Barack Obama is dismissing the Clinton-McCain proposal, partly because of the source, partly because he's right about the scheme's limited effects, and partly, no doubt, because he wants to get it on for real. He wants to tax the "windfall profits" of oil companiesThat oil company profits have risen during the oil price surge is indisputable. That taxing those profits -- as last tried in the glory days of the Jimmy Carter presidency -- wouldn't help motorists is, likewise, indisputable.
The Democratic impulse, in times of economic stress, is ever to pummel business just for standing there while voters are having hard times. "Windfall profits tax" is more a phrase than anything else: a cluster of words intended to convey emotion. "Windfall" -- they didn't earn it; "profits" -- somebody's making out while I'm going broke; "tax" -- a civic measure, restoring fairness and steering the receipts to some public purpose. Such as ... ? Good, viable question. Such as what?
The conventional Democratic approach -- Democrats generally favor scowling at or socking business -- is to talk about investments in alternative energy. Would these investments drive down gasoline prices? Ah not right away, Maybe not for years. One problem with government "investments" is they tend to be driven more by what sounds good, politically speaking, than by what's likely to benefit buyers and sellers alike.
The last time around, in those golden Carter years of which I wrote, the windfall profits tax failed to do much more than bolster government profits, hence government spending, of various sorts. The evil companies, despite the inconvenience of being made public villains, did the heavy lifting in terms of energy policy. Increased profits meant increased investments in drilling and exploration, which in turn meant increased supplies, and, at last, lower prices.