I receive regular newsletters via email from Senator Roy Blunt and in every one he points a finger at the "problem" (the President, Democrats, the media, etc) and never proposes a solution. I like to antagonize his office from time to time so I chose to respond to this morning's email regarding gas prices:
I received your email this morning regarding fuel prices. While I appreciate that you keep in correspondence with your constituency I am constantly disappointed that most all of your communications consist of finger-pointing supported by statements that are factually inaccurate and you never propose a solution to whatever problem you're discussing. I'm always left wondering what your plan is.
As far as fuel prices I'm sure you're aware that the President (regardless of party) has little effect on this as the price of crude is set by the world market, this includes oil produced within the US. Attacking the President on this is cheap partisan politics. You note that when President Obama took office gas was under $2 per gallon and that we're quickly approaching $4. You fail to mention that gas was well above $4 per gallon just before the economic collapse, prices were only under $2 due to the recession, not because of any energy policy. Gas prices are climbing now because the economy is recovering, not because of any energy policy. You are intentionally deceiving your constituents by leaving that fact out.
You also fail to acknowledge that US oil production is the highest under President Obama than it had been in 16 years. US oil production has increased by a factor of 4 under this President. Consumption of imported oil is down an average of 1.5 million barrels a day. And even with all of this fuel prices continue to climb. That's because crude is priced in the market, but you know that. If the solution is, to borrow a phrase from 2008' "drill baby drill" it is obviously not working once you consider the previously listed statistics.
You mention that the Keystone XL pipeline is one possible solution to our ills (one of the rare occurenses in your correspondence that you propose a solution). As I'm sure you are aware even if the Keystone XL project was green-lighted it would not decrease gas prices as those prices are set by the market. In fact according to prospectus documents provided to investors by the company gas prices for states in the Midwest would increase. This was a selling point to investors. All of the tar sands oil that would be shipped through the pipeline can still be refined at sites in Canada's interior and shipped to us. The reason TransCanada is eager to get a pipeline to the coast is so that they can export the oil, they readily acknowledge this. That's why Plan A was to get it to the western coast of Canada so it could be shipped to China. After the Canadian people refused to allow that to happen Plan B was to get it to a US port for export. The Keystone XL Project doesn't benefit anyone other than the companies who own it, it won't lower gas prices, and the proposed route risks water basins that millions of Americans rely on.
The only thing that will make gas prices irrelevant is if we kick our addiction to oil. It is an economic and strategic imperative. Having the foundation of our energy policy based on a finite recourse that's price is controlled by those who do not have the America's best interest at heart is foolish. The party that passes legislation that makes oil irrelevant will be the party that can actually take credit for lower fuel costs to Americans.
I appreciate your emails and hope that in the future I will find less finger-pointing, more facts, and actual solutions.
