Here's an interesting Politico piece on the politics behind a natural-gas-as-vehicle-fuel bill; oil man turned natural gas advocate T Boone Pickens is backing the bill and the libertarian Kochs, also oil men themselves, are against it. The bill would subsidize natural gas engines and putting NG pumps at gas stations.
Both sides have merit. The pro-NG side can point to the energy-independence side of the argument, for the more home-grown natural gas we use, the less we give to OPEC and their assortment of freedom-hostile governments. That argument has been used by the drill-baby-drill chorus for making more domestic oil, albeit without its hand out for big-ticket subsidies.
The Koch's free-market oriented allies are generally against subsides; government subsidies are often rather inefficient and should especially be avoided when we're in the middle of trying to rein in a nasty deficit. However, the insinuation is that the Koch's interest is self-serving in that an increase in the use of natural gas cuts into the use of oil; thus, oil barons without a natural gas component to their energy business will be against helping out natural gas; making a substitute good cheaper or subsidizing the complements to that substitute hurt your product.
There is a bit of glee in that Politico piece, as the left-leaning denizens there want to cast doubts on both sides' intentions, especially the folks that vote against the bill that get Koch donations. There is a solid free-market argument against such subsidies, and the deficit hawk side of things argue for caution in pulling out Uncle Sam's credit card when it's squeezing up against its credit limit. Dynamist principle is more likely at play, rather than than a few bucks from a conservative benefacto.
One of the ongoing fights within the GOP is a right-populist faction that wants to weed out influence-buying and an establishment faction who wants to keep that influence. However, you can have those Tea Party populists swayed by folks who have a vested influence in shooting down a bill. One of the more noxious parts of the Abramoff era was their sending money from existing casino-owners to theocon groups campaigning against more casinos; the groups getting the money were working on a moral compulsion to rein in gamble while the givers were amorally maximizing future profits.
Comments