Burn Baby Burn..The Bu$h Energy Policy.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mary MacElveen

unread,
May 20, 2001, 10:02:42 AM5/20/01
to
Tell all of your Senators and Congressman and this administration NO to
their energy policy TODAY! While people will be forced to pay high
energy bills, it is the oil and gas companies of Texas that stand to
rake in billions under this plan. Is that looking out for the little
guy? NO WAY!

Mary!

Burn, Baby, Burn

RECKONINGS
By PAUL KRUGMAN

ho knew that Dick Cheney had such a sense of humor?

He had us rolling in the aisles after the famous put-down in which
he dismissed energy conservation as nothing more than a "sign of
personal virtue." But the joke got much better Thursday, with the
release of the administration's energy plan. Just for laughs, Mr.
Cheney threw in a few mock conservation measures. Topping the list
was a tax credit for — get this — people who purchase hybrid
gas-electric cars.

In case you don't quite get the joke: during the campaign one of
George W. Bush's favorite gag lines involved making fun of Al
Gore's proposal for — you guessed it — a tax credit for purchase of
hybrid cars. It got big laughs because it symbolized his opponent's
supposed preoccupation with trivialities. Now, in a fine satirical
gesture, Mr. Cheney has made the very same proposal his lead
conservation measure. Take that, you wimps!

It seems that the pundits, having misjudged Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney during the campaign, have done it again. We now know that
the moderate rhetoric Mr. Bush used during the campaign was
insincere; but it turns out that the administration's libertarian
rhetoric during the selling of the tax cut was equally insincere.
These guys don't believe in free markets: what they're really into
is heavy metal. Refineries! Pipelines! Nuclear power plants! That's
the stuff!

To justify their lust for tubular steel, Mr. Cheney and his
collaborators have gone to great lengths to fabricate an energy
crisis — and they have also suddenly decided that free markets
don't work after all. "Estimates," says the report, "indicate that
over the next 20 years U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33
percent." Whose estimates? We are never told. But that's an awfully
high number. In the 20 years ending in 1999, the last year for
which official data are available, oil consumption rose less than 5
percent. All I can figure is that Mr. Cheney's people are
extrapolating from the abrupt decline in automobile fuel efficiency
over the last few years, as people have switched from ordinary cars
to S.U.V.'s. And what they are saying is that we should base our
energy policy on the assumption that this quite recent trend will
continue unabated for decades.

This doesn't have to happen. In fact, it isn't going to happen,
even in the absence of any serious conservation measures. To burn
as much oil as the Cheney report says we need, everyone who still
drives a mere car would have to acquire an S.U.V., and everyone who
now drives an S.U.V. would have to start driving something the size
of a Sherman tank.

What's behind Mr. Cheney's greasy math? It goes without saying
that he wants to scare us into relaxing environmental regulation.
But there's more: the Cheney plan provides an array of subsidies,
explicit and implicit, for energy producers. Indeed, the
libertarian Cato Institute calls the plan a "smorgasbord of
handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in
Washington."

Strange, isn't it? If you're a low- paid worker, or an energy
consumer, the free market is sacrosanct — it would be a terrible
thing if government provided you with any assistance. But energy
producers apparently need special encouragement to do their regular
job.

In fact, of course, they don't. Mr. Cheney loves to talk about our
alleged need to build a new power plant every week for the next 20
years, implying that this is a herculean task that can only be
accomplished with a lot of help from Washington. But high prices
have already sparked a huge construction boom in the power
industry, which will add three or four plants per week for the next
few years. As some wags have put it, if the power industry wants to
meet Mr. Cheney's target it will have to slow down its building
program.

The truth is that the administration has things exactly the wrong
way around. It claims that we face a long-run energy crisis, and
that there are no short-term answers. The reality is that in the
long run the forces of supply and demand will take care of our
energy needs, with or without Mr. Cheney's expensive new program of
corporate welfare. What we need is a strategy to deal with the
temporary problem of sky-high prices and huge windfall profits. But
we're not going to get it, at least not from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/opinion/20KRUG.html?ex=991366815&ei=1&en=9d21e9aa3f4326e8

/-----------------------------------------------------------------\


LoansharkX

unread,
May 21, 2001, 1:40:05 AM5/21/01
to
I can't help but laugh at comments like this. Ovbiously, some people failed
economics back in high school. Let's provide a brief lesson for the Palm
Beach voters and liberals alike.

Supply side economics 101... Demand for a product or service increases
(California...pay attention), no increased manufacturer or provider capacity
is realized and as such supply remains the same. Increase in demand with
short supply means prices increase as the demand curve shifts to the right
horizontally with supply remaining constant.

If supply were to increase, prices would fall as there is more of the
commodity available to meet demand.

Price fixing can not work based on this premise and economic theory. If a
supplier can sell the same commodity for more to another buyer, why would it
sell to a buyer who 1) cannot pay for it , and 2) will only provide a price
that may not exceed the cost of production of the product.

So... conservation eh.... Let's blow that out of the water. Conservation
alone will not fix the problem. If it would, then let Californians stop
driving their cars, using electricity in their homes, etc... It only will
prolong the inevitable and not by much.

The poor planning and environmental lobbies have wreaked their havoc on the
liberals who populate California and the price is now on the table for the
stupidity. Build the plants. Produce the power.

It's like the LA Riots a few years ago when the people looted, robbed, and
destroyed their community then begged for money to rebuild it and whined
when stores moved out of their neighborhoods. You asked for it...now you
have to live with it. I don't support my tax money bailing your dumb
leaders out of their self created mess. I don't support the liberal agenda.
Take responsibility for your actions!

This energy crisis in California is a good example of the liberals need to
take responsibility for their actions, step up to the plate, and fix their
problem.

The environmental wackos support natural gas, but not the building of
pipelines that pump it into homes. They support clean sources of energy
like hydro-electric plants, but do not support the building of dams that
create the energy. They support wind generation of power, but they don't
want the windmills that "kill the condors". They support alternative energy
sources, but don't provide one example of one that they support.

I say, then live in the dark and get a bicycle, just don't oil the chain.

Lshark.......

"Mary MacElveen" <xmj...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3B07CEC4...@optonline.net...


> Tell all of your Senators and Congressman and this administration NO to
> their energy policy TODAY! While people will be forced to pay high
> energy bills, it is the oil and gas companies of Texas that stand to
> rake in billions under this plan. Is that looking out for the little
> guy? NO WAY!
>
>
>
> Mary!
>
> Burn, Baby, Burn
>
> RECKONINGS
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
>
>
> ho knew that Dick Cheney had such a sense of humor?
>
> He had us rolling in the aisles after the famous put-down in which
> he dismissed energy conservation as nothing more than a "sign of
> personal virtue." But the joke got much better Thursday, with the
> release of the administration's energy plan. Just for laughs, Mr.
> Cheney threw in a few mock conservation measures. Topping the list

> was a tax credit for - get this - people who purchase hybrid


> gas-electric cars.
>
> In case you don't quite get the joke: during the campaign one of
> George W. Bush's favorite gag lines involved making fun of Al

> Gore's proposal for - you guessed it - a tax credit for purchase of


> hybrid cars. It got big laughs because it symbolized his opponent's
> supposed preoccupation with trivialities. Now, in a fine satirical
> gesture, Mr. Cheney has made the very same proposal his lead
> conservation measure. Take that, you wimps!
>
> It seems that the pundits, having misjudged Mr. Bush and Mr.
> Cheney during the campaign, have done it again. We now know that
> the moderate rhetoric Mr. Bush used during the campaign was
> insincere; but it turns out that the administration's libertarian
> rhetoric during the selling of the tax cut was equally insincere.
> These guys don't believe in free markets: what they're really into
> is heavy metal. Refineries! Pipelines! Nuclear power plants! That's
> the stuff!
>
> To justify their lust for tubular steel, Mr. Cheney and his
> collaborators have gone to great lengths to fabricate an energy

> crisis - and they have also suddenly decided that free markets

> consumer, the free market is sacrosanct - it would be a terrible

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages