Red Herring Miller?

Relying on argumentum ad misericordiam and a red herring, Rep. Jeff Miller’s arguments about drilling and exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) posited in his last weekly newsletter fell flat and, like much other debate about high gas prices, is disingenuous. He states that while he was on vacation last week his constituents’ number one concern was high gas prices. He then implies that by opening ANWR and the OCS for oil and gas exploration and building new refineries that Americans would save an estimated .70 cents to $2.50 per gallon. That’s bunk.

Gas prices have not just now begun to rise. Gas prices have been on the rise for many years, years in which a Republican House and Senate had the reigns. When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national average gas price was $1.06 per gallon. Six and a half years later, the national average gas price had jumped to $1.22, roughly 15% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 2% jump each year. When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office. Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress from 1994 until 2006. Past and present Republican leadership is just as much to blame for our current situation as any seated Democrat today.

While high gas prices have many of us rethinking our budgets and daily travel, to argue that the cause of today’s gas prices is a failure of Democrats to “pass common-sense energy legislation” is just wrong. Energy policy was a central theme of the 2004 debates between Bush and John Kerry and will certainly be a highlight for Obama and McCain this election season. However, the true argument should be short-term versus short-term and long-term versus long-term. Short-term fixes will require diplomacy, controlling current supply-and-demand, and retrofit of current refineries. Long-term solutions include exploration, construction of better production infrastructure, renewable energy sources, and improved alternative fuels.

The Senate is now considering one climate change bill and, basically, we may end up back at square one with no relief in sight from rising gas prices on the short or long term. Voters should be diligent and informed during this upcoming election. We all are better served by elected officials who compromise and work across the aisle rather than those who mock their opponents and obfuscate the issues.

Taxpayers for Common Sense: A Different Take on HR 5658, As Lauded by Miller

PENTAGON PORK LARDS SPENDING BILL
Weekly Wastebasket: Volume XIII No. 21 - May 23, 2008
http://www.taxpayer.net/about/

"As they considered the massive emergency Iraq supplemental spending bill this week, Senators cut some of the worst earmarks and bloated spending. But they ignored billions of weapons pork lining the coffers of big defense companies.

Some of their cuts were responsible. The budget scalpel excised an earmark by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Kit Bond (R-MO) that reversed the administration’s efforts to kill the $1.8 billion extension for the FutureGen clean-coal power project in Illinois. The earmark would have continued a cooperative agreement between the Energy Department and a consortium of private investors to build the plant, even though the consortium includes a Chinese company that would “ultimately be able to use the technology developed with taxpayer dollars to build plants in China,” according to Roll Call.

However, billions of dollars for new weapons were approved by the Senate, despite these programs being controversial, unwanted by the Pentagon, or having little or no relation to the Iraq war. Last year, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee basically admitted that they were going to use the emergency spending bill to stuff in additional items that didn’t fit in the defense spending bill. And they did. Here are the top three we found in the current supplemental:

C-17 – The legislation appropriates $3.6 billion for 15 new C-17’s that the Pentagon really doesn’t want and which have little to do with military operations in Iraq. This funding has more to do with keeping Boeing’s Long Beach production line open into the summer of 2010, than Iraq. It is also a gift to Boeing and gives them time to find more international buyers for the aircraft.

C-130J – The emergency spending bill provides $1.8 billion for 18 new C-130J transport planes that, until recently, the Pentagon wanted to eliminate. While we are aware that one C-130J has been lost in Iraq, the Air Force argues they need many more because increased stress on the aircraft’s airframes has caused them to age faster than expected. Sounds like they are just shopping to fill their weapons wish list.

CV-22 – The bill provides more than $500 million for the CV-22 Osprey. The money has been added despite limited use of the aircraft in Iraq. In reality, the money will help fund the recent DoD plan to purchase 141 CV-22 aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, and 26 for U.S. Air Force units operating with Special Operations Command. The plan involves buying up to 33 CV-22s per year from 2008 to 2013.

For several years, the Pentagon has used the emergency spending bills as a slush fund to pad the overall Defense budget for weapons programs that don’t need to be replaced or are unrelated to the war. The Senate bill continues that trend.

Cutting funding for weapons not necessary to fight the war in Iraq seems like a great place to start in an effort to get us closer to the President's initial request. And the $6 billion for the three new weapons programs mentioned should be the first to go."

As I mentioned... there is definitely more to this story!!