Gas pains/ In trying to form an energy policy, Congress inserts

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jun 9, 2003

Folks who believe in limiting the reach of the federal government experienced a bittersweet moment during the ethanol debate in the U.S. Senate last week. On Thursday senators voted 67-29 to double the use of ethanol required in gasoline supplies in every state but Alaska and Hawaii by 2012. That's the bitter.

Arguing against specific portions of the plan, however, were Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Diane Feinstein of California - neither known as a champion of a state's right to control its own destiny. That's the sweet. It seems these two, who usually believe the federal government knows what's best for Americans, wanted to exempt their constituents from the ethanol requirement. We'd usually applaud efforts to buck federal control of things. In this case, however, the good senators' motivations have nothing to do with limited government, but with regional politics.

One point of contention about the ethanol mandate, part of a larger energy bill making its way through Congress, was that all the plants that convert corn to ethanol are in the farm belt. Feinstein and Schumer wanted to exempt California and the Northeast, respectively, from the requirement because they fear the distance between the plants and their regions would lead to increased gas prices and short supplies. It mattered not a bit to them that the feds have no business dictating what kind of fuel Americans put in their cars; their objections were based on self-interest.

The important principle to remember, however, is not that these two backed away from federal control when it didn't serve their purposes, but that a majority of the Senate voted to force the rancher in Montana to use the same fuel as the commuter in New York City. The two areas have vastly different levels of air pollution, why should they be forced to burn the same gas? Doesn't it make more sense to allow individual states to decide the need for oxygenated fuels? Or better yet, for consumers to decide?

The federal government just can't resist the urge to meddle in areas where it has no business. If we looked over our copy of the Constitution, we doubt we'd find the section that allows the federal government to dictate energy policy to producers or consumers. Many people will point to the so-called interstate commerce clause, which enables the feds to regulate trade between the states, as justification for the move. At first glance that might seem reasonable, but when the Framers put together the Constitution they were designing a very limited government. Since nearly all facets of everyday life cross state lines, one could argue that the clause gives the feds nearly limitless power - something that flies in the face of the Founding Fathers' intent.

In this case of federal over-reaching, it wasn't fighting pollution that carried the day, but a move toward energy self- sufficiency. Proponents of the ethanol regulation say the 5 billion gallons of ethanol that will be mixed with gasoline by 2012 will save about 250,000 barrels of oil a day. They also note that it will be a big economic stimulus to corn-growing regions by adding $1.3 billion a year to farmers' income and creating more than 200,000 jobs. According to the National Association of Corn Growers, hardly a disinterested group, the move will also lower fuel costs for Americans.

It seems that the best way to test those claims would be to leave it up to the market to decide. If doubling the amount of ethanol in the gas supply will lower prices, drivers will opt for the savings on their own and won't have to have the blended fuel forced upon them. That's not to say the claims are wrong. We just don't see the need to force the economy to do what it probably would do anyway.

Stewart littled

It's not hard to view the federal prosecution of Martha Stewart, the multimillionaire home-decorating diva, as a witch hunt. The charges are devoid of the main crime she is supposed to have committed: insider trading. Surely the 41-page indictment would have included such charges had there been anything to prosecute. Instead, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil charges against Stewart to recoup the $45,000 or so of gains that supposedly are ill- gotten from her sale of ImClone stock.

It's a case in point of how much power the government has to destroy people even if they did nothing or little wrong. Stewart is a high-profile celebrity who made errors in judgment at about the same time Enron and other huge corporate scandals were capturing the public's attention.

What better way to demonstrate the government is serious about white-collar crime than to crack down on the dealings of a well- known entrepreneur?

"This criminal case is about lying - lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC, lying to investigators," said U.S. Attorney James Comey. "Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is, but because of what she did."

So, she might not have done anything criminal with regard to the stock sale, but she might have concocted stories about why she sold the stocks. Not a smart move.