Fraters Libertas

A Sophisticated Flatworm

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Holman W. Jenkins Jr. identified a new species in the Senate:

Take a particularly sophisticated organism, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, a planarian among paramecia. Last week he proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies. These are the same oil companies that, in response to higher oil prices, we are relying upon to increase investment in the search for oil and production of gasoline. His bill would be perverse and self-defeating. But Mr. Dorgan was quick to add he didn't plan on it actually becoming law: "Most likely Congress will do little or nothing but talk a great deal and hold hearings."

A sophisticated flatworm, indeed, is one capable of such multileveled dialogue. Advertisers are increasingly able to target consumers individually. Mr. Dorgan will one day be able to use the Internet to tailor separate and totally contradictory messages for every voter in his state, depending on whether they are clueless enough to believe that confiscating oil company profits would improve the gasoline situation.

I caught one of the hearings that Dorgan refers to last week on C-SPAN. Specifically, the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing on Global Oil Demand/ Gasoline Prices, which took place last Tuesday. Listening to the Senators question the three expert witnesses was at time funny and at times frightening.

Say what you will about the political philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand (amoral, not fully developed, etc.), but giver her credit for nailing down the type of person who opposes capitalism in the West. Not the outright Communalists or Socialists. Rather those that give lip service to the idea of a free market economy, but throw shackles around those who dare to profit from it.

The performances by some of the Democrats during this committee hearing could have been straight out of a Rand novel. The worst offenders were Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, and the pride of Oregon, Ron Wyden. Feinstein spent most of her time reading off a list of the profits reported by oil companies this year, while Dorgan and Wyden focused obsessively on oil futures trading and "price gouging." Wyden was appalled that anyone could possibly have made money in the oil markets after Hurricane Katrina, despite the best efforts of the one of the witness to explain the way markets work to him.

For those who like to spout off that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats, I'd urge you to catch a few minutes of the action the next time this committee gets together. While the Republicans who spoke focused on efforts to increase the supply of oil, gasoline, and natural gas, the Democrats harped on "price gouging" and "excessive profits." If the Dems would have discussed fuel efficiency standards or other methods to reduce consumption, they would have demonstrated that at least they understood the underlying economics of the matter. Instead it was nothing but empty grandstanding, veiled threats of price controls, and attacks on anyone who dares to profit in the oil/gas markets.

One of the Republicans, I believe it was Lamar Alexander, mentioned the recent temporary relaxing of certain environmental standards to help increase the supply of oil/gas and then asked if some of them should be permanently relaxed. Some of them? How about all of them? Republicans have been afraid of appearing anti-environment in recent years, but I think that rising energy prices and stories of EPA overregulation of the oil/gas industries have convinced many Americans that the zeal to protect the environment has gone too far. I heard these feelings expressed frequently on my recent trip to North Dakota (which is admittedly a very red state despite the Dorgans and Conrads) and I think that it's an issue that Republicans can and should exploit in '06 and beyond.

The more I watch the Senate in action, the less respect I have for the "world's greatest deliberative body." One of the reasons is the ridiculous deference that is shown to the Senators by the witnesses. The unlucky trio called to testify at these hearings were Guy Caruso from the U.S Department of Energy, James A. Overdahl, Chief Economist U. S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission", and Rebecca Watson from the U.S. Department of the Interior. I did not envy them having to sit there and put up with the inane questions and pompous blathering from the Senators.

At times, you could tell that they (especially the economist) were just itching to zing the Senators after particularly gallingly stupid queries. But, apparently for the sake of decorum, they held back. A select few, who are called before the Senate on a regular basis, have figured out how to reveal the empty suits in the body without appearing impolite. Rumsfeld is a master at this, although even he has a hard time resisting the urge to aggressively respond when being questioned by the likes of Mark Dayton.

I'm not a big fan of George Galloway, but I gotta think that they Senate would be a better place if more witnesses had the gumption to return fire in the manner he did when he appeared before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee earlier this year. Maybe if the Senators had to fear being exposed for what they really are, they would spend more time preparing relevant, well-formed questions and less time babbling and trying to play to the cameras. It certainly would make the Senate hearings a lot more watchable.