Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...


By Greg L | 24 June 2006 | US Congress | 2 Comments

For a professor, Judy Feder sure says a lot of dumb things. Heck, these things are dumb for anyone with a high school education. Maybe it’s another instance of ideologically inspired blindness to basic economics, but I didn’t think anyone outside of Berkeley actually believed this stuff.

First, is Judy’s geeky little youtube video where she manages to say the following:

“Gas prices are a good example of what [President Bush’s] selfish management is costing us. We pay for it when we empty our wallets to fill out gas tanks. We pay for it when we have to keep our children and elderly grandparents indoors on summer days when pollution is life-threatening.”

Now if gas is so cheap that it’s used so much that Little Billy and Grandpa are at risk of dropping dead from pollution if they step outdoors, then how come it’s so expensive that we have to “empty our wallets” when we want to buy some? Was Professor Feder on sabbatical when Al Gore was touting a 50 cent a gallon tax increase on gasoline in order to reduce consumption? That was goofy, but at least honest.

This wackiness continues on her website. She proposes a “windfall profits tax” on the oil industry, a non-solution which served us so well under Jimmy Carter. Maybe she was in the bathroom during those four years of economic misery. Then she talks about how we should be using more ethanol. Now if you’re a congressman from Iowa, I’ll understand you proposing this, but when you’re a professor you should darned well be able to look up the bulk price of ethanol and discover that it’s more expensive than gasoline is now. I guess Feder was sick during high school algebra.

And it gets better. Somewhere in her distinguished career as an ivy leage professor she has discovered an ability that government has to increase the supply of something. She wants to increase the supply of hybrid vehicles, and lower their cost. Her magic formula? SPEND MONEY. Yes, she wants to have the federal government assume the costs for retiree health benefits for the auto industry. Welcome to installment number one of the nationalization of health care, where the quality of service you get at the Department of Motor Vehicles becomes the standard for doctors and hospitals.

Yet she complains that the federal government is trying to use tax incentives to increase refinery production so the supply of gasoline can increase and solve this “empty our wallets” problem she is so concerned with. Maybe she majored in “Che Guevera Policy” or something.

Parents: If you’re children are attending Georgetown University, aren’t you concerned? Your kids are probably more well versed in how the world works than some of the faculty.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. Anonymous said on 25 Jun 2006 at 10:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Jimmy Carter imposed a price ceiling not a profits tax. One increases demand while decreasing supply, leading to the gas lines we found in teh 1970s. The other allows for makret demand to be shifted in line with the profits of the oil company.

  2. Anonymous said on 26 Jun 2006 at 2:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have been kind of disappointed in her campaign thus far. She’s in Loudoun all the time, her campaign calls constantly for volunteers for Fairfax events - it’s like she has written off PWC entirely. As a liberal, it’s not even being in an area of perpetual redness that is irritating. It’s the fact that the Democrats have so thoroughly written this area off, not even bothering to engage in sensible discourse. Granted some would argue about “sensible discourse” and the term Democrat appearing in the same sentence, but run a race that includes everyone, not just where you can mine enough votes!

Comments are closed.

Views: 3030