One of these offenses was that oil companies received oil subsidies at the same time these companies were making unusually high profits. This statement was highlighted in her blog entry as if it exemplifies the "corruption" of the Bush administration. Does it? Should I, as an evangelical, be particularly embarrassed by this?
I frankly don't see why I should be. I may dispute the economic wisdom of continuing oil subsidies because I believe in free markets, but I do not see how this is an ethical issue for the Bush administration.
The best source of information I can find on oil subsidies is a report on real gas prices by the International Center for Technology Assessment, which argues that the federal subsidies for oil artificially reduces the consumer's price for gasoline from $5-$15 a gallon to whatever it currently is at the pump. Their argument is that the true cost of gas is high enough to make alternative energy sources look more attractive. This is an advocacy document opposed to subsidies. (Although their original report was first published in 1998, there is an updated version, 2005, on their web site.) The report comprehensively explains these subsidies and tries to quantify their true cost (I think they're a little overly zealous in finding subsidies.)
One could easily get into arguments over their characterization of these subsidies--for example, they believe that the industry's practice of using replacement cost rather than historical cost as a basis for depreciation of reserves is wrong; however, this is the sort of technical accounting argument one could have about many industries and is not a uniquely Republican ethical problem. Chrysler exploited accounting rules to hide their bankruptcy for a year before they requested their federal bailout during the Carter administration.
In addition, all of these federal subsidies for oil long predate the Bush administration. Here are some quotes from the ICTA's report (note the dates):
I could go on to quote more extensively from the report. However, the point should be clear: federal subsidies for the oil industry long predate the Bush administration, and many of the hidden subsidies, such as the TRA, were expanded during the Clinton era. One could argue that these protectionist economic policies are too selective, but, again, Bush did not create the policy.
Percentage depletion allowance is one of the oldest and largest tax subsidies affecting the petroleum industry. This provision primarily benefits independent oil companies (enterprises not substantially involved in refining or retailing). Until 1975, it applied to major oil companies, but Congress has gradually narrowed the application and reduced the rate over time ... Since 1990, Congress has expanded the use of the percentage depletion deduction to include transferred property.
The nonconventional fuel production credit provides the oil industry with another opportunity to avoid paying taxes. The federal tax code provides for a production tax credit of $5.75 per barrel of oil equivalent for certain fuels produced from alternate energy sources. ... Overall production of nonconventional fuel has not increased since the credit was first enacted in 1980.
Foreign tax credits (FTCs) were intended to enable multinational oil companies to avoid double taxation in the United States and in foreign countries where they are operating. In reality, FTCs enable some oil companies to avoid paying taxes in either jurisdiction. ... According to calculations in a study published by the Institute
for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), “if the petroleum industry could only deduct foreign taxes instead of taking a credit for them, we could [have] raise[d] an additional $3.38 billion in revenue in 1996. A recent report prepared for Greenpeace takes a more conservative approach, estimating that 50 percent of all FTCs claimed by the oil industry are disguised royalties ...
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA) is a recent reminder that revision (and supposed reform) of the internal revenue code often contains many new distortionary tax subsidies. Tax expenditure provisions are often passed into law with the intent of being in effect for limited periods. However, subsidies that prove beneficial to oil interests tend to receive extensions
from sympathetic lawmakers. TRA contains several new provisions that will benefit the petroleum industry. The act relaxes rules on the percentage depletion allowance and the accelerated depletion provisions and will increase the annual level of subsidy by
more than $70 million.
On the other hand, on November 16, 2005, the New York Times reported:
In a telling sign of the political impact of soaring energy prices, the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to impose a $5 billion tax next year on the nation's biggest oil companies.I believe this is terrible economic policy and will ultimately prove detrimental--this is just basic economics--but, again, to those eager to accuse evangelicals as ethical hypocrites because of Republican oil policies, this is an inconvenient fact.
The measure amounts to a one-year windfall profits tax, a concept that most Republicans had until recently denounced as a discredited idea from the 1970's.
Apparently this student has bought into the anti-Bush story line as well as the media's caricature of evangelicals. Let's actually look at the fruit rather than rely on someone else's description of it.
3 comments:
This article’s use of a solitary example, without the context of the girl's other points of arguments (or even a mentioning of them), as fodder for an unwarranted wholesale discarding of the criticisms of the Bush administration and its evangelical supporters seems only to legitimize the very criticism of said administration and said overzealous supporters that’s being attacked. While the other points of complaint against Bush and his fan base by this student acquaintance may have been unimportant to you, they are certainly of interest to the reader, who, in this case, found it awfully hard to understand how a few quotes that May throw doubt on the girl’s example could discredit the sort of critique that this girl engages in.
I say May throw doubt on her point of argument, because for one thing, you don’t cite any further commentary of hers on Bush’s policy towards oil subsidies. This is a small point, but one worth mentioning. Furthermore, the article that you so extensively cite was, as you identified copyrighted in 1998 so of course it would only discuss the oil subsidy issues made around and before that time. To me, that says nothing either way about the current administration’s behavior. You cited an “updated” edition of the report for 2005, but the update concerns the costs associated with “protecting” and maintaining foreign and “insurance” oil reserves. It says nothing whatsoever about the present administration and its role in subsidizing oil.
I realize that you don’t make any claims about the Bush administration and if/how much it subsidizes the oil industry, but the argument seems like a mute point, and the examples mere red herrings. If there were any information present, either way, about how the present administration treats such industries, maybe there would have been a case.
As it stands, I don’t see what you’re arguing for…merely that previous administrations Also subsidized oil companies?
Additionally, I can’t make out what the New York Times quote has anything to do with the argument. What senate committee members do or try to do, even if they’re Republicans, doesn’t seem to relate to criticisms of the Bush administration. Apparently you didn’t take into account the following quote, occurring later in the article: “But party [Republican] leaders and the White House have firmly opposed such a move [referring to the taxes].”
But all of this detail is beside the point. The girl never said the Bush administration Started oil subsidies and your nitpicking of minutia hardly supports the final claim (about laziness on the part of Bush/evangelical critics). I imagine this girl, as impassioned college students are wont to do, may have picked up a bit of hearsay and used it somewhat carelessly to support a very personal decision. Whatever the current administration’s policy towards oil subsidizing is, I as the reader still have not received any information on it. However, I think the girl was probably speaking to a fairly common and growing perception that this administration simply does not care about the environment. From the highly dubious Yucca Mountain waste disposal facility to possible drilling in wildlife preserves, to the simple fact that so many members of the cabinet have come from backgrounds of anti-environment lobbying or big business interests often anathema to environmental interests (or just suspicious big businesses period), many concerned citizens have given up hope on realistic possibilities for sustainable energy sources or repairing the extensive damage done to the environment in general. Just because the Bush administration didn’t Start subsidizing oil doesn’t mean that they don’t and in all likelihood they might as well.
Her claim (again I have to mention, taken out of all context without any regard for her other points) may not totally hold water, but your ambitiousness to twist this small example and misrepresent it, in order to criticize all Bush bashers and critics of the evangelical sub-culture in total characterizes the sort of fierce defensiveness towards the president that rightly confounds, surprises, and disturbs his critics (to say nothing of the really important issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc.).
Let’s review.
The girl asked why evangelicals support George Bush, with the implication that they are unthinking hypocrites in doing so. Her characterization of the quality of their reasoning was this, “Answer: Shucks, President Bush is such a nice guy, and he talks about God, and by gum, he won't let anyone push him around! And we like it!”
She followed this with a list of ethical scandals. There’s no supporting documentation, just brief assertions as though these are undisputed facts and there is no other perspective on these issues. She highlighted one in particular, “the fact that this administration is paying large subsidies to oil companies at a time when they are enjoying higher profits than any other business in American history.”
As you yourself say, “I imagine this girl, as impassioned college students are wont to do, may have picked up a bit of hearsay and used it somewhat carelessly to support a very personal decision.” I agree. But that is precisely my point: she dismisses evangelicals as unthinking “Aw-shucks” types obliviously compromising their own ethical integrity in blind support of the president. But I question then why it is valid to base this charge, at least partially, on unevaluated hearsay. Is unthinking accusation better than unthinking support?
The intent of my post was not to dismiss all criticism of the Bush administration—you yourself seem to recognize this when you say, “I realize that you don’t make any claims about the Bush administration”-- but to point out that in this case, her highlighted one, the contention that oil subsidies are a scandal peculiar to the Bush administration is simplistic. Her use of this criticism was not to lament Bush’s lack of concern about the environment, but to suggest that he is in the pocket of big oil. The argument is about questionable ethics, not about environmental policy.
Yes, I was selective. I chose this one issue for several reasons: it is the one she highlighted; responses to the others are readily available; and, this one surprised me. I do not accept your premise that it is not valid to respond to one criticism without responding to them all. The criticism of evangelical Bush supporters was a broad-brush accusation that they willingly ignore these issues. Most of us do not, but we come to different conclusions from our critics. My intent was to respond to the accusation of thoughtless hypocrisy.
My so-called “fierce defensiveness” is not what you think. I admit to defensiveness. However, what I react to is the sheer nastiness of these personal slurs, a nastiness that your comments also display. My research into one of these issues is a “nitpicking of minutiae” presumably because I am not buying into the big story-line of ethical corruption without some investigation. It is “an ambitiousness to twist this small example and misrepresent it, in order to criticize all Bush bashers and critics of the evangelical sub-culture in total,” because I don’t think it’s fair to accept the characterization of all evangelicals as “Aw shucks” dupes. It is an “unwarranted wholesale discarding of the criticisms of the Bush administration” because I choose to reply to one of these criticisms.
One more thing. I am at a loss as to how you get from my self-examining question as to whether I should be particularly embarrassed by oil subsidies to the idea that I am "criticizing all Bush bashers and critics of the evangelical sub-culture in total." This seems over-the-top to me and perhaps suggests some "fierce defensiveness" of your own.
Post a Comment