Bill O’Reilly is Only Half Right on the Oil Issue
So far the Republicans have been on the losing end of the oil debate, which is unfortunate because the Democrats approach is right out of a fantasy land and counter to any measure of common sense. Yet the Republican’s can’t afford to cede the issue to Democrats. O’Reilly is correct in when he says:
This week, Republican senators blocked a Democrat-sponsored bill that would have imposed a “windfall profits” tax on the five major oil companies. Since these companies made about $36 billion in profits in the first quarter alone, “windfall” may be understating it. The GOP says the bill would not have lowered gas prices as any tax punishment would be passed along to gasoline consumers. But let me break this to the Republicans gently: Folks are angry with the oil companies. Unless you guys can help bring some relief to beleaguered American working people, the Democrats will wipe you out.
Yet O’Reilly’s proposed strategy is based on 20 year old arguments that have proven problematic for world food supplies and prices. According to O’Reilly Republicans should:
Congress must mandate by law that American car and truck manufacturers begin to produce a high percentage of flex-fuel vehicles. Once that law is passed, gas stations will begin installing alcohol-based fuel pumps. Congress must also drop import tariffs on alcohol-based fuel so countries like Brazil can sell them to us. We simply have got to get away from the oil cartel. It’s a national security issue.
First, we’ve now seen how problematic flex-fuels based on agricultural products can be. Second, this does nothing to address the public’s anger - justified or not - at oil companies or immediately cut gas costs.
So what do we do? First, we level with the American people and admit that short of cutting taxes on gas there is nothing we can do in the short term to significantly reduce the price of gas. Second, we offer the American public a plan that goes beyond “drill, drill, drill” because that argument alone hasn’t gone anywhere plus it plays into Democratic claims that Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil.
As O’Reilly noted the Democrat’s well-publicized plan went down to defeat. As I understand it that plan had two primary components: 1) the windfall tax - DUMB - and 2) ending billions in tax breaks for oil companies. I’ve heard several conservative commentators suggest that ending the tax breaks would be fine and doubt the Average Joe is going to complain about ending those tax breaks.
With that in mind the Republican’s should craft a “bipartisan” bill that makes everyone happy, even the Democrats. The bill would have two components:
- It phase out millions, if not billions of those tax breaks for oil companies over a period of yers, but leave in place any tax breaks that might encourage the development of new refineries, and
- It would open up a portion of the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).
This gives Democrats a win - ending tax breaks on those “evil” oil companies - and it gives our country something it has been lacking for 20+ years - new oil exploration and development.
However, opening up ANWR has always been a tricky sell and Republicans will have to work harder than they have in the past. The Republican’s will need to pull a Ross Perot with some low-tech, easy to understand maps and graphics that demonstration how drilling in ANWR will not significantly affect wildlife. Republicans will also need to forcefully make the argument that energy policy the past 20+ years has not struck a careful balance between conserving the environment and meeting energy needs.
They must argue that if past policy had struck a reasonable balance then we wouldn’t have gone 30 years without a new refinery or more than 20 years without tapping into ANWR or significant new offshore oil exploration .
With all that said, some may ask “why don’t we also go after off-shore drilling?” It’s called compromise: opening up only ANWR and not expanding off-shore drilling let’s the Republicans argue that they aren’t drill-crazy and they are willing to take it one step at a time.
Furthermore, I suspect that drilling in ANWR is an easier sell to the public than off-shore oil drilling due to the fact that we have all seen dozens of stories about oil and gas spills at sea, but how often have we really seen pipelines burst and produce dramatic television images? I suspect the public feels safer with drilling on land than at sea.
So there you go. O’Reilly is correct that Republicans need to come out more strongly on the issue, but he missed the mark on approach. Nobody is perfect.
15 Jun 2008 Challen 2 comments

For once, I must agree with our luvable lefty from Louisiana - James Carville. He has suggested that Al Gore would make a fantastic running mate for Obama:

