BCT Editorial – 8/14/08

This page was last updated on August 17, 2008.

Castor oil; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 14, 2008.

The editorial leads off with “One problem with political pandering is that it gives bad ideas credence.” Among the editorial’s problems is it doesn’t describe pandering by either political party.

Key components of Democrat dogma have always included increased taxes and regulations, both infringements on freedom. Therefore, pushing for a so-called “windfall profits” tax and more restrictions on the oil market can’t really be called pandering. Remember, Democrats passed a “windfall profits” tax during the Carter administration and its effect was to discourage domestic oil production.

With few individual exceptions, Republicans as a group have always supported domestic oil production in locations like ANWR, offshore, et cetera. For example, the Republican-majority Congress approved production in ANWR during the 1990s, but President Clinton vetoed the bill. Again, given the Republican history on domestic oil and gas production, you can’t really call the current proposals pandering.

The editorial refers to “new drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and … an expansion of drilling in wilderness areas where it is currently banned.” Based on the editorial’s leadoff sentence, the Times apparently believes these are bad ideas. That, however, contradicts what the Times said just four days ago in “Winners or wimps.” That editorial said, “They [taxes] could only work as part of a national energy policy that encourages increased domestic production …” If drilling where we haven’t drilled before is a “bad idea,” how are we to increase domestic production?

Apparently one reason “new drilling” is a “bad idea” is “that this relief would not arrive for years to come.” While true for some sites, that’s not true for all. In any case, which of the “alternative energy sources” supported by the Times would be economically viable and a significant energy replacement for oil in less than “years to come?”