I took this post off of the selected posts on Raging Bull regards Jimmy Carter's recent comments on energy
By: pmcw 05-20-01 at 10:40 pm
Reply To: None Post # 23557
Generally speaking, I've always been of the opinion that Jimmy Carter is an honest and compassionate man and that opinion was not changed by his recent essay. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say he is not capable of partisan politics and, at the very least, twisting data to serve his case. IMO, his recent essay confirms this and emphasizes he doesn't want to go down in history as the President with the worst inflation record unless there's an energy asterisk next to his name.
Just so we can clear the air, I'm pretty tired of the Bush administration carping about the mistakes of the past too. They are not trying to rewrite history or distort facts to the degree of the liberals, but their frequent reflections to the Clinton administration serve no purpose. If you haven't noticed, I've even backed off bringing up the mistakes of the Clinton era FCC and DOJ in relation to communications lately - well, at least a little. Anyway, the point is, I don't like partisan politics from either side.
When I first read Carter's essay, published by Dan on Table, with the exception of a couple of obvious generalizations and exaggerations, was ready to take it at face value. I didn't plan to look any farther to add or detract from what he published. However, the NYT published an article Friday pointing our some strong inconsistencies. As a result, I would like to draw these to the attention of independent thinkers who have not already decided there are "dark motives" afoot and Carter is incapable of partisan politics.
Jimmy starts off his essay with the following paragraph: "It has been more than 20 years since our country developed a comprehensive energy policy. It is important for President Bush and Congress to take another look at this important issue, but not based on misleading statements made lately by high administration officials. These comments have distorted history and future needs."
I think those on both sides of the isle have been saying exactly what Jimmy says in his first sentence. However, I think the claim in the last sentence is offensive. No quotes and no names are offered and then the essay that follows does exactly what he accuses "high administration officials" of doing - he makes misleading statements and distorts history. After learning these inconsistencies and reading the essay more critically, it is easy to see purpose of the essay was to slam the current administration and glorify his rather than offer constructive ideas as to how we can make life better for American's.
Jimmy goes on to say: "When I was inaugurated, American vehicles were averaging only 12 miles per gallon. Today, new cars reach more than twice this gas mileage, which would be much higher except for the failure to maintain the efficiency standards, beginning in the Reagan years. (Gas mileage has actually gone down during the past five years.) "
I find the claim that American vehicles averaged only 12 miles to the gallon in 1977 a bit hard to believe. I've not found confirmation for the data, but I believe the real number for new cars built in 1977 was 18mpg. However, this is actually one of several examples where the presentation of data is distorted so that Jimmy can better make his case. In the first instance Carter uses the average of all cars on American roads and, in the later case he uses new cars built today.
In the second half of this statement, Carter uses his distorted data and adds yet another twist of truth. He tries to make a point that, had it not been for Regan, we would be getting even better mileage today. He also says that average mileage has gone down during the last five years and ties the statement to the end of the sentence blaming Regan. Funny, I seem to Remember the last five and three years previous as belonging to Clinton, and, according to the DOT data, average mileage hit a peak in 1987 - at the end of Regan's term. If Regan instituted a flawed policy, why didn't Clinton make some changes during his eight years in office?
From the NYT: "The report estimates that the average fuel economy of all cars and light trucks sold in the 2001 model year will be 24.5 miles a gallon, the same as in 1999 and slightly below the 24.7 miles a gallon in the 2000 model year. The peak was 26.2 miles a gallon in 1987, before automakers began selling large numbers of gas- guzzling sport utility vehicles." I suppose Carter would like to blame Regan for American's falling in love with the SUV - I think it would be more accurate to blame this infatuation on cheap gas. Used SUV pricing has fallen by roughly 20% during the last six months since gas prices started to climb steeply. Further proof that the best way to encourage conservation is to raise prices.
If you consider that data from a study completed by the American Petroleum Institute, this question of Clinton's inaction becomes very important. From 1980 through the end of Bush's term in December 1992, the total US consumption of gasoline was relatively flat. However, from January 1993 through the end of 2000 gasoline has gone up by just over 25%. Such an increase in consumption begs for an energy policy. Could it be the autoworker's union had some excess influence? .
To complicate our refinery problem, refineries are hedging that the price of crude will drop. How do they hedge? They reduce inventory. If crude prices drop the value of inventory drops. As a result, inventory is down by nearly 25% nationwide and, in some cases, down by 50%. Couple this with a demand for refined gas that has increased by over 25% during the Clinton administration and it is easy to see demand simply exceeds supply.
A little bit of the true colors start to show in Jimmy's next paragraph. It becomes pretty obvious he is simply striking out for the slams his administration took from Republicans: "Also contrary to recent statements by top officials, a bipartisan Congress worked closely with me for four years to create a well-balanced approach to the problem. No influential person ever spoke "exclusively of conservation," and my administration never believed that "we could simply conserve or ration our way out of" any energy crisis. On the contrary, we emphasized both energy conservation and the increased production of oil, gas, coal and solar energy. Permanent laws were laboriously hammered out that brought an unprecedented commitment to efficient use of energy supplies. We mandated improved home insulation, energy savings in the design of industrial equipment and home appliances and a step-by-step increase in gas mileage of all automobiles manufactured in our country."
There's no doubt, Carter took some brutal shots for doing the right thing and creating a real energy policy. The bitter pill many felt he forced them to swallow was one of the things that cost him re-election. This is one reason I admired Carter. He did what was right for the country first and his popularity second. However, this is also why I find this essay so disappointing. Carter, better than anyone else, knows how brutal it is to enact a meaningful energy policy. Rather that partisan posturing, he could get on America's side and not distort history or current fact. He could explain how difficult it is to enact unpopular policy rather than add complication and delay to what needs to be done quickly.
Be this as it may, Carter, in this paragraph, wrote exactly what the Bush administration is saying. A real energy policy needs to address supply as well as demand. Some would love to distort this and leave Americans with the impression the administration will ignore conservation, but that simply is not the case. As stated in the NYT Friday: "In the energy report he released today (Friday), President Bush called for improving fuel efficiency through the pursuit of new technologies and subsidies for the sale of hybrid vehicles that use a combination of gasoline and electric propulsion." The NYT also stated: "The administration report said the president would review fuel-economy standards in light of a report by the National Academy of Sciences that is due on July 1." I concur that it's responsible to get the data before new policies are drafted, but the intent is already clear.
Early in the essay, Jimmy wanted to portray his administration as stuck with a situation that caused an unavoidably bad economy and inflation. Later in the essay he made the following point: "Official statistics published by the departments of energy and labor reveal the facts: Since I signed the final energy bills in 1980, America's gross national product has increased by 90 percent, while total energy consumption went up only 26 percent" (100% of this increase in gasoline use was during Clinton's presidency!) "Our emphasis on coal and other sources of energy and improved efficiency has limited petroleum consumption to an increase of only 12 percent."(This is very misleading. Petroleum producers say gasoline consumption has gone up by slightly over 25% since January 1993 and was flat from 1980 through 1993. This could be another case of comparing the average car on the road to new cars built today or simply just a error.) " During this time, non-energy prices have risen 2 1/2 times as much as energy prices, and gasoline prices have actually declined by 41 percent, in real terms and even including the temporary surge in the past two years."
More points to consider on this topic:
When Carter entered office the average price for gas in the US as $0.642/gallon. When he left office and Regan took over, gas averaged $1.353 - a 111% increase. When Regan left office, gas averaged $1.06 - a 21% decline (note: most of the decline was after the third year of his first term). When Bush left office gas averaged $1.173 - a 12% increase which basically mirrored inflation. This is pretty amazing since taxes on gasoline were raised more dramatically as a percentage and as a whole number during the terms of Regan and Bush than any time before or since. When Regan entered office, total weighted taxes on gasoline were $0.145 per gallon. When Bush left office in 1993, total taxes were $0.354 per gallon. That's an increase of $0.209 or 144%.
When Clinton left office gas averaged $1.535 - a 42% increase with minimal increases in tax. However, for most his administration, the price averaged around $1.25 - a 9% increase over 8 years. However, taxes were only increased from $0.354 to $0.42 - this is only $0.066 or 17%. Folks, Krugman even wants to let the free market cure the problem and the only way you can get temporary relief without interfering with free market economy is to drop the tyrannical taxes. Why not, the DOT has run at a huge surplus for years. In this case, I agree with Lott.
Another point you might want to consider if you are still ready to swallow this essay hook, line and sinker: If Carter says raising gas taxes forced his economy in the toilet (out of his control). It only stands to reason Clinton's economy had a walk down easy street. I'll leave it to you to determine if either really made the best of their respective situations, but, like maniati says - "you can't have it both ways."
If anything, Carter makes a point that the price of a gallon of gas has not kept pace with inflation or with the growth of the economy. This is absolutely amazing since the average state and federal tax is now $0.42 per gallon (in NY $0.49) and it was only $0.145 when Carter left office. Carter makes the point and provides evidence that gas prices have been held artificially low (not kept pace with inflation, world gas prices or US economic growth). If you subtract the tax increases of the last 20 years, gas is cheaper even when measured in real (not inflation adjusted dollars) dollars than it was over 20 years ago.
Maybe the truth of the matter is that these "sudden" increases have been pent up for some time and need to hit the market to avert a "real" energy crisis (one fitting the Carter definition). Maybe the only way to get Americans to conserve is to make waste expensive. Maybe Carter could do something for America and quit feeling sorry for himself and help Americans understand an energy policy shouldn't be a political matter, but a bi-partisan effort. More likely, based on the polarization of opinions, we will have to fight this one out every step of the way.
Link to NYT article:
nytimes.com
Link to an interesting API study:
navigation.helper.realnames.com
Regards, pmcw |
