Barack Hussein Obama’s solution to the high fuel cost problem is to raise the cost of fuel. He wants to impose a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies, which will of course be passed on to fuel users. After noticing that the oil companies are still making a nice profit, Barack will probably push to raise his windfall profits tax and so on. Apparently the man hates profits. Never mind that his largest constituent base’s retirement funds depend heavily on corporate profits.
And there’s this other little fact that Barack ignores. The government profits a lot more than the oil companies from each gallon of fuel sold. Some estimates show the government profiting three times as much. Do you think Barack will levy a windfall profits tax on the government?
Since I was a teenager the percent increase in the cost of a Coca-Cola is as much or more than a gallon of fuel. And it has been reported that Coca-Cola’s profit rate last year was greater than the oil companies’ profit rates (where profit rate is roughly defined as the amount of profit divided by the amount of money invested in making that profit.) But we don’t hear any calls from Barack for a windfall profits tax on Coca-Cola.
Some people point out that the concern is about the “obscene” amount of the oil company profits, not the profit rate. Well, that’s like complaining to a bank that your neighbor is making more off his savings than you although both of you are getting the same interest rate, while ignoring the fact that your neighbor has ten times as much money in his account as you have in yours.
It is also argued that the focus is on the oil companies because their products are essential to our everyday lives and products like Coca-Cola are not. Well genius, that is why the oil companies’ gross revenues and profits are huge compared to companies like Coca-Cola. In times of shortages it is easier to do without Coke than fuel.
It is also worth noting that liberal Democrats will argue at the same time that oil is essential to our everyday lives and that we should implement extreme measures to limit its supply.
About a month ago I e-mailed this message to info@gop.com:
I received an e-mail from you asking me to donate to John McCain’s campaign. My position is very simple. Get McCain to change his mind and commit to extracting oil from ANWR and the lower Gulf of Mexico and I will make a very generous donation to his campaign.
This week he stated that he favors letting the states decide if they want to allow oil exploration and extraction off their shores and that he would reconsider his opposition to drilling in ANWR. That’s not quite what I asked for but it’s close enough. I’m not under any pretense that my message alone caused McCain to change his mind but I feel that I should hold up my end of the bargain.
Here’s my next challenge for McCain. Make this announcement in a major speech and I will make a second contribution of double the amount of the first one:
As President you will oppose the revival of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill and that you will veto it if it is passed by Congress. You have reconsidered the pros and cons of the bill and you now feel that the cons outweigh the pros. Chief among the cons is the devastating economic effect on the poor working class.
I have e-mailed the text of this post to the GOP.
On a related note, I heard Barack Obama criticizing McCain’s revised stance on oil drilling. He said that drilling offshore and in ANWR won’t lower fuel prices today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Well Barack, what about in six years or ten years? Even at my age I think I might need some fuel ten years from now and would like to think I’ll be able to afford it on my fixed retirement income. I thought leadership was about where we’re going, not where we are.
January 16, 2008 – 9:50 am
According to Walter Williams, the state nannies in California are preparing to control your thermostats for you:
The California Energy Commission has recently proposed amendments to its standards for energy efficiency. These standards include a requirement that any new or modified heating or air conditioning system must include a programmable communicating thermostat (PCT) whose settings can be remotely controlled by government authorities. A thermostat czar, sitting in Sacramento, would be empowered to remotely reduce the heating or cooling of your house during what he deems as an “emergency event.”
Building more nuclear power plants would negate the need for such an intrusive measure. But that’s not what governments want. They want greater need for their meddling.
The Associated Press reported last week that “Democrats celebrated a step toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil as the Senate approved a bill calling for more ethanol and the first boost in gas mileage in decades.” What the Democrats are really celebrating is their move to micromanage the energy market. They would like to micromanage all the markets. That way they can get more campaign contributions from all the industries that want to play in their markets.
We don’t need additional controls on the energy market, we need fewer. If the government would get out of the way private industry and a free market would eliminate any energy problems. The government is currently preventing the building of nuclear power plants, preventing the development of new domestic oil fields, and preventing the building of new oil refineries. Right here in my state Senator Mel Martinez boasts frequently about ‘protecting’ our gulf waters from becoming oil fields. There is no pressing need to reduce our dependence on oil in general; what we need is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
There is no real environmental gain from using ethanol instead of gasoline. The only benefit from ethanol is that it can be produced domestically and, therefore, reduces to some extent our dependence on foreign oil. We should welcome the development and production of alternative energy sources like ethanol, but leave them to the free market. If there is demand for ethanol someone will supply it. And there will be demand for it when oil prices get high enough. But ethanol is not the final answer.
The ultimate renewable energy source is the sun. When the sun stops shining we won’t need any more energy. If the government wants to sponsor some far-term basic research into new sources of energy it should put its money and effort into developing revolutionary ways of capturing solar energy. I’m not talking about capturing it through the production of corn and then extracting energy from the corn. I’m talking about more direct methods like the current use of solar cells to produce electricity. There has to be some breakthrough solution out there; we just need to get enough of the right people thinking about it.
_______________
The Senate bill calls for price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an “unconscionably excessive” price for oil products, including gasoline. Are they kidding? How do they expect to measure what is unconscionably excessive? Some court will throw that out the first time it is challenged. Perhaps they know that and are just trying to make some political mileage.
