Does this man really care about the impact of rising gasoline prices on American families? (Photo of Senator Charles Schumer, by “Senate Democrats,” Flickr Creative Commons.)
Laugh? Scream? Cry?
What’s the proper reaction to a letter from liberal Democratic Senators Charles Schumer (NY), Maria Cantwell (WA), Ed Markey (MA), and Robert Menendez (NJ) to President Donald Trump decrying the harm rising gasoline prices does to American families. (It’s always about the family, you know! Whatever a “family” might be.)
All four Senators have supported raising federal taxes on gasoline as a way to fight global warming by reducing consumption. The tax increase would, of course, have done precisely the same harm, penny for penny, to American families as the increase in gas prices driven by rising world oil prices as supply has flattened while demand has continued to rise.
Don’t be fooled. The Senators don’t really care about families hurt by rising prices. What they can’t stand is the notion that the extra income from the higher gas prices would go to private people—the stockholders and employees of oil companies—rather than to the federal government, where they get the chance to dole it out as pork to their constituents.
Todd Myers had fun exposing their hypocrisy in an article today in National Review:
Demanding that the president cut gas prices so families can use more fossil fuels demonstrates how cynically the Left uses environmental policy. The explicit goal of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems is to increase the price of gasoline, home heating, and electricity, providing an incentive for consumers to use less. Schumer and the others who signed the letter all support these policies, which would, in their words, have a significant impact “on our economy and family budgets.”
In an effort to escape the obvious hypocrisy of their position, the four complain that increased expenditures on gas would go “to the OPEC cartel rather than the U.S. Treasury.” This is revealing. If the Left supports higher energy prices only when the money goes to government, they don’t really care about reducing CO2 emissions — they just want to increase taxes.
“… to the OPEC cartel.” Hmmm. Well, yes, some would, but much would go instead to the stockholders and employees of American-based oil companies. America is on the verge of becoming the world’s #1 oil exporter, leaving Saudi Arabia in the desert dust. But apparently these Senators don’t care about Americans who earn a living by investing the capital or labor that makes that possible.
Myers goes on:
Today, the goal of attacking President Trump is far more important than any environmental goal. When it is politically useful to attack the president on climate change, they accuse him of destroying the planet. When the better line of attack is to lament the impact of high gas prices on families, some on the left kick aside their purported environmental principles in favor of politics.
All of that isn’t even to mention that such politicians have done all they can to prevent American oil companies from expanding oil production here in the United States. Do they really expect anyone to take their tears for American families hurt by rising gas prices seriously?
P.S. If you liked this article you might enjoy our Cornwall Alliance Email Newsletter! Sign up here to receive analysis on top issues of the day related to science, economics, and poverty development.
As a thank you for signing up, you will receive a link to watch Dr. Beisner’s 84 minute lecture (with Powerpoint slides) “Climate Change and the Christian: What’s True, What’s False, What’s our Responsibility?” Free!
Klaus says
Dear Dr. Beisner,
What does the term „Left“ means these days?
In my experience those who considered or described themselves as „left“ or „progressive“ some 30-40 years ago have become, in there political attitudes, in their political praxis, reactionary these days.
I cannot use the therm conservative because it would be misdeed for those who are indeed „conservatives“. I respect different political opinions and find them fruitful if we respect and listen to each other, if we are open to each other.
Why do I write this to you? I‘m not religious and consider myself an atheist but I follow the Cornwall Alliance because of your values and what you stand for! I respect them and in many cases I agree with them. However, I‘m neither a conservative, a liberal in the American or European sense nor a social democrat nor nationalist.
I believe in the preservation of peace, that each culture has the right to pursue their way along as they do not deny for any other cultur, in the respectful use and interaction with our natural environment, in the balance of give and take.
E. Calvin Beisner says
Dear Klaus,
Thank you for that thoughtful comment! I really appreciate your observations and particularly the fact that, though you’re an atheist, you embrace the values that underlie the Cornwall Alliance’s understanding of environmental stewardship and economic development.
I can definitely sympathize with your comments about the shifting meanings of “Left” (and “Right”), of “conservative” (and “liberal”). Labels are always deficient, even though brevity sometimes requires them.
Let me offer these ten principles, though, as one good way of expressing why I call myself a “conservative” (but a Christian first!). They come from Russell Kirk’s excellent little essay “Ten Conservative Principles,” and I hope you’ll read that to flesh out what Kirk (who tutored me through my master’s degree in economic ethics) means by each point.
Thanks again for writing and for your kind words about the Cornwall Alliance. We need more people like you, who thoughtfully interact even with those with whom they disagree!
Craig says
Dear Dr Beisner
I agree with nearly all you’ve said, except the last point concerning Permanence & Progression, or fixity & flux. One thing I learnt from Rushdoony is that man and his social systems cannot be the source of permanence because man is in time, and so his social constructs are subject to flux.
Philosophically speaking, the only source of permanence is God because He is both within time, as omnipresent, and outside it, controlling ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ as the Confession says. So if your source of fixity is in God, then the whole problem of permanence & change is resolved immediately!
Just on the idea of Progressives v Conservatives, I’m reminded of something Joel McDurmon wrote years ago along the lines of ‘What are Progressives trying to progress, and what are Conservatives trying to conserve?’ – that’s stuck with me for all this time because I think it’s very pertinent in any discussion like this.
Todd M Stevens says
This is all about power. Who will rule (Leftist aim) America? Or will America be free?
Don’t fool yourself with the thought that the Republican party will deliver us. It is also corrupt, preferring control and power to the service of a free nation.
Prayer and resistance is all that is left.