As most of you know, I have been upset for a long time abut the BLASE attitude of President Bush toward many things (almost everything other than the War on Terror), and the lack of a PROACTIVE attitude by Republicans generally (and evern many conservatives). In this continuation of my series on the economics of free markets, especially in the area of oil and fuel, I tell you what President Bush CAN do, and should have done, to address the speculative "bubble" in oil prices, without interfering with what is left of the free market in oil and fuel (in fact, measures that would HELP restore more of a free market).
The housing crisis is almost history. The "bubble" has already burst. The correction from "irrational exuberance" has already happened. Things are not yet good. But they really aren't getting any worse (although the statistics always lag the actual beginnings of the recovery, and the media is still able to spread doom and gloom with "worst" headlines--you know, "worst" drop in housing prices in 16 years, and that sort of thing, which is one of the things to SPUR recovery as people see reduced housing prices).
However, there is still a major risk to the economy: the price of FUEL (including diesel) and OIL. My brother is co-owner of a trucking company. He sees directly the effect of guel prices on both the economy and transportation costs. Biofuels, pushed by disastrous Federal "central planning", have caused a rise in the cost of food. But rising fuel costs also create a rise in the cost of fuel and everything else. Transportation costs are part of CONSUMER costs. Then there are energy costs that go into the cost os so many things. If you have read the previous entries in this series, you should realize that Federal action to interfere directly with the market in fuel and oil is NOT the "answer". It will merely create further problems. However, free market principles can be USED to solve the problem (especially since so much of the problem is a psychological expectation taht the price of oil and fuel is going to keep going up).
My brother has been almost beside himself at how the Federal Government (including the President and Congress) have acted like there is no urgency to this--to the point of INCREASING the problem. It is not only the biofuel mandates, or the truck engine requiremements which have already added $8,000.00 to the price of every truck. That is just the tip of the iceberg in costs being added to what you buy by "global warming" regulations/laws, with more proposed in Congress. <eamwhile, the government is DIRECTLY adding to the problem by purhasing oil for our strategic oil reserve AT ANY PRICE (HOARDING oil at any price, as a great example for other countries). Then there are the leftists in Congress, and elsewhere, making sure that the price of oil stays up by preventing DRILLING for more oil in Anwar, offshore, and generally in 2/3's of the areas in and around this country where oil might be produced (including the most promising areas). This hurts both directly and psychologically. My brother wants to know: Where is the URGENCY to do soemthing about this problem that I cans SEE hurthing both my business and this country? There is all of this TALK about oil companies (which my brother does not like either because of the big corporate empires they have created), but NOTHING is actually DONE that will cause oil prices to cme down. Instead, the opposite is done: The meassage is sent to the oil market that we are NOT sesrious about producing more oil or otherwise reducing oil prices. My brother can be forgiven for believeing that the Federal Governmentl--not only leftists but President Bush, John McCain and the Republlicans--is conspiring against him.
One of those unanswerable questions my brother asks is: WHY does the Federal Government (and everyone imposing burdens on the public through government) demand that everyone BUT government, and the people in government, SACRIFICE? Not only that, but they demand sacrifice in ways that merely exacerbate our problmes.
That gets me directly to what the Federal Government (President Bush) can DO. The first thing we can DO is to REDUCE gasoline and fuel use by the Federal Government by 20% (excluding combat). WHY should President Bush not demand that EVERY agency in the Federal Government REDUCE actual gasoline and fuel usage by 20% (reduce actual usage and not "projected" usage). You may say: Surely they are doing that, if only a matter of staying within budget? Don't be naive. Further, it is not even enough to do it. You have to do it PUBLICLY in a grandstand gesture: a gesture that tells people like my brother that the Federal Government "shares hispain", and is willing to sacrifice itself to help the rest of us.
I would emphasize that I am NOT talking about a "commisson", or a study. I am talking about an Executive Order to IMPLEMENT a plan to cut fuel consts 20% within 30 days. Further, the Preisident should include the WHITE HOUSE (all officials and staff) in this order that fuel usage be reduced 20%. It would further include the Secret Service--especially those around the White House--with the pledge to COOPERATE in reducing travel requiring extensive Secret Service fuel use. The President should CHALLENGE Congress to join in this effort to cut fuel usage at least 20% in all Congressional offices. The President should suggest that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (RNC and DNC) follow suit.
THEN the President goes on television and challenges every state and local government to follow the example of the Federal Government. The speech should also challenge every large corporation, and even small businesses to follow the same EXAMPLE. There would be NO Federal MANDATE. There would be no attempted regulation of the free market. The President would merely show URGENCY, and ask for everyone to act in their own interest to DECREASE the DEMAND for oil--at least so long as the price stays up. The President should not that this is the best immediate action to put pressure on OPEC, oil speculators and the rest, and the President should emphasize his DETERMINATION to do exactly that, with the HELP of the entire nation in following the example he intends to have the Federal Government set.
The President can go further. He can ordoer Federal Government employees to cut TRAVEL (not using government purchased fuel) by 20%, and again set an example by saying he is going to cut his OWN travel 20% until fuel prices go down. He can suggest that coporations cut travel the same 20%.
President Bush can order that the Federal Government REDUCE all energy use by 20% (or 10% or SOMETHING) within 90 days. Again, he can order that EVERY agency outside of a combat zone IMPLEMENT a plan to be effective by then.
AFTER all of that, President Bush can suggest that every household cut fuel use 20%. He can say that he realizes most people are doing so out of NECESSITY, which is why he wants government to JOIN them, but he thinks that they should specifically sit down and look at ways to cut both fuel use AND energy use. The President should REJECT government mandates, such as the old 55 mph speed limit, but should note that there are many ways to cut costs. Specifically COMBINE trips (going grocery shopping coming home from work or another trip, for example. President Bush can mentioin that driving no more than 55, VOLUNTARILY, will save gas. He can again say that the Federal Government is etting the example--that he has issued an Executive Order that all non-emergency operators of Federal vehicles go no more than 55. If compact florescent bulbs are a good idea to same energy costs for a private individual, then then are a good idea for goveernment. Therefore, another Executive Order is to use compact florescent bubls, or the most energy efficient lighting where you have overhead lighting. Where it is possible to have sufficient light by REMOVING one large florescent tube in an overhead fixture that will be done. Again, the point is that whatever President Bush is recommending that private citizens do, and he is asking that the energy department put out sepcific recommendations within 30 days, the Federal Government WILL do. If it is recommended that computers be totally turned off, to the point of being unplogged overnight, along with all other electronic equipment, then Federal employees wil be ordered to do that, in the absent of compelling and specific reasons to the contrary.
This would not be a matter of Jimmy Carter showing up in a sweater (in winter) and suggesting that people turn down the thermostat. It would be a DETERMINED effort to have the Federal Government set the example with MULTIPLE actions--the goal being to reduce national oil demand by 20% by the end of this summer. State governments, local governments, corporations, employers and private indiduals would be asked to follow the Federal EXAMPLE (rather than imposing a Federal mandate that the Federal Government does not even adopt for itself).
It should not stop there. President Bush should DEMAND that we produce more oil. He should NAME NAMES in Congress (including Democratic leaders. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, AND JOHN MCCAIN, along with issuing a list of ALL lawmakers who have blocked Anwar drilling). President Bush should point out that reducing demand is NOT enough, despite what environmentalists say, because demand is now WORLDWIDE. The ONLY way to put real pressure on OPEC, and provide real reductions in fuel prices, is to INCREASE SUPPLY outside of OPEC. That is also a national security necessity. Therefore, as everyone else is sacrificing, President Bush calls on envrionmentalists to sacrifice a VERY LITTLE by accepting envrionmentally sensitive DRILLING in Anwar, and other restsrcited areas (especially offshore). This does NOT mean the envrionment will be destroyed (as it was not destroyed by the Alaskan Oil Pipeline). It means that environmentalists will have to accept a little more risk to the envrionment than they want to accept, in the interest of all of the rest of us, including the POOR. President Bush should emphasize that too many environmentalists seem to want to impse Federal reductions of FREEDOM, and excessive burdens on our economy, instead of accepting just a little more risk to the environment. President Bush should correctly say that such a tunnel vision fanaticism should not be accepted by policy makers.
Then there is nuclear power. The President should say the same sorts of things on nuclear power, NAMING NAMES IN CONGRESS. The President has been much too reluctant to face these confrontations head on, with vigorous challenges to opponents--as have Republicans in general. That needs to end.
The President needs to reverse his OWN tunnel visoon on the strategic oil reserve, and say that ALL nations of the world should pledge NOT to hoard/stockpile oil at a price above $100.00 a barrel.
The President should tell OPEC directly that he is declaring WAR on oil prices, and that if they continue to fail to do better in meeting worldwide oil demand, they will have to face the consequences.
Then the President shoulc challenge Big Oil and Big Energy. He should say that they are big enough to produce more oil, and finance energy projects, and that he will OPPOSE any further mergers in the energy business. He should tell the companies that they need to PROVE that they can find and produce more oil--especially if oil drilling restrictions are reduced. He should tell the oil industry that they should not NEED tax incentives to do this, at today's prices. The President should tell oil comapanies that if they don't produce more oil and gas, and make an effort to show that it can be done, then the President will want to look into whether we need to UNDO some of the mergers to get more decision makers into the field with a CAN DO attitude. The President should ASK the Petroleum Institute, and oil companies, to provide SPECIFIC things the Federal Government cand do to enable them to produce more oil and gas, AND to refine more product (things NOT including tax incentives).
The President should APOLOGIZE for not being proactive enough in the past, and should suggest that we can all act TOGETHER to change the way the oil market is presently operating--BOTH on the demand and supply sides, as well as the psychology. If everyone realizes that we are SERIOUS about changing the dynaimics of the present oil market, that might accomplish much in and of itself.
Again, the point here is not to say the every one of the above suggestions is correct. But READ them, and then ask yourself whether it is true that we can't do anything about oil and fule prices other than INTERFERE directly in the market in ways that both economic theory and history indcate don't work.
We clearly CAN do something about the oil and fuel market, if we have the WILL and the URGENCY to do things. It is an absolute OUTRAGE that we, the public, are ACCEPTING political posturing (like this Marxist demagoguerty on the profits of oil companies) instead of REAL action.
