Obams’a War on Oil

Obama’s Keystone Caper—————————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

President Barack Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline bill came as no surprise. He warned that he would veto it and this time he actually kept his word. His stated reason for doing so is that it would circumvent the review process. Most informed people know better. The reasons were purely political.

The review process has dragged on for over six years now, an exorbitant amount of time even by snail-like government review standards and everyone with a brain knows it will never be completed while Mr. Obama remains in office. Most experts agree that there would be no significant negative impact on the environment or risk to public safety. In fact, the current practice of transporting Canadian heavy crude by rail is far more dangerous and susceptible to spills.

The fact is that Mr. Obama is beholden to his friends and supporters in the green lobby and is ideologically committed to reducing carbon-based energy consumption and increasing reliance on renewable energy at any price and regardless of the impact on jobs and the economy. Oil and other carbon-based fuels are, therefore, inherently evil as is anything that might promote or increase their use. The president clearly wants his legacy to include credit for having fought to save the planet from the evils of fossil fuel. Stopping the Keystone project has become a cause celebre for the greenies and Mr. Obama is just not up to incurring their wrath and risking the loss of their support.

Obama remarked recently that the pipeline would primarily benefit Canada by transporting their tar sands oil across the American heartland so that they could sell it to other countries, suggesting that it would provide little benefit for America. But the 1179-mile pipeline would greatly benefit Americans by creating thousands of jobs, improving safety by providing a safer, non-polluting means of transport than using thousands of railroad tank cars passing through American communities every day, and providing additional product and business for American refineries on the Gulf Coast. And by adding to the world supply of petroleum products, it would tend to exert downward pressure on prices, benefitting all users.

Veto or not, Canadian tar sands crude will be brought to market one way or another, mostly by increased rail car traffic with substantially greater risk of spills and catastrophic fires like the one which ravished a Canadian town. Also, the Canadian government has indicated that if Keystone is not completed, it may build a pipeline to a west coast terminal of its own in British Columbia with most of the oil probably destined for energy-hungry China. The irony is that the environmentalists’ campaign against the pipeline will accomplish nothing in terms of slowing worldwide extraction or consumption of oil. It will simply deny the United States a substantial piece of the action and unnecessarily irritate our neighbor and closest ally.

Mr. Obama said that his veto doesn’t mean that the project will not eventually get White House approval after all reviews are completed. Don’t hold your breath, waiting for the reviews to be completed. He’s right, however. The project will eventually get White House approval; just not while he’s president. Even the Clintons approve of the project.

Keystone XL has broad public approval as indicated in national polls. It would be good for job creation, enhance safety, provide work for American refineries, increase world energy supplies, exert downward pressure on petroleum prices, reduce dependence on Middle East and Russian sources and please our good neighbors to the north who will, one way or another, get their oil to market anyway. It is a no-brainer. It has bipartisan support in Congress but, unfortunately, not enough votes to override a presidential veto. Ideology triumphs over common sense.

February 28, 2015

Managing Multiple Threats

Managing Multiple Threats———————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

How does an overburdened nation, even the world’s richest and strongest, deal with multiple, simultaneous challenges? Clearly, by prioritizing them, weighing the probability of each threat occurring and the gravity of the consequences and focusing on those that pose the greatest existential danger to the nation’s security and vital interests. History has taught us that no nation, however powerful, can deal with everything at once without becoming overextended and weakened. Also, national leaders must act primarily in their own nation’s best interests ahead of those of other nations.

America faces many threats to its security and vital interests including first and foremost, the threat of radical Islam. We also need to be concerned about an increasingly assertive China claiming as its territorial waters large portions of the vast South China Sea in conflict with its neighbors’ valid claims. Additionally, the time is fast approaching when Iran will become a threshold nuclear power if not an actual member of the nuclear club, a situation which our leaders have repeatedly said, for good reason, cannot be permitted to happen. Then there is the $18 trillion national debt that has spiraled out of control and now threatens national security because we may be unable to fund sufficient military resources to deal with these other threats. And then there is a revanchist Russia, annexing Crimea, supporting pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine and maintaining troops in Georgia and Moldova.

We cannot, and need not, deal with all these crises at the same time or necessarily with lethal force and, in some cases, perhaps not at all. So let’s focus for now on the existential threats to us as a nation. Surely the greatest is radical Islam and the rise of ISIS which regards the U.S. and Israel as its enemy and threatens to drive Israel from the Middle East and kill Americans whenever it can, plus those who collaborate with them. Beheading and incinerating captives, these barbarians are at war with us whether we acknowledge that or not. These atrocities will continue until we figure out a way to stop them, not just react to them. It is only a matter of time before more Americans are captured and executed. They won’t be stopped by negotiations or threats or sanctions. They are not afraid of dying because they are convinced that God is on their side. We are dealing here with pure evil that needs to be destroyed.

Everyone knows that Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear capability which directly threatens Israel and will touch off a nuclear arms race among Arab states. Years of negotiations have simply provided more time for the mullahs to move closer to attaining their goal of a Persian nuclear power dominating the Middle East.

China’s aggression toward its neighbors over disputed territory continues as Chinese warships and aircraft confront vessels from neighboring countries friendly to the United States. The U.S. is a Pacific power and has a vital interest in maintaining the unimpeded flow of sea and air commerce in this vital region.

Of all the challenges cited above, Russian support for the pro-Russian rebels and its military presence and influence in its non-NATO, former Soviet socialistic republic neighbors is the least of our security concerns. However, you wouldn’t know that from listening to the hawks in both political parties calling on President Obama to provide military weapons to the Kiev regime. At this writing, Mr. Obama is considering just that. This would be a colossal mistake that would prolong the conflict and result in many more casualties. Regardless of the amount of military aid we might provide, it will be easily exceeded by Russian aid to the rebels.  It would also put us directly at odds with most European nations who oppose arming Kiev. What will we have gained by doing this beyond making a bad situation worse?

If Europe views Russian actions as a threat to them and an attempt to redraw Europe’s borders, let them deal with it. They spend precious little on defense as it is and this is simply not our fight nor is it NATO’s. This is a European matter which ultimately must be resolved by them. We have enough on our plate just now.

February 10, 2015

Decision Time on a Football Stadium for San Diego

Decision Time on the Stadium———————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has announced a new nine-member task force to develop plans, including location and financing, for a new stadium for the Chargers. “Here we go again”, was the widespread reaction. Just what we need; another committee to study the issues.

Reaction by Chargers management was also muted. The team will evaluate the ideas proposed by the group, said Chargers attorney Mark Fabiani. But he also noted that a similar effort a dozen years ago failed to result in any consensus on how to proceed.

This time will be different, editorialized the San Diego U-T. Despite a history of failure by similar groups there is reason for optimism this time, it said. I search in vain for these reasons. Polls show that public support for a new stadium that requires any significant amount of public funding is not exactly robust. If the Spanos family wants a new stadium, let them and the NFL pay for it, seems to be the prevailing sentiment. With a crumbling infrastructure, including roads with potholes big enough to swallow a compact car, there are more pressing priorities for tax dollars, they say.

True enough but an NFL franchise is something that the nation’s eighth largest city, that calls itself America’s Finest, should not give up easily because once lost it will likely be lost forever. As with the opera and symphony at various times in the past, the Chargers are worth fighting to keep in San Diego, just as the community fought to keep the Padres who also once were on the verge of leaving.

But the hour is very late and it’s almost past decision time. That decision must come from the taxpayers. The task force can only recommend. The term Task Force connotes urgency but it’s really just a sexy name for a committee and committees aren’t noted for speed. The members presumably have day jobs and other demands on their time. Even if they come up with a workable plan, a two-thirds voter approval will be required if taxes are to be increased.

The plan is for a public vote on a proposal “possibly” in November 2016. That’s over a year and a half away which may be too late, absent a commitment from the team to remain in San Diego until after that, pending the outcome of that vote. The huge Greater Los Angeles/Orange County market beckons meanwhile.

San Diego has had over fifteen years to come up with a plan to build a stadium and keep the franchise here. It dithered away the time. The team at one point even agreed to finance a new stadium at the Mission Valley site if the city provided just the land, but negotiations between Fabiani and then-City Attorney Mike Aguirre turned sour.

Now, at the eleventh hour, the city is doing what most government bureaucracies do best as critical decisions loom: punt the matter to a committee which, of course, will need time to get organized and create a plan of action. They will appoint sub-committees, determine agendas, decide how often and where to meet, etc. If they finally produce something useful (remember, it is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee) it still has to go before the Council and eventually the voters. Perhaps it would save a lot of time to hold a special election now and get the sense of the voters first.

The members of the task force have impressive credentials. They appear to be movers and shakers. But working together for the first time as a team is a challenge, especially when it is a part-time effort, and often egos and ideas clash. Hopefully, that will not be the case this time. We don’t need a lot more study. The time for studies is over. We’ve had enough of them and the ideas are all out there. Pick one and go with it. We need a plan of action and financial commitments now or we’ll be saying good bye to the Chargers and be stuck with a decaying relic in Mission Valley for the Aztecs to play in eight times a year to a half-empty house.

February 7, 2015