According to a recent WSJ article, Randy Forbes has bought into the McCain abattoir of “straight talk” taxpayer funded prize money, except he calls it the New Manhattan Project. In WSJ contributor Gerald Seib’s article, Oil Woes Fail to Stir Leadership, Seib queries, “Why is Randy Forbes all alone out there?” A closer look tells us why:
[Forbes] doesn’t argue that government can or should solve the problem for Americans watching in horror as the dollars add up at the gas pump. “Government won’t do it for them,” he says. “Government can’t. But we’re saying we can lay the challenge out for the American people.”
What [Forbes] proposes, in short, is that government lead by providing inspiration and incentive. A bill he has introduced lists seven areas where America needs to do more — gas mileage, energy efficiency, solar power, biofuels, clean coal, nuclear-waste storage and nuclear fusion — and proposes that government form a national science commission and offer cash incentives to prod academics and private scientists to solve the problems blocking progress in each area. It may not be the perfect answer, but its author hopes it’s at least an inspirational start.
Dear reader, I ask you to consider a few troubling questions. Should a conservative “form” yet another federal bureaucratic commission? Should a conservative representing the people of the United States propose federal prize money as a “cash incentive” to a perceived energy crisis? Is there really an energy crisis or is inflation finally coming home to roost on a weak dollar? Doesn’t a true conservative believe that the free market needs no “government incentives” to prod folks to come up with a solution? Is Randy Forbes a conservative or is he unwittingly adopting that policy of big government we’ve been seeing for the past 8 years?
I submit to you that the answers to these troubling questions form the reason Randy Forbes is “all alone out there.” I submit to you that Forbes is trying to jump on John McCain’s newest prize money taxpayer funded earmark and dole out more. That’s the problem with John McCain not sticking to conservative principles. As Richard Weaver once said, “Ideas have consequences.” McCain’s leadership is already showing those consequences for his supporters.
UPDATE: Bearing Drift already posted on this article and included a video with the Forbes “New Manhattan Project”. As I noted in a comment, the analogy to this new bill is misplaced for the simple fact that the Manhattan Project dealt with war, something the government is good at making. The government isn’t good at centrally planning the energy needs of the economy. To wit, corn produced ethanol as pictured here:
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/24hr-euro-small.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
I may be missing something but giving the private sector an incentive to solve a problem rather than waiting for government to do it sounds like conservatism to me. I understand that setting up a commission to oversee the project sounds like more government, but I don’t see any other way in which to manage it.
Mr. Forbes is not dreaming up some hypothetical problem. Our country is dependent on foreign resources for energy. This is not a controversial “opinion.” It is a fact. You can debate global warming all you want, but energy dependence is real.
I personally applaud Congressman Forbes for issuing America a challenge rather than granting another handout or creating another tax on business. That is true conservatism.
Kate,
You said that “giving the private sector an incentive to solve a problem rather than waiting for government to do it sounds like conservatism.”
You’re confusing the natural incentives provided by the market place versus the false incentives provided by government. Government incentives are central planning boondogles and they result in failure. It’s why I mentioned the ethanol fiasco. McCain’s offering of prize money for a car battery (aka Welfare for Inventors) is problematic for several reasons.
First, McCain is determining what the market needs—a car battery. What makes McCain think the market needs a car battery? And this, after he mentioned in the debates that he knows nothing about economics.
Second, the idea that we should look to government is not a conservative proposition because government isn’t part of the market place. Looking to the government for a “prize” handout is an automatic disqualification as a conservative. Why? Because you’re saying that the free market can’t do it alone. Is that what you believe Kate?
Third. Kate, where do you think this money comes from? My taxes. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes this prize giveaway. It’s my money and I have no problem paying $5 per gallon of gas. Don’t steal my money to give it away.
Fourth, government isn’t solving the energy problem, the free market is. However, government is getting in the way. It has, in fact, created the problem. Like McCain, Forbes wants to put more government in the path instead of getting government out of the way.
Fifth, there is no energy crisis. There is inflation from printing too much money. There is less oil because the federal government restricts the market place.
Instead of cutting the size of the federal government, Forbes is proposing the same McCain give-a-way welfare handout for inventors and I suspect this is why he’s receiving little support. It’s kind of like Bush’s “faith based welfare.” There’s no faith to it. It’s all tax based.