« Defending The Bush Torture Regime: The Willful Ignorance of Professor John Yoo
Intelligent Design in Louisiana »



The Obligatory Socialized Oil Column

June 19th, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor

Print Print

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.



This entry was posted on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 at 4:56 am and is filed under Oil, Gas Prices, Alternative Energy Resources, Democratic Party, Energy, Domestic Programs, Economy, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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..
    • ^
    • v
    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?)
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Defending The Bush Torture Regime: The Willful Ignorance of Professor John Yoo
Intelligent Design in Louisiana »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.