Yes on Green But No on Green River

Barack Obama's muddled thinking, so typical of a radical environmentalist's hatred for oil and other things that improve human life, leaves him with an energy policy that only a Democrat (but not one from an energy-producing state) could find satisfactory.

This is not some sort of theoretical debate with unknown policy impacts. It is not a fundamentally trivial make-believe issue such as the "war on women."

Instead, there are few policy issues as critical as this to all Americans, especially to those of modest or fixed incomes: high oil prices function as a massive tax increase, and a tremendously regressive one at that.

Low-income Americans spend about 11 percent of their income on energy while the top 20 percent (by income) of households spend less than seven percent. Again, this is only direct energy spending. When you include the cost of other things people must buy, particularly food, whose costs rise with higher energy prices, the regressive nature of rising fuel prices becomes all the more dramatic.

Particularly in the northeast, oil prices directly correlate to the cost of heating one's home in winter. (That part of the country tends to use more heating oil where other areas use more natural gas, propane, or electric heat.)

For 25 years now, analysts have noted the devastation that high energy prices cause to our nation's least well-off residents: "On some days, many of America's poorest households must choose whether to heat or to eat. This kind of choice is beyond the comprehension of most middle-class Americans.… But for the poor… it remains a daily part of their lives."

Please read the rest of my article for the American Spectator here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/10/yes-on-green-but-no-on-green-r

No feedback yet
Leave a comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in now!

If you have no account yet, you can register now...
(It only takes a few seconds!)