Fulfilling the Promise of Transparency
Paul Crovo
Philadelphia Bulletin
June 29, 2010
One of my favorite authors and personalities of the 19th century, Mark Twain, was once quoted as saying “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” As this relates to President Obama, one might paraphrase here by saying “To a man with a far left ideology, every problem looks like an opportunity to advance the liberal agenda.” Thus, while many have been frustrated in looking long and hard for the promised transparency of the Obama administration, from the non-existent C-Span broadcasts of the hearings on healthcare legislation to the obfuscatory language that emanates from the mouth of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the truth is the transparency has been there all along. Especially with regard to some recent national issues, the motivation behind his responses has actually been very transparent.
Is there a more clear example than the ongoing Gulf oil spill? As an equity analyst covering the energy sector for twenty-five years, I believe I can at least speak with some knowledge to this situation. The first thing that becomes readily apparent is the President’s attempt to exploit the disaster to try to resurrect an unpopular Cap & Trade bill, the words of which have been reshuffled and given the different moniker of Kerry-Lieberman. The disastrous impact such legislation would have on the economy of our country has been well documented. Furthermore, as many in Europe will attest, the carbon trading scheme in that area of the world has been an utter failure with vast opportunities for fraud. And should the EPA attempt its end run to regulate carbon emissions through the Supreme Court’s endangerment finding, the impact would likely be even more damaging to the economy. Finally, as I have written in the past on the charade that is the IPCC’s and the climate change alarmists’ baseless view supporting man-made global warming, the foundation for pushing the anti-carbon agenda is grounded in a bastardized and agenda-driven science.
The second troubling aspect of the President’s handling of the oil spill has to do with his arbitrary and capricious declaration of a six-month moratorium for ongoing and future deep water Gulf of Mexico drilling (that by the way was falsely reported by the administration to have been recommended by a panel of engineers). For starters, the President has sadly exposed his lack of understanding of the oil industry through some of his remarks in the wake of the accident. Compounding matters in the Gulf, with the number of energy industry-related jobs here totaling 170,000, the second-order effects of the moratorium could be devastating. The tragedy in the Gulf is having a pernicious effect on the environment, but the president should not exacerbate the hardship for the people of the region by adding to its unemployment rolls. Third, the deepwater region in the Gulf of Mexico is the home of 50% of the country’s remaining oil reserves and represents a vast opportunity for addressing the future energy needs of our country.
The answer to addressing the spill first lies in a thorough but timely investigation, not by a group of academics and environmentalists as it now appears, but by a group of accredited professionals, at least some of which should have an understanding of the issues of energy security and petroleum engineering. Greater safety standards for deepwater wells and better plans for accident remediation on the part of the federal government and the industry are also needed. But the industry must move forward. The President’s pontificating irrationally about the need to develop alternative energy resources that represent only 2% of the world’s energy needs is nothing but fodder to appease the left. The president should stop playing politics with a situation that warrants a pragmatic, realistic and expeditious solution.
Other examples of this agenda-driven policy transparency include the president’s goals for comprehensive immigration reform (his code words for blanket amnesty, which now appears to be a quid pro quo for securing our nations borders), demonization of the health insurance and financial services industries to place them under greater government control and the exploitation of a weak U.S. economy to justify a tax and spend fiscal policy.
Ah yes, transparency. Now I get it.