We got a Barack Obama growl on NBC?s “Meet the Press” this past weekend. It was on the subject of suspending the federal gas tax for the summer months. John McCain had the idea, and pretty soon Hillary Clinton had it, too, and Obama wanted the audience to know what a fraud it was, although he left something out.
It?s not that he was wrong in calling the proposal “a classic Washington gimmick … a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades.” His case was a good one, as he noted the savings to the average driver would total maybe $28 at the expense of needed highway repairs that would provide jobs. Clinton?s proposal to pay for the loss through a windfall profit tax is amiss because she has already pledged to devote possible funds to another cause, he said.
What he left out among other things was his own duplicity in also favoring that tax hit on oil corporations, as if their profit margins are out of whack (they are perfectly reasonable), as if prices at the pump were their fault (the issue is supply and demand) or as if we do not desperately need flush oil companies to explore and find more oil and thus drive pump prices down.
While Obama said on the show that, as Clinton once did, he had advocated using the “windfall” tax revenues to develoWashington gimmicks stall fuel solutions
By Jay Ambrose
We got a Barack Obama growl on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past weekend. Itwas on the subject of suspending the federal gas tax for the summer months. John McCain had the idea, and pretty soon Hillary Clinton had it, too, and Obama wanted the audience to know what a fraud it was, although he left something out.
It’s not that he was wrong in calling the proposal “a classic Washington gimmick . . . a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades.” His case was a good one, as he noted the savings to the average driver would total maybe $28 at the expense of needed highway repairs that would provide jobs. Clinton?s proposal to pay for the loss through a windfall profit tax is amiss because she has already pledged to devote possible funds to another cause, he said.
What he left out among other things was his own duplicity in also favoring that tax hit on oil corporations, as if their profit margins are out of whack (they are perfectly reasonable), as if prices at the pump were their fault (the issue is supply and demand) or as if we do not desperately need flush oil companies to explore and find more oil and thus drive pump prices down.
While Obama said on the show that, like Clinton once did, he had advocated using the “windfall” tax revenues to develop “clean energy,” an obvious need now is to increase the flow of oil. The imposition of this tax would do the opposite. It would inflict pain on oil companies and the public because this would make some voters feel good. It is a classic Washington gimmick.
Tim Russert, host of the show, asked Obama about nuclear energy, and we got razzmatazz about how he would like to rely on it more, but how expensive it was and, gee, you know, we have these issues of safety and waste storage.
Not really. Nuclear plants are about as safe as energy production gets. Waste disposal at the designated national site in Nevada poses no large health issue, only a political issue from politicians kowtowing to paranoia. The high costof building nuclear plants results from what experts call “regulatory ratcheting,” the environmentalist-urged congressional practice of enacting so many unnecessary constraints as to make new plant construction prohibitive.
Washington, of course, can undo what Washington has stupidly, demagogically done, unless the attachment to classic Washington gimmicks gets in the way.
Russert also wanted to know whether Obama, a supporter of ethanol, would change his mind because producing the corn-based biofuel was driving up food prices. Obama conceded ethanol was a factor in decreased food supplies and said we might have to back off, adding that it had been an “important transitional tool” in dealing with the energy crisis. Over time, he added, the country would shift to “cellulosic ethanol” that relies on such materials as wood chips and prairie grass.
But how exactly was ethanol a “transitional tool” for anything but taking money from most of us to enrich a few of us at the hands of politicians searching for votes and simultaneously telling lies?
As for cellulosic ethanol, it may eventually come to the rescue, just as nuclear fusion and hydrogen alternatives may ultimately save the day — but don’t look for anything soon. The technology appears far from arriving, if ever, unlike classic Washington gimmicks, which are always close by and being proffered by the exact same people who accuse others of relying on them.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He can be reached at: [email protected]
