Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Posted on 10/10/2015 6:32:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Just because you’ve been doing something for decades, that doesn’t mean that you need to keep doing it. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is the roughly forty year old ban we have on crude oil exports, enacted back when the Middle East oil barons decided to kick off an embargo, leading to skyrocketing gas prices and long lines at service stations. Congress seems to slowly be getting the message on this subject, and yesterday the House finally passed a bill to end the ban. (Yahoo News)
A bill to repeal the U.S. oil export ban passed the House of Representatives on Friday, but faces an uncertain future after a veto threat by President Barack Obama.
The bill sponsored by Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, passed the House 261 to 159, failing to reach the 290 votes necessary to overturn a presidential veto.
Only 26 Democrats voted for the bill despite Republicans’ late effort to attract them by adding a measure to provide funds for the Maritime Security Program. The fleet of privately-owned ships brings supplies to U.S. troops and allies abroad.
Just getting a solid majority in the House doesn’t really get us that much closer to the finish line, unfortunately. A matching bill in the Senate was narrowly passed out of the Banking Committee back at the beginning of the month, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t seem to be able to get it to the floor for a full vote with enough support to stop a Democrat filibuster. And even if he somehow manages that feat, the President has already signaled that he plans to veto the legislation. There don’t currently seem to be enough votes in either chamber to overcome that barrier.
What are Obama’s reasons for cutting off our nose to spite our face? He’s claiming that he would prefer a bill that “ends billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies and instead investing in wind and solar power and energy efficiency.” In other words, it’s more of the same old, same old. Raise taxes and push the money into government subsidies of technologies which are not yet able to stand on their own, assuming they ever will be. He’s getting support from some Democrats who are arguing that it will hurt American refineries and the jobs associated with them.
The ban was always rather dodgy from the beginning since it wasn’t part of any sort of treaty or direct sanctions on specific countries. It was essentially just a panic move to keep every bit of oil we managed to produce ourselves on our own shores. Unfortunately it didn’t get much opposition since you’d be hard pressed to find a legislator who was willing to say no when people were sitting in gas station lines that stretched around the block. The reality of it, however, was that it was a move which was stepping all over free commerce. Any beneficial effect it had was limited in both nature and duration. Now, of course, the entire global template for oil production, refining and distribution has changed. The United States is nearly drowning in oil and we’re actually having trouble keeping up with the demand on our refineries. And much of Europe would dearly love to have an alternate source which would make them less dependent on Russia and the Middle East.
It’s hard enough to get anything done in the House these days, what with the leadership struggles and all. It would be a shame to see this long overdue measure fail simply because the White House wants to play politics with it.
——Only 26 Democrats voted for the bill——
with bi partisen support the bill passed the house
in the senate, the Democrats must be forced to actually get on their soap boxes and for hours and hours filibuster the bill...... really engage in the action
it is a trivial action. do they really have the mettle and wherewithal to summon the courage and strength to actually make the tremendous effort to kill it?
the easy and politically sane way forward is to make the president veto the bill and the jobs that go with it
I have a suggestion -- stop trying to have government in every conceivable nook and cranny of economic activity. The only thing government has been good at is consistently and regularly proving the Law of Unintended Consequences.
McConnell, being Obama’ Butt-Boy, will squash it in the Senate, I imagine.
Include it in that trans Pacific trade bill.
now that is a good idea, but they apparently did not
Obama thinks it may give his Muslim buddies competition.
I'm usually a free-market advocate, but there's one compelling reason to keep this oil export ban in place. To me, it makes no sense to allow U.S. producers to sell a natural resource on the open market when the U.S. government is buying that same resource to supply a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If crude oil is considered a strategic national resource, then it surely can't be expected to be treated the same way as any other commodity.
My opinion takes an opposite view, but with the same goal in mind. With opened-up trade, Oil finds its most efficient delivery path from production to customer. This actually lowers prices overall because regional shortages are reduced or eliminated, and makes a more stable and predictable oil market which helps reduce wild swings in price that shake out higher cost producers. The world economy benefits as does the US. Win win.
Even if there is a marginal increase in oil prices in the US, that would be a good thing, as the increased economic activity from domestic producers would create higher government revenues, which would more than offset any increased acquisition cost faced by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Win win win.
You and the President and the Democrat Party are all forgetting the most important aspect of this issue - The US needs to become a net exporter of goods and services if it wants to grow its way out of the National Debt.
There is no oil shortage, and thanks to the Saudis’ short sightedness there likely won’t be one ever again. Eventually even the most moronic politician will be unable to stop the logical transition to a nuclear fuelled energy economy. In the meantime,the Saudi driven oil glut is allowing more time to pass before less accessible fields are brought on line. This will allow even more technological breakthroughs in development of marginal oil fields before they’re actually needed.
You and the President and the Democrat Party are all forgetting the most important aspect of this issue - The US needs to become a net exporter of goods and services if it wants to grow its way out of the National Debt.
First of all, what makes you think the U.S. has any interest in growing its way out of the national debt? We are the leading exporter in the world of one important product: our own currency. Why would we change that?
Secondly, it's not just me and the president and the Democrat Party that is suggesting the current situation regarding the ban on crude oil exports doesn't have to be changed. As I said before, this ban on exports has survived four decades of both Republican and Democratic administrations.
More importantly, did you ask yourself why the Republicans in the House and Senate are only pushing to make this change now, when they know it will be vetoed and they don't have enough votes to override a presidential veto?
Personally, I think they're all full of sh!t. If this was important to the Republicans in Washington, they would have done it ten years ago.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.