OK, all you Sherlock Holmeses out there, put these facts together and tell me if there's any connection.1) Oil companies make enormous profits in the second quarter 2006.
2) Sen. George Allen and other Republican Congress Critters are "owned by the oil and gas industry."
3) Gasoline prices are over $3 per gallon, causing great hardship for working and middle class families - but not ExxonMobil executives - across America.
4) George Allen and others in the Republican Congress consistently oppose any serious effort to increase fuel economy standards, the only serious way to reduce our demand for oil and, as a result, its price.
Gee, I wonder what's going on here. What could it be? I just can't imagine. Hmmmmm.
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
2. Fair Enough dems are owned by other special interests its a problem with both parties
3. We have met the enemy and it is us aka we are addicted to oil
4. Free market. If the public really wants lower fuel standards they will continue to buy vehicles that have better fuel economy.
This is where we ultimately disagree dems aren't evil and some of your ideas are actually pretty good the difference between dems and repubs however is that dems view government as the instrument of change and add power to it and repubs view people as the instruments of change and give power to them via free markets lower taxes etc.
The price of gas in the rest of the world is high mostly because they are using the money for developing alternatives. They also have good public transportation. It was built into their societies. In London you have to pay a fee to drive your car in. They are discouraging as much polution as they can. I wish we had our money going to something besides cheney and bush and the bin ladens.
Time to multi-source. Read international.
If you scrape off a few aspects such as environmental regulation and taxes you get what repubs like to call a "free market".
So let's be clear - there will never be a completely free market where supply and demand determine the outcome. The government will play a major role in determining economic outcome through much more than tax and environmental laws. And to that end we need much better energy leadership than the current leaders are providing.
Bottom line, regardless of all the spin, if you like things the way they are (high gas prices, record oil profits, phony claims of a free market) you should vote for Allen. He and Bush and Cheney have had six years to develop and implement the current energy policy. They aren't going to change it.
But if you don't those things, vote for a change of leadership. It's the only hope of changing the situation. Vote for change, Vote for Webb.
Oil is really in a special category given its wide spread role in our economy. One of the lessons of the past few years is that we really need to diversify our energy sources. Given the amount of upfront investment required, private industry is unlikely to take the lead without some assistance and assurances from the Feds. I don't know what the best alternatives are, but I have no doubt that we can do a lot better on this front.
2. There are members of the GOP who are not owned by big oil--so I wouldn't even begin to make this a partisan issue. This is an issue for George Allen--especially in so far as he has been complicit in cheering on George W. Bush, who is beholden to big oil.
3. Yes and no. We are addicted to oil because we have a leadership that has and continues to promote the addiction.
4. Special interest lobbying, not the free market. The low fuel standards are as much a reflection on lobbying efforts as they are a reflection on consumer demand.
In the case of oil; however, it may make sense to treat it the same way that we treat cigarettes and tobacco. We levy taxes as much to discourage consumption as we do to cover the true costs of cigarette smoking (e.g. as it relates to increased health care costs).
As far as the paternalistic attitude of Dems goes--there is some truth to this historically--especially as it relates to FDR and LBJ's economic policies. In a number of ways, Clinton broke the mold.
Bush/Allen are fans of big business, not necessarily the free market. They do favor tax cuts; however, they also favor huge subsidies for large private interests (through anti-competitive policies, favorable tax laws, and outright handouts).
I think I would have agreed with you on this issue 14 years ago.
As far as Goldwater conservatism goes, G.W. Bush has pretty much abandon the GOPs core principles on economic and foreign policy. Bush Republicanism, of which Allen is a strong proponent, seems to be characterized by a love of big industry (not necessarily the free-market--there is a difference); an embrace of divisive social issues; and love of muscular rhetoric.
I especially agree with your statement:
"One of the lessons of the past few years is that we really need to diversify our energy sources. Given the amount of upfront investment required, private industry is unlikely to take the lead without some assistance and assurances from the Feds."
The US is positioned to lead the world in developing alternative energy sources. I believe that diverting subsidies to reward innovation would be much better for our economy, as well as helping to save the planet. We need to develop technologies that can wean us from dependence upon oil. Domestic procuction of alternative energy could lessen our dependence upon (often hostile) foreign nations, create jobs, shift part of the international trade imbalance, provide consumers with better choices, lower pollution, improve health, clean the environment, and slow or reverse global warming.
But it entails risk, change, and uncertainty- especially for politicians. That's why we hear lip service, but see little activity.