|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
President Obama's Clueless, Contemptuous Energy Speech
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Candidate
|
| Contributor | Scott³ |
| Last Edited | Scott³ Mar 22, 2012 05:13am |
| Logged |
1
[Older]
|
| Category | Opinion |
| Author | Louis Woodhill |
| News Date | Thursday, March 22, 2012 02:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | "President Obama’s energy speech last week was a breathtaking blend of cluelessness and contemptuousness. A man who spoke gleefully during his campaign of bankrupting electric companies that invested in coal-fired power plants, now claims to be in favor an “all of the above” energy strategy.
A president who appointed an Energy Secretary that sang the praises of $8.00/gallon gasoline, now claims to be sympathetic to people forced to pay $4.00/gallon. A man that rode to the event in an 8-MPG armored vehicle nicknamed “The Beast”, accompanied by a flotilla of 14-MPG Chevy Suburbans, bragged about how he was going to force the rest of us to drive cars averaging 55 MPG.
It is possible to list dozens, if not hundreds, of energy production options, but there are really only two basic types: there are projects that produce energy that is worth more than it costs, and there are ventures that produce energy that costs more than it’s worth. Obama’s energy strategy, which he seemed so proud of in his speech, is to tax the former in order to subsidize the latter.
During his speech, Obama asked (rhetorically), “…whether or not we should keep giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry.” These so-called “subsidies” consist of allowing oil companies to use the same tax depreciation rules as other companies. Being a Progressive, Obama sees no difference between allowing a profitable company to keep some of its own money and giving taxpayer money to unprofitable ventures.
Obama’s FY2013 budget proposes tax hikes on oil and gas companies to pay for subsidies for solar cells, wind power, and electric cars. Obama said in his speech, “…we can take that $4 billion (from the oil companies)—we could be investing it in clean energy in a good energy future, in fuel efficiency”. Of course, the “we” that he was referring to are the bureaucrats at the Department of Energy that thought that Solyndra was a good idea." |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
