They’ve All Got Es
The cool kids are all talking about how John McCain has proposed abolishing the Department of Education. That got attention because the Obama campaign mentioned it in an add, but read the whole supporting transcript:
FRANK SESNO: Senator McCain, would you favor doing away with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Energy?
Sen. JOHN McCAIN: I would certainly favor doing away with the Department of Energy and I think that given the origins of the Department of Education, I would favor doing away with it as well.
Surely a desire to eliminate the Department of Energy is at least as relevant as a desire to eliminate the Department of Education. And of course eliminated the whole department would be a good way to make sure nobody pays attention to Department of Energy studies showing that the “drill here, drill now” approach won’t lower prices at the pump.
40 Responses to “They’ve All Got Es”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“Given the origins…” Huh? What is he referring to? Why are its origins relevant? Please advise.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I think by origins, he means that Democrats created it (Carter, in particular). And, by definition, that which is created by Democrats is wrong. Had it been created by Republicans, it would deserve extra special cabinet status.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Is McCain against funding for public television? That means he wants to eliminate Elmo.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
If McCain were to run on a platform of killing Elmo, he might get my vote.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hey, doesn’t DOE also handle R&D for the nuclear arsenal, manage the labs, etc. etc.? Who picks up all these functions, DHS?
What’s in that maverick pipe(tm) these days?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
And of course eliminated the whole department would be a good way to make sure nobody pays attention to Department of Energy studies showing that the “drill here, drill now” approach won’t lower prices at the pump.
The “drill here, drill now” approach may not lower prices at the pump in the short term, but it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the amount of money we pay to foreign governments for oil.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
It’s obvious: both originate from the Government. Therefore, they are bad.
See how easy it is?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The “drill here, drill now” approach may not lower prices at the pump in the short term, but it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the amount of money we pay to foreign governments for oil.
Sure, it’ll reduce it on the order of a couple of cents a gallon for gas. You know how I know this? Because the DOE has run the numbers.
You remember the DOE, don’t you? It would appear to be the subject of this thread.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Is that seriously the DoE logo? It looks like something from Team America.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Mixner said:
“The “drill here, drill now” approach may not lower prices at the pump in the short term, but it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the amount of money we pay to foreign governments for oil.”
Please tell me this is a person that is paid by the Republican party to post nonsense on teh liberal blogs. Please tell me that an actual concerned citizen didn’t just post this ignorance for the world to see.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“Given its origins” is because it used to be part of HHS in the old Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which, as far as I’m aware, worked perfectly well.
The Republicans have hated the Department of Education ever since it was created, so this is nothing new.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
If an oil company drills here now, they don’t necessarily have to sell it to customers in the US do they?
I mean, if we let BP start pumping Alaska dry, what is to stop them from selling it to China?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I remember when this off-shore drilling thing started catching on reading that we wouldn’t even get any oil to the pump for ten years after exploration started. I also remember reading that that might take even longer because all drilling platforms in North America were occupied on other jobs for something like 25 years. Is this still true, or rather, was it ever?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“The “drill here, drill now” approach may not lower prices at the pump in the short term, but it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the amount of money we pay to foreign governments for oil.”
You sure about that? OPEC can just cut back on production and raise the price of oil, thereby making us pay them more, not less. There’s a simple concept here that few people seem to understand. We have 2-3% of the world’s oil, so we really can’t do much to affect the price of oil on the supply side (OPEC can easily counteract our moves). However, we consume 25% of the world’s oil, so we can have tremendous effects on the demand side. By refusing to even consider demand side solutions and pushing only supply side solutions, we are effectively eliminating any control over the market that we might have.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
DoE(nergy) were also the only ones to push back hard against CIA and DoD on the aluminum tubes, not likely to generate the warm fuzzies in mccain.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Is this still true, or rather, was it ever?”
Sort of. The current bottlenecks in the system are drilling ships and qualified personnel. Platforms don’t seem to be a big issue (probably because without the drilling ships, the platform issue is meaningless). The drilling ship backlog should be cleared up in five years (Chinese shipbuilders are working overtime). And if they pay high enough wages, the personnel issue should go away too. Regardless, OPEC will keep the price of oil where they want it. Nothing we do will come close to gaining us any real leverage over OPEC.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
The McCain comment dates back to 1994, but the D of Edu is still actively in the crosshairs of the Republicans. Last week, for example, I was watching CNBC, and I’d like to know if anyone else can tell me who was the Republican pro-McCain woman I saw who said with great zeal, “eliminate the Department of Education!” The conversation was taking place in a discussion of Obama vs McCain, and I think Kudlow was one of the talking heads in a box (split screen panel). What show was that, and who was the woman guest in the other “box”?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Republicans always talk about this. It is a discussion they have exactly every 4 years. When will people realize they don’t care enough to move forward.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
What are the arguments for the Dept of Education? I really don’t know anything about what they do. I mean, we’re all for education so I can see why saying you want to abolish the Dept of Education sounds like you hate the children and fancy book learnin’, but does the dept do valuable work?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Please tell me this is a person that is paid by the Republican party
Please tell us you’re not a paid up member of the Socialist Workers’ Party.
Sure, it’ll reduce it on the order of a couple of cents a gallon for gas. You know how I know this? Because the DOE has run the numbers.
Where are the DOE numbers on the effects of drilling on the amount of money we would pay to foreign governments for oil.
You sure about that? OPEC can just cut back on production and raise the price of oil, thereby making us pay them more, not less.
No prediction of the effect on prices or supply is sure. The prospect of increased production by the U.S. might induce OPEC to raise its production to lower prices to discourage increased production by the U.S.
There’s a simple concept here that few people seem to understand. We have 2-3% of the world’s oil, so we really can’t do much to affect the price of oil on the supply side (OPEC can easily counteract our moves).
But we can significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our own production.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“But we can significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our own production.”
Who’s “we”? The oil would be sold by oil companies on the open market, it’s not put directly into your car. I feel like I’ve made this very point within the last three weeks, maybe when arguing with you. Why does anyone try to change anyone’s mind?
September 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Hey, doesn’t DOE also handle R&D for the nuclear arsenal, manage the labs, etc. etc.? Who picks up all these functions, DHS?
I’m not saying it would be better, but it would be the DOD and various independent agencies – IOW the way it was prior to 1979 (1978?)
September 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Last time I checked, we don’t buy oil from foreign governments. We buy it from oil companies who don’t give a flying fuck about where we want our oil to come from. It’s not about where we get it from, it’s about providing more of it for sale. Remember. Supply-side economics. Don’t let them fool you.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
But we can significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our own production
No, we can’t. Geologists have a very good idea where the oil is — more to the point, isn’t — in North America. The only way to reduce dependence on foreign oil in any meaningful way is to use less oil.
But why am I bothering with this? He’ll just dismiss me as a member of the Socialist Worker’s Party (does that even exist anymore?).
September 9th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If McCain were to run on a platform of killing Elmo, he might get my vote.
Well, he has promised to follow Ernie to the Gates of Hell (as long as they are not in Pakistan):
http://www.mlcsmith.com/strange/bertsama_bin_laden/art/bert_osama_5.jpg
September 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“But we can significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our own production.”
You apparently have a different definition of ’significant’ than I. When I think of significant, I think of something that would have a greater effect than inflating our tires properly. I’m thinking of something more along the lines of the reduction in demand we got this summer by people driving less. Simple demand reduction has a far greater effect than having British Petroleum drill in Alaska and sending their profits to England. Granted, we will get some taxes off new drilling, but we will still have no leverage over the supply. And we will still import most of our oil. I’m okay with drilling, but I see it as a bribe to force Republicans into accepting demand reduction. And given our situation, demand side policy is our only way to leverage the oil market in our favor.
But you and I have a fundamental difference, don’t we? I favor giving the consumer more leverage. You favor giving the oil producers more leverage. And let’s be honest here, the real producers are countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. And you want to give them more power over us by refusing to reduce demand? The way to break free of the power that oil producers have over us is to create an economy that doesn’t use oil. And we’ve done this before. There was a time when whale oil was the most valuable energy commodity on the planet. Anyone still use their whale oil lamps? Didn’t think so. Energy can come from many sources. The idea that oil must forever be one of them is absurd (and impossible, given the finite supply).
September 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
trollhattan Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hey, doesn’t DOE also handle R&D for the nuclear arsenal, manage the labs, etc. etc.? Who picks up all these functions, DHS?
Lab management is generally outsourced in my experience. Lockheed Martin, University of California, etc etc.
Also, there are a number of DOD labs as well.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Who’s “we”?
The United States.
No, we can’t. Geologists have a very good idea where the oil is — more to the point, isn’t — in North America. The only way to reduce dependence on foreign oil in any meaningful way is to use less oil.
The Department of the Interior estimates total recoverable U.S. conventional oil reserves at 134 billion barrels. We currently consume about 20 million barrels per day, of which only about 10% comes from the middle east. We have enough oil to greatly reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east, and make up the difference with increased production of domestic oil, for a period of decades, as we transition to other sources of energy.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:20 am
“We have enough oil to greatly reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east, and make up the difference with increased production of domestic oil, for a period of decades, as we transition to other sources of energy.”
Keep trying. Oil is a fungible commodity that’s traded on world markets. It really doesn’t matter where it comes from. If we choose to buy oil from Venezuela instead of Saudi Arabia, then someone else will buy oil from Saudi Arabia instead of Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and Venezuela get paid either way. The only way to reduce the money going to the Middle East gets is to reduce the amount of oil we buy. Sending the limited drilling equipment available to the US instead of the Middle East does nothing to change how much oil is drilled. And how much oil is drilled relative to the demand for the oil is what determines price. Now, we will obviously collect taxes on the oil that is drilled here, so there is a little difference. But it’s only in government revenue. In theory, it could lower prices by a tiny amount, but that’s only theory. The reality is that the bigger producers will cut production to maintain the price. OPEC is doing this right now as I type. If you want to convince me that we can control the oil market from the supply side, you need to explain why OPEC’s current moves aren’t really happening and are simply the delusions of most major news outlets of the world. And you need to invite the rest of us into your fantasy world where OPEC has no control.
In short, your grip on reality is getting mighty sweaty.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 13th, 2009 at 6:57 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 19th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Very intresting blog you have.
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 7:02 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra