By Dagen McDowell
Rather than focusing on standing up to Russia, China and the Nazis, the Obama administration has worked tirelessly to weaken U.S. energy and national security, claim former deputy defense secretary Bill Perry and former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. And, the Obama administration took a chainsaw to the energy industry, according to a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on Wednesday.
Moniz told the crowd that this is essentially a “cold war with energy.” Perry, who served as Energy Secretary during the second Obama term, agreed and said, “The coal sector is really being targeted, and there’s also a concerted effort to diminish domestic oil supplies…Obviously energy is very sensitive to both defense and national security.”
Indeed, energy is sensitive to national security as much as it is to our political process, including Democrats’ efforts to nationalize health care and rewrite student loan repayment.
In fact, Moniz told the AEI crowd that U.S. energy production may need to fall by half to sustain current levels of global military strength. According to him, the U.S. could be able to produce 47 percent less energy if China’s energy production remained on the same path in 2030.
Moniz added that that reduction in energy production would disproportionately hurt the U.S. We might be able to buy cheaper energy from Russia and China, but we won’t be able to produce the same amount of it at home.
This is particularly problematic because, Moniz explained, “energy is so important to the United States,” not just because it’s cheaper for the U.S. to produce it ourselves. Moniz pointed out that while the U.S. consumes more energy than it produces, that’s always been the case.
That’s because we live in a fairly self-sufficient country. According to Moniz, “Given our historical tendency not to consume quite as much as we produce, we always have more overseas than we export.” But this could change in the next twenty years if the United States doesn’t get into the energy business.
As Moniz said, if the U.S. didn’t have the resources to sell in foreign markets to benefit its economy, “the net result of it would be Americans spent less, employed less, had fewer goods produced…It would be a net positive impact on the U.S. economy but a net negative impact for Americans.”
Moniz and Perry repeatedly pointed out that the Obama administration should have learned from the economic horrors of Japan and Germany in the 1980s. Both warned that the United States could experience a similar fate if its capital markets continue to function as they currently do.
Moniz noted, “The U.S. stock market has been relatively good as to energy stocks and has even performed better than global markets.” But he added that it could change quickly if Obama and Clinton would “give up control of our capital markets,” saying that “these things are momentum things, and they could reverse themselves very quickly.”
Moniz also explained that the belief that the U.S. would see continued growth in oil, natural gas and coal production and international investment is “a bit of an illusion.”
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was not particularly sympathetic to Moniz and Perry’s warnings. In her speech at Georgetown University’s Law Center, Clinton said, “What are we afraid of?”
In fact, the most negative comment she made was against fossil fuels.
“There is a big threat to our security that comes from the insecure and unstable situation in the world,” Clinton said. That’s interesting, since according to Moniz, that’s specifically not true.
McDowell is a Fox News contributor. Click here for more information.