Obama votes 'present' on pipeline
Published in the Longmont Times Call, 2/15/12
Some habits die hard. When President Obama was an Illinois state senator, he caught attention by voting "present" 129 times, seemingly whenever a tough issue came before him and he wanted to avoid voting "yes" or "no." Those of us who have been in executive positions know that punting on a hard decision is a luxury we don't often get. Last month, the president again voted "present" when, for the second time in two months, he punted on a final decision on the Keystone Pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to American markets in the future as well as construction jobs to American workers today.The president's problem is that two of his most diehard supporters -- organized labor and environmentalists -- are in opposing corners on this one. Approving the pipeline would immediately create 10,000 to 20,000 construction jobs in an economy where construction workers need jobs, so labor wants it. However, the pipeline would run through some environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska, so environmentalists oppose it. So, President Obama is, indeed, between a rock and a hard place. What a real leader does when they find themselves in tough spots is make a decision and explain their reasoning. This president appears to prefer tap dancing, obfuscation and blaming it on somebody else.
His first punt was in November when he faced a statutory deadline to make a decision after all required reviews and reports had been filed by the appropriate government agencies with everyone agreeing that the Keystone Pipeline met all regulatory requirements and should be approved. However, some of the deep-pocketed political action committees, likeMoveOn.org, made clear that approval of the pipeline would force them to reassess their opinion of the president and perhaps withhold such courtesies as campaign funds and voting support. Labor leaders, foolishly it now appears, just assumed that the pipeline would be approved so they sat silently. Rather than make the call and take the heat, the president decided that, with no legal foundation for making this demand, alternative routes had to be considered, which would take until 2013, conveniently after the upcoming election.
Seeing this as an abrogation of presidential responsibilities, Republicans put a clause in the end-of-year budget legislation that required the president to make the decision on the pipeline by February. So, recently the president announced he was not going to approve the pipeline but, directly out of the other side of his mouth, made clear that he was expecting Keystone to submit a proposal for another pipeline that he would very much like to consider, maybe just a little bit later. Anyone listening knew, without a doubt, that the president did not think that the Keystone Pipeline was a bad idea, just that it was a bad idea right at this particular moment with an election coming up.
The technical issues here aren't as complex as the president likes to make it sound. The pipeline goes through a few hundred miles of Nebraska, but Nebraska already has more than 21,000 miles of pipelines running through it. The bigger environmental issue is the oil that will flow through it. First, this oil comes from tar sands, which take more water and energy to produce. Second, environmentalists aren't all that excited about easier access to any fossil fuels, especially oil. In the end, this oil will be mined and used, so the only question is whether it goes to the United States by pipeline or other nations by ship. The markets are there.
The president has every right to make a stand and determine that the administration will not make getting this oil into American hands easy on his watch. He could disapprove it now and explain why. But, the fact that he didn't do so means he or his successor will approve it in the next year or two. In the meantime, thousands of construction workers looking for jobs will just have to wait and wonder.
I guess I can't blame the guy for wanting to duck a tough question like "Do we allow jobs to be created or make an environmental statement?" But isn't dealing with exactly this kind of tough issue what we elected him to do? Leadership does sometimes require courage, and, on this issue, both leadership and courage seem to be sorely lacking.
Some habits die hard. When President Obama was an Illinois state senator, he caught attention by voting "present" 129 times, seemingly whenever a tough issue came before him and he wanted to avoid voting "yes" or "no." Those of us who have been in executive positions know that punting on a hard decision is a luxury we don't often get. Last month, the president again voted "present" when, for the second time in two months, he punted on a final decision on the Keystone Pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to American markets in the future as well as construction jobs to American workers today.The president's problem is that two of his most diehard supporters -- organized labor and environmentalists -- are in opposing corners on this one. Approving the pipeline would immediately create 10,000 to 20,000 construction jobs in an economy where construction workers need jobs, so labor wants it. However, the pipeline would run through some environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska, so environmentalists oppose it. So, President Obama is, indeed, between a rock and a hard place. What a real leader does when they find themselves in tough spots is make a decision and explain their reasoning. This president appears to prefer tap dancing, obfuscation and blaming it on somebody else.
His first punt was in November when he faced a statutory deadline to make a decision after all required reviews and reports had been filed by the appropriate government agencies with everyone agreeing that the Keystone Pipeline met all regulatory requirements and should be approved. However, some of the deep-pocketed political action committees, likeMoveOn.org, made clear that approval of the pipeline would force them to reassess their opinion of the president and perhaps withhold such courtesies as campaign funds and voting support. Labor leaders, foolishly it now appears, just assumed that the pipeline would be approved so they sat silently. Rather than make the call and take the heat, the president decided that, with no legal foundation for making this demand, alternative routes had to be considered, which would take until 2013, conveniently after the upcoming election.
Seeing this as an abrogation of presidential responsibilities, Republicans put a clause in the end-of-year budget legislation that required the president to make the decision on the pipeline by February. So, recently the president announced he was not going to approve the pipeline but, directly out of the other side of his mouth, made clear that he was expecting Keystone to submit a proposal for another pipeline that he would very much like to consider, maybe just a little bit later. Anyone listening knew, without a doubt, that the president did not think that the Keystone Pipeline was a bad idea, just that it was a bad idea right at this particular moment with an election coming up.
The technical issues here aren't as complex as the president likes to make it sound. The pipeline goes through a few hundred miles of Nebraska, but Nebraska already has more than 21,000 miles of pipelines running through it. The bigger environmental issue is the oil that will flow through it. First, this oil comes from tar sands, which take more water and energy to produce. Second, environmentalists aren't all that excited about easier access to any fossil fuels, especially oil. In the end, this oil will be mined and used, so the only question is whether it goes to the United States by pipeline or other nations by ship. The markets are there.
The president has every right to make a stand and determine that the administration will not make getting this oil into American hands easy on his watch. He could disapprove it now and explain why. But, the fact that he didn't do so means he or his successor will approve it in the next year or two. In the meantime, thousands of construction workers looking for jobs will just have to wait and wonder.
I guess I can't blame the guy for wanting to duck a tough question like "Do we allow jobs to be created or make an environmental statement?" But isn't dealing with exactly this kind of tough issue what we elected him to do? Leadership does sometimes require courage, and, on this issue, both leadership and courage seem to be sorely lacking.
