An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Obligatory Socialized Oil Column

I tend to wrinkle my nose when I hear our friends on the Right referring to Democrats as communists or socialists. It’s needless, caustic hyperbole in an already incindiary political climate. That’s why I found myself doing a double-take upon looking at this article from Outside the Beltway this morning. (Be sure to click through to watch this jaw dropping video of Congressman Maurice Hinchey talking about the oil industry.)

HINCHEY: So if there’s any seriousness on the part of what our Republican colleagues are saying in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they’d be willing to have these refineries be owned publicly – owned by the people of the United States – so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea.

That just happens to be MY congressman talking. (Excuse me for a moment while I bang my head on my desk…. OUCH. OUCH. OUCH… Ok. That’s a little better.) Clearly I need to pen a quick letter to my representative in The People’s House, but since I was going to write a column for TMV this morning, I may as well do it here.

Congressman Hinchey,

Speaking as one of your constituents, I watched with interest your recent comments about “nationalizing” the oil industry in our country. This fascinating proposal brought several questions to mind, chief among which was the following: Is your Democratic Party so fearful of winning two elections in a row and having to take the reigns of power that you’ve simply decided to throw yourselves on your swords? Or have you perhaps spent too long in cozy chats with Hugo Chavez that some of his thinking is creeping into the cloak rooms of Congress? You are aware, are you not, that the chief hallmark of socialism is “a political theory advocating state ownership of industry” as found in most dictionaries? I don’t like paying four dollars a gallon for gas either, but having you folks take over a major industry is… alright, I don’t really even have a word for what that is.

Assuming you could find support for this proposal, I’m more than curious as to how you would pay for it. If you think running the war in Iraq is expensive, I’m wondering where you’re going to come up with the cash to buy out the oil industry. It would be a staggering figure involving words like “trillions” among others. Or would you propose that our government simply seize their assets? Please… stop. Just stop. Go meet with your friends and figure out how we can let industry build some new, safer fission based nuclear power plants without the builders being regulated into the ground. Subsidize some major investments in micro-hydro. Let the states decide if they want to drill for more oil until we can fully move to renewable energy resources. If you really want to address the energy problems we face, seriously… go do something useful.

Regards,

Jazz Shaw

UPDATE: Over at Right Wing Nuthouse, our friend Rick Moran looks askance at government control of industry for “the benefit of the people” and concludes the following:

How often have we heard that battle cry in history? And oh how miserably those who have uttered it have failed to deliver promised benefits. From Lenin to Castro to Mugabe, the nationalization of industry to benefit “the people” has been a spectacular economic disaster. In the end, production in nationalized industry always declines. In the end, the industry has always fallen into ruins.

  • Amanda
    Maybe I read that wrong or missed a line somewhere, but it seems to me that Hinchey is talking about public ownership of NEW refineries, not taking over old ones or buying out the oil industry. I don't think it's a good idea because I don't agree that we should be refining or drilling for more oil. We should be pushing everything we have into renewable energy sources instead of wasting more time and investment on fossil fuels. Plus, the last thing we need is more government involvement in the oil business. But I think your reaction was a bit hyperbolic, to be perfectly honest. All you needed to do was state why you think it's a bad plan. The insults are unnecessary.
  • I would add that there is no benefit to requiring that the oil and gas found at these offshore sites be reserved for the American market.
  • Rambie
    I also did not take it as a call to nationalize all the oil industry, just new refineries. It's a bad idea yes, but I think he wants more accountability of the oil industry.

    It's a fine line, I don't want to see the government holding down businesses with too many hindrances, yet I don't want businesses to be able to gouge their customers without any accountability.

    Something seems amiss in the oil industry and I support removing the tax breaks the industry gets, with those billions in profits they can fund their own R&D or whatever it is these tax breaks are supposed to fund.
  • runasim
    Don't overreact to words, Jazz.

    Between laissez-faire, unchecked capitalism and communism (which isn't even .
    an economic philosophy) lies a vast ocean.
    Some very successful economies have governemnt-private partnership enterprises without Hugo Chavez moving in. Mixing elements of socialism with basic capitlaism, in fact, has led to the most stable societies.

    Admitedly, this is above my economc expertise level, but I am concerned that the global market is weakening national governements and, increasingly, putting corporations in the driver's seat for national policies. It's not good for our nation and it's not good for global markets, either.
    Our agro subsidies are way out of kilter, for example, but so are our run-amok excuses for everything on the basis of market trends.

    Regarding new drilling, taxpayers will foot a big part of the bill in some form, anyway. Oil dompanies, like many corporations, are too finicky about absorbing risk as well as profit into their operations. While nationalization is going much, much too far, I wouldn't mind (I think?) the government having a voice in the decisions that will affect how much of taxpayer investment will translalte into taxpayer benefits.

    Just considering new approaches is not outrageous, especially considering the pickle we're in due to not thinking things through..
  • DLS
    Ha, ha, ha. AmOil.

    This is no surprise.

    When the Democrats opposed Bush's attempt to change Social Security, and chose to do nothing but be obstructionist and dishonest, who was one of the most notorious Democrat? Hinchey! He actually said that Social Security "will be more valuable" in the future if we "leave it alone" now (i.e., do nothing, allowing it to fail, as it will unless it is saved -- which won't happen from Obama's "solution" [sic]).

    It's no surprise he's one of those who would repeat the lefty-excess nonsense that we were hearing after the Iranian revolution and despite lefty blunders by our own government at the time, both committed and conceived (windfall profits tax, price controls and attempted command and control of distribution of supplies, outright nationalization [federalization] of the oil companies, often accompanied by the same nonsense you could read any time in "The Energy Rip-Off," by Gus Hall).

    Are these risible, failed, decades-old failed, policies of the past the kind of "change" Obama and the other left Dems present (threaten) us with if they control the White House and Congress? The Dems lie that McCain is Bush's third term, while they advertise openly they'd be Carter's second or McGovern's first!

    Ha, ha. ha.

    (Can't they employ an IQ above 50 and simply wait until after the election before they advertize being crazy?)
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC