Obama’s energy dilemma: Go for growth or placate the greenies
To please his core green constituency, he can strangle the incipient energy-led boom in its cradle through dictates of federal regulators. On the other hand, he can choose to take credit for an economic expansion that could not only improve the lives of millions of middle- and working-class Americans, but also could assure Democratic political dominance for a decade or more.
Stronger economic growth remains the only way to solve our nation’s fundamental fiscal problems other than either huge tax hikes or crippling austerity. As economist Bret Swanson has pointed out, the best way to raise revenues and reduce expenditures, particularly for such things as welfare and unemployment, would be to increase overall growth from the current pathetic 2 percent rate to something closer to 3 or 4 percent. …
Those that have embraced the energy revolution have already created a gusher in energy jobs, which pay wages on average higher (roughly $100,000 annually ) than those paid by information, professional services, or manufacturing . The six fastest-growing jobs for 2010-11, according to Economic Modeling Specialists International, are related to oil and gas extraction. In total, nine of the top 11 fast-growing jobs in the nation over the past two years are tied in one way or another to oil and gas extraction.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I would not count California down for the count yet. Things are ramping up for the Monterry Shale Formation with is AT LEAST 3X larger than Bakken. Production costs are VERY low since many of the wells do not have to be drilled horizontal and have not required stimulation. Hydraulic fracturing is slightly different and does not require multi-phased frac’ing. Many wells recently drilled have 400,000 barrel recovery PER WELL. New pipelines do not have to be laid to connect to almost 2 million barrels per day of refining capacity since this formation is beneath the largest conventional oil find in the Lower 48, the Kern River Basin.
In spite of his rhetoric Jerry Brown seems to have become the most oil friendly governor via his actions.
http://stevemaley.com/2012/12/02/name-the-oil-friendly-governor-rsrh/
Kermit on December 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Baseball has outlawed greenies, can’t we do the same?
rbj on December 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM
My goodness bho has SO much on his plate to deal with, I’m surprised he can find time for golf? Sure hard trying to see which foto’s gets taxpayers money?
L
letget on December 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Is this really a question? Growth? From Obama? bwhahahaha giggle snort.
He is going green all the way.
CrimsonFisted on December 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM
He’ll placate the Greenies. He has shown no aptitude for anything economic except for that which can be used to punish one group in favor of another.
JeffWeimer on December 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Why is this a dilemma?
Where does Cloward-Piven say anything about growth except that of the government.
vityas on December 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM
The answer is neither. His aim is to destroy the United States by any means necessary. Choking off cheap and reliable forms of energy is a means to that end. That it happens to coincide with the agenda of the Greenie movement is entirely coincidental.
Left Coast Right Mind on December 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM
still operating under the guide that Obama doesn’t want to destroy america?
tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM
still operating under the guise that Obama doesn’t want to destroy america?
tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Since enviromentalism has nothing to do with the environment, I’m fairly certain Obama will placate the “greenies”.
I think they’re waiting for something to give them an excuse to clamp down on fossil fuels. The “greenies” are probably working towards creating some catastrophe to blame on “evil oil”.
darwin on December 8, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Yep.
davidk on December 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Obama doesn’t give a crap about the environment, like most of the corrupt, anti-American misanthropes in the environmental movement. But also like them, he will use it at a pretext to further damage our economy and liberties.
How do you ‘fundamentally transform’ a country if you allow the current system to grow and thrive? I can’t fundamentally transform my kitchen unless I destroy the existing one, and BHO must do the same with the free market. A growing private economy would mean more independent people able to exercise their freedoms and acquire private property. That would be anti-thetical to his statist goals.
RadClown on December 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Even as a committed liberal, I have to admit resisting the energy boom is futile. Obama ought to consider drastic measures to stimulate it, in return for compromise on taxes. I think in general liberals need to rethink our regulatory stance. In return for a proper modern state, where being poor doesn’t mean going into debt forever when you get sick, the regulations in place to keep us safe (environmental, workplace, etc) will be less necessary. What do you say, conservatives?
ernesto on December 8, 2012 at 1:08 PM
File this under “Who you gonna believe?”
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-31/analyst-calif-dot-shale-oil-field-results-disappoint
davidk on December 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM
At least you’re willing to talk. Most liberals won’t.
My first question to you is why do we need more taxes?
My second question for you is when is enough enough? List all the things liberals have and ask yourself why that isn’t enough. Why does the government need more power, and need to control everything we do?
darwin on December 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Those who are actually poor have medical coverage through State plans via some form of Medicaid. Those who earn above the cutoffs, by definition not the poor, but don’t make enough to have insurance can face issues with medical emergencies. But they don’t go into debt forever. A little hyperventilation there ernesto.
What would the compromise on taxes look like. Those making more than 200 K as singles or 250 K as married couples will be hit with a 3.9% tax surcharge on AGI above those amounts and a 0.9% Medicare surcharge on AGI above those amounts gratis Obamacare. And now you want another increase to 39.6% from 35% on AGI above those amounts. So in reality you want federal taxes on the so called rich to be around 44%. (44-35)/35 = 25+% tax increase on the so called rich.
chemman on December 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Have you stopped to consider that you and Obama may not share the same vision for America? Obama’s top priority is punising “enemies” whether real or imagined. You sound like you are simply driven by the standard lib fantasies of utopia on earth. You would probably be happy with free healthcare, free education, gay marriage, and decriminalization of drug use. Obama will not be happy until the United States has been destroyed and every last individual with a traditional philosphy has been liquidated.
Kataklysmic on December 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM