28 February 2008

House Democrats Attack Oil Industry; Threaten to Raise Price of Gasoline and Heating Oil

Nearly unbelievable, but then, this is the Democratic Party after all, basically the American equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party. I know a good number of the people who are on the Left side of the political spectrum will consider that an unfair argument, but let's take a look at just how socialist of an antic this destined to be vetoed bill is:

1. Levy's a tax on single industry by $18 billion dollars.

2. Is a transfer tax to inefficient sector of the energy industry ("alternative sources") which are more than capable of making advances on their own within the free market. Consider this article to from IBDeditorials.com, the first few sentences sum up the bio-diesel industry extremely well:

In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.

Stick around for the part about how much higher in carbon emissions it is in comparison to oil.

3. Completely irresponsible, especially when the reason that the Democrats give for their need to raise taxes on oil is due to "record oil prices and gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles." So raising taxes on oil companies and effectively further increasing the price of gas and heating oil as well as plastics, etc will somehow be good for the economy? It will be good during an economically mild environment to punish a successful industry and punish consumers by artificially raising prices even further? Astonishing. Please reference the previous post about the Democrats' need for economic woes for political purposes. It has nothing to do with the American citizens.

4. Further expansion on my point about the negative impact it will have on consumers and investors is that a raise in taxes on the oil industry, in which many, many workers, from the bottom on up, have investments in their 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. This will negatively impact the bottom line on everyone from workers to the industry itself.

5. Jim McDermott (D-WA) calls the tax bracket that the oil companies are in a "subsidy". Interesting where he and the other Democrats fail to leave out the part where the world-wide effective tax rate on oil companies was 37% in 2006 compared to 35% in 2001, which is above the top US corporate tax bracket of 35% as it is (statistics from Energy Information Administration's Annual Financial Reporting System). Tax rates above even the tax rate can in no way be qualified as a "subsidy."

6. The House Democrats are essentially attacking the Oil industry in order to give a kick back to their friends who have undoubtedly invested heavily in alternative energy sources, while attempting to villainize a sector of our economy vital to our economic health and national security in an attempt to further their class warfare rhetoric.

I'm not basing alternative energy as a means to bring more stability to the energy market, but the Democrats are transparent in the effort to produce energy at home, they simply do not want that either. Refinery capacity remains a serious issue for our nation. The Democrats have consistently opposed efforts to build new refineries to help provide the energy needs of our nation. In fact, as energy demand has grown over time, their interference with the free market in this area is leading directly to higher costs. Indeed, technology has greatly improved since the last time we actually built a refinery and should a new one be built, then these the new plants would be much more efficient and safer than existing facilities.

Opposing the exploration and drilling of areas close to home is another example of the Democrats are lying about their desire to have our national security protected by providing for the production of our energy needs within our soil. Natural gas and coal are plentiful in this country and one of the most promising technologies that results in, ahem, "cleaner" energy is liquefied coal, something they will not fully support either. Ethanol has proven to be inefficient as an energy source, and even if the Democrats were serious about that, then where is the drum beating to eliminate the tariffs from ethanol imported from Brazil? Even now, as the price of wheat and corn rises to record highs, we are not hearing the Democrats decry the evils of farm subsidies as this is one of the large organizations that help control the Democratic Party.

Nuclear is another area where the Democrats show their true colors on the energy policy. We have not built a reactor in quite a long time, despite the fact that the technological advances are far greater since the 1970s and the technology can be rolled out rapidly and would further help the economy in utilizing plutonium sources within our shores. They constantly use fear tactics with regard to nuclear energy to discourage its usage.

With regard to wind and solar these are only regional fixes, not national. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow it would benefit Alaska (of which some parts do not have sunlight for very long periods of time) to use solar as opposed to oil and natural gas, of which it is bountiful. Over time these technologies will be improved and become an integral part of our economy and infrastructure, however, to lie to the American people about the speed of the roll out and the progress of the technologies at the current time is simple reckless.

Alternative energy sources can and will be developed in the future with the same thing that has been successful for American since our inception. Ingenuity, hard work, and within the framework of the free market. Democrats have long since claimed that they want to help the average American and decry the loss of manufacturing jobs, but their callous interference into the auto industry has cost the jobs they now claim were somehow "stolen" by other nations. They caused this to happen by interfering with the free market. Americans will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars as the price of gas naturally rises. To force this process to occur faster than it normally would occur retards the system and causes damages.

While I in no way mean to disparage the burgeoning and promising technologies of tomorrow and I encourage their growth, to apply a socialist style of tax on the oil companies and cause an artificial rise in prices for every single American is indefensible. While the economy is growing at a clip slightly above 0% (no, it's not a recession) it is incredulous that the Democrats would pursue a tax raise and cause record high prices of gas to go even higher. To help rectify the situation providing some more oil and natural gas licenses in domestic territories as well as allowing refineries to be constructed would be most beneficial. Additional tax breaks should be given to the developers of cleaner, more efficient technologies if the Democrats truly wish to allow for greater growth in these new technologies, not inefficient subsides in the form of taking from the oil companies according to their ability and giving it to Al Gore's investment portfolio according to their needs, ala Karl Marx. However, low tax rates, not playing class warfare, and being pro-growth are not the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. I would like to ask you to keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg should the Democrats win the election. At that point, any entity, business, or private, making any sort of profit and having any extra money in their pockets will be fair game for the Democrats to attempt to pick clean. Remember this well come November.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The use of reprocessing (removal of plutonium from spent fuel), as envisaged under Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is nothing short of a massive subsidy to the plutonium industry. No private business will fund this proposal, which would produce a huge volume of high-level waste and increase costs of nuclear energy. Reprocessing is used in other countries and after decades it either remains a government-financed project or is forced to be paid for by reluctant rate-payers. The UK has a stockpile of 100 metric tons of plutonium but doesn't use a gram of that material as fuel, a real testimony to the failure of this idea which has funneled billions from public coffers to the plutonium industry.