Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The politics of oil, part II
Posted by: mcq on Friday, April 28, 2006

As an example of the politics of high gas prices, we have Nancy Pelosi decrying them while making a statement about her opposition to the Republican bill on lobbying reform:
At a time of record, historic, obscene profits, these companies are paying enormous fees to their CEOs. The CEO of Exxon is getting a retirement package of $400 million - record profits, high subsidies from the taxpayer, and high prices at the pump. It's a very raw deal for the American people, and all of it born from the culture of corruption in the House of Representatives.
Now most of us recognize the huge stretch Pelosi had to make to a) include this in a statement about a lobbying reform bill and b) somehow tie it all in with the "culture of corruption" canard the Democrats seem so intent upon using.

But there it is. Democrats smell political blood in the water and they are bound and determined to capitalize on it no matter how far they have to stretch.

Republicans understand that, and as a result Dems aren't the only ones playing this silly and very political game:
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
An author was once lamenting the impact of the "dime novels" of the 19th century on the history of the west and how they badly distorted the true history through exaggeration and outright fabrication. He said it was a result of people being taught to read but not being taught to question. It seems nothing has changed in 21st century.

And our memories aren't so great either. In the great 1996 hunt for oil price gougers (under similar circumstances), Charles Krauthammer wrote the following:
American demand is up because we've lived in a fool's paradise since the mid-1980s. Until then, beginning with the oil shocks in 1973, Americans had changed appliances and cars and habits and achieved astonishing energy conservation. Energy use per dollar of GDP was cut by 30 percent in little over a decade. Oil prices collapsed to about $10 a barrel.

Then amnesia set in, MPG ratings disappeared from TV ads and we became ``a country of a million Walter Mittys driving 75 mph in their gas-guzzling Bushwhack-Safari sport-utility roadsters with a moose head on the hood, a country whose crude oil production has dropped 32 percent in the last 25 years but which will not drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fear of disturbing the mating habits of caribou."
Sound familiar? And, of course, the '96 probe found no "price gougers" among the oil companies on which to lay the blame.

Krauthammer has a stunningly simple thesis about the root of today's problem: "supply is down, demand is up". Result? Rising prices at the pump. Problems we identified in the '70s remain completely unaddressed 40 years later.

But it's the greedy oil companies who are at fault.

That's certainly the attempted political spin. However, if those who can read would also question, they'd soon understand that the decision to remain essentially static for 40 years - while the worldwide demand for oil has gone through the roof - wasn't made by the oil companies. It was, instead, made by people like Nancy Pelosi, who now have the temerity to blame it on others.

Politics: the art of shameless blameshifting for political advantage. And we wonder why government is so ineffective when it wanders outside the realm of the "night watchman" role.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well more than likely the 2006 investigation WILL DISCOVER THE SAME THING(S). I’m a little miffed at some of the things Dubya is pandering about this silly season, BUT "something must be done" and if the minimum that will satisfy this "need" is that we "investigate Big Oil" and grump at Exxon’s retirment package, then so be it.

SO FAR, a windfall profits tax is meeting Executive Branch opposition and I don’t think anyone SERIOUSLY considers "busting up Big Oil".

I said it yesterday I’ll say it today, "Welcome to politics, Libertarians." My advice; echo calls for an investigation and prepare your position papers demonstrating that from 1986-2006 Bill Gates and Microsoft have had higher profit RATES and rates of return on investment. Already a State Retirment System has responded to a Governor’s call for "Caps on Oil Profits"-Gov. Granholm I believe- by pointing out that the State Retirement System owns several hundred million dollars worth of oil stock and that such an act would damage the solvency of the retirement system...Sanity will return, with a few nudges and good Press releases, stop complaining aobut the silliness and get to researching and writing, let the system work and do its job.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I agree with your point 100%, McQ. However, my advice is carpe diem. The oil companies are the recipients of enormous subsidies of a variety of different kinds. Let’s utilize this temporary attention to start movement in the direction of removing the subsidies. At least that would be a tiny start towards putting market discipline on gas consumption.

It will take a lot more before we remove the primary subsidies: the Federal-Aid Highway Act and its successors. But, hey, baby steps.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Spread the $400 million out over every gallon of gasoline that Exxon sells in a given month (hint: they pump twice as much as Kuwait), and you get how much savings for the American consumer?

Let’s see, they pump 4.1 million barrels of oil a day.
A barrel of oil yields 19.4 gallons of gasoline.

30 days times 4.1 million barrels/day times 19.4 gallons/barrel = 2,386.2 million gallons of gasoline per week.

So if the CEO of Exxon donated his entire retirement package to lowering the cost of gasoline at the pump, he’d save us 1.8 cents a gallon for a month (just on Exxon’s gas, mind you).

Not that I needed to illustrate just how ridicuous these political games are, to anyone who’s been paying attention.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
It’s like the consumer takes this personally.

Meanwhile he’d be aghast if we investigated him for wage-gouging.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harun, check out "Cox and Forkum" they’re a head of you on this....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Now here are some folks that know that denial is a river in Africa.

Along the coast of Nantucket, Mass. — the only sufficiently shallow spot on the New England coast — a coalition of anti-wind groups and summer homeowners, among them the Kennedy family, also seems set to block Cape Wind, a planned offshore wind farm.

And these guys get the prize of the day for striking while the iron is hot.

Shell unveils plans for ’biggest refinery in US’. A shortage of refining capacity worldwide has been identified as one of the reasons behind the recent surge in crude oil prices. Oil companies have been accused of failing to invest adequately in new facilities.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If the government stops subsidising oil companies then they will need to increase prices to maintain profit margins. Just stating the obvious.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider