With gas prices rising in the US, politicians are feeling the heat. President Bush called for investigations into alleged price fixing and gouging and [for] a temporary lifting of state mandates for specific gasoline blends.
Our local Congressman, John Sweeney, claimed to be angry.
"When an executive retires with a $400 million incentive package and gas is over $3 at the pump, I'm a free market guy, but that is just an untenable response,” he fumed.
Republicans generally object to anything that might mildly slice into massive profits so their indignant outrage here is a bit curious.
But while there are many things for which I reproach the oil multinational conglomerates, the 'high' prices is not one of them. As long as worldwide demand increases (which it will as more people in China and India join the middle class) and supply remains roughly constant, prices will continue to rise.
It's not Big Oil's fault if you chose to buy an SUV or if you chose to live 50 miles away from your job. If you made the lifestyle decision of your own free will, don't expect others to bear the consequences. As Edward R. Murrow famously declared, "'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
The bashing of Big Oil is nothing more than populist pandering. I'm no fan of the oil mulinationals, but at least criticize them for environmental abuses or something like that; it's not their fault consumers can't control their appetite for Big Oil's product.
Of course, Republicans are using this issue to try to get something they could never get legitimately: drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Senate Republicans tried to bribe taxpayers with 100 dollar rebates and with expanded tax breaks to manufacturers of hybrid cars but only if ANWR drilling were allowed. Because as we know, oil drilling never has environmental consequences.
The local Post-Star had an article on the back-and-forth on this issue between Sweeney and Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand, a corporate lawyer and Hillary Clinton-wannabe, is one of several Democratic challengers to Sweeney (though the only one according to the paper).
The daily reported that Gillibrand said the federal government should temporarily suspend gas taxes as a short-term solution while embarking on a comprehensive effort to develop alternative energy.
Think about this proposal for a moment.
Lowering gas taxes would encourage consumers to make more inefficient choices with their driving. It would simultaneously deprive the federal government of the very revenues that could be used to fund research into and development of more efficient alternative energy usage!
I guess this only proves that Democrats can be just as populist and incoherent as Republicans on the issue.
Gillibrand was half right, which isn't surprising of someone less interested in seeing the problem addressed than in winning votes of people who she hopes aren't paying attention to the details.
The federal government should embark on a comprehensive effort to develop alternative energy, an effort which she compared to putting a man on the moon. However, it shouldn't do so by depriving itself of funding for that program AND encouraging more inefficient energy usage.
If Gillibrand really wants to encourage fundamental change via government action, she should advocate expanded tax breaks for users of fuel efficient vehicles. And there should be even bigger tax breaks for people who choose not to buy a motor vehicle at all and who choose to rely on bicycles or public transportation (full disclosure: I fall in this category).
For years, public policy has seen tax dollars used to subsidize inefficient choices, from gas guzzlers to highway construction (while starving public transportation) to the massive expansion of the suburbs and exurbs. The only way the present energy situation can have any hope of being remedied is if public policy is used to encourage and reward EFFICIENT lifestyle choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment