Ron
Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani
(And Lay Off the Rich Oil Companies!)
by
Bob Murphy
by Bob Murphy
DIGG THIS
Hello folks,
this is one of those articles where I don’t have anything profound
to say, but the issues are important and I felt I had to do my part
to restore balance in the lopsided "debate." Today I’d
like to (1) share my musings on the
Ron Paul/Rudy Giuliani face-off and then (2) poke fun at a really
silly article calling for higher gas taxes.
"Two
Men Enter, One Man Leave!"
It’s no secret,
I am not a big fan of the Iraq occupation. However, Rudy Giuliani’s
rhetorical jab didn’t bother me because it was pro-war. No, the
thing that really irked me was that it was so utterly dishonest.
Giuliani couldn’t possibly mean what he said – namely, that he had
never heard before the claim that America’s bombing of Iraq motivated
the 9/11 hijackers – and everybody knew he didn’t mean it. After
all, the "blame America first" canard is standard fare
among today’s conservatives; they’ve clearly heard this before.
Probably in
the grand scheme, it was better for Ron Paul to have answered the
way he did. But wouldn’t it have been delicious if he met Rudy’s
assault by saying:
No, Mr. Giuliani,
I won’t retract my statement. But I will give you a chance to
retract yours. Do you honestly mean to tell the American voters
that you are running to be the next Commander in Chief, and you
haven’t even read Osama bin Laden’s public statements about why
9/11 happened? How can you fight the War on Terror if you don’t
understand the first thing about how our enemy thinks?
The moderators
probably would’ve jumped in at that point and moved along to another
topic, but still that would’ve been great. Giuliani might’ve
sputtered something about "I meant it was the first time I’d
heard it coming from a fellow Republican" but his caveat
that "I don’t think I’ve ever heard that, and I’ve heard some
pretty absurd explanations for September 11" would’ve blocked
that escape route too. No, Giuliani was actually claiming that he
had heard crazy conspiracy theories – such as the Pentagon staging
the 9/11 attacks – but that Ron Paul was the first person who had
ever suggested that the US treatment of Iraq had anything to do
with it.
As I said above,
what irks me is this huge farce whereby Giuliani keeps assuring
us of his sincerity, when we all know he is lying. Look at this
clip where he commiserates with Sean Hannity. Immediately after
telling us how sincerely he meant it when he said he had never heard
that before, he explains that he had considered the alternate statement
that Ron Paul voiced the same theory that "the Saudi prince"
did (who offered $10 million in aid that the proud Giuliani refused).
So there you have it, folks: Giuliani sincerely meant it when he
gave Ron Paul the chance to retract his novel theory that Giuliani
had never heard before, and also Ron Paul reminded Giuliani of the
Saudi prince who had offered the same theory. (Also, if you watch
to the end of the clip I’ve linked above, Giuliani says "usually
I hear this from the Democrat side." Yet more people whom Giuliani
has heard voice the theory that Giuliani never heard before.)
Before leaving
this matter, I just want to bring to your attention the alternately
chilling and hilarious reaction
of the Fox crews to Ron Paul’s standing in their viewer polls.
If you haven’t seen these clips before, really you should take the
four minutes and watch. Just to give you a hint: Apparently the
wily representative from Texas knows how to mobilize voters more
than veteran governors and senators.
Gas Taxes
Are Good for You
Yes, we’re
all upset by how high gas prices are, and I admit that it’s surprising
me too – the pump wasn’t so expensive last summer, when oil was
several dollars higher per barrel. It’s a stumper and I understand
why people are suspicious.
But this
article proposes that what we need is a good tax hike, just
to show them oil companies we mean business! And no, I’m not talking
about a windfall profits tax, or a measure that restricts Exxon
executives from making more than a certain amount per year. On the
contrary, the way we’re going to punish the oil companies is to
raise taxes on US motorists. So there!
You folks think
I’m exaggerating to be funny. No I’m not:
Motorists
are already paying well over $3 a gallon, and there are signs
that it's beginning to cut into demand and hurt consumer spending.
But if a
big gas tax was levied – like the $1 or $2 tax Europeans have
to keep prices permanently over $3 or $4 a gallon – how could
that possibly help American consumers?
One argument
says a tax would crimp demand, lowering wholesale prices.
"Anybody
with any brains has advocated that, but not the politicians,"
said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at the financial services
company Oppenheimer.
Lower wholesale
prices, which would mean less profits for oil firms, combined
with a higher tax could transfer money from Big Oil to the government,
which could then use the cash for public programs.
Consumers
would have to pay the same amount – or even more than now – but
at least that extra cash could be returned to them in some way.
What can I
say? We might as well chop off everyone’s right arm. After all,
most people are right-handed, so the extra inconvenience of pumping
gas might reduce our consumption of foreign oil.
 Look,
I’m not naïve. I understand that oil executives are probably
not the nicest guys in the world, and they certainly don’t wake
up every morning thinking, "How can I make the world a better
place today?" But there’s one group whom I trust even less,
and that’s politicians. Why in the world would we trust them
with our money?!
 And
as far as our much-ballyhooed dependence on foreign oil – if you
want your "gas dollars" to help with that problem,
then they’re already going to the people most likely to eliminate
our dependence: namely oil companies. To reduce our dependence on
the Middle East, we need companies to find new sources and lay new
pipelines and build new rigs. This is what billions of your gas
dollars fund.
Or, you could
hand it over to the government and hope that their subsidies for
electric cars pay off. I’m sure the experts in Washington will take
good care of that money.
May 23, 2007
Bob
Murphy [send him mail]
has a PhD in economics from New York University, and is the author
of Minerva.
See his personal website at BobMurphy.net.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
|
