Oil in Liberal Double-Speak

President Obama was campaigning in Indiana today and according to the Los Angeles Times he said:

"Oil companies over the last five years, through a recession, through ups and downs, the top five oil companies, their profits have ranged between $75 billion and $125 billion," he said. "And yet they still have a tax loophole that is costing taxpayers $4 billion every year. Now, if you're already paying them at the pump, we don't need to pay them through the tax code."

It is wonderful news that five companies are making money.  That is good news to the hundreds of thousands of people employed either directly or indirectly by these companies.  It is particularly good news to the tens of millions of people who have money invested in those companies.  Only a liberal could turn profits into a bad thing.  I don't hear them complaining about the profits Apple and Steve Jobs are making. 

The “tax loophole” is actually a tax credit for royalties that oil companies are required to pay foreign governments.  This tax credit was put in place in the 1950s by the United States Department of State to level the international economic playing field.  If US oil companies don’t get that $4 Billion tax credit they might absorb some of it, but the remainder of it will be passed on to the consumer at the pump.  Some liberals like Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Idiot-FL) have referred to this tax credit as a “subsidy.”  Liberal double-speak at its most perverse. 

Why doesn’t the Federal Government cut the $4 Billion out of the sinfully wasteful budget of the Department of Energy?  A useless bureaucracy put in place by Jimmy Carter (now elevated to the second worst president in American history). 

This year according to Mr. Obama “the nation reached its highest level of oil production since 2003. But with only 2 percent to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, it’s not enough for a nation that consumes about 25 percent of the oil.” 

Again, classic liberal doublespeak.  Technically speaking all of the elements of this statement are correct, but put together it creates a false narrative.  Mr. Obama is implying that his regime is responsible for increased oil production.  However if the argument shifts to drilling he has said that nothing he could do would impact oil levels for a decade.  In this sense he wants to have his cake and eat it to.  When it serves his purpose the good news is a result of his leadership.  When there is bad news, if it wasn’t George Bush’s fault then he can’t do anything about it for a decade.  Classic liberalism. 

The fact that we may command only 2-3% of the world’s oil reserves has nothing to do with the amount of oil that we consume.  That’s like doing a transportation study by comparing the number of railroad miles with the number of two-car automobile garages.  The two figures have no relationship.  By any competent industry analysis we have vast quantities of oil within our borders and off our shores.  Exploiting those resources would drive down prices and employ Americans instead of foreigners in recovering, refining, and delivering petroleum products.  It is quite simply insanity to not step up oil production in the United States. 

President Bill Clinton said 15 years ago that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) wouldn't result in oil in the market place for . . . . . . . . .well now.  We would be driving on that oil now.  Mr. Obama is using this same tired excuse – we need to start drilling now.