So, I found this interesting article over at MSNBC. Apparently ten senators (also known as traitors by their own parties I am sure), got together over the break to try to hammer out some sort of energy compromise. There was give on both sides, which, of course, means both sides hate it, and it is more than likely doomed to failure. I'll give you a synopsis of what the two parties dislike.
Dems:
Dems dislike the fact that it does open up more drilling, they dislike the fact that it eases restrictions on nuclear, and they dislike the fact that if it passed, they couldn't sit back and complain that the energy crisis is a reason they must be voted for, because only they can solve it.
Repugs:
The republicans dislike this bill becase it focuses money towards wind and solar, it doesn't open up as much drilling as they want, it pays for this program by repealing tax cuts to the gas and oil industries. And, probably the most asinine reason for the republicans?.....Because it takes away one of McCain's best attacks on Obama, that we need drilling and the dems are standing in the way.
So, awesome. These are the people at the helm. I couldn't disagree more with any of the above problems, and I applaud the ten (now up to 16), senators for at least trying something. I will be the first to admit that I don't know every facet of this bill (or proposed bill), and there may well be parts I don't agree with. However, that is how major legislation has to happen, compromise.
One quick note, while I am usually staunchly in the camp that raising corporate taxes just gets passed down to the consumer, I don't think that will be the case, necessarily when it comes to repealing the tax breaks for gas and oil companies. Why? Because they are already coming too close to pricing themselves out of existence. They can't raise prices much more, they would destroy the market, and usher in their own demise.
So, will eight Dem senators, and eight Repug senators who have kicked the party line be able to make a difference on energy? Maybe, but I am pretty sure the rest of them will destroy this effort to make actual changes to our energy policy, because in the end, it doesn't help either party to solve the problem.
7 comments:
I agree with almost everything you said here, up until "they are already coming too close to pricing themselves out of existence." We're not nearly there, not by a long shot. The gasoline industry is not going anywhere. Most people still don't have an alternative that looks anything like feasible. If some clever minds could devise some good options, now would be a great time, but I still don't think anything else has a chance of competing on price vs. convenience--not until the price goes up a LOT more. We'll continue to complain, but Americans will pay those tax increases.
And yes, both parties suck, especially their election-year grandstanding.
I've pointed this out to you before Dan...you always seem to think that there's an inherent value in the middle-ground and that all compromise is intrinsically good. Both parties would get something they want, you say. Why should they be so greedy?
From most people, the assumption, that compromise for compromise's sake is a good thing, always sounds either naively idealistic (everyone in Washington needs to get over themselves and think about the country!) or an attempt to sound smarter than everyone (I hate both parties! They're all wrong, I'm right! Muwhahah!). When it comes from you, a person I know to be neither naive nor supremely egotistical, I never know what to think.
While compromise isn't a bad thing, the problem is that compromise doesn't work for many issue, this being one of them...at least if you're a Republican (who cares about the Dems?). The desire for more drilling on the part Republicans isn't just to make oil companies richer...the hope is to make a dent in the oil supply and, at some future point, bring energy prices down. Drilling alone is not enough, but drilling just here and there won't significantly affect the supply. So, when you couple an insufficient amount of new drilling with increased taxes and you get a bill that, for the solutions the Republicans want to enact, is counter-productive.
But, nevermind that, people are compromising over here!
Something can be both a strong argument during an election campaign and the correct policy approach. Here, the reason it's a good election talking point is because it's a good policy with widespread support. It's not stupid for Senators to recognize that.
And, for the record, I work in the Senate and I have to say that, in my observations, the fact that this would take away a McCain talking point has been, if at all, a secondary concern. Republicans who don't like the deal are concerned, legitimately in my opinion, that this approach won't produce enough energy.
But, I guess we shouldn't spoil a good compromise with all this needless stuff about enacting good policy.
We both suffer from the same thing when we talk about stuff Bryan, we have a hard time not being snotty to each other.
I will endeavor to not be snotty, as I think you do bring up valid arguments. I don't think your diatribe about compromise and the stupidity of not liking either party is a good argument. We've been through that before. I can and do dislike both parties, this doesn't make them equal, I just don't like either.
These are the points I see you making that I will respond to. First, increased drilling, second, tax 'increases'.
First, it seems that your argument, and the republicans argument is that increased drilling will bring us more oil, thus decrease the supply problems that are causing price increases.
I would point you to the most recent flux that was from around the 140 a barrel down to, I'm not sure how low it went, like 104...
This was all based on market speculation, which seems to be what is driving the price. From everything I have read, though supply is what originally drove the price, it has been grabbed by speculation and that is what is causing the increases up to 140ish a barrel.
Its a fabulous idea to think that when U.S. companies drill all that oil out of Alaska (which I have absolutely no problem with), that they will be able to sell us gas cheaper. I just don't believe it for a second. Once the industry is able to get the price up, it doesn't drop down to what it was before the 'cause' of the increase.
I do not believe that increased drilling will have a significant effect on the current price of gas. It will, more than likely, keep it from skyrocketing higher (as quickly), but I don't think it will do anything to decrease current prices. We are above 3.50 a gallon, and I don't think I'll ever see it below that again in my life.
Tax 'increases'. No one can argue that the oil companies are making money, lots, and lots of money. And no, I don't have any problem with that, capitalism, etc., I'm fine with them making profits. But, decreasing there tax breaks is not the same. Yes, I know it amounts to the same, money wise, but it isn't the same. In the one, we take money they earn, in the other, we don't let them pay less money because they are the oil industry.
Bryan, do you really think that the oil industry is going to, if allowed, put enough oil out on the market so that the price of it goes down significantly? Its not like there are gas shortages, or rationing. People can buy as much as they want right now. So, if the oil industry really was to lower the price, they would just be lowering their profits. I don't see them falling all over themselves to do that.
If you gave the green light today, for the oil industry to drill anywhere, and everywhere oil exists within our sphere of influence, this is what I truly believe would happen. The price on the market would plunge, on the speculation that more oil would be forthcoming. Then, the oil industry would drill in a way that kept the supply stable to the demand to keep the prices exactly where they felt peak profits lay. It wouldn't be done quicker, or at a higher volume just to make our costs less. And then the market would readjust, with the knowledge that this new allowance would not really effect supply at all.
Dan, I would like to posit that even if everything you say is true, it is far better for that supply (even at the same price) to be from here than from other nations. It is simply better for our own economics, and because self-sufficiency is a good thing.
Furthermore, if someone is going to tap the natural resources of the artic (and we aren't the only ones interested in it by a LONG shot. Russia's flag planting and attempt to have their waters extend out over the Lamonosov Ridge started something akin to an arms race to stake territory in the Arctic Ocean), I would prefer it was American oil companies. Call me naieve. I probably am, but I don't believe anyone would do it more efficiently or, more importantly, with less environmental impact than American business.
I know this is off topic from your point about both political parties, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Like I said Tiffany, I don't have any problems whatsoever with drilling in the north. I don't think its irresponsible, and I don't think it will ruin anything.
But, I don't think it will lower prices. That is my argument. If someone argues to do it, to relieve the suffering at the pump, I'll call them a dreamer.
I think that this http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
puts the lie to the idea that our current prices are supply and demand driven. I don't believe that they are. Not that there isn't a supply and demand component, but the current prices do not reflect that component.
But here's the question Tiffany. Do you really think that the oil companies need tax incentives to do what they do, or even to expand that drilling to new areas? I don't. They are making record profits in the billions. Now I say good for them, I am all for successful business. But I don't like subsidies and of any industry, it seems that oil doesn't need tax incentives or breaks to be successful and competitive.
No they obviously don't need tax breaks to be successful. That could be said of MANY major companies. It is, in my opinion, a matter of equity. Is it equitable to treat them differently positively or negatively because they are, "big oil?"
That being said, that wasn't my argument. I think there are environmental AND national security reasons for us to drill in the arctic rather than let someone else do it.
I have just one question for Bryan: are you a North-going Zax or a South-going Zax? If you have no idea what i'm talking about... check this out on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxCuQzd478&feature=related
Post a Comment