Foxes are running the energy coop
Republicans are scrambling to do something about the high cost of petroleum. Let’s suggest one obvious solution: I propose that we invade Iraq, topple the dictatorship there and then use the massive oil revenues to rebuild the country and increase supply in the United States. Oh wait, George Bush already tried that. Let’s see, without reading any news on it, what might Republicans come up with based on past proposals? Could it be…. drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Yes for 100 points to the red team!!
Could it be tougher fuel standards? Bzzzz! Sorry green team, but you were fooled on this one. The Bush administration proposes that new fuel standards will avoid “perverse incentives for manufacturers to produce smaller and more dangerous vehicles.” I feel like I should put a bumper sticker on my car that says “Warning: Dangerous small vehicle. Stop me before I kill again.” This is like Ronald Reagan and the killer trees. Small vehicles are only more dangerous when involved in crashes with large vehicles (read SUVs). In single-vehicle crashes they are no more dangerous than SUVs and, get this, are less likely to get into single-vehicle crashes because they are more maneuverable, stop quicker and are less likely to roll. So the current lax fuel standards are the ones that encourage dangerous vehicles. Of course, for all I care, anyone who hasn’t figured out that we live in an age of Orwell double-speak can go right out and buy that Hummer you’ve been eyeing.
Before we have any discussion of Republican energy policy, though, I have to throw out two numbers: 3 and 8.
- The auto industry contributes three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats
- The oil industry contributes eight times as much to Republicans as to Democrats
So both parties have sold their souls to lobbyists and corporate interests, of course, but in this respect Republicans should be in the eighth circle of the Inferno, while Democrats are up there in the fith circle of eternal damnation.
Something has to be done though, right? People are reduced to stealing gas right? Well, April was the busiest retail month in two years. Wal-mart, considered a bellwether of the retail economy and notable also in that it caters to low-income people, those presumably hardest hit by the current rise in gas prices, saw sales jump 6.8% over last April. According to the New York Times, this is partly because Easter fell in mid-April this year rather than late March like last year, so Easter sales came in April.
Thomas M. Schoewe, the chief financial officer at Wal-Mart, said “rising fuel costs were overshadowed by the customers’ response to merchandise” like toys and candy, two Easter staples.
I wonder if any quote could serve as a better equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. We are in “crisis” (or so they tell us), but it’s offset by expenditures on toys and candy. There may be nothing left to say about America in our time beyond that.
Except this… The Republicans have proposed a $100 rebate on gas tax to all Americans, which ranks among the stupidest ideas to come out of Washington and that’s saying a lot. That idea is dead, but meanwhile they have gone on to find other ways to save Americans money. Assuming, of course, you happen to be among the wealthier Americans who, presumably, can afford to buy gas anyway, but I guess can’t afford to buy companies, which is the constituency the Bush administration is usually pandering to. So the proposed tax bill will cut 0.4% or $20 off the annual tax bill of the typical taxpayer in the middle quintile (that is, 40% earn less and 40% earn more). The bottome 40% are, of course, out of luck. Meanwhile, those who make 5.3 million dollars per year, and who no doubt need help paying for gas for their limos and Leer jets, would have 4.8% or over $82,000 lopped off their tax bill. Those taxpayers making $75,000 to $100,000 would have $403 lopped off. Why bother?
Meanwhile, the Forest Service is set to sell off as much as 375,000 acres of land to raise money because the government can’t find funds to pay the money it owes, under an agreement dating back to Theodore Roosevelt, to rural communities impacted by the creation of National Forests. Because it has become politically incorrect to sell timber off this land, especially old-growth timber, the Forest Service needs to raise money somehow. So instead of giving uneconomical subsidies to logging companies and having them clear cut with at least the chance to regrow in four hundred years, we have switched to letting condo developers pay fair market value and plowing the land under forever. This is not what folks had in mind when we said we didn’t want our National Forests harvested.
So to tie together the seemingly disparate elements of this rant: maybe those people who make $75,000 or more per year could just pony up their $403 and let us keep our National Forests and we can just let gas prices rise so that there is more incentive to use sustainable energy and, with luck, climate change won’t destroy our National Forests if the the Forest Service doesn’t get to them first.
Meanwhile, the real mystery in recent news: the only massive street protests in recent days concern immigration law.
Sources:
- Conflicting Loyalties as Republicans Confront High Gas Prices – New York Times
- Analysis of Tax Bill Finds More Benefits for the Rich – New York Times
- An April Easter Helps Retailers Post Best Sales Gain in 2 Years – New York Times
- Students Are Concerned by U.S. Plan to Sell Their Trees – New York Times
Popularity: 15% [?]
Add to: 
del.icio.us •
furl •
reddit
•
digg •
technorati cosmos
