WaPo Rips Obamessiah's Energy Stimulus Plan

You know it's getting bad for a Dem candidate when one of their house organs, the Washington Post, is clobbering their plans on their pages. Obama proposed taxing oil companies over five years to pay for $1,000 checks to be sent to American families. Dumb idea without question, and the WaPo tells him why:

Making Exxon surrender money that is now falling into its lap would not necessarily affect its longer-term plans or incentives. Indeed, some of Big Oil's "windfall" already will go to the government: The more profit the companies earn, the more corporate income tax they pay. But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump — thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.

When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. "It's an idea to get them through an election," Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.

Democrats have never understood how corporations get their money. They think they can pile on taxes and the corporations will just forgo their profits to pay them. Wrong. When the cost of doing business goes up, those costs get passed on to the consumers who buy the corporation's products. In this case, the oil and gasoline buyers...you and me. We would all get one large check while paying it back with every stop at the gas station and every purchase of products whose price has increased due to higher transportation costs. It's not really that difficult to understand.