This page was last updated on September 5, 2011.
U.S. Awash in Oil and Lies, Report Charges; Stephen Leahy – Inter Press Service/News Analysis; NationofChange; September 3, 2011.
Bush And Cheney Remind Us How We Got Into This Mess; Eugene Robinson; NationofChange; September 4, 2011.
Mr. Leahy fancies himself to be an “International Environmental Journalist.” The Inter Press Service slogan is “Journalism and Communication for Global Change.”
The oxymoronic slogan for NationofChange is “Progressive Journalism for Positive Change.” The reason for these critiques is to note a new propaganda source for the VP of Beaver County Reds. As for “Shocking Electric Cost to Produce Fuel Dooms Todays [sic] Cars,” it appears facts don’t matter as long as the message is “right.”
Below is a critique of portions of these columns.
“U.S. Awash in Oil and Lies, Report Charges”
This piece doesn’t waste time getting to its misinformation, and calling it “misinformation” is being kind. The column begins, “With four times as many oil rigs pumping domestic oil today than eight years ago and declining domestic demand, the United States is awash in oil. In fact, the U.S. exports more oil than it imports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration - and has done so for nearly two decades.” As you will read below, the article completely misrepresents and misstates the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data it cites.
First, according to Baker Hughes (the oil service company that reports rig counts), there are 1,968 rigs operating in the U.S. (as of September 2011) vs. 1,032 in 2003. My math skills may not be what they should be, but 1,968 isn’t “four times as many” as 1,032.
Second, though there are exceptions (particularly offshore), “oil rigs” don’t pump crude oil, they drill for it and then move on, leaving the actual “pumping” to production equipment. There is no direct correlation between the number of oil rigs operating and the volume of crude oil production, though there tends to be more drilling as production drops and/or the price of crude increases. According to EIA data, current U.S. crude oil production is about what it was in 2003.
Third, the “declining domestic demand” comment is misleading because the author failed to tell us the decline is temporary, a short-term result of the recession and down economy since 2008. When we get out of this economic mess, the EIA shows our demand for liquid fuels continues its upward trend.
Fourth, I can’t explain the “the U.S. exports more oil than it imports … and has done so for nearly two decades” comment. According to the EIA, the U.S. has been a net importer of “Crude Oil and Petroleum Products” since at least 1973. Sometimes there are net exports of individual products, but as of June 2011 we net-imported over nine million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products.
I have no clue about the accuracy of the rest of the column. When an article can’t get past the first paragraph without huge factual errors (again I’m being generous), I stop reading.
“Bush And Cheney Remind Us How We Got Into This Mess”
Now let’s look at the following excerpts of “Bush And Cheney Remind Us How We Got Into This Mess”: “It was the Bush administration, you will recall, that sent the national debt into the stratosphere and choked off federal revenue to the point of asphyxiation. … Rather than raise taxes to cover the cost of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush opted to maintain unreasonable and unnecessary tax cuts. … If Bush had just left income tax rates alone, nobody except Ron Paul would be talking about the debt. … When he was campaigning for the White House in 2000, the government was anticipating a projected surplus of roughly $6 trillion over the following decade. Bush said repeatedly that he thought this was too much and wanted to bring the surplus down — hence, in 2001, the first of his two big tax cuts.”
There’s nothing original in Mr. Robinson’s comments, so let’s take a look at them in order.
First, the piece says “the Bush administration … choked off federal revenue to the point of asphyxiation.” Not exactly. Before the current recession began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001. A tax revenue increase of 29% is “the point of asphyxiation?” That comment says far more about the author than reality. By the end of fiscal year 2007 (the last before the recession and before Democrats became the majority in Congress), the deficit was down to $161 billion and dropping. Tax revenue wasn’t/isn’t the problem, spending was/is.
The author constantly refers to “tax cuts.” Tax revenue goes up 29% over six years and that’s a “tax cut?” I have a hard time believing a Pulitzer Prize winner doesn’t know the difference between a “tax cut” and a tax RATE cut. Rate cuts are a proven way to help an economy in recession.
The article refers to “a projected surplus of roughly $6 trillion over the following decade.” This reference is to 10-year budget estimates that made the ridiculous assumption the go-go economy of the mid- to late-1990s would continue unabated for another 10 years. In reality, the economy started a recession during President Clinton’s last year in office and the small budget surpluses were already dropping (by 50% in Mr. Clinton’s last budget). “If Bush had just left income tax rates alone,” the deficits would still have occurred as a result of the decrease in tax revenue caused by the recession. The primary reasons for those deficits were the recession that started toward the end of the Clinton administration, 9/11 and its aftereffects, and the insecurity caused by the uncovering of accounting scandals (Enron, etc.) that flourished during the Clinton administration. Recessions and surpluses aren’t on speaking terms.
Remember, Democrats didn’t always believe the “projected surplus of roughly $6 trillion over the following decade” was the sure thing they claim today. According to a CBS News article in 2001, “Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool’s gold.” No kidding. We have a tough time accurately predicting what will happen next year, let alone what will happen over the course of several years. For example, I’ll go out on a limb and guess these fantasy estimates didn’t account for 9/11, et cetera. What about all the rosy predictions the Obama administration made for its programs? Remember the early-2009 prediction unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% if we enacted Mr. Obama’s “stimulus bill?” Unemployment hit 10.1% less than a year later in October 2009 and has been bouncing around 9.1% for the last several months. Further, the economy generated zero, yes zero, net new jobs in August 2011. If that’s not bad enough, the BLS also reported “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +46,000 to +20,000, and the change for July was revised from +117,000 to +85,000.”
The author wrote, “My aim isn’t to attack Bush but to attack his philosophy.” Why should we not assume his attack on Messrs. Bush and Cheney is rooted in bigotry? After all, that’s what Mr. Robinson believes is behind “tea party” opposition to President Obama’s policies.
Finally, there’s a fundraising link in the subject articles labeled “Help us speak truth to power. Donate what you can afford to support NationofChange.” Based on these two articles, it appears “speak truth to power” is leftyspeak for “speak lies to the people.”
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.