Populism at the Pump
By Mark I Posted in User Blogs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There are indications that the Democratic Party is starting to roll out its next great strategy to win back control of the House and Senate in this year's Congressional elections. Before we take a look at it, though, let's look back and see if the bullets that the Democrats have fired so far have hit their mark.
First, there was the Murtha Insurrection™. The president fought back and defeated him and it. Next it was Tom DeLay's indictment, quickly followed by the Abramoff scandal. Tom DeLay stepped aside. Some prominent Democrats (Reid and Dorgan) were tied to Abramoff; and the whole thing fizzled. The New York Times then chipped in with the revelation of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. But the Democrats lacked the courage to propose killing the program in the face of public support for it, and the Times had to settle for the Pulitzer. Then the Democrats trotted out the Culture of Corruption. Reps. Mollohan (D-WV), Jefferson (D-LA), and McKinney (D-GA) made their contributions to the culture, and the culture collapsed.
Batting 0-5 and in desperate need of a campaign theme that can actually last the length of the campaign, Democrats appear to be making an early turn to a favorite ploy from the past, populism. This time the populist rhetoric is aimed at oil companies and rising gas prices. If they are quick, and bold, Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to turn this latest Democrat tack to their advantage.
Read on..Sen. Charles Schumer (D-The Nearest TV Camera) has called for an investigation to determine whether or not oil producers are conspiring to drive gas prices up.
New York Senator Charles Schumer, speaking in front of a Hess station in Manhattan, called Tuesday for a federal investigation to see if oil companies and refiners are deliberately withholding gasoline production, taking advantage of the normal switch from winter gas to summer gas in an attempt to bid up prices.
"The bottom line is they are producing at 85 percent capacity when they should be producing over 90 percent," said Schumer." Are they scaling back production? Only by subpoenaing the companies and looking in their books will we get that answer."
Schumer's charges are ludicrous on their face and were parried very nicely by industry representatives.
"Prices are high, there is no incentive to hold [gas] back," said Bill Bush, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute. "If you have a gallon of gas, you want to get it out in this market."
Bush said refineries are only operating at 85 percent capacity because some are still recovering from last fall's hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. He added that some refineries are undergoing more maintenance than usual this spring - maintenance that was put off following the hurricanes in order to avoid taking the refineries off-line at the time.
John Felmy, the Institute's chief economist, said Schumer's call was "nothing more than political rhetoric with no basis in fact."
Felmy suggested Schumer stop the political grandstanding and call for things that will actually bring down gas prices, which he said include more domestic oil production, greater conservation efforts and provisions to make it easier to build more refineries.
Schumer, of course, would never support domestic oil production and relaxing environmental rules to allow for the building of more refining capacity. He just wants to gin up public outrage against the evil oil companies because, shudder to think, they are making money.
Schumer, however, is not alone in turning his attention to the oil companies. The aforementioned Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) recently called for his own oil company investigation.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation "justifies" giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge [$400 million] retirement package.
He also said the Securities and Exchange Commission should investigate the deal that "appears to shortchange" shareholders.
"There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers," Dorgan said.
Dorgan has also called for the imposition of a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and for the proceeds of that tax to be rebated to consumers. Dorgan, too, is only grandstanding. The evidence for this is that in his call for the windfall profits tax, he demanded that oil companies put more of their profits into exploration and development of more domestic energy supplies. However, Dorgan himself voted against drilling in ANWR.
Why are Schumer and Dorgan willing to go public with an issue on which they can be so easily demonstrated to be unserious? Because the Democrats are desperate for message traction and are turning to a trusted old tactic. Schumer, as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has great leverage within the Senate Democratic Caucus when it comes to selecting the Democratic message. I believe his turn to populist sentiments now over rising gasoline prices signals a shift in the Democrats' campaign rhetoric.
Usually, the Democrats wait until later in the campaign season to bring out the class warfare. Al Gore turned populist at the Democratic National Convention in 2000. His convention bounce put him ahead of George Bush for the next month, but the ultimate result was a loss.
Now, the Democrats are making a familiar deal with an all too familiar devil. From the above referenced Economist article:
Why are Democrats so reluctant to praise their former champion? Many are still nervous about populism. They worry about reviving their party's reputation for business-bashing, a reputation that Mr. Clinton spent a decade expunging. And they think that Mr. Gore's brand of populism is exactly the sort that the party needs to avoid: a populism of the heart rather than the head, of grand rhetoric rather than concrete proposals, of sabre rattling rather than scalpel precision.
Here are Schumer and Dorgan, sabre rattling, threatening investigations, new taxes, and seeking to rouse popular anger at the big, bad oil companies who control us all. But, they do everything in their power to resist solutions to the problems they decry. In truth, the Democrats don't want solutions. They want issues. They want to be elected on emotion, rather than on ideas.
This lack of intellectual vigor on the part of their opponents gives the hapless Republican Party a chance to turn the Democrats' latest strategy against them. Republicans might just find their way back to a winning message of their own in the process. If the issue is high gasoline prices, the Republicans should join their foes in lamenting them. Then, they should propose a solution bound to reveal Democratic grandstanding for what it is. They should propose a temporary repeal of the federal per gallon fuel tax.
The federal per gallon gasoline tax is 18.4 cents. Together with local and state levies, fuel taxes make up about 45.9 cents per gallon, according to the Tax Foundation. In fact, tax receipts from the various fuel taxes outstrip oil industry profits in most years.
Republicans in Congress should propose a temporary suspension the Federal fuel tax while oil prices are above $50 a barrel. Republicans in state legislatures should do the same. This would have the effect of turning the Democrats' phony populist rhetoric against them and taking control of the debate about high fuel prices. It would also serve to remind Republicans that they are the party of ideas and of getting things done.
seen congresses approval number lately? Have you seen the accrual accounting deficit?
Those two things point to very bad things for Republicans.
MSM and Democrat domagogues have been quite effective. I prefer to look at state by state and district by district matchups. If Republicans run from the GWOT and employ McCain like contrarianism we are in for trouble. The fact is that, unlike '94, the Dems have no issue save for I hate Bush. That's not a winner because quite a few of the unfavorables are from rock ribbed conservatives who would never vote Dem. , also if all you see is in the MSM you think that the Dems controll congress.
In regard to the deficit, I like to look at it as a percentage of GDP. Its a concern but by no means a crisis.
looking at the cash or accrual based deficit accounting?
Also, historically has the U.S. savings rate ever gone negative in the past with a budget deficit at 6% of GDP?
can you tell me what on the list of the Contract with America have the current Republicans stuck to?
* FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
* SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Umm..... I think they threw them out the window.
that the Contract was that they were going to introduce legislation. In many cases they were blocked by Democrats.
I also believe some of these rules have been adopted by the Republican caucus.
What is your point? They had a platform and they tried to fulfill it, they didn't take all the congressional seats.
Are you saying "I hate Bush" is just as effective a platform as the Conrtact for America?
vote for someone that pledged to a term limit and now has changed his mind? Does a man's word have no value? Kerry got hounded for being a so called "flip flopper". I guess everyone else get's off with a pat on the back.
what democrat is blocking this?
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
You should read it.
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
The Contract was to introduce and debate a legislative agenda. That there were Democrats blocking elements of this agenda is not a debatable point. Although, had there been unanimous support among Republicans the elements of the Contract would likely have passed. The Contract was fulfilled.
Regarding your questions about turning back on a term limit pledge, I would not approve. I don't think this was widespread. Are you suggesting that the GOP should have implemented it unilaterally?
This is all a sidebar. Today the Dems have no agenda, not a contract, not a platform not a loosely held consensus upon any issue of importance. They have "we hate Bush" My point in response to the OP is that I don't think that will be successful.
control the congress and the white house.
why are they not implementing zero base line budgeting? Who is stopping them?
importantly what if you have an agenda and put it out there and then don't even follow it. Better yet what if you continually violate the core tenants of the conservative movement? i.e. limited government, etc.
Goldwater:
After his retirement, in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as "hardheaded" and called on him to resign, and two years later stated the Republican Party had been taken over by a "bunch of kooks." In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired Senator said, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
In the 1990s he became more controversial because of statements that aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar." He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." He acknowledged, however, that in 37 years of military and reserve service he had not personally known any openly homosexual service members. In 1996 he told Bob Dole, who mounted his presidential campaign with luke-warm support from hard-line conservatives, "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"
how far we have fallen.....
That is what we were talking about.
Is this what this circuitous discussion has brought us to? That the Republican caucus is less than conservative? I'll agree with you and go to bed.
the congressional poll numbers-They are worse than Bush's. That is not just because of Republican control. The Democrats in congress also have a worse approval rating than the President and no better than the GOP congress. Here is the Fox News poll:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-The Nearest TV Camera)
That's a good one.
But one question: you say that gas taxes "tax receipts from the various fuel taxes outstrip oil industry profits in most years." I clicked on the link and didn't see support for that proposition. Do you have a source for that? I suspect it's true, but I'd love to see data.
have comparable batting averages.
You make great points about the recent Dem track record. It may be usful to go back before the 0 for 5 streak you mentioned. I can think of other prime issues the Dems thoughts would be winners starting in Jan 2001:
* Recounts will show Bush stole Florida and thus, the 2000 election
* Investigations will show widespread voter disenfranchisement
* Tax cuts not possible with "no mandate"
* Jeffords defection to kill Bush agenda
* Bush position on stem cells can be demagogued as stem cell research "ban"
* High energy prices will show Bush favoring energy cronies
* 9/11 Pause for unity "shoulder to shoulder"
* We're not doing anything about 9/11 (2 days before air campaign commences against Afghanistan and Taliban)
* Anti-war left starts anew (ANSWER, Code Pink, mostly anti-American at this point)
* "Bush knew", "what did he know when" Hillary repeats on Senate floor
* "Bush didn't know but should have" attempt to declassify PDB's
* Kitchen table issues to drive 2002 elections-whoops, security moms carry the day
* "axis of evil"= unnecessary belligerence
* Many, many, many, month "rush to war", numerous UN resolutions
* IRAQ invasion to immediately yield thousands to tens of thousands of bodybags
* Instant quagmire
* No WMD's
* "Bush Lied"
* 16 words "lies"
* National Guard story, rathergate forged memos
* Plamegate
One could offer more examples. The point is that since the 2001 inauguration the rocks have flown non-stop, the public has been largely misinformed and all the Dems and the MSM have to show for it is sliding poll numbers on a President who is not up for reelection. By my count the Dems and MSM are at least 0-26.
The populist issues should fail as well as it is pointed out that what Dorgan and Schumer are arguing for is higher gas prices. What Republicans should point out is that Raymond and other energy CEO's comp is miniscule compared to what is collected and squandered by fed, state and local taxes. Dems fillibuster energy bill, oppose ANWR drilling favor environemtnal regulations that impede new refineries basically do nothing that would improve the situation.
How the GOP candidates position themselves on these issues as well as the GWOT will largely decide who the GOP nominee will be. With hope, the candidates that matter will review recent history and decide that the anti-Bush route is not a path to victory.