The democrats, especially those damned democrats, think the American public is stupid. And they’re betting on the fact they’re correct in their assessment.
Please follow their logic on energy policy. Their approach to solving our current, but neither first nor last, energy crisis is to do the following:
1. Place a “windfall” profits tax on oil companies that are mostly foreign now.
2. Go after “speculators” who invest their money in oil futures.
3. Encourage greater use of windmills and solar energy.
4. Block all drilling for oil in the U.S. and keep our nuke plants shut down.
The windfall profits tax they are peddling to America is the same that was peddled by Jimmy Carter in 1976 when gas prices were *gasp* surging past $1.00 per gallon. We were assured then, and we are now, that these taxes would not be passed along to the consumer. Now, what corporation does not pass all their costs, including taxes, on to the consumers? If you believe this, I have a Social Security “Lock Box” I’d like to sell you.
The only windfall that will occur in the passage of this shameless tax is to the government which is raking in a windfall off the doubling of the price at the pump. I can’t see how taxing, or even “punishing,” the oil companies does anything to alleviate the cost of filling up our cars even if the oil company executives take a vacation from their corporate responsibilities and eat the tax. But this move by democrats is intended for the public to feel better about getting even with those billion dollar evil corporations that are producing something we are ridiculously addicted too, and not to actually do anything to fix the problem. Now, do you feel better or just stupid?
After they have taxed us, err…. I mean the oil companies, they want to go after the heartless “speculators,” as they are called. An oil speculator is just like any other investor who risks their money betting which way the market will fluctuate. This is done for all sorts of commodities including just about everything we eat. Some days these investors win and some days they loose.
Those who are betting on oil prices to rise have been winning lately because they can read the newspapers and they realize that Washington is paralyzed. If nothing changes and demand continues for oil as does the unrest in the Middle East, they believe the price of oil will go up. If they thought politicians in Washington were acting as grown-ups, they may begin to speculate that the price will go down. But they have nothing to base that assumption on, so they will continue to bet on higher oil costs.
The democrats demeaning the speculators and offering really no solution to the crisis is feeding the speculation that prices will rise. I wonder if democrats actually are aware of their role in this and have investments in oil futures or if they area really that stupid. The jury is out.
Speculators exist across the board. They are betting gold will rise, they bet corn and sugar beets would rise when Congress placed mandates on ethanol mixes and even one of the democrats’ big heroes, George Soros, made nearly $1 billion speculating that the price of the Pound would drop and then did all he could to talk down the currency.
I’m not sure what they have planned for the speculators, but I’m speculating it will do nothing to address our long or short term energy problem. However, they area certainly expecting you to believe meting out punishment to investors will make you feel better.
Which brings us to their brilliant idea of getting more of our energy from windmills and solar. Only people who gave us ethanol and the ensuing food shortages and food riots could expect us to believe this is a logical way to replace fossil fuels. Based on the Department of Energy’s own statistics, we get less than 2 percent of our electricity from solar and wind and, mind you, none of this moves our cars around.
It would be wonderful to be able to get our energy from such things, but the technology is not where it needs to be to make this realistic. It would be great to have more funding for alternative fuels and energy and I fault Bush and his predecessors for doing absolutely nothing to encourage development of other reliable sources. We’re the most technologically advanced society but we seem to be sitting on our thumbs when it comes to real and practical innovation. For now, solar and wind only produce a needed counterbalance to the hot air coming our way from Washington and you’d have to be tilting at your own windmills to believe it will save us.
Finally, the issue of drilling and nukes. Yeah, I know, the caribou will be pissed. I was a lot more worried about how the caribou felt when gas was at $2 per gallon, but I am sufficiently bothered now that I don’t care what the caribou think. Round them all up and put them in a caribou show at Sea World, I don’t care, but let them know we’re moving into the neighborhood and we’re bringing unsightly drills.
We hear all the debate that places like ANWR won’t produce a drop of oil for 10 years or it won’t produce enough to make a difference. Well, that’s a great way to look at thing, isn’t it? In 10 years when gas and home heating are 10 times what they are now, will we still be saying we can’t drill for oil in ANWR or in the Gulf because it’s 10 years away? Maybe if we had begun drilling 10 years ago, we wouldn’t be having this crisis and I wouldn’t be up so late writing this shrill post.
If you are an environmentalist, please explain this to me: Why is it OK for every other country to be drilling for oil all over the world and it’s not OK for America to be doing the same? I really don’t see the outrage when they decide to drill in Brazil (in the Rain Forest, no less), off the coast of Viet Nam, all over the artic in Russia and Scandinavia, and even off the coast of Cuba. All this means is that we have to get all our oil from places that don’t much care for us and it has to be delivered to us on ships that have a lot more problems with spills than do the pipelines – pipeline technology, by the way, that American companies have perfected for foreign oil companies so that the current spill rate is non-existent.
As long as I have you environmentalists handy, what’s the deal with the nukes? It’s clean energy, especially when compared to coal, and it’s cheap. France does it, producing 85 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, and you enviros love the French. Frankly the only problem I see with investing in nuclear fuel is that we haven’t graduated a nuclear engineer capable of running a plant in 10 years because there was no job market. We’ll have to import our engineers from France and our immigration problem is bad enough.
While I am aware that hundreds of republicans have done nothing to solve our energy crisis, including the current occupant of the White House, I still have to hand it to the democrats to come up with the least effective ways to deal with the problem. The trouble is, they, along with their supporters in the environmental movement, have been shoveling this crap at us since, well since gas prices were at 50 cent per gallon, and we’re living in a country they think is gullible enough to still believe them. And maybe they’re right, judging from polls. However, I think their rhetoric becomes more difficult to accept when oil costs are driving our airlines out of business, killing us at the super market and hurting those who can least afford to pay double for getting to work each day. I think it’s time to find a new movement for you environmentalists to get behind and let’s get our hands dirty digging for buried dinosaur juice.
4 comments:
As a sometime environmentalist and sometime conservative republican, I have mixed feelings about using nuclear power. While it makes SO much sense from an energy independence viewpoint, my big concern with it is the waste transportation and storage of spent fuel. I think it's a problem that will never go away.
No surprise but Congress wants it both ways. They want to go after the "speculators" who invest their money in oil futures. But they want to rescue the speculators who bought houses at their peak with no money down and an artificially low interest rate with a loan that maybe they weren't even qualified for. Yes, there are sad stories of people being foreclosed on. (Let's remember that people who bought a home 3 or 4 years ago in San Diego are STILL ahead! It's not as dire as the media portrays it.) The fact is that buying a house has risks, just like buying oil futures. It's just that oil futures seem only to have an upside at this point. At some point down the road speculators are going to lose money. Will Congress want to rescue these poor investors/people then?!
We can always launch the spent fuel rods into space or ship them to former energy producing countries that will lose revenue because the U.S. will no longer be needing their oil. A desert is a good place for spent rods.
Of course I don't have the burden of ever being an environmentalist so it's an easy choice for me.
Yikes. You need to get home, you are sounding a little amped up. But none-the-less I will bite and debate a few things with you, mainly cuz I want to try to get your blood pressure pumping again.
Although I cannot speak as a democrat (thank god), I do have to dispute your take on the energy policy. I do agree that both the windfall profits tax and specualtion regulation are both short sided and likely to have little to no impact what-so-ever. I would say this though, at least they are making the effort to APPEAR that they care. Unlike the Republicans that are taking a more "tough shit" stance while they cut their profit dividends from their oil investments. But I digress, no sense in arguing about something we both essentially agree on.
But I have to take issue with the other two things you characterized as stupid - numbers 3 and 4 on your introductory list.
3. Windmills or solar energy. First off I do not know where any democrat has stated that these technologies should immediatley replace fossil fuels. I do believe that we should conitnue to work with these technologies to both mitigate current energy shortages and in hopes of perfecting the processes for the years to come. This is my problem with the insistence on some to just drill for more oil. It is a reactionary approach and in its' essence will doom us to failure. We know oil has a finite supply. We are going to run out and we have known we need an alternative for a long time. In my experience, if you are trying to find a new solution, you have to focus on the final goal. Our final goal should be finding a replacement for oil, not a way to save all of us a few dollars each time at the pump. Focus is a problem for our collective country but I know we can do it. I mean look at the focus we showed in Afghanistan and capturing Bin Lade---oh wait....
On to the next issue which is drilling and nuclear energy. Hold on a second though while I put on my biodegradeable and organic environmentalist hat. Yes I, along with Democrats, do not think drilling in ANWR is a good idea. (Oh also wanted to point out that the Republican savior/candidate McCain also opposes drilling in ANWR). I don't oppose this because I care about caribou or the artic fox (after all I am an ocean man myself), but rather because of a behavioral policy you taught me about in high school. I remember you telling me that you knew that I would experiment with alcohol etc, but that if you maintained a strict zero tolerance policy that I would be encourage to experiment a little less. The psychology works. Once you open up that door and say that it is ok to smoke a little pot, then the chances of your kid moving on to coke go way up. Our Government has been doing this extensively since 9/11 in the fight against terrorism. They seem to think that if we take a zero tolerance approach to terrorism (bombings, torture, Guantanamo, tapped cell phones etc) than the chance of another incident goes down. Well by the same logic I have to ask where it stops if we start drilling in ANWR. What happens in another 10 years when the Government comes and starts drilling in Yosemite or at Grandview beach. If you give someone or something an inch than they will take a mile and nowhere is that more true than when discussing Government.
In keeping with the theme of life lessons I learned in high school, I also have to object to your "others are doing it, so why can't we" argument. First off, it is not ok with me that other countries are drilling for oil in important environmental zones. But in the same way I cannot discipline other people's kids, I have no say in the soviergn decisions that other nations make. But I have a say in my country and I also can maintain the hope that my country (just like my kid) can be the free thinker that sets the good example for those other punk kids --- ya I am talking to you Vietnam.
On to the final issue of nuclear energy. I would say that I am not entirely against nuclear energy. I do worry about safety issues especially in light of your observation regarding our nuclear engineers (two words: Homer Simpson) but I also know that coal based energy poses safety issues as well. I am surpised that Republicans are so gung ho on nuclear plants when in my mind it is basically creating a giant target for terrorist to attack. I also worry about waste removal because as we have learned us humans are short sided creatures and would think nothing of putting all of our toys in our closet to clean our room or shoving all of our waste in the desert where it contaminates all of our water supply.
Clearly we have a problem, I don't dispute this. But when people lose jobs or face pay cuts, they don't demand that their grocery store start charging them less for hot pockets. They adapt and learn to make life choices that are in tune with their new situation. Cheap airfare and gas prices are not a consitutional right. As a country, America used to be smart and willing to accept a challenge. I fear that for whatever reason this has changed and we are left with one group of "leaders" who says tough shit and one who offers very little in the way of good ideas. I think it is up to us the individual to drive less, to stop buying bottled water, in short to make all those little changes that we would make if faced with a smaller challenge.
Post a Comment