Democrats - once more, ideology over economics over oil

Senate Democrats’ energy plan is garnering more criticism today, and not just from fellow Democrats.  Investor’s Business Daily has a scathing editorial today discussing the folly of Democrats’ proposal for a windfall profits tax and their unrealistic ideas about “price gouging.” IBD writes in part, “As any student who's taken Econ 101 at the local junior college can tell you, higher taxes don't encourage production; they discourage it.”

National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg also takes Democrats to task in his column and exposes the absurdity of politicians deciding for themselves just what profits are “reasonable.”

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has co-sponsored an amendment to address rising gas prices and reduce the country's dependence on foreign sources of oil.

The amendment increases the production of oil and gas in the United States, as well as supports the development of renewable energy and advanced energy technologies.

Gregg says the American Energy Production Act of 2008, on which the amendment is based, will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil domestically and expand the nation's commitment to renewable sources and advanced energy technologies.

The amendment is pending on the flood insurance bill being considered by the Senate. It's been scheduled for a vote on Monday.

And Senator Gregg calls out NY's Schumer, and wins:

A recent report by New Hampshire Union Leader senior political reporter John Distaso discussed attacks on New Hampshire's senior senator, Judd Gregg, by a newspaper in New York.

Sen. Gregg rightfully took issue with an earmark inserted to a bill dealing with air traffic safety. The earmark was to fund a rail project in New York City. Rather than defend the rail project on its merits, the newspaper suggested that this project relates to 9/11 and thus anyone who criticizes it is insensitive.

Ironically, the first vocal critic of this dubious earmark was none other than The Wall Street Journal. If the World Trade Center had a hometown paper, one might argue the Wall Street Journal was it. Here is what the Journal had to say about the Schumer earmark in December of 2006:

"One of the projects to be funded: a new train from Manhattan to John F. Kennedy Airport. Why people in Oshkosh or Olympia should have to pay for this urban choochoo is a mystery.

"What makes this project especially objectionable is the creative financing conjured up to pay for it. This earmark hangs like a Christmas ornament from a must-pass bill to extend certain annual tax credits. And how's this for a misnomer? The subsidy is called the 'New York Liberty Zone Tax Credit.' Here's how it would work: New York would receive up to $2 billion over 10 years (about $1.3 billion of which is Sept. 11 money, for a net new subsidy of $682 million).

"Of course, New York City doesn't pay federal taxes, so this bill allows the Big Apple to retain the employer share of the payroll taxes that the city collects on behalf of its public employees ... The result: a new $2 billion hole in the budget. Our congressional sources say this is the first time this kind of tax credit has been provided for a city or state to pay for infrastructure pork."

In Washington, the easy path is to just stay silent about other members' earmarks and about wasteful spending in general. But, in the Granite State tradition, Judd Gregg has taken the road less traveled. New Hampshire taxpayers should be thankful he is trying to make a difference.

Jim DeMint is a Republican U.S. senator from South Carolina.