Dan Gainor

     Obama opposes the holiday because it conflicts with his position to increase energy taxes. Unsurprisingly, Clinton talks out of both sides of her mouth on this – promoting the gas tax holiday while vowing to hike taxes on oil companies. The latter is the Obama plan – tax oil companies. The “windfall profits” tax would assault oil firms because they are large. Though they have average profit percentages, their huge overall numbers elicit outrage from politicians and the media, who rant without the necessary context.

     All three candidates have global warming plans that are similarly foolish and would further harm our energy future. The Wall Street Journal called McCain’s plan “Obama-lite” because it’s just a little less devastating. McCain has risked conservative support with his push to return carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and achieve “at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.”

     Al Gore, the patron saint of climate change, would have cut U.S. emissions to just 7 percent below 1990 levels in the failed Kyoto treaty. Even that would have cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs. The McCain/Obama/Clinton idea of emissions limits would mandate restrictions on energy use like we’ve never seen.

     ANWR’s trillions of dollars worth of oil are a particular conundrum for the candidates. On one hand, that oil helps push America toward a fantasy of “energy independence.” On the other, it offends environmentalists who oppose drilling and use of oil.

     Meanwhile, gas prices continue to rise. And the congressional “solution” to the gas crisis is to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – just 70,000 barrels of oil a day. The U.S. uses about 21 million barrels each day. That’s an energy solution only Nero – or Bill Clinton – could love.

Dan Gainor

Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow and director of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute.