Bill Clinton spent a goodly portion of his run-up to the presidency attacking Big Tobacco, and pledging to raise taxes on cigarettes, and America liked that because we all know Cigarette Companies are evil. It occurs to me that a Democratic candidate today could get a lot of similar traction running against Big Oil, and not by raising those taxes but by limiting profits and lowering prices. I don't know the precise wording but some sort of caps on what can be charged at the pump and how much Shell can gross would sit well with a lot of voters including, if certain polls are to believed, a lot of Republicans. I'm not sure I believe this survey which says that nine out of ten Americans believe that high gas prices are merely a matter of the oil companies gouging us for sheer profit. But the number's probably close to that and we don't even have any prominent figures making that case in public yet. America has come to that view on its own.
Suppose the Democrats made that a major theme of the 2006 election: "It's time to stop the oil companies from soaking us just because they can." Would this be unpopular with the electorate? More to the point, would the Republican party be credible in saying, "We'll handle that"? They can't even blame it on the war because it's their war, and America's becoming disenchanted with it, too. I think Republicans would be stuck. They probably couldn't even get George W. Bush to pledge not to veto any legislation that prevented companies from raising prices whenever they feel like it. It is said that ExxonMobil is now the most profitable company in the history of mankind, with profits of $110 million per day. Keep that in mind the next time you pay $3.09 a gallon for Super Unleaded. It's not because of Iraq or 9/11 and it won't be just because of Katrina or Rita, either. They're raising prices because they can, the same way you'd make your employer pay you twice as much if you thought he had no choice but to comply.
A small group would scream that it's Socialist to prevent anyone from earning as much money as possible. I don't think most Americans buy that premise when there's no reasonable alternative and we're all chipping in to make millionaires into billionaires. I'm not even saying there aren't drawbacks and dangers to the government freezing or otherwise limiting the profits in any industry. I just think that it's sounding more and more like an issue where the Republicans couldn't compete with Democrats on Election Day.
But don't worry if you think it's a bad idea. It's not like the Democrats will do anything with it.