Drilling for Oil: Little Savings

[An edited version of this letter appeared in the 6/29/08 edition of the Enquirer.]

To the editor:

Many people, Peter Bronson apparently included (“Memo to Congress,” June 24), seem to believe that if only the U.S. would tap into its undrilled oil reserves, gasoline prices would fall to pre-1990 levels. Conservation—who needs it? We’re Americans, after all. Big cars are our birthright!

Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, according to the June 19 New York Times, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that about 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If peak production could be reached within 10 years, and most of the oil is taken over 30 years, this would yield about 1 million barrels of oil a day (or approximately 1 percent of world production).

According to economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, this could be expected to reduce world oil prices by about 3 percent. Using today’s figures as a barometer, the price of a barrel of oil would drop from $135 to $131.

How would this affect gas prices? Baker calculates that—again, using today’s prices—a gallon of gas would plummet from $4.00/gallon to about $3.92/gallon.

I’m dismayed that so many Americans are willing to risk our environment—and prolong our short-sighted oil addiction—for such a meager reduction in gas prices.

Obama and Public Financing

[From 6/22/08, in response to criticism of Barack Obama for opting out of public financing for his presidential campaign.]

To the editor:

Let me get this straight: When politicians want to spend taxpayer’s money on things like health care or poverty, Republicans think that’s awful. Creeping socialism, they like to call it. But when Barack Obama decides not to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money because he has enough from private donations . . . they think that’s awful too.

Oookay.

Ten Things We Don't Tell Our Doctors

[From 6/20/08, in response to a Reader’s Digest article about doctor’s “secrets.”]

This month’s Reader’s Digest contains a truly appalling article, “41 Secrets Your Doctor Would Never Share,” in which physicians across the country admit what most patients already suspect: They pretty much hate our guts. (My favorite revelations: That doctors prefer young, attractive patients to older, sick ones and they get massively irritated when you try to give them a complete rundown of your symptoms.)

So, in the spirit of this article, I present to you “Ten Things We Don’t Tell Our Doctors.”

1. My name is Tom. Not Tim. Not Ted. Not Jon. I know you wouldn’t recognize me if we ran into each other at Kroger’s, but for Pete’s sake, my name is right on the chart.

2. We haven’t been under the illusion that you care about us for some time. Thanks for confirming that in Reader’s Digest.

3. Many of us don’t visit you as often as we should because we just can’t face your barely concealed contempt for us.

4. Many of us have been mocked or chided by you—or your staff—for asking a single question. Just one question. That doesn’t exactly make us eager to see you the next time.

5. We’ve noticed how exasperated you become when we try to give you a thorough explanation of our symptoms. That’s why so many of us have turned to self-diagnosing on the Web. (Which also makes you mad.)

6. We will never again worship you as gods. Get over it.

7. We know that a lot of you have lost sight that medicine is a service profession. Many of you, in fact, seem to think we’re here to serve you.

8. A lot of us presume you’re in thrall with the drug companies. Hope you buy something pretty with that kickback you got from prescribing that new, unproven medicine to me.

9. We know you think we have no idea how hard it is to practice medicine. We know you think we should feel sorry for you. Maybe we would if you didn’t so openly view us as annoyances or, worse, as adversaries.

10. We love it when you’re humble enough (or brave enough) to give it to us straight—whether that means “I don’t know” or “Yes, as far as we can tell, you may have only another six months.” Come on, doc. Just act like a human being, and maybe we can bring back some of the love, or at least some of the trust, that we used to have in you.

Taxation is Not Slavery

[From 6/15/08, in response to a Walter Williams column equating taxation with slavery.]

To the editor:

Columns such as Walter Williams’ June 15 piece, “Taxation tantamount to slavery,” have become as common as they are predictable and tiresome. Of course, readers and voters eat this kind of stuff up. “Taxation is theft,” as the cliché goes, “it’s our money.” But such pandering does not come without a cost.

The notion that taxation is theft is extremely dishonest. Even the most ardent tax-hater accepts the need for national defense and law enforcement. These functions cost money: about 20 percent of the 2008 budget—31 percent of the non-social-security budget. You can’t swallow that and maintain that all taxes are bad. So let’s stipulate that the cost of these functions, at least, is not “your money.” It’s a legitimate charge for necessary services.

Now consider that your tax dollars also pay for scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labeling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, and national parks. Shouldn’t you have to pay for these things, too? You like having them, right? Pandering to the taxation-is-theft crowd simply encourages the peculiar delusion that these benefits should come for free.

No one enjoys paying taxes, me included. And of course we all want government to use tax money wisely and to avoid unnecessary spending. Is there a specific program you think is wasteful? Let’s get rid of it! But by attacking the very concept of taxation, columnists like Williams enable the public to indulge their worst impulses.