Opinion Editorials, VA
06-21-07
Energy Policy: Big, Bold and Bogus
R. E. Smith Jr.
Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says their energy plan involves
“bold steps and big ideas.” These steps, if taken, will trod on the necks of
American consumers, because Reid’s big ideas will counterproductively impose
arbitrary mandates on our auto, food, fuel and appliance industries. The latest
Senate sham, spuriously referred to as the Renewable Fuels, Consumer
Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, will actually hurt consumers,
reduce energy efficiency and swindle more money from the taxpayers. The
misleading title isn’t worth repeating; let’s just call it S.1419.
A New York Times article on June 12 emphasized lobbying by competing
interests relative to the spoils that will be spilled from the federal treasury and the
damage expected from this bill promoted by our inept and self-serving, pardon
the expression, “representatives.” Some say this proposed legislation may be
even more divisive than the attempt by the Senate to codify illegal immigration.
Former Senator John Breaux (D-La), now lobbying for a corporate management
company, called it “the mother of all bills.”
And this mother is designed to stick it to all of us.
Sen. Reid says the Democrat plan “is all about harnessing power….” Right,
Harry. It’s about your power over the hapless citizens of this country. You would
mandate phony fuels that will raise energy and food prices; impose government
designs on appliances that will increase their costs and reduce product
performance and reliability; restrict gasoline industry profits that will interfere with
normal market economics and induce shortages; and force arbitrary gas mileage
numbers on our auto industries that will make cars more expensive, less safe
and reduce our choices. I call this an abuse of power, Sen. Reid.
Apparently duped by environmental utopians, Reid and others spout the
“renewal” energy mantra that “exists literally all around us,” as he naively states.
In their feeble minds grass and grain will substitute for highly efficient “fossil
fuels.” Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and
many others have debunked the renewable fuels scam that Congress
perpetrated on us back in 2005 with what he calls “the biggest energy policy
failure in recent years.”
Government mandated corn-made ethanol costs more and is less efficient that
gasoline. It does not decrease “greenhouse” emissions. It won’t reduce
“dependency” on foreign oil. It did lead to higher food prices. According to an
Iowa State University study, this stupidity has already cost everyone of us in
America nearly $50 more for food annually. What will be our cost increase when
S.1419 requires four times more ethanol production than the current mandate?—
not to mention many other unintended (and intended) consequences.
The Times reports that this onerous proposed law was authored mainly by
Democrat Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, chairman of the Energy
Committee (more likely crafted by his left-leaning staffers and environmental
lobbyists). Experiencing abundant sunshine in that desert-state may have made
him light-headed with the idea that we can replace gas, oil and coal energy with
such things as solar panels. Windmills will also help us to “energy
independence.” Picture these people walking around wearing beanies with little
propellers on top, symbols of the wackiness they want to impose on us all: doing
whatever to save the planet from God only knows what.
Bingaman’s bill, clearly divisive, pits various segments of our economy against
each other—reason enough to declare this bad law. Government restrictions and
subsidies create lobbyists representing business groups who know the economic
damage that will be inflicted by do-good, know-nothing regulation and taxation.
For example, former Democrat representative Charles Stenholm from Texas now
lobbies to protect oil producers and cattle ranchers from the unfair federal
subsidies given to corn-made ethanol producers.
The food industry has fired off a letter warning the senators—ignorant or
disdainful of our economic system—that their heavy-handed subsidies for
ethanol will increase the cost of food to consumers. Energy-consuming
companies are broadcasting TV ads pointing out to our resident subversives that
our foreign enemies support Congressional self-inflicting attempts to hurt our
economy. Naturally, our auto industry fights government actions that will subvert
their struggles to provide Americans with high-quality and safe vehicles
competitive with foreign makers. Electric utilities and coal producers oppose
government requirements to force them to produce 15 percent of the power we
all need with “renewable”—read, costly and inefficient—energy sources.
While the dim-bulbs in our Capital inflict us with requirements to use more
renewables, they have restricted sugar-based ethanol imports from Brazil;
guaranteeing a market for one of their favorite domestic charities. Mr. Lieberman
believes that ethanol subsidies will eventually cost each American household
$200 “for the privilege of higher fuel and food prices.” He also documents that by
forcing us to buy reduced energy use appliances we can expect poor
performance and more expensive machines we need to maintain our already
efficient and comfortable standard of living. Harry Reid and Senate meddlers
would change that by bureaucratically giving “efficiency priority over everything
else,” says Lieberman.
And what will this misguided policy do to our safety on the highways? Lighter
personal vehicles necessary to meet government Corporate Average Fuel
Economy, arbitrarily picked to achieve some unknown (and unjustified) reduction
in vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide, will likely increase deaths on the highway.
The National Academy of Sciences believes downsizing vehicles has resulted in
annual deaths matching the numbers of our soldiers killed in Iraq over the past
several years. The market will produce smaller vehicle for those consumers
willing to buy them. We don’t want government forced price increases, limited
choice and greater safety risks.
Finally, S.1419 will make it a crime to profit from selling gasoline to us. If a
company charges an “unconscionably excessive price” for its product,
government power kicks in and kicks us consumers. Make no mistake, this
draconian action will slow the free flow of this critical commodity and result in
shortages. Mr. Lieberman says the “vague and subjective phrasing” in this bill will
effectively result in price control and reduce supplies. Even the government
Federal Trade Commission “is on record stating that such legislation is a bad
idea,” says Lieberman. If our legislators can’t write clear and concise law, they
have no business doing so.
This Senate bill is so potentially destructive to our comfort, convenience and
economic welfare that it cannot be defended with rational debate. Wild
conjecture, unreasonable emotion and subversive intent drives this legislation.
Mr. Lieberman says, S.1419 “is so counterproductive it would need substantial
improvements just to be ineffective.”
This bill must be buried quickly, or we all will suffer from the plague it will spread.