Oil Spill is a Good Thing

At least that’s what some GOPers—and I imagine oil state Democrats—think, according to a poll by Public Policy Polling.

The most astounding number from the poll? 28% of Republicans said the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico made them more likely to support drilling off the coast to an equal 28% who said it made them less likely to be supportive. 44% said it made no difference to them and that’s understandable, but why would an oil spill make you more supportive of drilling?

Maybe they want to wipe out marine life.  Hat tip to PoliticalWire.

Limbaugh, the Eco Expert

As the oil spill grows more menacing by the day, experts such as David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have “grave concern.”

"I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling."

But what does he know compared to that jack of all trades, Rush Limbaugh.

"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is."

Hat tip to Political Wire.