WASHINGTON — When it comes to energy policy, congressional Democrats and Republicans agree on a lot: High gasoline prices are bad.
They pose a serious threat to our fragile economic recovery. And there’s too much demagoguery – and far too little problem-solving – going on in Washington.
They also agree, nearly every podium-hugging, media-blitzing chance they get, that the other side is to blame.
“As is so frequently the case, Congress seems more interested in partisan squabbling than in problem-solving,” says Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “We have been talking about these issues since the Carter administration; it’s time for something dramatic.”
Right now, the only thing dramatic in the debate is the rhetoric. Each side cites reams of statistics to bolster its claims. Each side is pushing its own wish list, which has changed little since Barack Obama became president, despite last April’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the subsequent fuel price spiral.
After a year of bipartisan finger-pointing as the price of gas at the pump has gone up and up, Congress and the White House have done little to counteract high prices or to free America from its dependency – or as former President George W. Bush famously said, its addiction – to imported oil.
“Prices go up and people have press conferences,” says Frank Maisano, an energy specialist at the Houston-based law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani. “This happens every time because these are complex issues and (many Americans) don’t understand how energy issues operate.”
Caught in the middle in this political tug of war is Obama, who has consistently advocated a more robust domestic drilling program, a massive increase in funding for conservation efforts and greater reliance on alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear power.
In his weekly radio and Internet address May 14, Obama tried to appeal to pro-drilling centrists by announcing expansion of drilling in Alaska and a blanket extension of leases in the Gulf of Mexico – while appealing to liberal and environmentalist constituencies by embracing higher taxes on energy giants and a federal probe of alleged price rigging.
“There are no quick fixes to the problem,” the president said.
Little bipartisan support
Still, Obama’s attempt to walk a fine political line hasn’t attracted much support from Republican lawmakers, who say his administration hasn’t followed through on promises to increase domestic supply.
“He’s very good at sound bite energy policy, but he’s not as good at nuts-and-bolts energy policy,” says Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, former chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
The fiery rhetoric of both sides has left Capitol Hill’s cadre of energy policy wonks dispirited.
“The debate we are going through is all about politics, creating somebody who is bad,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “We always look for the right political moment to make somebody look bad. The people who look bad are in the Congress because we don’t have the guts to stand and say we need a cogent energy policy that says we are going to go after our own resources.”
But the small band of energy policy pragmatists have been trumped by politicians looking ahead to 2012 elections.
Both parties are playing to their bases and their respective interest group supporters: environmentalists and anti-corporate populists for Democrats and energy interests and anti-tax activists for Republicans.
“It may seem symbolic, but to the party faithful, it is substantive and helps to rally the faithful come Election Day,” says Robert M. Stein, a Rice University political scientist.
On Capitol Hill, however, it’s been a formula for gridlock. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (with the exception of a few oil-state lawmakers) want to hike taxes on the largest oil companies and launch probes into alleged price-fixing at the pump. The Senate’s Democratic majority tried and failed to do just that last week.
“This is not an energy strategy,” protested Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “This is a public-relations strategy. This is a ‘how do I get re-elected’ strategy. It does not solve the problem or the pain that Americans are feeling at the pump.”
Democrats could only muster 52 votes for their plan, far short of the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster.
“This vote put Republicans on the record defending Big Oil – and opposing hardworking Americans who are struggling to make ends meet,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat facing re-election, wrote in an email to more than 100,000 supporters following the vote.
On the other side of the Capitol, Republicans this month approved three proposals to dramatically increase domestic drilling, reduce federal regulation of the energy industry and provide additional incentives for oil and gas companies to produce more energy in the U.S.
“I voted to end the Obama administration’s assault on Gulf energy jobs,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, the top House Republican on Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.
Democrats dismiss the efforts as further enriching pro-Republican energy corporations.
The GOP drilling bills “are nothing more than a political exercise meant to keep the big oil companies happy,” added Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
Texans seek consensus
Several Texas Democrats are among the bipartisan group seeking consensus. Despite the angry rhetoric, they see a bipartisan majority emerging in favor of increased drilling in the Gulf, Alaska and along the Southeastern Atlantic coast.
Another proposal with possibilities: A compromise on a liability cap for future oil spills, perhaps around the $20 billion that BP agreed last year to pay. In exchange, the oil-state lawmakers would back alternative energy research and “green jobs” legislation.
“Somewhere along the way, we’re going to have to have some compromise,” says Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Obama has promised to enact many of the changes sought by energy-state lawmakers through executive action, but Democrat Green and Republican Barton agree talk is not enough.
“Our country needs to produce more domestically,” says Green. “The president has said some good things. I’m just hoping he follows through.”
Washington reporter Jennifer Dlouhy contributed to this report.
Funny, I don’t blame Washington.
There’s not much anyone up there can do, we are going to see high prices , its the new normal.
But they could get out of the way and quit obstructing , which would help keep the prices from going even higher.
OPEC is going to name their price as long as they control 45% of the market.
Caught in the middle in this political tug of war is Obama, who has consistently advocated a more robust domestic drilling program…
YOU LIE!
From the article:
“Caught in the middle in this political tug of war is Obama, who has consistently advocated a more robust domestic drilling program”
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/7576344.html#ixzz1NAv8ap8F
XXXXXX
This shows just how this newspaper is apparently staffed with DNC operatives. This is not a fact, it’s campaign rhetoric that you’d likely find on the DNC website. Furthermore, it doesn’t have to be declared to be a campaign contribution from the Hearst Corporation which is what it truly is.
The writer must have had one of those thrills up his leg and it clouded his memory. We Americans, however, do remember though. We remember that one of Obama’s first moves was to reinstate the offshore drilling ban. He also declared that our energy prices were going to skyrocket and he has kept that promise even though he has broken most others.
In the article, it shows the lie being espoused by the writer because Obama has been pressured to resume offshore drilling (by a federal judge, no less) and is opening ANWAR some to relieve the political pressure he is under.
Obama reluctantly rescinded the offshore drilling ban and then we had the BP spill. Curiously, this was just the very thing he needed to reinstate the ban which he never wanted to lift anyway. Isn’t it odd how that worked out for him? But, keep in mind that this ban never affected foreign countries, just Americans who needed jobs.
One of the least reported facts about the offshore drilling is how Obama personally guaranteed to grant $2 Billion to Petrobas, a Brazilian oil company, and pledged to be one it’s best customers. George Soros has deep ties to that company. Coincidence? I think not.
This article should be in the opinion section, and it should be declared as an in-kind contribution to the Obama campaign. This is not even similar to news. Propaganda at its best. This from a paper that blamed Bush for every nickel’s rise in gas prices; yet it gives a pass to Obama, even going so far as to attempt to distance him from this problem largely of his own making.
It’s interesting this article comes out during the Obama administration… I don’t recall a similar article during the Bush administration when everyone was accusing him of being in cahoots with the oil companies. Stay partisan Chron.