And again, if this is a crisis and there’s such a public need, all the people will see is that the oil companies are profiting while the rest of the country suffers. They want something done, and neither of these plans are good but being proposed because of public pressure. Which is why I say they should both back off and stick with their proposed long term plans as the solution, but I don’t think they will.

I’ve written about food subsidies before. They are a necessary evil in my opinion.

To address the point you and Oneiroi make, a windfall tax won’t lower prices at all and it’s not meant to really. It’s meant to make people think the oil companies stole their money and now Obama is giving some back (insert image of Robin Hood here).

There are only two ways to maintain profit in the face of adversity: increase revenue while keeping costs static or decreasing costs while keeping revenue static. I would suggest that Option B is not feasible because oil technology isn’t going to improve that much. So that leaves Option A.

If Obama attacked the revenue stream by freezing gas prices, for example, the oil companies would be forced to either reduce costs (hard to do) or accept a lower profit. However, by attacking the profit Obama still leaves them with Option A, which is to simply increase revenue thus getting them back to their target profit. How will this be done? Higher prices.

and, yes, pc, i did jump all over the 9/11 thing because i thought it was a cheap, sensationalist move … and one unexpected from you (but one exceedingly popular with republican strategists) … hence my giving you the benefit of the doubt with the “on the way out the door” comment.

agriculture subsidies are a tough issue, especially now with corn-based biofuel. there was an article in the nyt about a year or so ago about new zealand and their ending farm subsidies … it was tough at first, but the farm economy adapted and is arguably stronger. i’ll have to look for the article.

The Obama plan is crap because he is using a feel-good move (like Bush’s two tax rebates) to buy votes from the masses and he funds it by taxing the oil industry. More than likely the oil industry is going to pass on that tax by increasing prices.

I’ve never heard of an instance where the goverment tried to reduce the price of a commodity by taxing that industry’s profits. To the contrary, prices are usually kept at bay by helping the industry in some way.

You seem to really be pouncing on the 9/11 reference which was only used because it popped into my head first. I could just as easily site the Depression. When crops failed during the dust bowl and commodity prices went up, the government subsidized farming, they didn’t attack it.

That being the case, I feel like taxing the record breaking profits of the oil companies is one of the few places we can direct pressure to quickly lower the price of gasoline. Much more so than drilling. But I don’t like the idea of just writing checks to people to solve problems.

obama wasn’t immediately on-board with offshore oil drilling: he lacks a broad, balanced vision for american’s energy future.

obama wants a windfall tax: he is anti-capitalist and ergo anti-american, but let’s underscore this point by weaving in a reference to 9/11.

further, you characterize the oil industry as simply an innocent group of businesses just trying to make it in today’s economy. all they want to do is spend their own money and try to turn an honest profit.

well, i don’t know what economy you are participating in, but the u.s. oil industry does not simply play with their own money … they play with mine … and yours, too … in the form of subsidies.

(and face it, neither you or i know exactly what corporate tax rate would offset ALL of the subsidized production costs and startup tax breaks each and every domestic drilling venture nets. i suspect, though, it is much higher than what obama’s silly $1000 rebate plan would cost.)

i spent a long time looking for articles on oil subsidies in the u.s. from sources your wouldn’t immediately write-off as wacko liberals. i found these …

the cato institute
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066

resources for the future (an environmental think tank, replete with oil-industry representation on their board of directors)
http://www.rff.org/publications/wpc/pages/08_07_21_metcalf_energy_subsidies.aspx

i think both candidates are blowing it on oil, but i also do not agree with your using oil to make sweeping and misleading generalizations about obama’s proposed policies.

the towns say yes, and guess what happens? the company running the prisons ships in construction crews to build them and hires people who live outside the local area and commute in to staff them (saves on having to train new personnel), and the local communities remain economically stagnant, though now with a brand-new prisons, busting at the seams with prisoners.

That’s easy enough to deal with (or should be). See here:

http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/greater-accountability-for-economic-development-subsidies/

i do not think taxing profits amounts to theft.

Taxing profits at a % higher than other industries, simply because you can, is unfair (and hopefully will be challenged legally if it ever goes that far). Obama’s plan is to take money from the oil industry (around $1500 per adult) and then give $1000 of that money to the American people, while keeping the remaining $500 for his other social programs. By even a very loose definition of theft, that plan stinks.

and one more thing: you are continually talking about “some day,” but in my view, your position amounts to complete and total inaction and — ultimately — complete and total protection of the status quo.

You can check both here and at your blog and easily find multiple examples of where I have said a responsible policy is a multi-front approach. Nuclear, oil, renewables and new technology should all be on the table. I also said I favored startup grants for wind and solar. You keep dwelling on oil and pretending that’s all I ever mention, which is simply no factual. The truth is that my approach has a better chance of working than your ‘renewables only’ program because it is actually grounded in reality. We are nowhere near the point where we can wave goodbye to oil. In the meantime, if the oil companies want to invest billions of their own money looking for new sources that might ease the influence of OPEC, that is fine by me.