I believe in not just listening to what people say, but watching
what they do as an indicator of what they truly believe. I have been
watching the Democrats in congress ever since they took control back
in January 2007. So far, their energy policy seems to be to do
everything in their power to increase the cost of energy, and blame
the resulting price increases on George Bush and the Republicans.
They prattle on about “alternative energy sources” and the need to
“invest” in new technologies. But they steadfastly refuse to allow
any existing technologies to be leveraged in the interim while these
future technologies, some of which are 30 years or more away from
being commercially viable, are brought to fruition.
This does not bother the Dems in the slightest however. If hot air
were to be considered a greenhouse gas, they would certainly be in
trouble, as they spout it continuously, pointing to the Republicans
in general and President Bush in particular as the reason why energy
costs are going through the roof.

Apparently, the Democrats want us to ignore the fact that they are
now the majority party in both the House and Senate, and that if
they really want to do something about the high cost of energy, they
are the ones with the power to do so. Last time I checked my pocket
constitution, it said that Congress was the Legislative branch of
government. All laws are supposed to be passed there, and sent to
the president to be signed. And yet, to hear them talk, the fact
that we still have no rational energy policy is all President Bush’s
fault.
Strange, I haven’t heard anything about Bush vetoing a whole slew of
energy bills proposed by Congress. That is in actuality the only way
he could thwart the plans of Congress to fix the problem. In fact,
this president has pretty much the lowest record of vetoing bills in
the history of the country. Granted, most of his lack of activity on
the veto front was during the time that his party held both houses,
but even so; you would think that if he had been vetoing major
energy legislation there would have been some mention of it in the
media, which never seems to otherwise miss an opportunity to whack
Bush for something.
Fortunately for the Libs in the Democratic Party, they have another
target they can demonize – “Big Oil”. And what’s even better, since
President Bush was once an oil man himself, he and “big oil” can be
linked in the public mind. Demonizing one rubs off on the other.
“Big oil” today is the “big tobacco” of yesterday. Having squeezed
the tobacco companies for all they could get from them, and
stigmatized them as an industry, they have now turned their sights
on another large cash cow waiting to be milked – the oil industry.
Except that, unlike the tobacco producers, squashing and
stigmatizing the oil industry have ramifications for the entire
economy, and the world food chain to boot.
Besides the obvious connection, that practically everything we buy
is moved from point A to point B using oil, typically in the form of
diesel fuel for ships, tractor-trailer rigs or trains, there are the
less obvious things that we use every day that are also products of
the oil industry. Things like antifreeze for your car, cleaning
fluids, and pharmaceuticals. Things like diapers, cosmetics, and
Vaseline (its petroleum jelly after all).
These are going up because somewhere along the line, petroleum
products are used not just in their distribution, but in their
production as well. Even items that on their face have no
relationship at all to oil are increasing in price due to the
increasing price of oil. Increased energy costs for example, make
things more costly to manufacture as well as move.
Even more directly associated is packaging material. Many items sold
today are packaged in plastic. Plastic bottles, formed plastic
containers, bubble wrap, you name it. Plastic is ubiquitous. The
bulk of plastics today are formed from polypropylene or polyethylene
– long chain hydrocarbons,
derived from oil and natural gas.
As the cost of the basic raw materials used to manufacture products
increase, so eventually must the cost of the product derived from
the raw materials. As businesses are in competition with each other,
they are loath to raise prices unless they absolutely have to. Being
more expensive than your competitor may cost you market share, which
may translate into lower profitability. So businesses tend to try
and absorb what they think may be short term price increases rather
than immediately passing them along in an attempt to trade off short
term losses for long term gains. This also has the effect of keeping
short term prices stable. Imagine what it would be like to find
every item in the grocery store, for example, priced like gasoline
is, with new prices on a daily or even hourly basis.
However, when what appears to be a short term increase starts
looking like a long term one, things change. Businesses, unlike
governments, cannot afford to lose money indefinitely. They have
shareholders they have to please, and workers they have to pay.
Remember that old saw that “a rising tide lifts all boats?” That
works both ways. Rising costs affect all markets too; yours and your
competitors. If all are forced to raise prices, then no competitive
advantage is gained or lost. And
prices
are starting to rise, due to the increases in raw material
costs; in this case oil.
Food costs are increasing. Not just because large farms require
automation, and farm equipment is powered by gasoline, diesel and
natural gas, all derived from oil. Not just because they are shipped
to market via surface transportation, also powered by oil. But more
fundamentally, because large crop yields require massive amounts of
fertilizer.
There are three components to fertilizer; nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium. The most common nitrogen fertilizer is ammonium nitrate
(the same stuff that Timothy McVey used to blow up the Federal
Building in Oklahoma City). And ammonium nitrate is produced in mass
quantity using natural gas; so rising natural gas prices have
driven the price of fertilizer up as well.
And why are these prices going up? According to the Democrats, the
answer is simple. Greed. They must be greedy; during this time that
millions of Americans are suffering with higher gas prices, they are
posting record profits!
The government is posting record tax receipts as well. Do you hear
the Democrats talk about “greedy politicians” too? Of course not.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the term “greedy
politician” is an oxymoron, how many Democrats have you heard
recently propose that the government is taking too much money from
the people and perhaps they should lower taxes in this time of need?
Haven’t heard that, have you? Instead, the Democrats talk about how
they need to raise taxes – only on the rich of course. Why? Because
they are greedy, of course. And they can afford it. See a pattern?
So let's do a little comparison. It has been noted that the Oil
companies make a profit of about 8 cents off every gallon of
gasoline that is sold nationwide, regardless of the price. The bulk
of the expense involved in the price of gasoline is the cost of the
raw material, oil, itself.

The federal government on the other hand, makes 18.4 cents in tax on
every gallon of gas sold, also regardless of the price. This is over
twice the amount of profit that the oil companies make. And it isn’t
the total “take” by taxing entities.
The states get a cut as well. In some locations, there are
county and city gas taxes as well. On average, Americans pay 45.9
cents a gallon in tax. The amount varies; some states take more,
some less. Most, like the federal government, take a flat rate; some
however charge a sales tax on gas. In those cases, the state take
increases along with the price of fuel.
Yet the companies which actually produce the product are labeled
“greedy” while the “profits” made by the government, which are
purely parasitical in nature are evidently OK. They go for a greater
good, after all, while the oil company profits only benefit the “fat
cats” at the top.
So the Democrats have proposed a “windfall profits” tax on the oil
companies. Please note that this too does nothing to lower the price
of gas ; in fact, the price may actually increase. Taxes are after
all, a cost of doing business, and are typically passed along to
consumers in the form of higher prices. It does make sure however,
that the government gets it’s “cut” of the profits.
You may have heard the term “windfall
profits tax” as it pertains to oil companies, prior to this
current round of price unpleasantness. That is because the
government has done this before, in 1980, in response to the
increase in oil prices brought about by the Arab oil embargo. At the
time, government estimates were that it would bring in over $320
billion in revenue to the US Treasury; money that otherwise would,
no doubt, be wasted by those greedy oil barons.
In point of fact, the tax only grossed $80 billion (net receipts
were only around $40 billion, as the tax was deductible against
corporate income), way below government expectations. Why?
The tax, which was an excise tax on oil rather than a tax on oil
profits as one might believe based on its name, was levied on
domestic oil companies had the effect of penalizing them for
purchasing oil from domestic sources and rewarding them for
purchasing foreign oil. As a result, the domestic oil market went
into decline, and the tax increased, rather than decreased our
dependence on foreign oil sources. Domestic production declined 3 to
6 percent, while foreign imports increased 8 to 16 percent.
It has been said that those who fail to learn from history are
condemned to repeat it. Should congress try this “punish the evil
oil companies” sort of thing again, we may get to learn again first
hand what we should have learned the last time we tried this.
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to try something different instead?
While the so-called “windfall profits” tax may feel good, it will do
little if anything to lower prices at the pump. It will benefit
government to a certain degree; they will get some additional
revenue, albeit probably much less than they think they will. Long
term effects on the nation however will probably be negative rather
than positive over all.
For us out here in the great unwashed, it is all blue smoke and
mirrors. The government will gain the public approval to raise taxes
in the guise of fighting evil. American oil companies will be
punished for something they have little power over, namely the price
of oil. And gas will continue to be expensive.
At least until the November elections. Anyone want to bet that
prices will ease after that? Particularly if Obama is elected? No
need for gloom and doom! Happy days are here again!
Just like when Clinton was elected, and magically the day after the
elections were held, the “worst economy in 50 years” according to
the Democrats, suddenly turned around – and he hadn’t even taken
office yet!
One thing is probably certain; when it comes to the Democrats plans
to fix our energy problems, should they take the Executive as well
as both Legislative branches, you probably “ain’t seen nothin yet”.
When it comes to a meaningful response to the problem thus far, we
all ain’t seen nothin yet; the “plan” so far has just been a big
nothing.

We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.