Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay LESS

As the House passes bill to sue OPEC, (Is this the best those liberal democrats can do?), Oil hits $132 a barrel, and Obama tells us to do with less, Newt Gingrich emailed me with another thought:

Drill Here
Drill Now
Pay Less

He continues:

Last week, liberals in Congress voted for the equivalent of a $150 billion tax increase. They voted to make your next trip to the gas station more expensive; to make your next airplane ticket more expensive; to make heating your home more expensive — even to make feeding your family more expensive.

How did they do it? By voting to block environmentally sound production of U.S. energy in favor of continuing to be held hostage to oil from foreign dictatorships.

Who’s to blame for our high gas prices? The oil companies? The Saudis? OPEC? The answer, unfortunately, is closer to home: The “No-We-Can’t” Left in Congress.

Last Thursday, with oil at $124 a barrel, liberals on the Senate Appropriations committee voted to block environmentally sound development of oil shale in Colorado.

According to the Investors Business Daily there are an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil trapped in shale in the U.S. and Canada. Retrieving just a tenth of it would quadruple our current oil reserves.

But the “No-We-Can’t” Left in Congress — as they’re prone to do — said no, and Americans will pay the price. Colorado Senator Wayne Allard (R) put it best when he said: “If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives.”

While liberals were voting to prevent domestic production from oil shale, the Saudis, following President Bush’s visit, agreed to boost their oil output by 300,000 barrels a day. It won’t fix the problem, but at least it won’t make it worse, which is exactly what liberals in Congress did last week.

As Americans, we all need to ask ourselves the following: Which is it — the Congress or Saudi Arabia — that has a greater obligation to ease our energy prices? And which is the greater obstacle to energy independence and security?

One economist calculated that the price of oil rising from $80 a barrel to $100 a barrel had the same effect on Americans’ pocket books as a $150 billion tax increase — and the price of oil has risen an additional $27 since then!

So how is it that the liberals in Congress, faced with an opportunity like the one last week to lessen this burden on Americans, could reject it without a second thought?

Once again, the answer seems to boil down to three little words: “No we can’t.”

Campaigning in Oregon last week, Senator Barack Obama seemed to forget his campaign theme of “Yes We Can,” telling his fellow Americans that more pain — not more production — is the answer. He responded to a question about America’s role in reducing global energy consumption like this:

“We can’t tell [other countries], don’t grow. We can’t — drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country’s going to say OK.”

Telling the next generation of Americans that they can’t have the lifestyle that their parents enjoy is defeatist and wrong. It is a rejection of the energy, optimism and innovation that has made this nation great.

It’s also all too similar to President Carter in February of 1977 when he called the energy shortage “permanent” and called on Americans to turn their thermostat down to “65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night.”

Of course, the energy shortage was anything but permanent. Just like today, it was an artificial creation of stupid government policies. Ronald Reagan’s first official act as President was to deregulate the oil industry. Oil prices dropped soon after.

Americans overwhelmingly support more domestic production of energy to help ease gas prices.

We — not the Saudis or the oil companies — control our energy future. We just need the political will to do so.

High energy prices aren’t theoretical, they have real consequences for real people. The answer, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, isn’t easy, but it’s simple — so simple it could fit on a bumper sticker:

Drill Here
Drill Now
Pay Less

More info HERE

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. D says:

    I must be confussed … There’s not a single mention on here to the President. who launched a 500 billion dollar campaign to seize a foreign petrol country, but ultimately ended with a monstruos deficit and gas above 130 dollars a barrel. So your next recipe to amend that is to make it worse and devastate also your own natural resources to keep your gas tycoons warm?

  2. Xerraire says:

    Keep swallowing whatever crap your news media is feeding to you. Their anti – bush rhetoric must sit with you very well.

    There are more than a few Iraqis that don’t feel SEIZED at all.
    They are happy we’re there and their lives will be forever changed because of it. I am sure your news media wouldn’t dare have the courage to print or publize those stories. I am guessing most feel liberated from a cruel tyrant they were too lazy or scared to deal with themselves. The fact that we’re still there at their insistance is what you’ve missed.

    Would I sacifrice a few natural resources to be out of bed with the Arabs? You bet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.