‘Basically taking over’

They didn't get much attention outside the blogosphere, but it's worth recounting the comments made by Rep. Maxine Waters, the California Democrat, during a May House committee grilling of oil company executives.

When John Hofmeister of Shell Oil told Rep. Waters that gasoline prices would continue to rise because Democrats in Congress have prohibited the oil companies from developing domestic reserves to increase supplies, the congresswoman nearly busted a gasket.

"And, guess what this liberal will be all about?" she said. "This liberal will be about socialize ... uh, oh, [long pause] will be about [even longer pause] basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

It doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?

It is against this backdrop that we must view Tuesday's effort by Senate Democrats to again impose a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies. Eager to look like they're doing something to ease the pain many Americans are feeling at the pump -- a pain at least partially exacerbated by the very policies they demand be put in place to hinder the development of new domestic oil sources -- Democrats took to the Senate to rant and rail against the "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies.

Forget for a moment that the government makes more off a gallon of gasoline than any oil company. Forget the idiocy of attacking high gasoline prices by imposing Draconian taxes on the oil companies. And ignore the fact that oil company profit margins -- as cited in a 2005 Congressional Research Service report -- have historically been no higher than industry profits as a whole and less than those enjoyed by many others, including pharmaceutical companies, banks and even telecommunication services.

Instead, how do Democrats who advocate this path define an "unreasonable" profit? Should this definition apply across the board to all American industries, or just to those that Democrats believe they can hammer with impunity in order to score political points? In a free society -- a capitalist society -- why should the government have any role in making this determination?

Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking this inane proposal. But Tuesday's dog-and-pony show, coupled with Rep. Waters' inadvertent moment of candor, should raise troubling questions about the real Democratic economic agenda.