May 21, 2004
Bush lied......Not.
The Washington Times: Editorials:
In September 2000, George W. Bush was surely right to criticize Bill Clinton for playing politics with America's long-term national security. (Mr. Clinton released tens of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in an effort to force energy prices down in order to increase the presidential prospects of Al Gore.) Today, President Bush is right to reject demands from Sen. John Kerry and other Democrats to divert oil from the SPR to the market in order to force gasoline prices down.I suppose I shouldn't harp on the point, but the "Bush Lied" ninnies are so aggravating. Of course after a while the fact that their talking points are all negative, all "anti-Bush," just makes it more clear that they are spiritually and politically bankrupt. They are not "for" anything.Mr. Bush's rationale today is the same as it was nearly four years ago. "The strategic reserve is an insurance policy meant for sudden disruption of our energy supply," Mr. Bush asserted in September 2000. The SPR, he rightly argued, "should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security."...
Bush criticized Clinton on a point of principle; the SPR is not a political slush-fund. So what principle guides Kerry here? Of course any successful politician needs to fudge and compromise now and then. I'll give Mr Kerry a pass on some unprincipled tactical maneuvers. But still, one would like to know what he's really for....
Also, here's a snippet from TIME Magazine. The article (this is a teaser) looks like it's going to savor Abu Ghraib like a rare bottle of Chateau Watergate. But the piece in fact shows that Bush is a real leader. Just think back to Clinton and Somalia:
Just down the hall from Donald Rumsfeld's third-floor office at the Pentagon is a high-tech conference room where U.S. generals arrayed around the globe can talk to the Pentagon boss—and with his boss, if he happens to stop by. That is exactly what happened last week when Central Command chief General John Abizaid, appearing via videophone from Qatar, admitted that he was worried about the political fallout back home from the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal. Hearing this, George W. Bush peered back at Abizaid, who oversees two continuing wars in Asia, and told him to ignore the static. "You worry about getting the job done," Bush said. "You let me worry about the politics and the things back here."(via Brothers Judd Blog)
Given that the reserve is almost full, and that prices are extremely high, we certainly ought to stop buying oil to fill it. As far as I know, that is all the Democrats are suggesting...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at May 21, 2004 08:56 AMAs the government only buys 115,000 barrels a day a cessation of buying won't have any effect on the price of oil. And describing oil prices as "extremely high" is something of an exaggeration.
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at May 21, 2004 10:16 AMLet me rephrase:
Since oil prices are higher than they’ve ever been before, and our government’s reserves are nearly full, it makes sense for our government to stop wasting my tax dollars...
Oil prices are not "higher than they've ever been before", and as you don't know what the price will be a year from now assuming that suspending buying now would save the government money is not logical.
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at May 21, 2004 11:22 AMOil prices most certainly are higher than they’ve ever been; at least, they were last week:
“They also pulled crude futures prices Friday under $40 per barrel to their lowest close in nearly two weeks. See Futures Movers. The drop comes just four days after a close at a fresh all-time high above $41.50. See the latest futures prices.” -CBS Market Watch
Also, if we buy on the futures market, we can lock in a price significantly lower than it is today. Right now, oil is going for something like US$37.5ppb. Could have changed a bit, but still...
"Oil prices most certainly are higher than they’ve ever been; at least, they were last week"
Only if you ignore inflation. Whether you are doing so out of economic ignorance or a mendacious attempt to further your point I do not know.
I don't know if it's even legal for the government to trade on the futures market, but assuming it is, you can just as easily "lock in" a price significantly higher than you would otherwise pay. That's why it's a speculative market. Futures trade on a 45 day contract. The fact that "oil" (are you referring to West Test Intermediate or London Brent?) may be futures trading at a value less than what a barrel of the same oil may cost this afternoon does not necessarily mean you are getting a good deal. That price isn't for oil now, it's for oil in July - at which point the price may be less than what you contracted for.
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at May 21, 2004 02:11 PMAndrew Cory supports Kerry's suggestion that the govt stop buying 105,000 bopd for the SPR. But as both Mssrs. Cory and Kerry surely know, the U.S. currently uses 20,000,000 barrels of oil each day. Eliminating the SPR purchases would change this by a whopping one-half of one percent.
Does any lib/Dem believe a demand change of that size would put any *detectable* downward pressure on prices?
(Aside to Mr. Romanoff: WTI= West Texas Intermediate)
Posted by: sf at May 23, 2004 04:56 PMThe SPR is nearly "full", I willing to bet W will supersize it when the time comes. Emptying it into a World oil market is almost futile, but during a war the market can be bisected, as it was in World War Two.
Posted by: Ripper at May 24, 2004 04:21 AM"Aside to Mr. Romanoff: WTI= West Texas Intermediate"
Yes, I know. Caught that typo after I posted. Alas.
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at May 24, 2004 01:46 PM
