(This is a guest post, authored by the inimitable Saintseester. This is thoughtful analysis. Please, do read.)
For the first time, this afternoon, I heard about the Obama campaign’s efforts to combat misinformation by organizing a “Truth Team,” and via informational websites, one of which is called KeepingHisWord.com. In the interest of investigating all channels of information available to me, I meandered over right away. The first article at the top of the page (February 11, 2012) was titled: Reducing Our Dependence On Foreign Oil. According to a quote in the banner section, then President-elect Barack Obama was committed to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
To show that Obama has kept his promise, the short article references research published this week indicating that foreign oil imports have fallen by an average of 1.1 million barrels a day, and are now at their lowest levels in 16 years. They even reference a site that has this cool graphic:
It just happens that this very lovely graph illustrating our President’s policies profound impact on the importation of crude oil can be found on the site: BarackObama.com.
So, I became curious. Because the article the Obama camp gave me did not have many other facts or data, I hopped on over to the EIA website and found that I could retrieve a spreadsheet with the historical prices of U.S. gasoline. Let’s plot that just for fun, okay? I used the spreadsheet provided by EIA, and plotted the overall average gas price for the entire country for regular gasoline.
Some observations on this plot. The red line shows when Obama took office. Gas prices stayed below $2.00 per gallon for a decade leading up to mid 2005 (Katrina). We all remember the pain as the gas prices rose dramatically, peaking over $4.00 per gallon (100% rise) in late 2008.
That plummet in gas prices came at the same time the economy crashed. Remember, the whole world economy was affected, not just ours. When that bubble burst, world demand for oil crashed, thus causing a plummet in oil price and a corresponding plummet in gas prices here. After the inauguration, the price again climbed steadily and as of this writing is projected to be over $4.00 again in the spring.
Now, bear with me as I superimpose the average monthly importation of oil over this gasoline price plot.
The green highlight shows that our demand for oil remained fairly steady from 2003 until a couple of months before our economy crashed in October 2008. At that point, oil imports started falling off (when gas was peaking around $4). THIS is the evidence our administration is touting as “lessening our imports.” Yes, our imports fell by nearly 5% (yep, only 5%), which I argue is not due to GOOD policy. No, I argue it is due to a BAD economy and high gas prices.
Again, just for funsies, I superimposed the unemployment rate (range 3.9% -10.1%) over the graph. When our economy crashed, unemployment steadily climbed at the same time our importation of oil declined. Not a coincidence.
So, did Obama keep his promise of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Yes, but not really in a good way, and only by accident. The Democrat policies have kept the gas prices high, unemployment very high, and the combination equals less people able to buy as much gas as they used to, and therefore, we just don’t need quite as much oil. Reduction in foreign imports, indeed.
So, remember this, when someone from the Truth Team starts telling you all about the promises Dear Leader has kept.
The raw data I use about gas and oil consumption is found on the U.S. Energy Information Administration website (www.eia.gov), also referenced in Obama’s graphs. The unemployment figures come from the U.S. Department of Labor.
You might also like:
- ExxonMobil bailout imminent
Citing a need to prevent catastrophic damage to the U.S. economy, Congress today announced a plan to… - Obama: You’re welcome for low gas prices!
I don’t much like State of the Union addresses even when I like the guy giving them. The State of th… - Civility for thee, not for me
“I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on T… - Waxman loses his stomach for the corporate inquisition
Well, hell, it was too good to be true. Henry Waxman and his band of nitwits got enough neurons firi… - Barack Obama’s 340-bhp credibility problem
Barack Obama flew to Detroit to deliver his message that the U.S. auto industry is the villain for “…
Thanks for letting me guest, here. Appreciate it.
Also, after about 2 hours of looking at pretty promotional graphics over there, I don’t think I will EVER be able to use “obama blue” in things I produce. Does a president really need his own theme color that’s different than the traditional Red, White and Blue? Really?
‘seester, you have this space anytime you want it. It’s a great piece!
Food for thought…
Gingrich: Talkin’ TWO DOLLAR Gasoline
Cool graphics dude 😉 But seriously, it’s a very interesting trend and just shows yet again that figures will not lie but liars can figure. I’m always amazed at how things can be twisted. I just sent this one on to my hubby & dad as they always appreciate data to refute the blindness.
I liked this post. I’m a big fan of raw numbers and correlations, which were illustrated well here. The only thing I dislike, but not necessarily disagree with (I’ll explain that shortly), is the phrase “The Democrat policies have…”
Disclaimer: I, in no way, intend to defend or attack any one party. I don’t even want to defend or attack any particular politician. I personally hate the dual party system. I think it limits our options as voters, and I feel I’m generally left voting for the lesser of two evils on election day. I have voted for both Republican and Democrats in the past, in the same election year even. In general I don’t care whether there’s an “R” or a “D” or an “I” next to a candidates name, and I really wish no one else did.
Your post was very evidence based and gives good references to where you got your information, with the exception of that one statement. One of my pet peeves is the political party system, and the scape goat that it is. Hell, it’s just a crappy idea all around in my book, but I’ll try to minimize the size of this soap box. One thing I hear all too often, and is just about never backed up with anything remotely resembling facts, is “because of X party’s policies…”
Which policies in particular are we talking about…? Show me that a policy was owned by said party… I’d say you’re safe in saying such a statement if the majority of “Aye’s” were from one party and not the other. But I just want explicit detail in why one party should be blamed over the other (this is for any case, not just the topic of this particular blog post).
I want to make clear that I’m not saying your statement is wrong. I’m just saying you’ve made a move to place blame, without backing your claim, in a time where placing blame isn’t so straightforward.
My first instinct in reading that statement was to just find someway to contradict it (once again, not to defend or attack a particular party, but to point out that without detailed facts, there’s no definite clarity to the claim). A quick glance at your chart shows that the price began the current spike somewhere after November 2010, which I’ll point out, the House of Representatives of the 112th Congress had a Republican majority. If you add up all the people required to pass a law (Congress and the President) during the 112th Congress, it’s 289 Republicans vs 244 Democrats. But then again, the Senate and the White House are both “Democrat controlled”. So how can any one party really be blamed with out more specific data such as vote counts on particular policies.
In a somewhat similar manner, I get annoyed when people use a similar statement about “because of the White House’s policies”. I hate the idea of this for a number of reasons. It doesn’t take the one guy sitting in the Oval Office to pass a bill… it takes a whole lot of people to do so. Yes, there are things the president can do on his/her own such as “Executive Orders” and what not, but I generally don’t like those and wish they would go away. I do think that the White House has a lot of influence on how things workout, but once again, I want specifics, not just blanket “I blame that guy” statements.
I very much enjoy a well educated debate about these things, but something like that makes the whole discussion’s direction take a quick 180 for me. At that point, I feel the objectivity has left the conversation, and it has now moved on to bias.
-Tahm
Tahm: your point is very well taken. You are correct. I should not have let my bias toward parties be my statement there. I should back it up with facts. I’ll remember that next time.
Nicely done, ‘Seester.
Bo, I appreciate this stream, and firmly believe your evidence (including other’s of conservative origin) is largely being ignored by those who need to stop and listen to what’s REALLY going on in this country. It just feels like rational and reflective thought no longer rules the day.
One of the great privileges of my life is my service to this great Nation of ours. Having deployed to numerous countries in my time, I completely understand why our ancestors left European rule for a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the “majority” appears hell-bent on returning us to the very circumstance we departed from many years ago.
I and many before me have had the honor of visiting places where residents were fooled into believing BIG government was the answer to all “your” ills. Why are people so reluctant to take pause and see what lies ahead? Frankly, our children and grand-children deserve better, and I know better!
Scott, we’re to a horrible place where I think the best we can do is hope for a major crash of some kind that’s bad enough to shake people from their stupors, but not so bad we can’t recover from it. I mean, our little boys get a future too, right? Sheesh.