Now, self-serve soft-serve is pretty much the opposite:
Posted on 04/02/2004 9:51:39 AM PST by .cnI redruM
John Kerry's energy plan calls for reducing U.S. oil imports by two million barrels per day, roughly the amount the country brings in from the Persian Gulf. So how come Kerry is simultaneously blasting George W. Bush for not pressuring OPEC to sell us more oil? Welcome to one of the stupidest aspects of contemporary presidential campaigning: petroleum nonsense.
First a quick reminder that, as yours truly pointed out a month ago, gas prices are not at any "record" level in the meaningful--inflation-adjusted--sense. In real dollars, gasoline currently costs no more than it did in the 1950s; in real dollars, gasoline currently costs about a third less than it did at the real-dollar peak, early in the Reagan administration. Factor in that buying power per capita has more than doubled since the 1950s, and most Americans now spend a significantly smaller share of their incomes at the pump than their parents spent during the 1950s. But this has not stopped either party, nor any major news organization, from declaring that gas prices just hit "record" levels.
Now to Kerry. The Democratic contender has the high ground on gasoline. Unlike George W. Bush, who has run trembling from higher MPG standards, Kerry in 2002 cosponsored with John McCain a bill that would have required new U.S. cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to average 36 miles per gallon by the year 2015; a goal declared reasonable by the National Research Council in a study requested by the Bush White House. Kerry's mileage proposal was practical and good national policy--both good energy policy, and good security policy. Equally important, Kerry's proposal was courageous. Higher MPG standards are not only opposed by automakers but by many Democratic donors and many within the United Auto Workers, a key Democratic constituency. Kerry showed fortitude by proposing stricter MPG rules regardless of the political risk. (This is separate from the complication that the Kerry bill would have increased MPG using the existing "corporate average fuel economy" regulatory mechanism that is disliked by economists; ideally, new MPG strictures would take a different form.) In fact, Kerry's 2002 mileage-improvement proposal was his most significant legislative undertaking in the years immediately prior to his presidential bid.
But having staked out positions saying MPG needs to rise and Middle East oil imports need to decline--let's call this the "carpool lane position"--last week Kerry jumped backward to the gas-aholic viewpoint, complaining that the White House should shake down OPEC and acting like everyone should be deeply upset by a relatively small increase in the price of the petrol Americans are pumping by the gigagallon into their SUVs. Part of the Kerry's backward jump to the gas-aholic viewpoint is to divert attention from Bush accusing him of once having favored an increase in the federal gasoline tax. Part is simply that the candidate of the party out of power always says whatever is critical of the party in power: George W. Bush did the same when campaigning against Al Gore. Mainly Kerry's gas-aholic reversal reflects that fact that theatrical hysteria about pump prices has become a staple of presidential campaigning. Remember that in 1996 Bill Clinton, a secure incumbent, fretted and backtracked when challenger Bob Dole started acting like everyone should be deeply upset over a 4.3-cent increase in the federal gasoline tax. (State taxes on gasoline are much higher than federal taxes.)
Kerry showed courage by supporting higher MPG standards; pure political valor would be to tell Americans they're spoiled regarding gasoline prices. Gas prices do impact the poor regressively, but most gasoline buyers aren't poor. There is something deeply spoiled and selfish about an affluent American pausing at the door of his luxury SUV to announce outrage over paying $2 a gallon for fuel he will proceed to waste by nailing the accelerator to cut others off in traffic. This is particularly true if he just ran into the gas-station minimart to buy a Dasani for the SUV cupholder, since status-brand bottled water retails for about $8 a gallon, and no one has to drill it, refine it, or fight over it. Americans pay less than half what Europeans do today for gasoline, in addition to paying less in inflation- and buying-power adjusted terms than Americans of the 1950s paid. All the political complaints--and the news shows and talk shows hyping "record" prices without perspective--are the product of a spoiled culture.
As to the Bush White House position, the president should bear in mind that there are two ways to cause the price of anything to fall: increase supply or reduce demand. Even if Bush won congressional authorization for exploratory drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it would be at least a decade before ANWR increased domestic supply, if it ever did. Probably ANWR production would only replace supply that will be lost from domestic fields that are depleting. On the other hand, if Bush backed higher mileage standards now, they could take effect in the 2008 model year, the vehicles that go to showrooms in 2007. Higher mileage would moderate gasoline demand, exerting downward pressure on prices.
So Bush can't do much to increase gasoline supply--other than badger OPEC and hope--but he can take action on gasoline demand. Moderating demand for gasoline will help moderate its price. It would be nice if anyone, Democrat or Republican, would point this out to voters.
Here he cuts to the bottom line...
"Americans pay less than half what Europeans do today for gasoline, in addition to paying less in inflation- and buying-power adjusted terms than Americans of the 1950s paid."
In other words, Kerry is full of balloon-juice and is posturing rather than problem solving.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | South Dakota | 105.00 |
2 |
52.50 |
|
|
35.00 |
3 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
And liberals wonder why more and more Americans detest them.
Unlike George W. Bush, who has run trembling from higher MPG standards, Kerry in 2002 cosponsored with John McCain a bill that would have required new U.S. cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to average 36 miles per gallon by the year 2015; a goal declared reasonable by the National Research Council in a study requested by the Bush White House.
I wonder if the study examined the projected rise in highway deaths from such an action.
Here he cuts to the bottom line...
"Americans pay less than half what Europeans do today for gasoline, in addition to paying less in inflation- and buying-power adjusted terms than Americans of the 1950s paid."
This guy is basically saying we should happily pay more for gas so we'll be more like Europe, driving weeniemobiles and/or taking the trolley.
ding, ding, ding.
More people need to read "Basic Economics, A Citizen's Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell. There would be a lot less ignorance in the world.
Now, self-serve soft-serve is pretty much the opposite:
There are plenty of studies that have correlated CAFE to rising death tolls:
Deadly CAFE - A dishonest debate hits the Senate.
By Sam Kazman, general counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
March 4, 2002 9:15 a.m.
For weeks, as the debate over federal fuel-economy standards has moved closer to the Senate floor, environmentalists have claimed overwhelming public support for higher standards. They tout polls showing that 60, 80, perhaps even 200 percent of Americans favor laws to boost the mile-per-gallon capabilities of new vehicles. But a poll released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute on February 25 shows that a strong plurality (48 percent) actually opposes such an increase.
Why the difference? Our poll claimed that this program, known as CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy), kills people. The other polls didn't.
We received many irate e-mails complaining that we had used a distorted, highly biased piece of disinformation aimed at producing precisely the result we wanted. Those complaints would be justified if CAFE's lethal effects were a poorly supported hypothesis. But the evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering.
CAFE has this impact on safety because it restricts the production of large cars. Large cars are less fuel efficient than smaller, similarly equipped vehicles, but they are also more crashworthy in practically every type of accident. The first major analysis of this issue came in a 1989 report from researchers at Harvard and the Brookings Institution; since then, a number of other analyses, by government and private researchers, have confirmed the conclusion that CAFE kills. There are dissenters on this point, but they are exactly that.
Yet not a single proponent of CAFE admits that it kills anyone. It's not as if they dispute the numbers of deaths, or argue that CAFE's lethal toll is a necessary price to pay for some other objective. Instead, they simply claim that CAFE creates a win-win situation for everyone — consumers, the auto industry, the environment, and, in the wake of 9/11, even national security.
Proponents of higher CAFE standards offer three basic arguments for their claim that CAFE is risk-free. The first argument is that new technologies can give us higher fuel economy and more safety, and so therefore there is no trade-off. But try this thought experiment: Imagine a high-tech car with incredibly advanced engines and equally great safety systems. Now add a few additional cubic feet and a few additional pounds to the car, so that it's a little bit bigger and a little heavier. Two things will happen. This high-tech car has become a bit safer, but also a bit less fuel-efficient. That is, you still have a tradeoff between fuel economy and safety.
In short, high technology doesn't get you out of the CAFE/safety bind. In the words of Dr. Leonard Evans, president of the International Traffic Medicine Association, this argument is like a tobacco-industry executive saying that smoking doesn't endanger your health, because with everything we now know about diets and exercising, you can smoke and still be as healthy as a non-smoker.
It is true that, with current knowledge about keeping fit, smokers can be healthier. But this knowledge can make a nonsmoker even healthier yet. If you smoke, you're going to be taking a risk no matter what.
The second argument is based on the steadily declining fatality rate in cars. Since the 1970's, when CAFE was enacted, that death rate has improved even though cars have been downsized. How, then, can CAFE's downsizing effect be making cars less safe when the death rate has been steadily improving?
But in fact the vehicle death rate has been improving not just since CAFE was enacted, but for most of the past century. That steady improvement has nothing to do downsizing; in fact, in the absence of downsizing it would have improved even more. By analogy, consider the fact that in 1970 we had zero cases of AIDS, but now we have tens of thousands. Yet longevity in the U.S. today is about ten months greater than it was in 1970. Does that allow us to say that AIDS is not a health threat?
The last argument they use is that CAFE cannot be deadly because it's endorsed by such auto safety activists as Ralph Nader, Joan Claybrook, and Clarence Ditlow. In fact, they do endorse higher CAFE standards. But years ago, these very same people stated very forthrightly that larger cars are safer cars. In 1972, for example, Nader and Ditlow published a book called Small on Safety, a critique of the Volkswagen Beetle. Page after page has such statements as: "Small size and light weight impose inherent limitations on the degree of safety that can be built into a vehicle."
In January, Joan Claybrook appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee with a diatribe on how the CAFE-safety tradeoff was a myth propagated by industry. But in 1977 she appeared before that same committee and stated, "There are going to be tradeoffs."
What happened? Back then, large cars were not politically incorrect. Today they are. For these people, the line all along has been: You want more safety? You need more government. But with CAFE it's exactly the opposite — more regulation means less safety. Their response has been to choose the former over the latter.
There is not a single advocate of CAFE who admits that it kills anyone. For this reason, the CAFE debate is fundamentally dishonest. CAFE is often portrayed as a way to keep us out of "blood-for-oil" wars, but at least those wars have clear life-and-death risks. CAFE, on the other hand, is itself a blood-for-oil war, waged on American civilians by proponents who refuse to admit it carries any risks at all.
Public knowledge of those risks can change the CAFE debate. In our poll we found that, given a general description of CAFE (with no mention of safety), the program is supported by 61 percent of the public, and opposed by only 22 percent. Once the National Academy's findings were described, however, support dropped to 42 percent, while opposition rose to 39 percent. More importantly, on the issue that's currently in play — whether to make CAFE even more stringent — 48 percent opposed such changes, while only 43 percent supported them.
Deregulation is often caricatured as a money-saving maneuver that puts innocent lives at risk. With CAFE, it's exactly the opposite. It's rare for the lethal effects of more regulation to be so well documented and to involve such life-and-death stakes. If the Senate agrees to more stringent fuel-economy standards, we'll have to wonder what, if any, deregulatory battles can still be won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.