Re: Bachmann Pledges Gas. . .

by Daniel Foster

Kate, was Bachmann good enough to tell us how? 

Let’s say she can get rid of the entire federal fuel surcharge. That’s 18.4 cents per gallon, which would get us down to $3.39 a gallon. What’s next?

The U.S. increased its oil production by more than any other country in 2009, and still accounted for six to ten percent of global oil production (depending on how you measure). I think we should drill domestically wherever we can and that that should be a part of any plan to stabilize energy prices, but remember: oil is priced, bought, and sold globally. Is there any evidence, anywhere, that we can tap enough untapped oil and boost global supply enough to move prices to the degree Bachmann promises? Better yet: even if we could, would granting new drilling leases any place they were wanted (including national parks and the like) in 2013 be felt at the pump during a President Bachmann’s first term?

The only policies I can think of that would surely accomplish the $2.00 a gallon target are:

1) The seizure by force and nationalized exploitation of a large proportion of the world’s oil supply.

2) The massive federal subsidization of fuel costs.

3) The fomenting of a second global recession as bad as or worse than the last one, complete with negative global GDP growth. 

Am I missing something?

Let me say again: We should increase domestic production and expand drilling. But not because it will, by itself, cut gas prices in half. It won’t by a long-shot. 

Commenters are already making the point under Kate’s post, and I think there’s truth to it, that this has shades of Obama’s “the rise of the oceans will begin to slow” bit. It’s also unbecoming of a conservative candidate for the presidency in that implies way, way, way, way, way (way) too much economic power in that office. Way too much.

The Corner

The one and only.