02/09/10
From Big Government
Drillgate: Internal
Emails Shows Obama Team Lying to Public
by Vince Haley
If you’re the President of the United States or one of his political appointees
and you’re ideologically opposed to new oil and natural gas development
offshore, what do you do when the public registers its overwhelming support for
new drilling in public opinion polls?
You dance, delay, and deceive. You speak melodious words about seeking the
wisdom of the public in making these decisions and then ignore evidence of the
public will when you get it, or worse, you hide it.
First came the dance. In August 2008, after soaring gas prices and a dramatic
shift in public opinion caused President Bush, Florida Governor Charlie Crist,
and Republican presidential candidate John McCain to reverse their positions on
offshore drilling, then-Senator Obama also changed. The Democratic presidential
nominee reversed his own position and that of his party, saying he was open to
offshore drilling as part of an overall energy plan. The Democratic Congress
followed a month later by quietly dropping the 25-year Congressional ban on
offshore drilling.
Then came the delay. In January 2009, President Obama inherited a draft five
year offshore drilling plan prepared by the outgoing Bush administration. The
plan was already receiving public comment as part of the elaborate rule making
process followed by federal agencies. Ken Salazar, Obama’s new Secretary of
Interior, determined the decision about new offshore drilling was so important
that he ordered a six-month extension to the comment period.
Third comes the dishonesty.
In April of 2009, during a discussion about offshore exploration in San
Francisco, Salazar said that President Obama directed him to “to make sure that
we have an open and transparent government” and that “these are not decisions
that are going to be made behind closed doors.” Salazar went on to say that
President Obama wanted to make sure that DOI was “maximizing the opportunity for
the public to give us guidance on what it is that they want to do.”
Yet, more than four months after the comment period ended, the Department of the
Interior has failed to make any public announcement about the results, even
though sources have told American Solutions for months the comments show a 2-1
advantage in support of offshore drilling.
It took American Solutions almost four months and the power of the Freedom of
Information Act to finally uncover indirect confirmation that, out of over
530,000 comments submitted, pro-drilling comments outnumbered anti-drilling
comments by a 2-1 margin.
In an email dated October 27, 2009, Liz Birnbaum, director of the Minerals
Management Service, informs other Interior officials that a preliminary
tabulation of the results of the comment period had not yet gone to Secretary
Salazar, adding “[s]o the Secretary can honestly say in response to any
questions that he’s [SIC] has not yet seen the analysis of the comments – staff
is still working on it. I did, however, confirm to him the 2-1 split that these
guys [at American Solutions] are emphasizing.”
When a public employee is on record condoning purposeful deception of the
American people, the taxpayer should no longer have to fund his or her job.
Secretary Salazar should immediately fire Liz Birnbaum for purposefully
deceiving him, and in turn, the American people. It’s not possible for the
Secretary to honor pledges of openness, honestly, and transparency in government
if his staff is going to deliberately undermine such pledges.
Public opinion polls already measure near 70% support for offshore drilling, so
the results from a public comment period that reflect the same public sentiment
should not be surprising. But after all this talk of wanting the public’s input,
Secretary Salazar and his team must find it a real stumbling block to have to
explain all their anti-energy development actions in light of the comment period
results to which they previously attached such great importance.
This newly gained insight into the anti-energy exploration mindset within the
Department of the Interior allows a new perspective of President Obama’s mention
of offshore development in his recent State of the Union address. Here is the
one paragraph in which the President described offshore development:
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more
efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe,
clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions
about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued
investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means
passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will
finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
To the passive listener, it sounded like President Obama expressed at least
rhetorical support for offshore drilling.
But the President only says we must make “tough decisions” on offshore drilling,
deliberately refusing to apply that standard to other decisions on energy.
But tough for whom? Certainly not for the public that overwhelmingly supports
more offshore drilling.
Indeed, the only person facing a tough decision is the President since an
important part of his political base is opposed to new American energy
development.
Bucking public opinion would indeed be a tough decision for this President, but
he has shown himself quite comfortable with bucking public opinion to pursue
stunningly unpopular policies on health care and cap and trade.
In short, it’s a fair conclusion that the tough decisions the President
identified in his State of the Union was his intended decision not to pursue any
new offshore oil and gas development. The actions by Salazar and his team are
entirely consistent with that conclusion.
What makes all of this dispiriting, especially this month, is that with 15
million Americans out of work and with the President’s recently submitted budget
projecting trillion dollar annual deficits for the next ten years and a near
tripling of the national debt by 2020, the President is throwing away a golden
opportunity over the next three decades to create millions of new jobs and
generate more than $270 billion in annual economic growth from new oil and gas
development, including $54 billion annually in federal tax receipts that could
help lower the federal deficit and the national debt.
These extraordinary benefits of job creation and economic growth – all without
requiring any federal spending – are, sadly, not on President Obama’s agenda,
notwithstanding all the phony rhetoric to the contrary.
Indeed, we can look forward to the President’s continued strategy of dance,
delay, and deceive.

