BCT Editorial – 10/3/06

This page was last updated on October 3, 2006.

Battle cry of freedom; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 3, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans must learn that reliance on imported oil is a national security threat”

[RWC] So why do Times editorials constantly lobby against domestic exploration and production?

“‘Freedom isn’t free.’

“We’ve all seen that bumper sticker. Its shorthand refers to the present war against terrorism as well as sacrifices that have been made by prior generations of Americans to keep this country free.

“Let’s apply that same approach to freeing our nation from its dependence on imported oil.

“Doing so would require making sacrifices. We’d have to pay higher gasoline taxes to promote conservation and to provide funds for research into developing alternative energy sources. We’d have to drive more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. We’d have to use mass transit more often. We’d have to cut down on suburban sprawl and the lifestyle it has generated.

“When gasoline prices were more than $3 a gallon, Americans were willing to at least think some of these unthinkables. But as the price of gasoline has dropped - by more than 60 cents a gallon in the last month - many drivers have been more than willing to revert to their old way of thinking and doing things.

“New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman cites several reasons - ‘some cyclical, some technical and some having to do with the emergence of alternative fuels and conservation’ - for the drop.”

[RWC] Note, Mr. Friedman is a liberal opinion writer. The editorial is not citing a legitimate news article. I learned in grade school you don’t use opinion pieces as credible references. Had I cited opinion columns as sources, I can guarantee my papers would have been return with big red “Fs” on them.

“However, he offers another reason that might be the most disturbing of all - oil producers are dropping the price to keep us dependent on them.

“That’s why Friedman argues that ‘we don’t want the price of gasoline to go down in America just when $3 a gallon has started to stimulate large investments in alternative energies. This is exactly what OPEC wants - let the price fall for a while, kill the alternatives, and then bring it up again.”

[RWC] OPEC has tried this before, but has always failed for at least a few reasons.

First, OPEC countries are addicted to oil revenue and most of them spend it as fast as it comes in. As a result, most OPEC countries can’t afford to cut prices unless the market forces them to.

Second, OPEC countries are notorious for undermining such agreements by cheating, primarily because of reason #1. That’s why OPEC production quotas don’t work.

Third, Mr. Friedman – and the editorial author – ignores the recent news that some in OPEC wanted to establish production quotas to keep prices high.

“‘For now, we still need to make sure, either with a gasoline tax or with a tariff on imported oil, that we keep the price at the pump at $3 or more - to stimulate various alternative energy programs, more conservation and a structural shift by car buyers and makers to more fuel-efficient vehicles.’”

[RWC] Mr. Friedman and the Times would have us believe we have done little with respect to alternative energy sources. That’s not true, however. For just about all alternative energy sources, liberals find some reason to oppose them when they become practical. Here are some examples.

· Since 1980, nuclear power has been demonized to the point our generating capacity has decreased slightly over the past ten years. The last new nuclear power plant to come online was in 1996. According to the EIA, “As of October 31, 2005, however, no U.S. nuclear company has yet applied for a new construction permit.” Unless this situation changes drastically and quickly, we will become more dependent on coal, natural gas, and oil for power generation.

· Before they became practical, wind farms were the darlings of the environmental crowd. Now that wind farms are practical to an extent, environmentalists complain they kill birds and mar the landscape.

· Regarding hydroelectric power, we’re actually dismantling facilities because of environmentalist complaints.

· Regarding coal power, that’s in jeopardy because environmentalists are chasing the global warming boogeyman.

· Regarding synfuel from coal, that’s unacceptable to environmentalists because burning it still produces the same pollutants as natural petroleum products.

· Though they aren’t yet practical, environmentalists don’t like solar panels because the huge panel farms would mar the landscape.

· Regarding hydrogen, if it ever becomes economically viable, I can guarantee environmentalists will declare water vapor to be a pollutant.

“In essence, what Friedman is telling Americans is that freedom isn’t free when it comes to becoming energy independent.

“Do Americans have the wherewithal to rally to his battle cry of freedom? This is a matter of national and economic security, and bumper-sticker patriotism isn’t going to cut it. Sticker shock will. It’s going to take hard work and sacrifice, and the challenge must come from President Bush.

“What price are we willing to pay for energy freedom? We’ll find out in the coming weeks and months.”

[RWC] Gee, what a shock! The Times believes increased taxation will make us energy independent. To liberals, increased taxation will always cure what ails us.

Let’s look at what would likely happen if we decided to jack up taxes on diesel, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, natural gas, et cetera.

Because the tax increase would increase the cost of U.S. produced products and services, domestic businesses would become more vulnerable to foreign competition. This means failing businesses and lost jobs.

Because the tax increase removes money from our pockets we would have otherwise, that’s less money for us to spend on other goods and services. Less spending means fewer jobs.

Because the tax increase removes money from our pockets we would have otherwise, that’s less money for us to save for retirement, our kids’ education, or just for a rainy day.

The bottom line is, increased taxation always results in an economic slowdown.

If the Times wants to spend tax dollars on alternative energy research, why didn’t it recommend funding the research by spending cuts in other government programs?