So. I had a thought. A few of them, in fact. And I figured, as long as I'm writing for a blog, why not spout those thoughts here.

I thought about taxes.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled about giving away my money to the government, but it has to function on something. Nevertheless, I considered the advantages of raising the regulations and taxes on oceanic drilling, and the advantages it might have. Now, stay with me here, things won't get too crazy. I hope.

If taxes raised on oceanic drilling, then the companies would be giving their money to the government (no, way). But what if that money was earmarked for emergencies? (This is, of course, assuming the government is sensible.) But then the companies would be paying for their own clean up. Not to mention that the government would look more intelligent as a result of their willingness to help out a company with their own money. (allegedly)
In other advantages, the extra regulation would create a need for people to watch over the regulation on the oceanic drilling. More people, more jobs. Government jobs, I'll grant you. But jobs nonetheless. I mean, who ever complained about government money, anyway?

Another advantage to this proposition is that if oceanic drilling becomes too expensive, then the companies will move to land, and hope to drive prices down by drilling in nature reserves.

Now this brings up a concern, which I feel the need to address immediately. In the event that the companies want to drill on land, the environmentalists will object. I myself have not had much experience with environmentalists, but I think they would object. But they also object when we drill in the ocean. And when we fly airplanes. And when we lite candles. What they intend to drive cars with, I do not know. But I do not find their objection valid if we want to continue to drive to work every day. In any event, they should begin to realize that with this new tax on oceanic drilling, solar energy will be more popular. Until the sun becomes environmentally threatening.

Back to the company. When they move inland, they will have to hire more people, which will provide jobs. Their land purchases will provide money to the government (again), and voters will be happy with congress. Well, as happy as voter will ever be. tax will still exist, so citizens will be unhappy, but that is unavoidable.

This only to say, there are a myriad of reasons why we should support a higher tax on oceanic drilling. Who wouldn't want to? It hands over control to the government, makes us more socialist, and, in the end, the world is safer, right? I once heard someone say "The power to tax, is the power to control. In a democratic country, you can't have one without the other." Maybe their right.

In conclusion of this issue, I honestly think the government does not need a larger playing hand, and neither do the environmentalists who are paying them. The oil company, BP, could have done little to change what happened in the Gulf. Mistakes are made, and BP has more then payed for theirs. Perhaps the future should show more responsibility, I agree. We are to keep our earth well taken care of. But I do not believe BP will be the one causing this to happen again. And I do not believe we should give up, in any way, underwater drilling. The price of oil will go up again, and we will have to buy from across the ocean. I would rather not get my gas from the Middle East. Sure, drill on land. Sure, use ethanol. Sure, buy a Hybrid (and go into debt to get it). But the oil companies are not the enemy here, they are only the ones who were around when a mistake happened. And they did their best to solve it. Take home point: let us not hand over more control to the government because we believe that the problem is greater then it truly is.