National Security Needs Must Be a Factor In Energy Policy

Energy production equals a more productive economy and a more secure nation.

West Virginia's Republican congressional delegation, Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley, have pushed this idea for years.  They have joined many colleagues in advocating an "all of the above approach" to fulfilling not only national needs, but also to make the US a powerful energy exporter as well.

Now a panel of retired military officers has expressed the same opinion.

John Gizzi last week covered the America's Future Energy Conference.  He reported that retired military officers joined business leaders like FedEx CEO Fred Smith in arguing for higher production.  American energy dominance, they claim, will help to ward off production cut threats from unfriendly organizations such as OPEC.

One such hostile action was the 1970 production cut to protest US support of Israel.

With the Middle East perpetually on the verge of conflict, an unpopular turn of US policy or a disastrous war could hurt the world's supply of energy.  Stable American production could lead the world away from reliance on this fickle region.

One major improvement could be approval of the Keystone pipeline project.  Obama opposes the construction of this connection between the Upper Great Plains and the Gulf of Mexico which would create tens of thousands of jobs.

The group also supported decreasing reliance on oil with more innovation.  Electric and natural gas powered vehicles, once a particular interest of Senator Jay Rockefeller, could also help build energy security.

Good Times When Obama Improvises

Once again the president demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the very issues he pushes. The following came from a recent appearance by The Won.

A student raised a question about the government's provision of health services and its impact on private services. Obama answered:

"How can a private company compete against the government? My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining, meaning that taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services, and a good network of doctors, just like private insurers do, then I think private insurers should be able to compete.

"They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.... there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money."

You know, that sounds like a great argument AGAINST government intervention in health care. Gee America, your health care can be run just with as much cost efficiency as the Postal Service.

Of course Fed Ex is not exactly running in a purely capitalist mode either, having somehow gotten John Kerry to successfully introduce legislation many years ago to tweak the law and give them an advantage over UPS. Meanwhile the Postal Service, unable to handle its own task efficiently, repeatedly contracts out a lot of work to UPS.

Obama really needs to stick to his script. When he gets too far away from it, too much truth comes out. Then he just sounds like Joe Biden.