Today, Congress will embark on a five-week vacation having done absolutely nothing to even attempt to relieve gas prices or the country's faltering energy situation. Instead, the two political parties have been engaging in predictable partisan rhetoric, blaming each other for Americans' "pain at the pump."
Americans will not get a break, though, from the high gas prices, while Exxon Mobil records the biggest quarterly profit ever in the United States, amounting to nearly $1,500 per second, according to CNN. That is enough cash made in one hour to pay the full college tuition for at least 330 students at Logan's Utah State University.
Though Democrats and Republicans have a different set of priorities in terms of which actions would be most effective on the energy front, the difficulty in passing legislation lies in their inability to forge a compromise in this presidential election season.
But the interesting thing is that when various members of each political party speak in public or to the press about energy, they often highlight key components of the other party's energy plans as good ideas. This seems to suggest that a compromise is within reach.
The various ideas about how to handle the energy crisis have evolved as "Republican" or "Democratic." For instance, if you are a Republican, then you would likely favor offshore drilling, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration and developing the oil shale in Western states. If you are a Democrat, then you would support forcing oil companies to drill on current leases or give them up, ending tax breaks for "Big Oil," providing tax breaks for companies producing alternative and renewable energy sources and guarding against oil speculation.
Each
of
those
energy
plans
is
listed
in
an
article in
today's
Salt
Lake
Tribune
as
being
a
"Democratic
proposal"
or
a
"Republican"
one.
While these ideas might often be more closely attributed to each political party, they are nothing more than stereotypes. In reality, both sides are pointing to a combination of "Republican" and "Democratic" views on energy.
Just take Utah's congressional leaders. In what has been called the reddest state in the country, Utah's leaders in the House and Senate herald a combination of "Democratic" and "Republican" ideas on energy. I know because I've heard them speak about them.
Sure, someone like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who has quite a conservative voting record, favors offshore drilling and ANWR, but he also talks about the need to "use less oil." While recently talking to Cache County officials, Hatch praised oilman T. Boone Pickens for investing in wind energy — a plan to put wind turbines all the way from Texas to Canada that would produce a trillion megawatts of power, Hatch said, adding more wind power that would free up natural gas for use in things like natural gas vehicles.
"We need to do all of the work on wind and then solar as well," Hatch said.
Isn't highlighting alternative forms of energy a Democratic ideal? Not for Hatch.
Or how about cracking down on oil speculators? Hatch actually listed speculation as one of four main priorities the United States should have, along with offshore drilling, ANWR exploration and oil shale.
"We know that the futures markets are being manipulated," Hatch said. "That means there's lots of speculation. So we need to work on that."
In the House of Representatives, Congressman Rob Bishop, who represents Utah's 1st Congressional District, recently unveiled his plan which he has dubbed a "12-step addiction recovery plan."
Not only does it include more oil production, but also specifically calls for development of alternative energy, including geothermal and solar power.
Bishop's plan essentially forges "Republican" and "Democratic" ideas in a course he views as "comprehensive."
"This is an 'all of the above' approach," Bishop said.
Even Democrats have voiced support for traditionally Republican sentiments.
For example, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has voiced support for offshore drilling.
"There should be offshore drilling, if appropriate," Baucus said, as quoted in a recent article in the Politico. He added, "This is so complicated. All the measures should be there on the table."
With gasoline prices now between $4 and $5 a gallon, the U.S. Congress should make an attempt to craft a compromise. Instead, the sides do not want to appear as conceding anything to the other in this election year, while their words belie their actions.