Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Pant Suit Mentality

After reading the latest email that I have received from Citizens Against Government Waste, I decided that I had the topic for my first rant on our newly created blog. The email was about a certain Speakerette of the House who would not be caught dead in anything but a pant suit, of course it's not the more famous pant suited one who is currently getting white washed by Barack Obama (hey that was kinda ironic, huh?). No this pant suited wonder is none other than the scary preacher guy from Poltergeist 2, uh I mean Nancy Pelosi, although looking at this picture the resemblance is striking. Anyway, it seems that she has put her pant suit powers to work and is going to get even with the evil oil companies by imposing 18 billion (with a B!) dollars in taxes on them in order to subsidize the development of alternative energy technology. So, tax the oil companies and use the money to develop the technology that will replace them?? First off why does this require government subsidies? Is it the governments responsibility to develop new technologies? It seems like the free market usually does a pretty good job of that on its own. We just witnessed HDs fall to Bluray and the government was not required. The market decided, which ultimately means that we (the consumer) decided. So let the auto makers battle each other to develop the car that runs 100 mpg, not government bureacrats who drive around in SUV's and go to speaking engagements in their private jets. Oh wait they purchase carbon offsets, yeah I forgot. But really, who does this "windfall profit" tax hurt, the oil companies or the loyal consumers? Gasoline is a relatively inelastic commodity. When the price of gas goes up we can reduce our consumption, but we can't eliminate it entirely, at least most of us can't. On August 15, 2007 Mary Peters the Secretary of Transportation said that she thinks Americans would be shocked to learn that only ~ 60% of federal taxes went into highway and bridge construction. What about the other 40% you may ask? Well it goes into "many, many other areas". Minnesota has a 20 cpg gas tax (not including the federal tax), plus a 2 cpg "cleanup fee" at wholesale which fluctuates. Sooo.. how about those bridges in Minnesota?
Many people are unaware of the oil companies involvement in the pensions and retirement funds (41% of energy stocks) of many Americans as well as in mutual funds (30%). Raising costs can lower the performance of these stocks. And what about the jobs that are created by the oil companies?
Not that I want to practice the politics of piling on here, but there is also the effect on food prices, when you start diverting corn from the rumen of cows, and the gizzard of chickens into the gas tanks of vehicles in Iowa there is going to be an effect, dare I say "blowback"? Simple supply and demand. Econ 101. Also, it seems that the manufacturing of biofuels releases more CO2 than gasoline does. Hey Al, get that Nobel out of your ass, and dust off your little slideshow, you need to make a few edits.
I'm all for reducing our dependence on Saudi Arabia, although they are our ally(??!!), but we should go about it the right way, I bet even the oil companies could develop better technologies, and do it far cheaper than Shepherd Pelosi and her flock. But that goes against the pant suit mentality.

1 comment:

Pirate Irish Eddie said...

Oh the power of the pantsuit!! Notice how androgynous it is -the pant suit. Me thinks that the pant suit is a wee bit of the fairness going to the hags heads- bear with me on this- Ever seen the movie THX 1138- Me thinks you have! For the poor bastards who aven't seen it- its a futuristic society where every one is essentially the same- all men and women are androgynous, from their bald heads to their clothes they wear. Now me thinks Mrs Speaker and Mrs I mean Clinton, believes so much in their socialistic society of fairness so much that they are in deed participating in practicing what they be a preaching- so unlike a politician, but this here be the politician that we don't like- the socialistic kind.