Help Democrats Lower Gas Prices Now
Apr 24, 01:14 PM | Harry Reid
I was at home in Nevada while Congress was in recess last week. Driving around meeting with constituents, I saw firsthand that gas prices were once again shooting up to unprecedented levels of more than $3 a gallon. These high prices are unacceptable, and they are a direct result of the failures of George Bush, Republicans in Congress and their buddies at the big oil and gas companies.
Today, Democrats proposed an amendment to provide immediate relief to consumers. The amendment introduced by Senator Menendez will provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to the American people by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days. During the period of this gas tax holiday, the cost of gas will be reduced by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. We will pay for this tax cut by eliminating tax breaks and giveaways to big oil.
Senate Democrats need your help to show public support for this amendment. Show your support for the Menendez Amendment by becoming a citizen cosponsor today.
Become a citizen cosponsor today.
It was George Bush who promised during his first campaign that he would “jawbone” his family friends, the Saudis, into lowering oil prices. Yet every summer the price gets higher and higher. Why is your family paying more at the pump? The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released a report last week concluding that in California, “corporate markups and profiteering are responsible for spring price spikes, not rising crude costs . . . as the oil industry claims.”
Democrats want to address the problem directly, and our amendment will provide immediate relief to consumers. Senator Frist and Republican leadership believe there is no political price to pay for being in bed with big oil. Lets show them the truth. Fifty thousand of you signing up, as “Citizen Cosponsors” of this legislation would make a huge difference.
Become a citizen cosponsor of the Menendez Amendment today.
High gas prices hurt everyone. They lead to increased costs for food and place a heavy burden on those who commute to work. I receive hundreds of letters every week from Americans whose budgets are being stretched thin by skyrocketing prices. Gas is not a luxury for families—it is a necessity.
The fact is the big oil companies control the supply and know that families really have little choice in the matter – they literally have consumers over a barrel. While we are paying record prices, the oil companies are reaping record profits.
About the Menendez Amendment
The amendment will provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to consumers by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days. During the period of this gas tax holiday, the cost of gas will be reduced by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. Drivers will receive real relief every time they go to the pump during this period.
Protects the Highway Trust Fund. Under this amendment, the Highway Trust Fund will not lose one dime. Funds generated by reducing the tax breaks and giveaways to Big Oil will be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund in an amount equal to the revenues lost through the federal tax holiday. The Highway trust fund will continue to collect the revenues needed to continue all of the projects currently planned and funded.
Big Oil Will Pay the Price. After reporting record profits of over $100 billion last year, Big Oil is the most profitable business in the world. This amendment will provide direct relief to consumers and be fully paid for by repealing three major tax breaks that Big Oil clearly does not need and eliminating unnecessary and expensive royalty relief.
• Foreign Oil & Gas Foreign Tax Credit and Income. Under present law, US companies can claim a foreign tax credit for taxes paid to another country and not royalties and similar payments related to an economic benefit. The provision denies foreign tax credits for payments to a foreign country if the foreign country does not have a generally applicable income tax.
• LIFO – Oil & Gas. Under current law, businesses are generally permitted to use a last-in, first-out (LIFO) method to account for their inventories. This allows companies to create a tax advantage during times of rising prices. This proposal limits the tax benefits of this LIFO method of accounting for integrated oil companies with gross receipts in excess of $1 billion.
• Elimination of Amortization of Geological and Geophysical Expenditures for Large Oil & Gas Companies. Eliminates the tax break for accelerated depreciation for these expenditures for fully integrated oil companies that was passed in the Energy Bill.
• Eliminates Royalty Relief and other Direct Spending. The amendment also eliminates royalty relief and other direct spending for oil and gas production incentives in Titles III and IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 totaling approximately $700 million. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the major oil company CEOs testified that they did not need these incentives.
Comment
- Dear Harry,
With all due respect, a 0.184 cent/gallon price reduction will have very little impact on my bottom line. I drive a car with a 14 gallon tank, every time I fill up, this plan will save me at most a whopping $2.57. I can’t believe that the Federal government only adds 0.184 cents per gallon tax to the cost of our fuel.
Sincerely,
Bill Winston
— Bill Winston Apr 24, 02:17 PM # - We need alternatives to oil, not politically-motivated attacks at oil companies and Repubs. While I’m no fan of Big Oil, I want Dems to make a committment to real changes in the energy landscape. Unfortunately, this bill addresses a symptom, not a cause.
As owner of a V8, 1984 Pontiac, I can honestly say that I appreciate high gas prices, because they force us to start conserving. Cheap oil means that, in a few years, we’ll find ourselves without a steady supply of energy and no alternatives in sight.
Let’s make real changes, please!
— Curt McDermott Apr 24, 02:52 PM # - Dear Sen. Reid,
I am normally a stalwart supporter of the Democratic Party, but I part ways with both parties on their blind pandering to the public’s addiction to cheap oil and gas and other types of fossil fuel energy.
Please consider, before you and the rest of the Democrats push for lower gasoline prices, that we have never paid the real price of a gallon of gas in this country. I had the opportunity to live in Germany for 2 years in the 1980s, and my wife and I typically paid over $5.00 per gallon in 1988 dollars!! At first, we were shocked and awed by this when gasoline prices in the U.S. were hovering around $1.20 per gallon. But after discussing the reasons for the high prices, we realized that those reasons were more important than our need to pay artificially low prices. Some of those reasons included a built-in cost adjustment or use tax that paid for improvements to the national highway system, which is still one of the best in the world; a tax on gasoline use that paid for the environmental costs of using fossil fuels and subsidized research into cleaner fuels and other anti-pollution solutions; a built-in incentive for people to carpool and combine trips to cut down on the overall vehicle use and taught people to conserve on energy.
I believe that America, in the long term, would benefit more from paying the “real” costs of gasoline. If we had to pay $7 or $8 per gallon of gas, how many people would: stop buying gas-guzzling SUVs; or stop driving alone to and from work; or start combining errands; or ask themselves if perhaps they could ride a bus to work; or pressure their Congress and state legislatures to subsidize construction of comprehensive mass transit systems? How much more attractive and cost-effective would alternative, renewable, less- or non-polluting energy sources become if we had to pay to the “real” costs of gas and oil?
If we continue to suck up and use petrochemicals like there’s no tomorrow, the earth’s ecosystems will soon decide that there is, indeed, no tomorrow for us, and by then it won’t really matter what a gallon of gas costs.
Sincerely,
Alan Freed
— Alan Freed Apr 24, 03:09 PM # - #1 Bill
Based on what I see, $.184 per gallon is the federal tax rate. Where I live (Illinois), another $.19 per gallon state fuel tax is added to that, plus 6.25% sales and .3% underground storage tax. If I’m paying $3/gallon at the pump, $2.44 is for the gasoline, $.184 is for federal taxes, $.19 is for the state gas tax, and another $.186 (actually, a fraction less) is for the other state taxes I just mentioned. Unfortunately, Congress can only touch the federal tax.
Actually, I’m glad somebody is actually listening. It will be interesting to see if Republicans sign on to this or come up with something different.
— Steve Apr 24, 03:16 PM # - I totally agree with the above writers. This a most stupid move by the Democrats. We need to get in line to reduce our use of oil and get used to higher costs and start conserving rather than foolishy and shortsightly squandering what we have. Higher prices send the right signal to the economy: conserve. I have a couple young children. I wish you would think a little further than the next election…
David Bill
— David Bill Apr 24, 03:17 PM # - Dear Senator Reid, I favor increasing the tax on gas! Although there are so many awful things done by the Republican administration, I think that their refusal to take effective steps to halt human sources of global warming is going to turn out to be the very worst. The Democrats should not be aiding the Republicans in this folly, but pushing bills to encourage alternative energy, reduced use of fossil fuels and curbing of emmissions. I am a retired scientist and current on much of the scientific literature. Nearly 100% of scientists concur that global warming is a severe threat and in great part caused by human activities. The most recent articles indicate that we are close to a tipping point in being able to halt disasterous consequences. I am extremely disappointed that you have chosen to push so wrong an action for what you think is an immediate political advantage.
— Anne Cohen Apr 24, 03:58 PM # - Your plan to temporarily eliminate the federal tax on gasoline will only give the oil companies an opportunity to raise their prices by $ 0.184. It does nothing to curtail their price increases and, in fact, will only add to the already onerous deficit. Action needs to be taken to curb the increases.
— Burton Harris Apr 24, 03:58 PM # - Way too little too late!
2 cents a gallon is the response of an empty suit.
Ther is real blood here, and its in the never-before-seen windfall profits of the Cheney/bush corruption kingpin oil companies.
The fix is easy. Windfall tax that reclaims all the mega profit on just the price skyrocket. Do that, and my bet is the price will “suddenly start coming down.”
— Corky Brown Apr 24, 04:01 PM # - Wow, good to hear others have the same thoughts I do. The high gas prices are a great thing for our country. If they are artificially inflated then it means that we may take action now rather than waiting till the last drop of oil/sunlight is used up (sunlight due to pollution). Perhaps we can make some serious strides in the direction of SUSTAINABLITY.
Thanks for the efforts to do something, but I think this one may be a bad idea.
— Misha Apr 24, 04:09 PM # - Ouch!
Dear Harry,
I must respectfully & strongly disagree with your latest effort, and I am very disappointed in you. Sponsoring this nonsense is exactly the wrong thing to do and it sends the wrong message. I agree with the comments sent by other bloggers, and vigorously oppose this latest effort. Lowering gas prices has the wrong effect – it will increase consumption. We need to DECREASE consumption!!! Everything that helps with decreasing this effort should be pursued. We don’t pay enough for gas, i.e., compared with Europe. Our taxes for gas are not high enough: Gas taxes should pay for all the consequences of using gas: air pollution, health effects in children and the elderly, global warming, destruction of the environment (roads, toxins from gasoline), and let’s not forget the military expense needed to secure oil from the middle east – such as our excursions into Iraq. That expense should be tacked right onto the gas bill. Americans are bad at conserving natural resources, and they are bad at giving up their SUVs. Anything that makes it harder for Americans to kick the gasoline addiction habit (like reducing the cost of gasoline) should be avoided like the plague. If you want to make the gas price lower, reduce demand – let’s see some creative ideas by the democrats. Here is one:
Let’s add $3-$4 federal gas tax to each gallon of gasoline, perhaps phased in over the next 6 months to give the economy time to adjust. Now commit this revenue exclusively towards research into alternative fuels, fuel efficient transportation and environmentally conscientious use of fuels. Demand will go back, prices will fall, we will come up with new technologies we can sell to the Chinese (they will need them too), and the Saudis and terrorists get less of our money. Instead it goes right here back to the US, where WE get to use it for our own benefit.
Here is another one:
Ride a bike instead, where possible, and fight obesity and diabetes at the same time. Biggest childhood disease we have right now.
And another:
Invest more into public transportation. Use some of the gas tax revenue to make public transportation more attractive and affordable.
Please forget about this amendment. I will call everyone and ask them not to support it. You gotta come up with something better. This amendment is a shortsighted, screwball idea. The Democratic party still doesn’t manage to capitalize on all the failures of the Bush administration precisely because it cannot come up with creative, attractive alternatives. This is just another example of it.
— Bo Apr 24, 04:18 PM # - Why has the corporations portion of the Federal Tax revenue fallen from 30% to 7% since the 60’s, under the Republicrats. Why has the tax base shifted from a tax on profit to a tax on wages? Why has there been an explosion of taxes like sales tax and gas, that take more from the least wealthy?
Yeah, give ‘em hell Harry; just don’t expect me to support your corporatist legislation to provide wage suppression by sanctioning illegal migration.
It showbiz time again.
When we were fussing about the Dubai port deal the Demolicans renewed the Patriot Act.
Always playing its citizens for fools…....
— Larry Clark Apr 24, 04:40 PM # - I was moved by your email, not to sign the petition supporting the idea of a gas tax holiday, but to find a way to tell you that I think it is a misguided effort. On finding your blog, I see that there are many others that feel the same.
Please – RAISE gas taxes. Use the money to pay for research into other energy sources. The higher price for gas will make those alternatives more affordable, and will slow our rabid consumption of an invaluable but finite resource.
— Richard Moss Apr 24, 04:53 PM # - I agree with the amendment and wish it would go further; either extend the period the tax is gone or get rid of it altogether. The federal gas tax, along with the other state and local gas taxes, only benefits the government and does nothing to improve anybody’s situation. We all still have to buy gas at the same gas stations, regardless of income level and regardless of price.
What should occur is a removal of the federal gas tax to the consumer, along with the end of any entitlements (welfare) provided to the energy companies from the federal government. All the entitlements do is provide the oil companies with added revenue to factored into the profits without them having to do anything (and they won’t do anything). We end up paying them for the gas and then pay them more for doing nothing. If we don’t have the gas tax and the oil companies don’t have the entitlements, the oil companies will be forced to earn all of their dollars, not just the dollars we give them buying gas added to the free money they get from the government. They will be forced to be more competitive and invest in alternative energy or whatever.
Dump both the taxes we pay and the entitlements the oil companies receive.
— Steve Apr 24, 05:07 PM # - I’d like to add my voice to all of the comments above. Normally, I support every single Democratic initiative. This one—NO. It’s wrong for the environment. Not only would I, like the others who left comments, far prefer to raise taxes, I want to see Americans using public transportation, bikes, Segways, and walking. The higher the price of gas, the more these methods become the norm.
Sorry, Senator—I know that Americans WANT lower gas prices, but it’s the wrong thing to do.
— Dori Grasso Apr 24, 05:20 PM # - I’m glad to see that many others have written to agree with me on this, but I’ll add to it. I’ve agreed with just about every other initiative you’ve sent to this mailing list, but I strongly disagree with this one.
I don’t like big oil, and I hate that the oilmen in the White House very likely are helping to keep the prices up for themselves and their friends.
But the last thing we need is to help Americans feed their addiction to oil by even temporarily lowering the gas tax (which will only help oil companies anyway).
The current high gas prices are forcing people to change their habits. That’s good. They are differentially hurting owners of Selfish Utility Vehicles. That’s also good.
We need to reduce demand. My personal favorite idea is a strong gas guzzler tax on all new vehicles with lower mileage than the average car, but at the very least we should never consider lowering the gas tax.
I agree with the rest of your battles, so please keep fighting for the people; but on this issue you’re on the wrong side.
— Ken Apr 24, 05:21 PM # - 18 cents??? Your kidding right? If this is the best that the democratic party can do I’m voting Independent…. we need eco friendly, innovative solutions. NOT yet another liitleness based, mud slinging campaign.
I am sadly disapointed.
— J Apr 24, 05:31 PM # - Don’t take that 18 cent from the government. You already gave it to the oil companys. Get it back.
— Robert Stanley Apr 24, 05:36 PM # - WAIT A SECOND! TEMPORARY RELIEF?!?! Do you think that oil supplies and prices will be different in two months?!?!?
THIS TAX REPEAL IS NOT THE ANSWER!
When will my Democrats in Washington stop thinking about the short-term quick fix, and begin leading our country with the best solutions for the long term?!?!
Instead of a temporary tax repeal, why not use this growing anger in America to power these two ideas:
1. Real support and encouragement of alternative and environmental fuel and motors (i.e. Hybrid gas / electric engines).
2. Since Bush has been in office, the big three oil companies have enjoyed tremendous, ever-increasing profits. They are certainly not sharing those profits with their shareholders, cause I know that! Go after Big Oil!
Thanks.
— Richard Valenza Apr 24, 05:37 PM # - Although I have appreciated Harry Reid’s willingness and strength to stand up when other politicians are too busy being politicians, here I stand aside. It is an outrage, UNAMERICAN, immoral and should be illegal for oil companies to be making record-breaking profits and executives walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars during this need to rethink our consumption. (I see Americans breaking their back workin harder than those fat guys, but that is the same old song waiting to rise up again.) Lowering gas prices is not the answer. This is a precious, unrenewable resource. It should be costly and thoughtful dealt with.
— Scott Carpenter Apr 24, 05:49 PM # - There are some good thinkers writing good comments here. I sure hope Harry and others read these and seriously consider them. If this were to happen, then this blog would be doing some serious work.
— Scott Carpenter Apr 24, 05:51 PM # - Harry,
I’m a democratic thinker from way back, however my fellow commentors are absolutely correct, and I must respectfully disagree with your proposal above.
It is well known that petrolium resources are limited, and the use of them is damaging to the environment. I believe that the majority of the world, not just Americans, and regardless of political stance, can agree that reducing overall use and dependance on derived products would be beneficial to our country’s political image, the planet as a whole, and economies at all levels once industries such as transportation shift toward alternative energies. They will, too, for fossil fuels are obsolete, and the need for transportation and energy remains.
Why then are we proposing to lower prices? Simple, age-old business sense says this will only increase demand, or more accurately, increase the consumption of fuel. It’s already difficult enough to generate interest in alternative fuels, whether from investors and entrepreneurs, to Joe Consumer shopping for a new vehicle. Cheap gas can only drive everyone involved in the wrong direction.
From an everyday perspective, tax cuts on fuel will only provide temporary, and frankly, negligible financial relief for most Americans. When gas prices have more than tripled in the past six years and now sit over $3, twenty cents per gallon is sofa-change, even for the working class. The only long-term effect of such a reduction is negative; the Federal Government will have that much more headroom to compensate, and when sixty days is up and prices suddenly jump to at least twenty cents more then before the cut, complaints will fall on deaf ears.
I think what needs to happen is not a price adjustment, but a price audit. In fact, fixing fuel prices could potentially have a more positive, reassuring effect, while the slices of the pie are evaluated. Leaving existing percentages in place, but repurposing them for research or alternative production and overhead would be a much more productive solution, and a gateway for general acceptance of alternatives by the business and consumer alike. I for one would happily pay as much as a dollar more per gallon, provided I knew for a fact that my money was going where it’s supposed to, and that I would see some tangible result some months later.
While I appreciate your pull in favor of my skinny wallet, I know that it does nothing for the future, economically or environmentally, and nothing to wean ourselves from fossil fuel.
Thanks for reading.
— Matt Apr 24, 05:59 PM # - Dear Harry –
I am normally highly supportive of you. But your call to lower gas taxes is exactly what the US does NOT need. Democrats ought not pander to a misinformed notion of what the public wants from their politicians. The public wants leadership. Rather than lower gas taxes, raise them to encourage conservation – and do so in a revenue neutral manner if that is what it takes to raise gas taxes. Lead. Ask Americans to take a stand for long term energy independence and for conservation and the environment.
— Richard Weaver Apr 24, 06:05 PM # - I just want to add one more voice of dissention. I am really disappointed with this short-sighted effort. Rather than support our oil addiciton, I would prefer to see efforts that reduce dependence. As others have stated, we need long term solutions, i.e. better urban planning and, of course, energy alternatives, rather than providing a few pennies for temporary “relief.” Thanks for providing this forum!
— Kingsley Apr 24, 06:10 PM # - Dear Harry – I hope you read the comments on your blog re: the Menendez Amendment. Your views and leadership on this issue—i.e., pushing to reduce taxes on gasoline—is as wrongheaded and shortsighted as can be, for most all the reasons elucidated in the comments on your blog. Please, PLEASE, give us real leadership on alternative energy initiativies, decreasing oil consumption, addressing global warming, etc., and stop pandering to short-term interests. Under real leadership, the American people have always been willing to sacrifice, whether at the pump or otherwise. Absolutely go after a repeal of the absurd giveaways to the oil companies, and invest it in forward looking programs. But do not aim to further starve the government of funds for investment/research and encourage greater consumption by reducing taxes on gas use! WHY WON’T THE DEMOCRATS LEAD ON THESE ISSUES? Regards, Tom.
— Thomas Marton Apr 24, 06:17 PM # - Senator Reid, what are you thinking? Don’t be so petty and think this will get you more votes.
Do something Senatorial and actually good for America.
Oil is not going to get more plentiful, we’ll just squander it like after the 70’s fuel shortage.
We need to finally come to grips with the fact that we cannot continue to waste energy like before.
You are just delaying the inevitable and making us more vulnerable to control by others. We need to come to grips with reality. The government must mandate auto manufacturers to retool and produce the type of vehicles America now needs. This retooling can be financed by enacting a windfall profits tax on oil companies. We need to get moving on this before we’re controlled by the Arabs or worse yet the Chinese government.
Sincerely,
F.P. Kirsch
— Franz P. Kirsch Apr 24, 06:32 PM # - I have no clue what my dear Democratic party is thinking.
This proposal will provide fodder for the Media and they will continue to say there is no plan.
The deep, deep relationship between this administration and oil producing Arab nations should be exposed. Those who are making billions should be exposed as well.
Former Vice-President Al Gore certainly has a wealth of knowledge as far as long term planning regarding this matter.
Most of us pay a lot of state taxes on gasoline. Most Americans also believe that no politician will stand up to the oil companies because of campaign contributions.
I do not know what my Party is waiting for, the hubris of this Administration continues and we DON’T FIGHT BACK WITH FACTS.
This is certainly not “Give ‘em Hell Harry.”
— Mary M. Smith Apr 24, 06:40 PM # - I doubt very much that Reid spends any time at all reading the posts at this site. This site was created by one of his staffers to appease Reids constituency. Whatever we say here will never reach Reids ears, unless of course we have a large bag of money to share or dirt on our President.
— Kee Apr 24, 06:54 PM # - I’m usually a litle more populist than my fellow Democrats, but they are making some pretty good points here. A gasoline tax holiday is only going to postpone the inevitable. Gas prices are going to keep going up and up and up. The end result of this Amendment’s logic is no tax on gas, and huge subsidies to oil companies to keep gasoline cheap (bigger than the ones we have right now).
The high gas prices hurt me badly, I drive – alone – 20 miles to work in a 1996 automobile. High gas prices are going to hurt working families the hardest. But this may be a lesson we may need to learn from the free market.
I could only support this amendment if it came as part of a bill with real energy reform. Reform with teeth – browbeating Detroit into higher fuel efficiency for cars.
This Amendment also won’t bring the price of gas down significantly enough to help matters for long. In the end, we have to learn that most conservative of lessons: how much are we willing to pay before we change our behavior?
— Patrick Apr 24, 06:56 PM # - Roughly 60% of our oil consumption is domestic oil. It costs Exxon roughly $22 per barrel to extract and ship that oil. Foreign oil today is costing us $75 per barrel. The profit margin on domestic oil is where the oil companies are REALLY gouging us. No wonder they want to drill offshore and ANWR. That is a $52 profit on EACH domestic barrel.
Not bad, huh?
Just think how far along the road to alternative energy sources we could be if Pres. Carter’s energy proposals were taken seriously in the 1970’s. Jimmy was pretty ineffective, but he was no energy policy dummy.
Too bad legislators didn’t listen then.
— Poor Daddy Apr 24, 07:02 PM # - Dear Senator Reid:
I concur with the other comments. You may be trying to buy votes by promising gas money back in the voters pockets but you are taking the low moral (and short sighted and dumb) road to do so. Use these high gas prices as proof that the current administration is incompetent in yet another area. The world’s gas producers are in the cat bird’s seat; able to charge America whatever they want for oil. Because the current administration has been unable to bring about more efficient cars and lacks the foresight to develop alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels in all areas of energy consumption, the American consumer is going to pay. The sooner competent leadership is put in charge who can and will turn around this dependence on oil, the sooner the American public will gain back control of their energy dollar. Don’t promise people cheaper gas. It is not going to happen and the reason it is not going to happen is that the oilmen are currently in charge of the White House.
— Steve Cohn Apr 24, 07:22 PM # - The Gov’t tax on gasoline is 4 x what the oil companies make. At least they’re providing us with a product. Your party, over the past 3 decades has created this gas tax (what have we been provided for all that tax $?) and laws prohibiting drilling, new refineries and nuclear (although I heard you are allowing Cuba to drill off our coast). And you want to give us .18/Gal holiday…might as well put a spike through our heads. You really need to resign asap..all you can come up with is “it’s Bush’s fault”..well ya know..you were sent to DC by the voters (it still baffles me why you were elected) to take care of business for We the People..Please resign so We the people of Nevada don’t have an embarassing 4 more yrs. of your obstructionism and do nothing.
— lvdrummer Apr 24, 07:55 PM # - Let the prices keep going up! (Even add more taxes, we could use the extra money to help pay for social security.) It is about time we catch up to Europe and get used to high prices, it might encourage people to conserve and invest in the future. We drive a honda with a 10 gallon tank and spend about $30 every 2 weeks. If it keeps going up maybe people will start using public transportation or riding their bikes. I think subsidizing gasoline is a stupid idea and giving a temporary break or reduction is even dumber.
P.S. I actually do think nuclear is a good idea, one of the cleaner fuels and very safe. It has gotten a bad rap in the past but I think we ought to reconsider it as a companion to solar and wind as sustainable sources of energy.
— Nina Apr 24, 08:35 PM # - Harry: What a dumb idea you have. Sure, cut the tax breaks for Big Oil that Bush pushed for, but lowering the price of gas sends exactly the wrong message…that somehow gas is cheaper. If gas had been more expensive all along, we wouldn’t be stuck with inefficient cars and trucks and poor mass transit. And tax revenues from gas or windfall profits can lower the tax burden elsewhere.
— Joel Apr 24, 08:41 PM # - Yes, I agree with the majority of opinions on this blog thread. Not only is a tax holiday short-sighted vote trawling, but it will also increase the national deficit!
Please focus your efforts on true energy reform. The ballot results would improve dramatically if voters saw the Democratic party honestly working to improve the welfare of our citizens.
— Jeff Barnard Apr 24, 08:49 PM # - Go JC, GO!
The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”
– Tyler Drumheller, CIA Head of Covert Operations, Europe
Sound familiar? No this isn’t another Downing Street Memo. It’s a 26-year veteran of our own intelligence community, Tyler Drumheller, speaking to Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes. Drumheller also spoke to Josh Marshall who reports that the former senior-level CIA official had shared this account in depth with the Robb-Silbermann Commission and was shocked that no mention was made in that report.
There can be no clearer evidence that the time is right for a real investigation into the pre-war intelligence (anyone heard from Phase II?). We can expect the administration and their remaining adherents to cry “traitor, traitor” because, after all, anyone that doesn’t submit to their interpretation of events hates America and loves terrorism. Fortunately, that’s not going to stop us. We are going to get to the bottom of this issue and no smear campaigns or swift boating will keep us from the truth.
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000432.htm
— bill_o_carolina Apr 24, 09:48 PM # - snipped/
Media ignores 60-minutes CIA’S intel disclosure over no wmd’s
Summary: On CBS’ 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller proved that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush’s central case for war—that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have almost entirely ignored the story.
In the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have—with the exception of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann and several brief wire articles—entirely ignored the story.
The 60 Minutes report is the latest in a string of explosive disclosures concerning the Bush administration’s apparent cherry-picking of prewar intelligence. But as with previous damaging disclosures regarding the White House’s actions in the buildup to the war, major news outlets largely ignored it.
None of the three major networks reported on the story on either their morning shows or evening news broadcasts. (Remarkably, this included CBS, the network that originally aired Drumheller’s disclosure.) http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=9982
— bill_o_carolina Apr 24, 09:51 PM # - It is BIG CORPORATE MEDIA, BILL O…......
No one believes the lie about “liberal media bias” or “liberal elite media” anymore except a few limbaugh dittoheads, hannity freaks and FOX groupies. The rest of the country knows that repubs and corporations are hand in hand. The media is in the hands of a very few powerful people today. We get to hear what they want us to hear by selective subject broadcasts and approved news releases. Thank God for the internet, NPR and Public TV.
— Poor Daddy Apr 24, 10:03 PM # - Sorry Harry, I can’t support you on this one. Gas should be expensive. That’s the only way we’ll get Americans to use less. And there are two reasons why we need to use less: 1) It’s the primary contributor to global warming, and 2) Very soon the world will be producing less oil every year.
Europeans have been paying around $6 per gallon for years now. Do you hear them whining about high gas prices? No! They’ve adapted. And it’s high time Americans adapted.
When gas here gets to $6, $7, or $8 a gallon, which it will, trust me, you can bet people will start taking conservation and fuel efficiency seriously.
Come on, Harry, stand up and tell the truth! We progressives are desperate for someone to speak truth to power and sadly, the Democratic establishment won’t do it. Will you?
— Doug Abbott Apr 24, 10:26 PM # - I am so mightly impressed by the astuteness of the commentary here. But above all by those who urge HIGHER gasoline taxes and most of all a long-range coherent energy policy. Old Harry, the typical can-do-nothing Democrat, looks to rally the voters by pandering to us with his pathetic ‘eliminate the federal excise tax’ ploy. How is it, Harry, that ordinary citizens, who don’t spend all their time in Washington, understand policy far better than you??
I have great hope for the citizenry, but none for the Democrats.
— Michael Mason Apr 24, 10:37 PM # - I am so weary of aimless, good-hearted Democrats without the guts to tell the truth. We need HIGHER gas prices, not lower, if we are to ever have the incentive to develop alternative fuels. Continuing to burn oil is the way to anihilation, not economic growth.
We need leadership that will tell us the difficult truth, fight for universal health care, end our bullying of the third world, and stop trying to please everyone. We need Democrats with real plans, not just complaints. Where are they???
Mimi Wuest
— Mimi Wuest Apr 24, 11:12 PM # - I’m heartened by the show of support here for higher gas prices. We live in a free market, and allowing prices to rise will force us as a society to deal with the issue. Cheap gas is the problem, not the solution. Hell, let’s increase gas taxes. Show a little backbone, okay?
— Matt Hagen Apr 24, 11:24 PM # - I’m amazed at the comments posted. Of course higher gas prices will foster conservation but that is small comfort to Americans who are struggling to deal with this precipitous increase in the price of gas.
This is a short term solution but it will provide some relief at the pump, and since oil companies are booming they don’t need those government subsidies. This makes a lot more sense than Bush’s plan to allow more pollution as a means of lowering gas prices.
— A. Brennan Apr 24, 11:57 PM # - I echo most comments in saying that this is a stupid move…..both politically and, more importantly, for the good of the country. I agree with framing issues more effectively but we don’t have to become like Republicans in making every issue nothing more than symbolism. That’s how we’ve gotten where we are and is not the way out. In fact, gas price increases have been positive in getting people to actually talk about energy. In the past few weeks I’ve had friends talk about selling their SUVs and even taking mass transit. In Birmingham, AL those are very positive steps. And they said those things without rancor. They were smart enough to realize it will eventually need to be done so why not start now. Gas prices and Big Oil are the Republicans rope. let them hang themselves with it.
— Steve Perrett Apr 25, 12:58 AM # - As much as we all see the benefits that come with higher gas prices i.e. conservation of our remaining petro resources, less impact on the environment and more expensive alternative energy sources being employed because they’re no longer overpriced, the fact is most Americans can ill afford higher gas prices and certainly the many businesses that rely on reasonable fuel costs to operate must be concerned. Keep our current taxes intact, consider an additional tax that reacts to rising fuel costs by going up in like fashion but not coming down if and when prices dip. Earmark these new tax dollars for the many useful subsidies descibed above. We’ll reach our threshhold for what we’re willing to pay for gas sooner and all those higher prices for fuel that we all know are coming will be matched in tax dollars. Tax breaks can be shared with businesses that are ultra sensitive to the higher fuel costs on a per mile/gallon basis.
For a more immediate impact, stop filling up our gas tanks. A half a tank of gas in all the cars in America roughly equals a 4 days supply of gasoline at a usage of 400,000,000 gallons per day. I’ve heard the term boycott mentioned…we do control the demand side of the equation…to a point. Granted not everyone is filling up know but most do because it’s easier. Make 2 stops a week rather than one. Put $20 or $25 in instead of filling up. You’ll be in and out of the gas stations quicker and the oil companies will see immediately that their paying customers are willing to do more than lip service to protest their greed. I’ve been doing this now for a couple of weeks. My awareness level is much higher of my gas usage when the fuel guage is always below half full. Go ahead lighten your load by pushing around 8 to 9 gallons less all week. Take all that junk you don’t need in your vehicle out and see how much less fuel you use…thats what the hybrids have done. See you at the pump!!
— Tim Brisbois Apr 25, 04:25 AM # - 1. Open ANWR
2. Start drilling off the coast of Florida
3. Start drilling off the coast of California
4. Ease restrictions on typses of fuel (there are currently hundreds of blended fuels that various governments have mandated, primarily California)
5. Allow oil companies to build new refineries
6. Build wind mills off Nantucket
7. Build more power generating nuclear facilities
The U S Congress has the power and the obligation to make all of the above happen. The President does not have the power, Congress does. It is time for Congress to take action on the energy problems which they have not addressed even though there have been plenty of wake up calls since the early 70’s.
— Kee Apr 25, 07:59 AM # - Drilling in ANWR to become less dependent on oil is like telling me to grow my own tobacco as a way to quit smoking.
— Patrick Apr 25, 08:53 AM # - Repealing taxes is not going to solve this putative problem—let the prices remain high, for it is a signal of scarcity. If you mess with the price, people’s consumption patterns won’t change, and in the long run the inevitable crunch will be crushing. Let’s stop being the pathetic Democratic Party of the recent past and be a truly intelligent and viable option over Republicans.
— Samson Apr 25, 09:35 AM # - #46Drilling in ANWR to become less dependent on oil is like telling me to grow my own tobacco as a way to quit smoking.
— Patrick
Bad analogy, Patrick. We are not talking about using less energy, that will never happen. What we need to is become energy independant, not letting foreign sources determine our path. The items I listed are a start. If our guvmint had taken some or all of those steps in the early 70’s there would not be a problem today.
— Kee Apr 25, 09:40 AM # - Dear Harry and fellow readers:
I am thrilled by the high proportions of writers who realize that we need higher—MUCH higher—prices as the necessary economic incentive for conservation.
I am not so naive as to suppose that the public in general holds such enlightened views. Rather, the general public expectation of cheap energy is no doubt what prompts this current round of Democratic Party pandering. But while thus understandable, it is still disappointing and embarrassing. Perhaps the most we can hope for is that after the November elections the Democratic Party can actually move away from this cheap oil nonsense and toward sound incentives for conservation.
— Jerry Bachman Apr 25, 10:30 AM # - Proof positive that Democrats can find more creative ways increase oil profit than the Republicans can. Two shades of red.
— R. Douglas Apr 25, 12:05 PM # - Higher prices without actions to become energy independant do nothing other than make things more difficult for those at the low end of the income spectrum.
Band aids do not cure disease, they merely hide it, something Congress has been doing for over 30 years.
— Kee Apr 25, 12:05 PM # - Dear Harry, I agree with you on just about everything else, but this is an absolutely horrible and shortsighted idea.
The behavior of American drivers and our out-of-touch administration is never going to change is gas prices stay low. We need HIGHER gas taxes, together with an end to tax cuts for oil companies, all of which should fund renewable energy programs and mass transit. We must force auto companies to increase fuel economy standards. Other industrialized countries understand all of this. Most have high gas taxes and great mass transit.
Democrats should not enable America’s misguided energy policy by trying to pander to some voters who desire short term relief. The majority of voters understand that long term energy policy requires sacrifice and innovation and will respect leaders who stand up and make change happen.
— Jennifer Whitlock Apr 25, 12:20 PM # - # 48 Kee: The smoking analogy is one I like, because (I think) it adresses the whole issue. It is the difference between OIL independence and engergy independence.
If OIL independence is our ONLY goal, than, you’re right – it ain’t a good analogy. But, the goal (in my mind) is to end our dependence (addiction) on OIL, foregin or domestic.
I realize it will take some time to do that, which is why we need to get to it starting now. We will never stop using oil – but we have got to find some alternatives. A little competition will bring those oil prices down quicker than any windfall tax ever will.
If all we do is figure out ways to get more oil, we’ll be right back at this same debate as soon as demand exceeds supply and prices go up again.
— Patrick Apr 25, 12:39 PM # - First I want to say I appreciate your efforts to fight for the American people. I also appreciate receiving your news letter and I do participate as often and in whatever way I’m able.
However, I don’t think I can support the Menendez Amendment and I will tell you why. It’s only a temporary solution to a very serious problem. Plus having only 60 days of cheap gas prices will cause a lot of mayhem at the pumps with people fighting and pushing each other to get the cheap gas while they can. I was just a kid during the OPEC oil embargo in the 70’s but I do remember waiting in line with my Mom at the gas stations and seeing the people get very angry when the gas stations managers would come out and tell those still in line waiting that there was no more gas. A few times even fights would break out. I can easily see that sort of thing happening during the so called “Gas Holiday”.
So what’s a better solution? I actually there is one. Right now Senator Maria Cantwell has a bill called the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act which she is trying to get passed. Her bill would make price-gouging a federal crime and strengthen the power of those who regulate the practices of big oil companies. Whether the bill passed or not I’m not sure but even if it didn’t legislation like this would be a long term solution not just a short term one and long a term fix is what we need not just a 60 free-for-all at the pumps.
Thanks for listening,
Sincerely
Linda Johnson
— Linda Johnson Apr 25, 12:46 PM # - Dear Senator Reid and Democratic Leaders
I will NOT sign this petition.
The American people need and deserve REAL solutions to our nations energy crisis.
NOT short term feel good fixes –
We need much higher gas mileage on our cars to be REGULATED – THAT should have been done a LONG time ago – why haven’t you done that ?????
We need an EPA that sets VERIFIABLE and RELIABLE Standards—- ????
We need to heavily invest in renewable energy systems – and build public transportaton systems -???
WE NEED A PLAN
We need our leaders to FACE UP to this challenge of increasing efficiancy and lowing our dependance on oil.
This petiton only serves to hide the reality from the American people – and make us feel like it is our right to have low energy prices – it is NOT our right – I’ve already heard media pundits advocate aggressive action against MORE oil rich countries to secure OUR oil ! ! ! ! !
Please take a REAL stand – be honest – be tough – BE BRAVE – lead our nation into a future – with a future
Sincerely,
— Bart Daly Apr 25, 12:53 PM # - MICHIGAN GOVERNOR HAS PETITION TO BUSH TO LOWER GAS PRICES, EVERY GOVERNOR SHOULD USE THIER STATE WEB SITE TO DO THE SAME.
— EDMUND GOLEMBESKI Apr 25, 12:58 PM # - #53: But, the goal (in my mind) is to end our dependence (addiction) on OIL, foregin or domestic.
— Patrick Apr 26, 12:39 PM
Reduction of our energy consumption will only happen if one thing occurs…a massive deep deep depression. Barring that, our energy requirements will continue to grow with our economy.
— Kee Apr 25, 01:00 PM # - Interestingly what I see here is a bunch of Democrats stating we need more guvmint intervention and higher prices. Unless I have overlooked one, there has not been a single post, other than mine, saying we need more energy sources and exploration.
— Kee Apr 25, 01:02 PM # - Before you do something stupid, read and understand what is really going on. We are at or close to peak oi – that’s why the price going up. We need even higher prices to switch to alternatives as quickly as possible before it’s too late. Our government debt and private debt is way to high to survive the econmic problems of peak oil. So I beg of you – stop this stupidity and understand what is really going on.
If you think prices are related to high gas prices – check out this: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/2/123923/4955#more
Tons of other graphs and articles are available at www.theoildurm.com that shows we are close to peak oil and conservation and alternatives are the only way out.
— Roger Tucker Apr 25, 01:20 PM # - #58 kee
Read my #13 comment.
The two parts of the Menendez I like are the dumping of the gas tax and the removal of a corporate welfare program that gives our tax money to the oil companies.
The only thing the federal gas tax does is provide excuses for members of Congress to create more unnecessary pork projects by both Democrats and Republicans. And all the entitlements to the oil companies end up doing is letting them receive revenue for doing nothing. We end up paying the tax at the pump when buying the gas they produce, then paying them again in entitlements through corporate welfare programs.
What the Democrats have adopted is an approach Republicans should have taken in forcing oil companies to earn all of their revenue and force them to invest properly in developing alternative energy production. They won’t do anything if the government just gives them money to do nothing. Republicans would do well to take this amendment and expand on it.
— Steve Apr 25, 01:27 PM # - The solution is to make the oil companies loose the tax breaks which cause such exobitant profits. I care less about getting a .20/gallon temporary tax break, than stopping big oil from screwing us day after day, year after year and laughing all the way to the bank.
— Jane Reese Apr 25, 01:46 PM # - In the interest of fiscal responsibility (which Republicans are incapable of), I think that it would be a mistake to reduce the gas taxes. The #1 order of business for the Democratic Party should be elimination of the Federal deficit. Sure, high gas prices hurt, so let’s vote those Republican rascals out who have gotten us into this mess. And let’s take some personal responsibility for reducing our consumption of this polluting fuel.
— Bert Bivens Apr 25, 02:44 PM # - Steve, sorry, I overlooked your comment. I should have known you were on top of it.
— Kee Apr 25, 03:39 PM # - Many of the steps you have taken recently toward reality-based public policy are widely appreciated, especially considering the courage required nowadays for such an approach. In this context, your support of a gasoline-tax holiday is especially disappointing. Please stop pandering to the uninformed and unthinking constituents who continue to demand cheap energy even at the cost of huge government subsidies, a disastrous balance of payments, and ill-advised military adventures against other sovereign nations. If John Anderson’s proposed 50-cent-a-gallon Federal gas tax had gone into effect (preferably with subsequent increases for inflation), our nation—and the world—would be much healthier now in many important respects.
— Jon Allen Apr 25, 03:44 PM # - I am horrified that the democrats are talking about eliminating the federal gas tax. I thought the democrats were the environmental party. If you want to subsidize the poor for the high gas prices fine. If you want to reduce the profits of the oil companies, that’s fine to. However, encouraging high gas consumption is one of the worst things the federal government can do to the environment.
What we need is increased gas taxes with the money going to develop decent mass transit as is done in Europe. Lets see an amendment that ADDS 5 cents/gallon each month for 4 years.
— Lawrence Safran Apr 25, 04:08 PM # - Interesting amendment, however the fraction of a cent on every dollar won’t affect much change. So here’s what you need to add to the amendment to make it effective for the American People.
1. Price caps somewhere between $1.75 and $1.90 per gallon at the pump.
2. Windfall profits tax on the Oil Barrons – these guys are making record profits while we are paying record highs. The tax should be applied to our infrastructure – schools – development of alternative forms of energy, and should not be applied to exploration or the funding of wars.
3. Federal, State and local regulations should be implemented to prevent the exploitation of a captive market.
4. Allow the import of foreign vehicles like the Volkswagon that gets 90 MPG and mandate immediate changes in fuel efficiency standards. We have the technology, what we lack is the will to achieve results in the congress. After all what is more important – Honestly what is the purpose of owning a vehicle with a V-8 or a V-6 when the speed limit is 55 or 65 mph? Are these companies incouraging vehicular criminality by pushing vehicles on the public with ads that promote speeding and reckless driving? What’s up with that?
The bottom line is that $.184 per gallon does nothing for us when we’ve seen the price go up by over a dollar.
— Sean McAuley Apr 25, 04:15 PM # - America is “addicted” to oil, and the Democrats’ solution is to make heroin cheaper?
How about this? Rather than reduce the gas tax, restore it to what it would have been if it were the same percentage of fuel price as it was in the 1980s—approximately 20%. Inflation has reduced the effective gas tax tremendously.
However, because we don’t want to see everyone hurt by increasing taxes, make the first $3000 in wages exempt from payroll taxes (these taxes hit the poor hardest).
As others above have pointed out, we need to encourage conservation and smart use of gasoline.
I would support reducing subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies.
Let’s penalize inefficient gas guzzlers, not wealth-creating work.
— Michael Perkins Apr 25, 04:35 PM # - While there are excellent points made here, i’m wondering if any of you guys work at a sandwich shop or a day care center, a nursing home or a construction site in BFE.
It’s really hard to take the long term view when your job is threatened because you can’t afford to drive to work.
Food or gas?
— minna Apr 25, 04:57 PM # - Dear Harry,
I am in total disagreement with this admendment. Please read Peaking Of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management* by
Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader. This is a DOE-sponsored study.
Harry, in short, neither “Big Oil” nor OPEC can any longer control the price of oil. We need to face the fact that in the not too distant future, new production will not be able to meet decline from mature oil fields. Soon $4/gal gas will look cheap. We need conservation, not efforts to spur consumption.
Paul in Silver Springs
— Paul Strohm Apr 25, 05:09 PM # - Re: the food or gas question
That’s why the best proposal includes a reduction in the payroll tax, giving every worker something back in every paycheck. Make the total tax break equal to the average increase in the gas tax.
We can break our addiction to oil, if the right incentives are in place.
— Michael Perkins Apr 25, 05:46 PM # - Dear Harry,
Your support for this bill is just another example of how far afield the democratic party has moved from reality. While those that identify themselves as neo-conservatives (Fukyama might take issue with that) are equally dellusional, your stance on gas taxes is completely farcical. I’m not going to scream peak oil, just mention it lightly. What I am going to say is that near term supply issues, as described in this article:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/23/12186/9663
would suggest that we need to be CONSERVING and REDUCING and LOCALIZING. Alternatives WILL NOT help significantly. Go read the literature if you doubt it. Ethanol is a pipe dream of the corn lobby. Thermal Depolymerization requires an industrial infrastructure that can only exist on cheap fossil energy.
It is better to incrase prices now (INCREASE THE TAX!!!!) and use that money to improve efficiency, invest in world political stabilization, compensate farmers who transition to organic agriculture, etc.
Check out “The Power of Community,” a 50 minute DVD by The Community Solution. There is one example, it is not like the USA in many ways, but we can still learn.
Please get at least one half of the one party system back in touch with reality.
— David Huck Apr 25, 05:47 PM # - Mr. Reid
This amendment is disgraceful and insulting political pandering.
I agree that the gas needs to be adjusted, but it needs to be adjusted UP, with every dime used to fund and devolop real solutions, most notably encouraging less driving (via public transportation, a real, viable rail system, etc).
Please reconsider your motivations. My kids are going to be dealing with our shortsightedness for decades to come.
— Howard Thompson Apr 25, 05:48 PM # - Dear Senator Reid:
You, as a high-profile leader in this country, have an opportunity to offer legislation to actually mitigate the real problem – our excessive consumption of energy in this country. You should be preaching conservation, and offering incentives for those who conserve. Instead, you are pushing policies that would encourage consumption, while at the same time punishing oil companies which will result in decreased investments into capital projects.
We need something more than political pandering from both parties, Senator Reid. We need someone with the guts to tackle the real problem. The solutions are not going to be easy. But the sooner you face up to the fact that the age of cheap gas is over, the faster we can move on to making changes that will reduce our actual consumption.
Sincerely,
Robert Rapier
— Robert Rapier Apr 25, 06:00 PM # - The link to THE OIL DRUM, given by David Huck, just above, hits me with more truth than anything else on this issue ever has.
— John Apr 25, 06:03 PM # - WOW Harry, a whole .18 cents per gallon, you are so wonderful.
Here’s a quarter Harry shove it up you ass.
Time to go back to Search Light.
Stop slobbin’ Kennedy’s Knob.
— GTB Nevada Voter Apr 25, 06:08 PM # - America fights in Iraq for oil, and I just read that,
China signed an exclusive $78Billion contract for oil from Iran
Also they have locked up 60% of the total oil produced by Sudan.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpchi254715916apr25,0,570220.story
After leaving the US,Chinese President Hu stopped in Saudi Arabia for talks the arabs said ” oil cooperation is on track”.
We owe trillions of dollars to the Chinese, if they want to call our loans they will distroy this country. Either we are going to end up fighting them for the oil or we must wean ourselves from the nipple of mother oil.
I don’t want my children fighting over a billion Chinese, I’d rather use our wealth and knowledge to make us oil independant.
Lets get started…......
Franz P. Kirsch
— Franz P. Kirsch Apr 25, 06:19 PM # - I get the DSCC newsletter and was pointed to this site.
I think that a “tax holiday” is as stupid an idea as all of the Republican tax reductions. How in the world will this help reduce prices? Now if you decided to give a credit for gasoline use to low income taxpayers, that would be helpful to them.
But to reduce oil prices, you will have to find a way to reduce demand. Sure, it is likely that the big oil companies and countries have manipulated the supply, but this proposal will have zero effect.
I would really like to see an alternative to the current administration, and changing Congress would be a start, but if this is the kind of initiative Democrats come up with, I have a real problem with providing money or other support to your cause.
Ed Bolson
— Ed Bolson Apr 25, 06:30 PM # - I was absolutely appalled to see this ludicrous proposition and relieved and delighted to see the outpouring of protest here on the blog. I can only hope that the Democratic party listens to this outpouring.
While taxing “big oil” is certainly a positive, this short sighted attempt to give consumers a nearly meaningless “break” at the pump completely misses the point that what we need is incentive to CONSERVE, not another battle to protect our right to WASTE. The additional revenues generated from revoking corporate tax breaks should be spent on efforts such as improved public transportation options, funding for research and development of more efficient cars and manufacturing methods, and the generation of incentives to REDUCE our oil use. WAKE UP Democrats!
— Rboudin Apr 25, 06:37 PM # - Actually, I don’t think we need to encourage less driving. In the short term, less driving would be the best solution to the gas price situation; but building better mass transit, etc. takes time, and there is a better long term solution:
Push high mileage vehicles and punish low mileage vehicles through taxes.
I don’t know the average mileage of a new car today (car, not counting SUVs or light trucks), but whatever is it, there should be an excise tax on all new vehicles (including SUV’s and light trucks) below it, of 10% per MPG below it. The worst SUV’s might draw a 100% tax (meaning you pay as much in extra tax as the price of the SUV).
So, we strongly push everyone into more fuel efficient vehicles. We also could have a tax credit for 20% (or so) of the price for hybrid or alternative fuel cars.
I really don’t want myself or others to have to drive less, although I also want people, including myself, to have to conserve energy. It’s possible to do both in the long term, by still driving as much but driving cars with much better MPG or, better yet, alternative fuels.
— Ken Apr 25, 06:45 PM # - Please Harry, this kind of transparent pandering will come back to haunt you. The problem is Peak Oil – read the Hirsh Report! – and the longer you and the other Democrats refuse to face up to the elephant in the room, and instead try to salve a problem that will not go away, the worse it will be for all of us.
— Geoff Apr 25, 07:10 PM # - Harry, I am very glad that the Democrats want to make this an issue, but I do not think this is the correct approach. We don’t need to lower taxes, and increase the defecit, that’s the Republicans way. What we need to do is hold accountable the large companies that are manipulating the markets and making record profits. Perhaps we threaten to put a 6 month cap on retail oil prices and serve notice that either these guys play by the rules, or Congress will regulate them as a matter of national policy. This will be viewed as anti-business, but we can counter that it only restricts one industry, and helps countless more. It will help our economy, our uncertain stock markets, and of course, the American family.
The Democratic Party needs to stand up on the right side of the issues, and not with some half minded approach. We need to hold accountable the Bush cronies and the irresponsible big business executives. We need to make sure everyone knows we are being responsible to the budget and the out of control deficit.
Lets make a difference, a real difference.
Lee Kalish
Saugerties, NY
— Lee Kalish Apr 25, 07:19 PM # - Harry,
You should be ashamed for this stupid pander.
Please show some leadership and guts.
We need real investment in energy efficiency, transit, green buildings, transit-oriented urban development.
Reducing gas taxes will just encourage more driving, increasing demand farther and driving prices higher, but giving the increase to oil companies instead of the public coffers.
Please reconsider any plan to reduce or eliminate gas taxes. Instead we should institute a revenue-neutral plan to increase gas taxes to European levels, with a matching decrease in income taxes. This would address the growing trade deficit resulting from importing so much expensive oil.
Thanks,
Tom Volckhausen
— Tom Volckhausen Apr 25, 07:20 PM # - I think those on the “It’s the liberals fault because those damned tree huggers won’t let us drill off of Florida and California or in the Alaskan wilderness” bandwagon should understand that while we certainly do have a problem with gas prices, a MUCH bigger problem is the looming issue of global warming due to the increase of greenhouse gases created by the burning of fossil fuels. STOP listening to those idiots at FoxNews that choose to call this “junk science”!!!! Just go to FoxNews website and read what their science “expert” has to say about the subject! The problem is that by the time these idiots finally admit that global warming is real it will be 310 degrees in the shade!
We can’t “drill” our way out of this situation! We need to realize that we need to get that JackAss out of the White house and get someone in (Democrat or Republican) that understands what the TRUE threats to this country are! We are the most powerful nation on the planet but we act like ignorant morons by pretending global warming is a fantasy. Our troubles stem from our dependence on foreign oil due to our use of fossil fuels and our leaders reluctance to cut ties to big oil. Who in their right mind believes that we would be in Iraq if they didn’t have oil??? If we didn’t need their oil I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that good old Bushy Washy wouldn’t give a rats ass about Democracy in the Middle East! He’d create some other monster for us to worry about.
— Pcruz Apr 25, 07:36 PM # - Harry – this brain-dead proposal is why people are saying that the best thing to ever happen to Republicans is the Democrats. Can’t we please stop commiting suicide with dumb ideas like this? I associate with the vast majority of comments here. Raise the gas tax, don’t lower it. And while you’re at it, maybe you could level with the American people about the reality of oil: that it is just going to get scarcer and more expensive and we better figure out what to do next when it’s gone in 50 years. But, Harry, you do have some guts to invite comments, give you that.
— Jim Kingsdale Apr 25, 07:50 PM # - I have sent the URL to this blog along with a request to my senators, Schumer and Clinton, along with a request that they read carefully the true feelings of the people.
Perhaps everyone else will send it to their senators.
Franz P. Kirsch
— Franz P. Kirsch Apr 25, 07:51 PM # - We don’t need a federal gas tax holiday – we need conservation! With all due respect, I think the Menendez Amendment is a terrible idea; is it any wonder that Democrats can’t gain ground if this is what you have to offer? It’s time to ask Americans to become partners in a shared solution to the energy problem; in the short term, that means asking everyone to find ways to conserve energy. Last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX, said about increasing gas prices: “…this is primarily a demand-driven price increase. If every person in the world who uses gasoline or diesel fuel would cut their consumption by 10 percent, the world would soon be awash in oil and the price would probably go down a dollar a gallon in the next six months. But who’s going to do that?” While there appears to be more behind gas price increases than just consumer demand, I do think many Americans could, and would cut energy consumption if they understood that doing so would lead to lower fuel prices. What sacrifices have average Americans been asked to make since 9/11? Absolutely none. President Bush urged us to go shopping. It’s time for the Democrats to find their spines and ask Americans to sacrifice just a little bit for the common good while our leaders work to develop a comprehensive energy strategy.
— Hailey Wood Apr 25, 08:05 PM # - Harry,
The best way to determine who is responsible for the auto gas price rip-off is to check and see where the gas price is at the normal rate. Go to Gasbuddy.com and you will see in Cheney’s home state of Wyoming the price is only $1.98 per gallon and at Bush’s home location at Midland Texas the price is only $2.09 per gallon.
— Don Brickey Apr 25, 08:28 PM # - There are two thousand dead American soldiers and untold numbers of dead Iraqi women & children. Why doesn’t this enrage the American public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
There are two billion people on this Earth who do not have the basic necessities of life. They live on less than $2 a day. Without food, clothing, medical care or a stable government they cannot escape a life of deprivement and suffering. Why doesn’t this enrage the American public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
The United States of America is in debt $8 trillion dollars & the Federal Budget Deficit threatens to push this number up several trillion dollars over the next several years. Why doesn’t this enrage the public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
The artic ice is melting, the climate is changing, hurricanes are popping up in the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate, New Orleans and the Mississippi coast are still demolished, and the next hurricane season is a month away. Why doesn’t any of these things enrage the American public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
The United States of America has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25% of the world’s resources. Do you want to know who is responsible for high crude oil & gsoline prices? Americans.
Not greedy corporations. The greedy & obese & recently increasingly violent U.S. of A. has created this problem. The public just cannot stop buying SUVs (bigger and bigger, like some sort of mobile cancer on America’s roads) nor will they stop driving (suburbs, exurbs, etc.).
The United States of America has become a fat, lazy, uncompetitve nation of whiners who feel that they are entitled to deplete all of the Earth’s resources by birthright. There are other nations—such as China and India, both very large and ancient—which have also become addicted to consumption.
With 2.5 billion self-involved greedy consumers in the world it is logical to suppose that prices will have to rise. Earth’s resources are finite but human greed is nearly infinite. If Americans have SUVs, the Chinese and Indians will have them as well.
Have you contemplated how much gasoline will cost once there are 300 million cars in China and 200 million cars in India?
A lot more than it does today. Mr. Reid, you should tell the public to prepare for $6 or $9 a gallon gasoline. If the public objects, tell them that they have no choice except to consume less. Park the SUVs forever, live where you work & work where you live, grow food locally, bring an end to the consumption-driven economy, and find a way to make peace with a billion Muslims because otherwise something really terrible is going to happen in the Middle East.
Sincerely,
David Mathews
— David Mathews Apr 25, 08:29 PM # - Since the immigration topic is closed, and there doesn’t seem to be one on corporate crime, this will have to go right here. This is about “deferred prosecution agreements” for corporations that do crooked shit.
I don’t know how to create a link, so just copy and paste this in your browser. It is short, but pithy…..don’t want to bloviate; that is O’Lieley’s job.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0426-21.htm
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 08:34 PM # - #88, David….......
As long as the economy is growing (on paper), we have our TV shows, can drive anywhere we want, the kids stay out of our hair with their video games, and we can buy way more useless junk than we need, why should we give a half a shit about all that stuff???
Get REAL, dude!!!
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 08:41 PM # - Reducing the gas tax is EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO.
It may make it easy to pander to ignorant voters, BUT:
IT WILL COST MONEY.
IT WILL COST JOBS.
IT WILL NOT CUT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE; it will only give more of it to the oil companies and foreign oil producers.
Give me another $2/gallon in taxes and rebate it to me as a SS/FICA deductible, so I can STOP spending income taxes on defending oil and START spending it on what I really need!
— Engineer-Poet Apr 25, 08:51 PM # - I read the first 20 posts and see that the radicals on the left do not want a gasoline tax decrease proposed by Reid but some, in fact, propose raising the gas taxes so gasoline costs $5 per gallon or more. This goes to prove that Democrats do not give a damn about the poor and middle class except in November when the elections roll around.
— joro Apr 25, 09:11 PM # - Senator Reid,
A much better solution would be a large tax increase, every penny of which was rebated back to licensed drivers. The rebate would be based upon the average miles driven and mpg for the previous years. This gives people an incentive to drive less, as they will then make money if they use less gasoline than the average driver.
Trying to reduce the cost of gasoline is pure pandering. You, and the Democratic party need to show leadership, acknowledge that there is a problem, and that the solutions are going to be painful.
— Mark Apr 25, 09:14 PM # - Dear Senator Reid,
I must respectfully disagree with you band-aid approach to fuel prices. WE ALL KNOW that the tax is not the issue. It is simply and painfully obvious the oil company profits.
There is no reason except greed for prices to at their present level. Respectfully, I request you show some gumption, and take APPROPRIATE ACTION by addressing the issue at the source, the oil companies.
Best regards,
Jeff Turner
— Jeff Turner Apr 25, 09:23 PM # - #29
Roughly 60% of our oil consumption is domestic oil. It costs Exxon roughly $22 per barrel to extract and ship that oil. Foreign oil today is costing us $75 per barrel. The profit margin on domestic oil is where the oil companies are REALLY gouging us. No wonder they want to drill offshore and ANWR. That is a $52 profit on EACH domestic barrel.
Not bad, huh?
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 07:02 PM #
Facts for 2004: US produced 9.27 million barrels per day and consumed 20.5 million barrels per day. His cost/profit figures are more ridiculous. Poor Daddy is either rotten at math or a Democrat.
— joro Apr 25, 09:25 PM # - #30
The world’s gas producers are in the cat bird’s seat; able to charge America whatever they want for oil.
— Steve Cohn Apr 25, 07:22 PM #
Steve, how much does China pay for Oil? How about India? England? Spain?
— joro Apr 25, 09:29 PM # - #32
P.S. I actually do think nuclear is a good idea, one of the cleaner fuels and very safe. It has gotten a bad rap in the past but I think we ought to reconsider it as a companion to solar and wind as sustainable sources of energy.
— Nina Apr 25, 08:35 PM #
Nina, we tried to build a solar energy farm here in Nevada where the sun shines about 360 days a year. The liberals, at the behest of the radical left wing environmental wackos such as the Sierra Club, prevented the project from going forward. Seems there was some abundant desert turtle that would have to be relocated if they did not like the solar collectors. A proposed wind farm was also shot down because some desert weed was going to be endangered and some pesky sparrows might die. In order to solve our nations energy problem, Democrats must be voted out of office.
— joro Apr 25, 09:37 PM # - Hello joro,
Who cares about the tortoise or the sparrow when obese Americans want to sit on their sofa eating fatty foods while watching television & then drive down to the mall in their SUV to purchase a bunch of cheap Chinese-manufactured products (on their credit cards) which they will use only once before throwing away?
If it will make anything better for the anti-environmentalists, I will make the following proposal: Why don’t you just kill all of the animals and cover the entire country in asphalt?
It’s not like the animals do anything. They don’t pay any taxes, don’t have any jobs, don’t go shopping at the mall, don’t buy SUVs, and they never vote. We might as well kill them all because otherwise Americans might have to cut back our consumption of the world’s nonrenewable resources.
Of course, it’s very easy for humans to destroy environments. We’ve pretty much destroyed the entire Earth on behalf of wealth, luxury, comfort and pleasure.
Once humans have destroyed everything, exactly where will humans go … do you propose the Moon, Mars, or into the Universe in search of another planet to destroy?
Who cares about plants & animals? Just those stupid environmentalists.
But the plants & animals are unique, irreplaceable and vital to the Earth’s functioning as a living planet. Destroying the Earth for any cause is just plain suicidal.
Instead of massive new energy projects, Americans ought to begin a nationwide powerdown. Americans should begin to make substantial sacrifices so that their children and grandchildren do not have to suffer.
Americans consume too much of everything. Under these circumstances, the wisest course of action is for Americans to diminish our demand for oil, energy & the Earth’s resources.
— David Mathews Apr 25, 09:54 PM # - #61
The solution is to make the oil companies loose the tax breaks which cause such exobitant profits. I care less about getting a .20/gallon temporary tax break, than stopping big oil from screwing us day after day, year after year and laughing all the way to the bank.
— Jane Reese Apr 26, 01:46 PM #
Jane, do you participate in a 401(k), an IRA, a pension trust, a health insurance plan, a mutual fund? I bet you do and all of those plans own oil company stock and share in the oil company profits. What that means is that when Harry Reid or the Democrats pander for votes by yapping about taxing oil companies, they are after all of the plans you particpate in for your own benefit. Don’t let the Democrats con you for your votes.
— joro Apr 25, 10:01 PM # - #67
However, because we don’t want to see everyone hurt by increasing taxes, make the first $3000 in wages exempt from payroll taxes (these taxes hit the poor hardest).
— Michael Perkins Apr 26, 04:35 PM #
So you want to bankrupt Social Security sooner than it is now destined to go bankrupt because Reid and the Democrats obstructed and filibustered any fixes to the system!!!! Why?
— joro Apr 25, 10:09 PM # - #95, joro…..
I got those figures from….....BILL O’REILLY’S RADIO SHOW three days ago!!! No bullshit.
He’s either lousy at math, or he’s a REPUBLICAN!!
Ha, ha, hooey, ho, ho, hee, hee!!!
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 10:18 PM # - I certainly agree with eliminating the tax breaks, and subsidies, to big oil, but gasoline taxes should be raised not lowered. The problem is that gasoline is too cheap in the the U.S. If you wish to really deal with the problem you need to discourage consumption and raise CAFE standards. A major way to reduce consumption and be revenue neutral is to significantly increase gasoline taxes but provide a tax credit (not just a deduction) for the increased tax. This sort of tax shifting has worked quite well in European countries and there is no reason it should not work here.
If we are at, or close, to peak oil (and I think we are), yesterday is not too soon to begin reducing energy consumption. In addition, global warming is real and serious. We owe it to ourselves as well a future generations to leave a livable planet. Let this be the wake up call and start now. Stand up for real ways to control gasoline prices and to protect ourselves and the rest of life with which we share the planet.
Just so you know, I am a life long democrat and am currently our Democratic precinct chairman.
— Jerry D. Unruh, Ph.D. Apr 25, 10:20 PM # - #98
— David Mathews Apr 26, 09:54 PM #
So what you are saying is that you are opposed to the use of alternative fuels. Democrats seem to want America and Americans to suffer by living in conditions worse than those that exist in third world countries.
— joro Apr 25, 10:32 PM # - #101.
— Poor Daddy Apr 26, 10:18 PM #
O’Reilly is an idiot. He was a unionized public school history teacher and doesn’t know diddly about economics. My guess is he gave misinformation or you heard what you wanted to hear like all Democrats and then spewed it out here on Reid’s blog along with all of his lies.
— joro Apr 25, 10:42 PM # - CONSERVE GAS
Rory Reid, Harry’s son, is Clark County Commission Chairman. Citizens have been screaming to fix the signal lights in the county and Reid has done nothing. Usual traffic patterns here have you stopping at every corner controlled by traffic signals and the standard wait is 3 minutes of idling. I should check to see how much the oil companies are contributing to the Reid’s campaigns.
— joro Apr 25, 10:53 PM # - I’m very concerned the Melendez Amendment is the wrong action for Democrats to take.
Given constrained supply (and no other rationing system), the market price rises to the point where demand is not greater than supply—the point of sufficient “demand destruction” where enough people consume less.
Prices wouldn’t go down from removing the federal tax; you’d just be giving another 18.4 cents per gallon to the oil companies!
A windfall profits tax for public benefit would be much better, that would transfer money from oil companies and OPEC countries back into Americans’ pockets.
Please also read http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891.
— Darrell Apr 26, 01:07 AM # - Why just for 60 days? Why not completely remove all federal taxes?
— El-ahrairah Apr 26, 04:32 AM # - Obviously this entire energy problem is Bush’s fault. 30 years ago when we had major oil shortages, long gas lines and were only allowed to buy fuel every other day George W. Bush did nothing about it.
Well since he didn’t, I guess the demmies will have to bail him out by raising taxes on gas and raising taxes on oil companies, which of course will be passed on to investors like you and me. Perhaps if enough taxes are raised oil will start procreating. Problems can always be overcome by getting more guv’mint intervention, right?
— Kee Apr 26, 07:48 AM # - Dear Mr. Reid,
It is difficult for me to understand your thought process. If the United States and the World is running out of a scarce commodity (oil), why in the world would you sponsor a law that would encourage people to use more. Price always has and always will balance supply and demand.
Making it easy for people to consume more only uses up the valuable time we have left to develop ways and means to transition away from fossil fuels.
When are you people going to start looking for viable solutions and stop with the band-aid approach to life threatening issues.
I sure hope you rethink your approach here and increase the tax not decrease it.
Sincerely,
Rick Swenson
— Rick Apr 26, 07:51 AM # - WOW!
Look at all these posts (most of them at the top of this thread) that say we need to raise the price of gas, rather than lower it. And almost everyone of them are using a screen name that are first time posters. Obviously some environmental group somewhere encouraged their member list to go forth and spread propaganda.
— kerry lost Apr 26, 08:05 AM # - #110…..
You are absolutely correct and the intriguing part is most think the problem can be resolved with a tax increase. So much for reality.
— Kee Apr 26, 08:40 AM # - Hey,
I am liking the proposal I am seeing from the Senate Majority of giving a $100 check back to tax payers for relief of higher gas prices. In true conservative form, this puts the emphasis back on where it should be, the consumer. Stop trying to tweak products and markets and let capitalism take its course. To be sure, we need to watch out for price gouging to protect the consumer, but otherwise keep the government’s grubby hands off of private industry.
This $100 tax relief check will give the consumers the power to choose. They can turn around and buy 3 tanks of gas with it if they want, but those smart and frugal with money will seek to make those dollars go further. They may choose to take the subway, carpool or other solutions. Nice idea. It is win-win for consumer and conservation. And, oh yeah. It won’t tank the economy by arbitrarily raising prices, scaring the crap out of people and consumer confidence gets shot. Consumer confidence is a fragile thing and higher prices lowers morale. – kerry lost
— kerry lost Apr 26, 08:50 AM # - Depends on which “problem” you are thinking of guys. Do you mean prices for you, in the next 60 days? Or do you mean prices for you and your kids over then next 10 or 20 years?
60 days is nuthin’
And to present 60 days as a solution is an insult.
I’m not actually a booster of gas taxes, not because I think they are wrong-headed, but only because I think they are politically impossible. They do however point in the right direction. The ONLY, repeat ONLY, way to lower oil prices in the long term (more than 60 days) is to use less gas/oil.
How exactly are you stalwarts going to do that?
— John Apr 26, 08:52 AM # - Which is exactely why Bush has emphasized that we are addicted to oil and is pushing for greater development of Ethanol solutions. If you actually listened to him once in a while, rather than always hating him, you might actually learn something.
— kerry lost Apr 26, 08:56 AM # - I come to this because I have been reading about and following the oil/energy news for about a year. I can recommend Peter Tertzakian’s “A Thousand Barrels a Second” as good, solid, engineering/economic analysis of where we are with oil, ethanol, etc.
If the cellulosic ethanol stuff comes through, it MAY make a big difference. Unfortunately we are currently running corn based ethanol at a net energy loss. If you listen carefully to the president’s most recent speech, he also backs away from corn ethanol.
Unfortunately, again, we do not have cellulosic ethanol right now. People would like us to start using ethanol on the ASSUMPTION that cellulosic will come on line. As a retired scientist and engineer, I’m skeptical of such asumptions. In my experience, we had to work hard for everything we made work, and we didn’t get everything we wanted.
Based on my reading, we are going to begin a “race to efficiency” with the rest of the world. There is simply not enough oil coming on-line fast enough for expanding consumption. Corn ethanol isn’t going to save us.
In the critical timeframe (10 to 20 years from now), efficiency, whether that comes from higher MPG, or just driving less, is the one AVAILABLE solution.
— John Apr 26, 09:06 AM # - #113…
Using less oil / energy means a recession. New sources of energy are required along with opening up oil fields and wind farms.
— Kee Apr 26, 09:19 AM # - Kee, there is a factor called “oil intensity” which is basically the amount of oil used per GDP. When you improve efficiency (race to efficiency) you reduce the amount of energy you use per dollar of GDP. That makes you more recesson proof in the future.
The Japanese have actually reduced the gallons of oil they use in real (not per capita) terms, while growing their GDP. It is possible.
And what’s the alternative? If you keep using the current US ratio of oil to GDP, and the price of oil goes up (as it will), you are building in a FUTURE recession, aren’t you?
— John Apr 26, 09:27 AM # - By the way, a simple example of why “less oil” does NOT automatically mean a recesion:
* I’ve got to get to work.
* I drive 20 miles at 20 mpg.
* I switch cars and get 40 mpg.
* I just cut my oil use in half
* I still get to work
Now, the Saudi’s might have to worry about a recession as their oil income declines ;-), but that is not my concern.
— John Apr 26, 09:29 AM # - #118…and you think raising taxes is a solution?
— Kee Apr 26, 09:48 AM # - Which taxes would be politcially possibe? I don’t think a gasoline tax, at the pump, would fly now. Looking back, I can wish we’d started feathering one in back around 1990.
Right now I think prices are going to do their dirty work.
And that one of the best thing politicians can do is just to advise people that “it’s up to you.” If you are paying too much for gasoline each month, make a change.
People are smart enough to figure out what change works for them.
(If you want to switch cars, you might snap up a nice used high MPG car while they are still cheap)
— John Apr 26, 09:53 AM # - Gas taxes should be increased, not decreased. We need to encourage conservation and wise use of energy and discourage wasteful use. Suspending taxes is a move in a backwards direction. If Reid feels he needs this move for political gain, its time for him to step aside and allow the leadership that the country desperately needs on this issue.
Be
— Be Yost Apr 26, 11:20 AM # - With respect, Senator Reid, while you have been proving yourself the firey, intelligent leader Democrats desperately need right now, I think your efforts are greatly misdirected on this issue.
I hope you will reconsider the situation. As another person linked above, The Oil Drum – http://www.theoildrum.com/ – is a great resource on this issue and they have just issued a press release of their consensus. I agree with them, and hope you soon will as well, that, “right now, governments should be focused on helping us cure our ‘addiction to oil.’” – see the press release here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891
I believe this is a great opportunity for Democrats to distinguish themselves from Republicans who, apparently, want to once again buy off the American public, this time on behalf of the oil industry rather than on behalf of tax cuts for the rich:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html
Please change your stance on this issue, as your current one is, to my view, quite wrong.
— Adam Piontek Apr 26, 11:20 AM # - Additionally, can Democrats please stop using the conservative talking point of “relief for taxpayers” – I feel that “relief for gas buyers” is just as bad. No; America needs to escape the oil pushers, as the President himself has admitted we are addicted to oil.
— Adam Piontek Apr 26, 11:37 AM # - Mr. Joro,
You might be right to tag me with the label of “radical” (read my blog; I want to bankrupt the #$*&ing oil dictatorships) but I’m no leftist. I voted for Anderson in ‘80, Libertarian in ‘84, Bush in ‘88, Libertarian in ‘92 and ‘96, and Bush in ‘00. It took Dubya’s spendthrift nature and police-state policies to convince me I’d made a huge mistake, voting against Gore just to tell the gun-banners to bugger themselves.
And as for “alternative fuels”, Mr. Joro…. I’ve run the numbers on them. In detail. In public, on my blog. If I was badly wrong, anyone with a brain could have publicly humilitated me… and everything I found shows that they not only can’t meet our needs, they can’t even get close.
That makes “alternative fuels” (like ethanol, which is a price-support program for corn farmers) just a diversion from solving the real problem. Really solving the problem means making it cheap to drive (even if gasoline is expensive, driving can still be cheap if it uses e.g. electricity), and making it cheap means less money going to the people who pay the lobbyists. You know, like Archer Daniels Midland and the other ethanol distillers?
The petroleum and ethanol interests love this tax-cut idea because it means more money winds up in their pockets. I hate it for exactly the same reason.
And Mr. Kerry Lost, what part of “supply and demand” don’t you understand? They meet at a certain price. If we raise the price with taxes, demand goes DOWN and more money stays in the USA instead of bidding up the price of OPEC oil. If you want to help the poor, do what I’ve been suggesting for months: give them a deductible on their Social Security taxes so they can buy gas with it if they have to, or anything else they want if they can economize.
Mr. Kee, the world is currently burning about 30 billion barrels of oil per year, and discovering only 5 billion. The last year we discovered as much oil as we used was… 1985! New oil fields cannot do the job, because the oil to feed expanding appetites does not exist; we’ve used all the easy-to-get stuff, and it’s time to move away from oil, period.
People are not going to use less oil while it’s cheap. The price at the pump is going to be $3 or more, and the only thing we can do is decide who gets that money: the oil producers (to build madrassas to train terrorists to kill us), or our own government.
The US uses about 200 billion gallons of gasoline and “distillate” (diesel fuel and heating oil) per year. A $2/gallon tax would raise around $400 billion/year to start; with that, we could give every single American a refundable tax credit of about $1300. In my case, that would pay the taxes on 650 gallons of fuel, enough to drive my car some 26 thousand miles a year (yes, I have a 5-passenger people-hauler that gets about 40 MPG, a Passat TDI). If we restricted the credit to taxpayers (roughly 200 million of us), it would be $2000/year each.
I’d come out way ahead. Know who’d pay? The bozo who thinks that driving around in his 8 MPG H2 Hummer makes him look cool.
Yes, raising taxes is a solution. Detroit refused to build efficient cars, claiming nobody wanted them because gas was so cheap. Raise taxes, gas not cheap, Detroit can finally make money building cars that need a lot less gas (through efficiency, electric propulsion, or whatever).
— Engineer-Poet Apr 26, 12:10 PM # - (I might have mis-remembered who I voted for in some years, but the only time I ever voted for a Democrat was in 2004. I’d had enough of Republicans encouraging people to buy gas-guzzlers and sending the money to Saudi terrorists.)
— Engineer-Poet Apr 26, 01:24 PM # - I signed the petition. I say yes cut out the taxes on the people that are paying at the pump. They are the people who use that gas to go to work to pay more taxes. Let the Big Oil Companies take care of that. Check thier bank accounts, they can afford it. You might also take a look at the stock brokers that are controlling the cost you see rising at the pumps.
If the republicans want to slap us in the face with a measley $100.00 tax break, I will take that and see if I can find 1 honest person to donate it to. An honest politician to put into office. (I hope that wouldn’t be impossible.) Maybe one that would try to represent The American Working People, instead of the Big Oil Companies our government seems to represent. $100.00 surely wouldn’t help anyones gas bill, but if everyone donated it to an honest person that wanted to represent the working people of America, instead of Big Oil Companies. Then we might have 1 honest voice in Washington.
— Sheilah Auvenshine Apr 26, 01:29 PM # - ITS A FILIBUSTER..HAPPENING NOW…IN THE SENATE…
Sen Reid…where are the rest of the Democrats? ron Wyden needs backup…HE is holding that floor on OUR behalf…trying to force the issue of recinding the TAX BREAKS for BIG OIL
jon kyl A REPUBLICAN just joined Wyden as a co-sponser…WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATS?????
— Meryl Apr 26, 01:35 PM # - Sheilah, if you want to punish Big Oil, you should ask for a windfall profits tax, not a tax break at the pump for you.
All the tax break does is take from the government, guarantee that more road repair funds come from general fund (and little old ladies who don’t even drive). It’s worse than that actually, since the general fund is empty and we are borrowing.
We’d have to incur more government debt to cover the tax break. And our grandkids would pay for it (again).
— John Apr 26, 01:37 PM # - YES! Recinding the tax breaks are the RIGHT move.
— John Apr 26, 01:38 PM # - My idea for a tax holiday…....
Have every driver set aside and agree on one weekday (the same one) to NOT buy gas. We would probably only need one day to drive the price of gas down to a $1.25 .
We could save months if not years to settle this big problem. It would cost drivers very little money and no real work.
Drivers could end up making money the easy way.
The only thing you could lose is the yolk of Big Oil around your neck.
— jorge Apr 26, 01:57 PM # - John, It doesn’t take from the Government. During the period of this gas tax holiday, the cost of gas will be reduced by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. We will pay for this tax cut by eliminating tax breaks and giveaways to big oil.
This is what the petition says.
— Sheilah Auvenshine Apr 26, 01:58 PM # - Ok, I admit my cycncism was getting the better of me. That is what the pettition says. I have a hard time seeing such a thing carry through with both pieces intact (and balancing in dollars and cents) ... but maybe I should rein myself in.
— John Apr 26, 02:43 PM # - I have read about 20 of these comments, and there is one thing I don’t understand… Why is everybody all up in arms that there will be tax relief of a small amount for a limited time. In the opening paragraphs, it says, “Funds generated by reducing the tax breaks and giveaways to Big Oil will be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund in an amount equal to the revenues lost through the federal tax holiday. The Highway trust fund will continue to collect the revenues needed to continue all of the projects currently planned and funded.” Removing the tax is the only way to punish big oil.
There is no other feasable way to give a break to consumers based on useage: we can’t take the “relief money” back from big oil and send every person in the country a twenty-cent check. We suspend taxes for a little while, and fill the vacancy in gov funds with money from Haliburton and pals—money we already gave those companies.
For the well-wishing environmentalists…
There are people who are getting a lot more screwed over with these tax prices you. I know that many of you are thinking, “hey maybe everyone will ride their bikes to work now. This is all going to work out for the best with these high gas prices.” But what about the people that have jobs that rely on gas?
While this is all good for the environment cause it pushes people to buy hybrid cars, who the heck do you think it is buying those vehicles? It’s not mailmen. There are no hybrid-driving truckers (that I know of)... What I’m saying is that the people buying hybrids are governors, and hollywood, and people who can afford them. Not Joe Schmoe poor or middle blue collar. Joe Shmoe is the one screwed most by high gas prices, and in the long run, the one who is gonna be hit the hardest, I know. But if he’s spending 1,000 more this year, losing a thou because of gas prices, where is he gonna come up with the money to buy a hybrid.
— shellbelle101 Apr 26, 02:45 PM # - #130: ” My idea for a tax holiday…....
Have every driver set aside and agree on one weekday (the same one) to NOT buy gas. We would probably only need one day to drive the price of gas down to a $1.25 .”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, your idea is to not buy gas on a certain day but continue to drive the same amount thereby needing to buy gas on a different day. Please explain how that is going to save anyone anything. Are you a politician?
— Kee Apr 26, 03:34 PM # - #110/111
Al Gore ran on an issue that he would raise gas taxes so that we would have to pay $5 per gallon. The environmental and global warming wackos supported him. I agree it must be those special interests flooding this board with almost identical posts calling for increased gas taxes.
— joro Apr 26, 03:47 PM # - So how exactly does it help consumers to shut down Ron Wyden when he’s trying to do something effective about the obscene handouts to the oil companies?
and don’t expect people to leave a valid email address when your site leaves them lying around for the freepers to use
— Susan in Iowa Apr 26, 03:53 PM # - ONCE AGAIN – DEMS – BLEW IT!
WHY did you stop Wyden after just five hours.
YOU and OTHER DEMS had a REAL CHANCE to make a difference in letting un-informed AMERICAN VOTERS really understand that REPUGS don’t support working class AMERICANS – just their rich, elite, politically connected – oil (put cash here) friends.
You and EVERY DEM shoiuld
FILLIBUSTER EVERY DAY – SHUT DOWN THE SENATE –
It is the PEOPLE’s – you must give it back to the people.
STAND UP AND SHOUT – like WYDEN and FEINGOLD.
Otherwise, step aside.
— Aeon Apr 26, 04:23 PM # - Mr. Reid, what the hell is WRONG with you??
For once a Senate Democrat produces a fully-descended pair of testicles, and proceeds to mount a classic filibuster on the floor of the Senate, trying to stand up to the Big Oil whores who the Democrats alwaysclaimto oppose, and you turn around and KNEECAP the guy when he’s ready to keep going?
A weak move on your part, Mr. Reid… an unbelievably weak move. And you wonder why so many people across the country think that the Democrats don’t stand for anything in particular? Maybe it’s because every time one of them tries to, they get shoed up the ass by their own people.
Sounds to me like Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, and Paul Hackett need to all have a beer together…
— Uh... Clem. Apr 26, 04:26 PM # - Senator Reid:
Shame on you for shutting down Senator Wyden’s attempt to shut off at least some of the corporate welfare being given to the Oil companies.
The reason Democrats don’t win elections is because people like you won’t provide the leadership for the Democratic Party that the American people crave.
SHAME SHAME SHAME
— paul lukasiak Apr 26, 04:31 PM # - #124
I want to bankrupt the #$*&ing oil dictatorships) but I’m no leftist.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 12:10 PM #
I think you are. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 calls for the instruments of production to be owned by the state.
And as for “alternative fuels”, ..........I found shows that they not only can’t meet our needs, they can’t even get close.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 12:10 PM #
How much gas and oil consumption does one nuclear power plant replace? Why are we blowing up dams that are producing electricity and replacing them with coal or gas fired plants? Why does it take 10 years to get permits (if they will be issued at all) to build a solar energy farm? Face it, Harry Reid and his pals on the left want to make America a third world country so they can put themselves in power.
America lost 8 years because Clinton never had an energy policy. President George W. Bush proposed a policy which was promptly obstructed and filibustered by the Democrats and eventually watered down so that we are in the mess we are in today.
give them a deductible on their Social Security taxes so they can buy gas with it if they have to, or anything else they want if they can economize.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 12:10 PM #
So you want to bankrupt Social Security sooner than it will go bankrupt now? This was another program ignored for 8 years by Clinton and when President George W. Bush tried to fix it, the Democrats and Harry Reid obstructed and filibustered. Fixing the gas price problem by using Social Security funds is idiotic.
— joro Apr 26, 04:31 PM # - In my watching of the filibuster, it was apparent to me that Senator Reid was HELPING Wyden. Multiple times throughout the event, He and a couple other Dem Senators hefted softball questions to Wyden to help him keep going.
When they made their point that Republicans would not allow a vote on this amendment, they quietly ended the filibuster, and now the story is that, despite five hours of an attempt to get a vote to save taxpayers money, Republicans would not allow it.
I have to say, this whole bit of political theater was very impressive, and shrewd on the part of Reid and the Democrats. And I thank Senator Reid for helping provide Wyden the backup he needed to keep this going long enough to make the point that Republicans care more about the oil industry than American citizens.
— Adam Piontek Apr 26, 04:35 PM # - “Give ‘em Hell Harry”.....? What a joke. You’re kidding, right? You don’t give anybody hell on anything Harry. You cave each and every time. Your shut down of Senator Wyden’s short filibuster is disgraceful.
Soccer moms in the San Fernando Valley of California are watching you and the Dems Harry, and we are disgusted. GET A SPINE MAN!... or we’ll get a new party.
— Calmom Apr 26, 04:44 PM # - You know, if you can’t afford a hybrid, there are plenty of small, economy cars that get much better mileage (and are also cheaper to buy) than big cars and Selfish Utility Vehicles.
I’m no radical personally. I’m pretty much a moderate Democrat. I’m not much of an environmentalist beyond believing that we have to keep the air and water clean, and the Earth habitable, for current and future humans. If it would be good for humans (it obviously wouldn’t), I’d support killing off every other species on the planet.
But someone says “global warming wackos?” The only wackos are those who don’t believe what every scientist not bought and paid for by polluters says is happening, really is happening.
I also think that while there are good arguments for raising gas taxes, especially if there were a refundable tax credit for low and middle income people so that those who consume less gas than average would come out ahead, I’d hate to see the Democrats propose that and ruin the chances of big midterm election gains.
As I’ve written before, we can have it both ways: We can drive just as much and reduce consumption of gas, in the long run anyway, just by taxing the hell out of buying a new gas guzzler, be it a big car or an SUV, while having a tax credit lower the effective price of hybrids or other cars that don’t use much or any gas.
Many fewer people would buy gas guzzlers, more people would buy hybrids (which would then become cheaper beyond the tax credit as more were made due to economies of scale), and we could drive just as much, only in different vehicles.
Eventually, hybrids would come down in price such that everyone could afford them, or some alternative fuel cars would become popular and affordable, and the threshhold for the gas guzzler tax could go up so that it penalized anyone who bought anything but a hybrid or alternative fuel car.
Oh, and one other thing: that lie about Al Gore, who never proposed making gas $5/gallon. That had to be picked up from one of the right wing’s liars—Limbaugh, O’Lielly, Hannity, whoever, because he never proposed that.
It would be good policy to raise the gas tax moderately, but awful politics and the Dems shouldn’t do it; but neither should they cut it. If someone says he or she is suffering because of the prices at the pump, my first question is: Are you driving a big vehicle or a small one? It was very much against the national interest to buy SUV’s and big cars no matter what the price of gas was, as many of the countries helped when oil prices rise are the ones who sponsor terrorism. If you were selfish enough to do it anyway, I’m glad you’re paying for it now.
People driving gas guzzlers who complain about how much they pays for gas have only themselves to blame. Most people can’t afford hybrids, but anyone who can afford a car at all can afford a small one with high gas mileage.
— Ken Apr 26, 04:46 PM # - “now the story is that, despite five hours of an attempt to get a vote to save taxpayers money, Republicans would not allow it.”
Had Reid actually had Wyden’s back, the story would probably have been more like a seven or eight hour attempt than a five hour one.
But we mustn’t rock the boat too much, must we? Somebody’s campaign contributors might get ticked.
— Uh... Clem. Apr 26, 04:48 PM # - Joro, what Dubya wanted to do was not to fix Social Security but to destroy it. Diverting money into private accounts takes it away from the Social Security fund.
Instead, eliminate the cap on earnings taxed by the Social Security tax. Then you increase the amount of money coming into the Social Security trust fund and it remains solvent forever.
— Ken Apr 26, 04:51 PM # - Here’s what I wrote (I signed the petition):
This isn’t a bad step – people are hurting out there – but what we really need to do is find ways to encourage real competition in the energy industry to lower prices, and fund real alternatives: public transportation, higher fuel economy vehicles, and new energy sources other than oil.
There are many who claim “the market” will fix everything – just let the prices rise and do nothing. Well, the market will be just fine – but it also doesn’t care how many people it hurts in the process of “fixing” things. The effect of our oil dependence right now is a a transfer of wealth from every citizen to the oil producers – $100 billion last year in profits to the oil companies, and many many billions more to Middle Eastern and other nations who do not all wish us well.
Given that these companies are making (record) profits, there’s obviously room for lower prices for consumers. Strengthened anti-trust enforcement would surely help; government regulation in other forms may be necessary in the longer run.
What we need is not just this short-term relief, but a longer-term plan to turn oil profits into funding for real alternatives. Strong regulation, or perhaps ultimately, nationalization of the oil companies, could do it: if we had a competent and trustworthy government to oversee it, that is.
— Arthur Smith Apr 26, 04:55 PM # - HYPOCRITES!
“Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!” charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. “They are too cozy with the oil industry.”
She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg)—even though her Senate office was only a block away.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. “Get tough on big oil!” he demanded of the Bush administration.
By comparison, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was a model of conservation. She told a staffer idling in a Jetta to leave without her, then ducked into a sushi restaurant for lunch before making the journey back to work.
At about the same time, House Republicans were meeting in the Capitol for their weekly caucus (Topic A: gas). The House driveway was jammed with cars, many idling, including eight Chevrolet Suburbans (14 mpg).
America may be addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it. But America is in the denial phase of this addiction—as evidenced by the behavior of its lawmakers. They have proposed all kinds of solutions to high gas prices: taxes on oil companies, domestic oil drilling and releasing petroleum reserves. But they ignore the obvious: that Americans drive too much in too-big cars.
Senators were debating a war spending bill yesterday, but the subject invariably turned to gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) engaged his deputy, Dick Durbin (Ill.), in a riveting colloquy. “Is the senator aware that the L.A. Times headline reads today, ‘Bush’s Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Bucket’?”
“I’m aware of that,” Durbin replied.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. “Oil is worth what people pay for it,” he argued.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) sounded the alarms. “We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel!”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. “We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency,” she urged.
But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).
Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush “remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards.”
Also waiting: three Suburbans, a Nissan Armada V8, two Cadillacs and a Lexus. The greenest senator was Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who was picked up by his hybrid Toyota Prius (60 mpg), at quadruple the fuel efficiency of his Indiana counterpart Evan Bayh (D), who was met by a Dodge Durango V8 (14).
As a political matter, Democrats clearly sense that they have the advantage on the high gas prices, judging from the number of speeches and news conferences. “The cost of Republican corruption when it comes to energy is hitting home very clearly for America’s middle class,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exulted yesterday morning.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced an amendment to repeal oil-company tax breaks and distribute $500 tax rebates to consumers. It was quickly ruled out of order.
But Republicans were clearly feeling defensive. “We passed an energy bill last year, last July,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) pleaded at a morning news conference. “It changes CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards. It changes some of the things that we can do—I’m sorry, changes not the CAFE standards, but changes some of the supply issues, boutique fuels, all these things.”
Only Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who can speak freely because he is retiring, was willing to note the disconnect between rhetoric and action. “People say, understandably, ‘Solve our energy problems right now, but don’t make us do anything differently,’ ” he said on the Senate floor.
If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl’s spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.
A sampling of senators’ and staff cars parked along Delaware Avenue NE found that those displaying Democratic campaign bumper stickers had a somewhat higher average fuel economy (23 mpg) than those displaying GOP stickers (18 mpg). A fuel-efficiency rating could not be found for the 1970s-era Volkswagen “Thing” owned by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).
Maybe, lawmakers are starting to learn. When GOP senators had a lunch Tuesday a couple of blocks from the Capitol, many took cars. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the lunch looking for his ride when he spied The Washington Post’s Shailagh Murray. Reconsidering, he set out on foot. “I need the exercise,” he reasoned
— Scot Robinson Apr 26, 04:58 PM # - Ah, I see Joro (#140) is a good little slur-bot. Communist? (snicker)
I think Joro’s learned a lot from the Communists, though (esp. Gramsci); he’s an expert at attacking people with labels (“special interest”, “Communist”) instead of addressing their arguments. Of course, astroturfers don’t write highly technical blogs for two years before giving a pol a piece of their mind. Go ahead, click through my blog link, I dare you. And tell us ALL (right HERE) what nuclear power (which makes electricity, and ONLY electricity) has to do with gasoline prices! (I’ve written on that too.)
OTOH, I think Joro may be an astroturfer or attack dog for the oil interests. He spends a lot of time attacking anything that will keep this “tax cut” (read: 18.4¢ addition to the oil companies’ margin) from going through. His parting comment about Social Security is proof; if people pay for part of it at the pump instead of in their payroll deductions, it doesn’t change the solvency one bit.
But don’t expect someone like Joro to admit it.
And Mark Dayton (quoted in #147) hit the nail on the head.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 26, 05:58 PM # - I wish to add my heartfelt agreement with the folks on this blog, who have expressed their concern for Planet Earth, and those who have spoken out against corporate government. The issue is not just about the price of gas, but it is about changing the leadership of America to enable Free Enterprise. “We The People” can come up with the solutions, to these problems, that exist because of profit and greed. If research and developement were separate from government we would not be traveling by obselete modes of transportation, or driving automobiles that are enefficiant and overly complicated.
1 With all due respect, a 0.184 cent/gallon price reduction will have very little impact on my bottom line. I drive a car with a 14 gallon tank, every time I fill up, this plan will save me at most a whopping $2.57. I can’t believe that the Federal government only adds 0.184 cents per gallon tax to the cost of our fuel.
2 We need alternatives to oil, not politically-motivated attacks at oil companies and Repubs. While I’m no fan of Big Oil, I want Dems to make a committment to real changes in the energy landscape. Unfortunately, this bill addresses a symptom, not a cause.
3 Please consider, before you and the rest of the Democrats push for lower gasoline prices, that we have never paid the real price of a gallon of gas in this country. I had the opportunity to live in Germany for 2 years in the 1980s, and my wife and I typically paid over $5.00 per gallon in 1988 dollars!!
5 I totally agree with the above writers. This a most stupid move by the Democrats. We need to get in line to reduce our use of oil and get used to higher costs and start conserving rather than foolishy and shortsightly squandering what we have. Higher prices send the right signal to the economy: conserve. I have a couple young children. I wish you would think a little further than the next election
6 Dear Senator Reid, I favor increasing the tax on gas! Although there are so many awful things done by the Republican administration, I think that their refusal to take effective steps to halt human sources of global warming is going to turn out to be the very worst. The Democrats should not be aiding the Republicans in this folly, but pushing bills to encourage alternative energy, reduced use of fossil fuels and curbing of emmissions. I am a retired scientist and current on much of the scientific literature. Nearly 100% of scientists concur that global warming is a severe threat and in great part caused by human activities. The most recent articles indicate that we are close to a tipping point in being able to halt disasterous consequences. I am extremely disappointed that you have chosen to push so wrong an action for what you think is an immediate political advantage.
9 Wow, good to hear others have the same thoughts I do. The high gas prices are a great thing for our country. If they are artificially inflated then it means that we may take action now rather than waiting till the last drop of oil/sunlight is used up (sunlight due to pollution). Perhaps we can make some serious strides in the direction of SUSTAINABLITY.
10 Ouch!
Dear Harry,
I must respectfully & strongly disagree with your latest effort, and I am very disappointed in you. Sponsoring this nonsense is exactly the wrong thing to do and it sends the wrong message. I agree with the comments sent by other bloggers, and vigorously oppose this latest effort. Lowering gas prices has the wrong effect – it will increase consumption. We need to DECREASE consumption!!!
12 I was moved by your email, not to sign the petition supporting the idea of a gas tax holiday, but to find a way to tell you that I think it is a misguided effort. On finding your blog, I see that there are many others that feel the same.
Please – RAISE gas taxes. Use the money to pay for research into other energy sources. The higher price for gas will make those alternatives more affordable, and will slow our rabid consumption of an invaluable but finite resource.
14 I’d like to add my voice to all of the comments above. Normally, I support every single Democratic initiative. This one—NO. It’s wrong for the environment. Not only would I, like the others who left comments, far prefer to raise taxes, I want to see Americans using public transportation, bikes, Segways, and walking. The higher the price of gas, the more these methods become the norm.
15 I’m glad to see that many others have written to agree with me on this, but I’ll add to it. I’ve agreed with just about every other initiative you’ve sent to this mailing list, but I strongly disagree with this one.
19 Although I have appreciated Harry Reid’s willingness and strength to stand up when other politicians are too busy being politicians, here I stand aside. It is an outrage, UNAMERICAN, immoral and should be illegal for oil companies to be making record-breaking profits and executives walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars during this need to rethink our consumption. (I see Americans breaking their back workin harder than those fat guys, but that is the same old song waiting to rise up again.) Lowering gas prices is not the answer. This is a precious, unrenewable resource. It should be costly and thoughtful dealt with
21 It is well known that petrolium resources are limited, and the use of them is damaging to the environment. I believe that the majority of the world, not just Americans, and regardless of political stance, can agree that reducing overall use and dependance on derived products would be beneficial to our country’s political image, the planet as a whole, and economies at all levels once industries such as transportation shift toward alternative energies. They will, too, for fossil fuels are obsolete, and the need for transportation and energy remains.
23 I just want to add one more voice of dissention. I am really disappointed with this short-sighted effort. Rather than support our oil addiciton, I would prefer to see efforts that reduce dependence. As others have stated, we need long term solutions, i.e. better urban planning and, of course, energy alternatives, rather than providing a few pennies for temporary “relief.” Thanks for providing this forum!
24 Dear Harry – I hope you read the comments on your blog re: the Menendez Amendment. Your views and leadership on this issue—i.e., pushing to reduce taxes on gasoline—is as wrongheaded and shortsighted as can be, for most all the reasons elucidated in the comments on your blog. Please, PLEASE, give us real leadership on alternative energy initiativies, decreasing oil consumption, addressing global warming, etc., and stop pandering to short-term interests.
25 Senator Reid, what are you thinking? Don’t be so petty and think this will get you more votes.
Do something Senatorial and actually good for America.
Oil is not going to get more plentiful, we’ll just squander it like after the 70’s fuel shortage.
We need to finally come to grips with the fact that we cannot continue to waste energy like before.
28 I could only support this amendment if it came as part of a bill with real energy reform. Reform with teeth – browbeating Detroit into higher fuel efficiency for cars.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Except for some Neotroll talk like the following post, it seems pretty evident that “We The People are
more concerned about alternative energy solutions, and ecological concerns, than about cutting gas prices.
45
1. Open ANWR
2. Start drilling off the coast of Florida
3. Start drilling off the coast of California
4. Ease restrictions on typses of fuel (there are currently hundreds of blended fuels that various governments have mandated, primarily California)
5. Allow oil companies to build new refineries
6. Build wind mills off Nantucket
7. Build more power generating nuclear facilities
The U S Congress has the power and the obligation to make all of the above happen. The President does not have the power, Congress does. It is time for Congress to take action on the energy problems which they have not addressed even though there have been plenty of wake up calls since the early 70’s.
— Kee Apr 26, 07:59 AM #
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember Kee, that the US Congress works for “We The People”.
— linus Apr 26, 06:02 PM # - Wow, the discussion here is wilder than the suggestion that 60-days of cutting the federal gas tax will accomplish anything.
I like Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s lines “We have 25 percent of the world’s energy consumption but we have only 5 percent of the population and only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves … we are on a collision course with disaster and we have to do something very meaningful about it. ”
http://www.setamericafree.org/safupdate102005.htm
I can’t say anything more clear than that! A teacher/scientist congressman, who’d think of such a combination!
There are no quick fixes to a 100 year addiction.
Lower prices by cutting a tiny tax at best merely delays our day of reckoning.
Higher energy prices are needed to “break the monopoly power” of oil and encourage alternative fuels and technology. I would have prefered “managed” price increases via gradual tax increases over the current wild market speculation, but in whatever form, higher prices are the “market signal” to change course.
— Tom Ruen Apr 26, 06:25 PM # - Harry,
I doubt you read this, but you were a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT today! Ron Wyden, our state’s “good” Senator, put his neck on the line today by filibustering for a vote to cut off corporate welfare to the Oil Companies and you stepped in to stop it. Just what could you be thinking?
Wyden’s message is one that is correct and will resonate with every voter in America. We get creamed at the pump while Big Oil makes record profits, and CEO’s retire like golden cows. They don’t need our tax dollars subsidizing their billions in profit, we already do that just by buying gasoline. Today’s filibuster was a populous message that could help court voters to our side and you wimp out. Unbelievable and lame!
— rat bastahd Apr 26, 06:46 PM # - So Harry,
Why exactly did you cut off Ron Wyden, hmmm? You know the blogs are going to hunt you now. If they find anything coming out of the ground there in NM or anything going into your pocket from Texas…well, you’ll be giving tours on Hub Corn’s ranch, brother. You’ve suddenly fallen into the ‘suspect’ column. Way to go.
Dan
— Dan from Oregon Apr 26, 06:56 PM # - Remember Kee, that the US Congress works for “We The People”.
— linus Apr 27, 06:02 PM #
++++++++++++++++++++
What’s your point?
— Kee Apr 26, 08:05 PM # - Obviously that what is being discussed here is not to …
1. Open ANWR
2. Start drilling off the coast of Florida
3. Start drilling off the coast of California
5. Allow oil companies to build new refineries
7. Build more power generating nuclear facilities
But to find solutions for using less resouorces.
*******************
4. Ease restrictions on typses of fuel (there are currently hundreds of blended fuels that various governments have mandated, primarily California)
Questionable…The additives in California are water soluble, and hazardous to all animal life.
********************
6. Build wind mills off Nantucket
This is a good idea. Windmills in the Columbia Gorge are a good idea too…
— linus Apr 26, 09:09 PM # - #154 linus
“6. Build wind mills off Nantucket
This is a good idea. Windmills in the Columbia Gorge are a good idea too…”
Tell that to Ted Kennedy (about the Nantucket windmills). He’s trying to kill that project.
Great environmentalist. HA!!!
— Steve Apr 26, 09:55 PM # - Hahahaha! ah what a hoot! How did I know that ass joro would think global warming is a farce. What an idiot. Even if you didn’t believe that human influence has a bearing on it, any one with half a brain understands that the threat is real and that we ARE making it worse, DAILY. Of course if you are one of those assholes (insert – joro – here) that thinks it is a farce, how about you just leave the planet ASAP.
— pcruz Apr 26, 11:02 PM # - I do not agree with elimination of gasoline tax. America must get off of its oil habit, and only higher prices will influence decisions concerning where people live and what people drive. We must eliminate governmental subsidies to big corrupt oil companies.
— kurt Apr 26, 11:11 PM # - God bless you if you read even a fraction of these comments, Senator. It’s pretty clear that people want the Senate to work on long term solutions rather than short term pandering.
We’re not as dumb as we look!
But seriously, when are we going to shut down the Senate again and remind Pat Roberts that he promised to deliver Phase II by now.
So far all he has done is stonewall any serious investigation. Roberts denied the intelligence committee the ability to interview anyone in the DoD until the DoD Inspector General finishes his investigation.
Where are we on that? Is anyone even asking?
Will the Senate ever ask Doug Feith directly why he established an illegal shadow intelligence gathering function within the Department of Defense? Why the DoD completely by-passed the professional intelligence agencies in order to report directly to Scooter Libby and Vice President Cheney? Is any of that going to come out in the DoD Inspector General’s report?
Not likely.
The DoD Inspector General did it to Bunny Greenhouse when she blew the whistle on the no-bid contracts to KBR.
Why are agencies allowed to investigate themselves? Does Congress have any role whatsoever in establishing accountability?
Senator Levin sent several letters to Feith asking for information and he basically taunted the Senate, saying the Senate does not have a need to know or some other lame gaff.
Well the Senate does have a need to know. The American people have a need to know exactly how this country was convinced that 9/11 had anything at all to do with Iraq.
Please shut down the Senate again until Senator Roberts knows we’re not buying his cover up.
— Dean Apr 26, 11:39 PM # - 154
6. Build wind mills off Nantucket
— linus Apr 27, 09:09 PM
“Nought in my back yad” – Teddy
— lvdrummer Apr 27, 01:39 AM # - #145
Joro, what Dubya wanted to do was not to fix Social Security but to destroy it. Diverting money into private accounts takes it away from the Social Security fund.
Instead, eliminate the cap on earnings taxed by the Social Security tax. Then you increase the amount of money coming into the Social Security trust fund and it remains solvent forever.
— Ken Apr 27, 04:51 PM #
Putting Social Security dollars into private accounts kept the money out of the “Tax and Spend” Democrats hands and would prevent them from wasting it on nonsense redistribution of wealth programs.
Eliminating the cap on Social Security would result in Bill Gates having a Social Security pension of millions per year. That would accelerate bankruptcy of the program.
— joro Apr 27, 02:01 AM # - #156
— pcruz Apr 27, 11:02 PM #
I see you again are posting in your area of expertise as a gay lover.
— joro Apr 27, 02:19 AM # - #148
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 05:58 PM #
Twas you who wants to bankrupt the expletive deleted oil companies. That leaves the government to run them which is a Communistic agenda item. If that wasn’t your intention, then please explain what you meant.
You say I am a:
slur-bot
astroturfe
attack dog
Why do you libs always resort to name calling when you have lost an argument?
— joro Apr 27, 02:32 AM # - This part of Reid’s blog should be permanently preserved by the GOP as excellent examples of how “Tax and Spend” liberals think. I have never seen in one place so many Demmies advocating raising taxes and suggesting ways to spend those dollars on asinine wealth redistribution programs.
— joro Apr 27, 02:41 AM # - Every Democrat in the House today voted against providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4975) to provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes.
More confirmation that Democrats are in a continuing culture of corruption and Pelosi knows if the bill passes she and some of her fellow Democrats might be headed to prison. The Bill provides for loss of pensions and prison for crimes while in the Congress.
— joro Apr 27, 02:46 AM # - Mr. Joro,
It appears that reading is one of your weak points; I want to bankrupt the oil DICTATORSHIPS, namely Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and the other hostile nations propped up by oil money. You can read every word I wrote here:
http://giveemhellharry.com/blog/101/help-democrats-lower-gas-prices-now#c008018
I want them to go bankrupt because we don’t need their product any more, and I expect capitalism to do most of the work. I would not expect someone of your weak intellect to grasp this, however. And if you don’t like people rubbing your nose in the fact that you have no understanding of what you are supposedly responding to, you should do a better job.
Since you raised the subject, I suggest you begin by explaining why nuclear power has anything to do with gasoline prices, at least until we get a large fraction of electric or partly electric vehicles. It’s quite hypocritical of you to complain about name-calling when that’s all you’ve done.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 03:01 AM # - #160-#164, joro says…...
“This part of Reid’s blog should be permanently preserved by the GOP as excellent examples of how “Tax and Spend” liberals think. I have never seen in one place so many Demmies advocating raising taxes and suggesting ways to spend those dollars on asinine wealth redistribution programs.”
— joro Apr 28, 02:41 AM #
Actually, joro, ALL of your posts are prime examples of the last 30% of deluded Americans that still actively practice bush worship. You, son, are nothing more than a rabid fundamentalist, neo con talking point.
#165, engineer poet says…...
“I want to bankrupt the oil DICTATORSHIPS, namely Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and the other hostile nations propped up by oil money.
I want them to go bankrupt because we don’t need their product any more, and I expect capitalism to do most of the work.”
This bold proposal may be the most sensible post yet on this topic.
If this doesn’t happen, we will be in one stupid war after another, or one perpetual “long” war all over the globe until the last drop of oil has disappeared.
We must overcome our denial, and realize that we are a spoiled and pampered nation.
We need to recognize that our “leaders” are genuinely insane and all hope for our salvation from this moment on lies in the hands of the people.
We must get past the misguided notion that we have some inherent right to all the oil on the planet.
We need to think and act our way out of this one, and not be passive, whining voyeurs watching our own greed and rampant consumerism destroy us.
We need to see through the smoke and mirrors and learn to make wise choices or we will witness our own demise.
— Poor Daddy Apr 27, 04:29 AM # - #165
Since you raised the subject, I suggest you begin by explaining why nuclear power has anything to do with gasoline prices, — Engineer-Poet Apr 28, 03:01 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not “Mr Joro” but let me help you.
Since your major was apparently poetry, certainly not engineering, there is a minor item you need to consider…....
Gasoline is made from oil, most power plants produce electricity by burning oil. If the power plants switch to nuclear fuel they no longer need the oil and it can be used to produce gasoline. Got that? Please don’t think I am attempting to put you down, you did that quite well yourself by showing your lack of knowledge…......
— Kee Apr 27, 07:39 AM # - its so “let them eat OIL” of the congressional republicans
They want to buy YOU off with a check for $100 to make up for the Billions of dollars BIG OIL is making at the pump….
with today’s price for gas that’s about 2 filler ups for the average SUV owner
and not even enough to take your average OIL executive out to lunch so you can collect your share of the 30 Million dollars in lobbying money BIG OIL is now spreading around DC….
but congress thinks YOU are easily bought off with a check for $100….so the republicans propose to send EVERY car own one of these federal checks….as a way to deal with the high price of gas at the pump
the republicans want you to think this is a gift to you…that you gain something here….the republicans aren’t telling you that its YOUR money they are sending back to you…..money that is needed to cover the cost of things like WAR, katrina recovery, border security, debt reduction, school expenses, HSD costs etc etc etc…..republicans aren’t telling you that by sending every car owner a check they are pushing us further into DEBT because we dont HAVE that money to spare…we are already facing an unprecedented debt in our nation…and republicans have no problem pushing us further into debt….as LONG as we dont demand that real action be taken concerning recinding Billions in tax breaks and Billions in royalty relief for BIG OIL….
can there be a DUMBER proposal then to send us money the government doesn’t have, which they will have to borrow from places like communist china, all in order to protect and defend the obscene profits of their largest benefactor..BIG OIL
as ron wyden said on the floor of the senate yesterday ‘who is congress really working for, the America people or BIG OIL”
The minute the republicans took to the podium and offered to buy the American people off with borrowed money (yet again) as a way to take the focus and the heat off Big Oil (and hopefully slip drilling in anwr into the mix) we have the answer to ron wydens question….congress works for the highest bidder..and BIG OIL is betting that the American people will once again come in second.
— Meryl Apr 27, 08:24 AM # - #168 its so “let them eat OIL” of the congressional republicans
+++++++++++
It isn’t just the Republicans. Congress has been screwing around with the energy situation for the last 30+ years and has accomplished nothing other than appeasement of the greenies.
— Kee Apr 27, 08:43 AM # - Hey, Harry,
While you were driving around what were you driving?
Were you like Boxer and Shumer yesterday.
They had a block to go to a gas protest and they each took seperate SUV.
Dem are really practicing what they preach.
Don’t give us the BS that you are trying to do something about this. Remember when Jimmy Carter was in office. 20% + interest rates and long, long gas lines.
If you really wanted to do something you would stop the stupid comments and get in the senate and try working together with all members of the senate and congress to change things.
Talk is cheap and doesn’t change a thing.
I know it won’t happen but if we American citizens had any sense we would vote every one of you old timers, Democrats and Republicans out of office and get some new young blood in to correct this mess all of you have gotten us in.
One more thing.
If we were not wasting so much money on illegal Mexicans and yes they are illegal if they came here without proper paperwork we would have money to help our elderly. Do you think Americans could go to Mexico and do what the illegals are doing here. All of you need to read what happens to illegals in Mexico. It is not that we don’t like them it is that we can not afford to have them here. Just look at what it is costing America to feed, house, and the medical cost we are spending on them. Get rid of them.
Why can’t the people in prisons work these jobs, and the money made go to pay support to their children. Oh, I forgot this would infringe on their civil rights. Boo Hoo.
PKS
— steward Apr 27, 08:46 AM # - Ken, oil burning for electricity was essentially eliminated in the 1970’s. That was one of the good changes that came out of those old energy crisises.
Very small fractions are now used (1) in startup of coal and natural gas plants, and (2) in diesel generators for remote users
I’ve actually worked in power plants and seen this in action. Oil is used to heat the burners for about a day, and the the switch is made to the real fuel, which you run on for six months or a year, until the next maintenance shutdown.
That book “A Thousand Barrels a Second” has good charts and graphs on this. Again, great book!!!
— John Apr 27, 09:50 AM # - Mr. Kee (#167),
The facts differ with you rather violently. US electric generation from oil peaked in 1978, was down roughly a third in 1980, and now constitutes less than 3% of US consumption. Take it from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html
I’m accumulating a list of energy myths, misconceptions and propaganda, and that particular item is on it.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 10:29 AM # - There goes Kee’s credibility again!
— Greg Apr 27, 12:20 PM # - http://www.madcowprod.com
— Greg Apr 27, 12:31 PM # - Those who are so concerrrrned for the environment, here’s something for you. China is negotiating with communist Cuba to develop oilfields in the Gulf of Mexico, and incredibly, U.S. law prohibits U.S. oil companies from drilling in the same area as the communist Chinese are about to do.
Whomever wants to protest, go to Beijing and Havana and let them know how you feeeel. I’m sure Hu and Castro will listen as well as our politicians do. Then they’ll kick your carcasses out of their country or put you in one of their jails (at least our politicians aren’t allowed to do that).
Forget the Republican idea of sending $100 to everybody. That’s idiotic. Just like a windfall profits tax (as was proven during the Carter administration).
Dump the gas tax and the corporate welfare entitlements to the oil companies. Open up our own drilling exploration in ANWR, off the California coast, and the Gulf Coast. It is ridiculous for the US to restrict oil exploration in its own territory for whatever reason when countries like Cuba and China have no compunction about drilling new resources that will end up lining the pockets of their leaders.
— Steve Apr 27, 01:33 PM # - I gotta weigh in with lots of other posters…we’re not minions driven only by dollars. I care about my consumption, I care about the future of my city and the planet, I care about the air I breath, I drive less when gas is expensive, and that’s OK. That’s economics. I think these knee jerk gas reactions are an insult to intelligent voters. You can’t fix this country’s problems by giving us a $100 check or a 60 day holiday. Look deeper Harry. Look deeper democrats.
— Eric Apr 27, 02:20 PM # - Dear Senator Reid:
Three days ago you threw this rock in the hornets nest asking us to support the Menendez Amendment. So far you have received 175 comments back on this. 90% of them varied between this was a “bad idea” and “this is the worst idea I have ever heard of”. Today you are asking us to support the Democratic party with our dollars. I think you first owe the 90% of us who really question the intelligence of the Democratic Party’s forward thinking, at least on this subject, either a substantiation of what you understand about this that we don’t or a retraction and a “Plan B”.
— Steve Cohn Apr 27, 02:28 PM # - Steve, there is a tactical advanatage to be the LAST country to use up their own oil.
— John Apr 27, 02:29 PM # - And Senator Reid,
I am not going to contibute money or effort to electing Democrats unless they are BETTER than the Republicans. While I have grave concerns over corruption and the rule of law in our one-party government, policy proposals such as this one are sufficiently destructive that I could not work on behalf of a candicate – ANY candidate – who supports them.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 03:08 PM # - I’m one more voice saying this is the worst idea I’ve ever heard from a Democrat. I know it’s political suicide to do the right thing and raise gas taxes, but proposing to lower them is just pandering to voters. We need leaders who will be honest and tell us the hard truths. You’ve just lost my respect. Sorry.
— Ted Linden Apr 27, 03:38 PM # - I just don’t understand it.
Willie Nelson’s Tour bus travels back and forth across the country and uses 100% biodiesel.
There are other alternatives already available but those big corporations don’t want you to know it.
Every government owned vehicle should either be a hybrid or use biodiesel or ethanol.
www
— Greg Apr 27, 03:45 PM # - Ah joro my friend, get that disgusting sparkle out of your eye, I am not the gay lover you are looking for. As everyone here is well aware, your lover lives in the White House. Your stupidity cannot be disguised by your lust. Your lips are so steadfastly adhered to the Bush bung, it’s surprising you can see the keyboard.
We need real solutions to our problems not the ranting of idiots that don’t care to understand the issues we have without first having them filtered by some nut case that uses the Bible as a source of propaganda. Bush has ZERO creativity and even less intelligence. I personally don’t care if we get a Republican or a Democrat next go-round, we just need someone that will NOT be an embarrassment to the country. The first tip would be to find out who joro-coulter endorses then run like hell to the other guy!
— Pcruz Apr 27, 04:24 PM # - #172…I cannot find the “3%” you mentioned but the chart you provided indicates that in 2004, fossil fuels equated to 2,808.5 billion kilowat hours of electricity. If that is 3% fine but it is also a lot of electricity.
— Kee Apr 27, 05:16 PM # - The Democrats / Harry’s plan:
Democrat Gas Tax ‘Holiday’ Hikes Taxes
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ, has come up with a solution to skyrocketing pump prices: He wants to suspend the federal tax on gasoline, saving motorists 18.4 cents a gallon.
But there’s a catch. Democrats want to raise taxes on the big oil companies by an equal amount – a cost they’d inevitably pass along to the consumer.
The Menendez “gas tax holiday” would reduce the cost of regular gas as well as diesel, but it which would last just 60 days. Still, the move could save consumers $100 million dollars per day for as long as it lasts.
But according to the liberal web site Raw Story: “Democrats say the money will be made up by cutting six billion dollars in tax breaks to oil firms.”
If the oil companies pass their new costs along without any carrying charges, it would cancel out all the savings to consumers under the Menendez plan.
If “Big Oil” wants to maintain the same profit margin, however, the companies would have to hike pump prices even further – and the Democrats’ plan could actually end up costing motorists.
Worse still, where the Menendez “gas tax holiday” would be temporary, the tax hikes on oil companies would apparently be permanent.
The proposed Democrat tax increases include:
• A change in accounting methods that would increase the oil companies tax liability when prices rise.
Oil Price Bust Coming—Profit from It!
New Stock Market Report – Limited Time Offer!
Actor Wayne Rogers’ Stock Pick Up 353%
Best and Worst at Vanguard—Independent Rpt.
• Eliminating the tax break on the larger oil companies for accelerated depreciation of expenses associated with “geological and geophysical expenditures.”
• The elimination of royalty relief and other direct spending for oil and gas production incentives.
(from Newsmax)
— Kee Apr 27, 06:00 PM # - Kee, in #183 you say “fossil fuels equated to 2,808.5 billion kilowat hours of electricity”
That’s fossil fuel, which includes coal, yes?
— John Apr 27, 06:11 PM # - #185….yup, about 2/3’s is coal, according to the chart.
— Kee Apr 27, 06:15 PM # - And how much natural gas?
— John Apr 27, 06:36 PM # - Geez, all of you: read the table for yourself. Here’s the URL again:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html
The breakdown is roughly 50% coal, 19% nuclear, 17.5% natural gas, 9% renewable, and 3% petroleum.
See footnote 2: “petroleum” includes petroleum COKE (a byproduct of cracking heavy oils), residual fuel oil (not terribly useful) and waste oil. If these were materials which could be turned into motor fuel easily, we’d be doing it.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 27, 08:49 PM # - #165
I want to bankrupt the oil DICTATORSHIPS, namely Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and the other hostile nations propped up by oil money.
I want them to go bankrupt because we don’t need their product any more, and I expect capitalism to do most of the work. I would not expect someone of your weak intellect to grasp this, however. And if you don’t like people rubbing your nose in the fact that you have no understanding of what you are supposedly responding to, you should do a better job.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 28, 03:01 AM #
Well, how about that? According to Engineer-Poet, we no longer need oil. Problem solved. Thank God we have such brain power posting here who understands these world wide problems and has all the solutions for them.
— joro Apr 28, 01:15 AM # - #168
can there be a DUMBER proposal then to send us money
Meryl Apr 28, 08:24 AM #
Yes, Harry Reid’s proposal to not collect the 18 cent per gallon federal gas tax for 60 days.
— joro Apr 28, 01:22 AM # - #182
Ah joro my friend, get that disgusting sparkle out of your eye, I am not the gay lover you are looking for.
— Pcruz Apr 28, 04:24 PM #
I assure you that you do not bring a sparkle to my eye. I just noted that you have a devout interest in a certain part of my anatomy mentioning it frequently and based on your past posts with your strong consuming support of gays, the conclusion is obvious.
— joro Apr 28, 01:41 AM # - Raise the tax. Raise it high enough so we can feel it, and so that we feel it enough that we change our consumption patterns. And raise it high enough that can use the revenue to develop, create, maintain and encourage alternatives to our over-consumption of energy. We need to look ahead here and “do the right thing” not the easy or comfortable thing. And we need to do it now, not after the next elections.
— ann Apr 28, 09:43 AM # - Good idea! Raise the taxes! Screw the little guy! Who cares if he can barely afford to buy gas for his car to get to work! Give all the tax money to Congress and let them spend it on pork!
Another forward thinking liberal has spoken. People should have to pass an IQ test to vote, that would sure weed out a bunch of liberals.
— Kee Apr 28, 10:11 AM # - Questions
I see the Black Panthers are marching on Duke University. Does that mean Mrs. Bill Clinton will be absent from the Senate while she defends them again?
Why is Mollohan still in Congress?
Why hasn’t Harry Reid gotten Turban Durbin expelled from our Senate?
When is Harry Reid going to turn over to charity the $70,000 of Abramoff connected money he pocketed?
Why did Harry shut Jack Carter (son of Jimma Carter) up during a press conference?
Will the discombobulated Democrat Party dump Harry Reid for his lack of leadership and incompetence?
— joro Apr 28, 06:30 PM # - When will joro’s fucking computer crash? What a blessing that would be!
— Poor Daddy Apr 28, 06:54 PM # - #195, PD…..Why are you such a potty mouth? Does yo mama know you talk like that? I bet she would wash yo mouth out!
— Kee Apr 28, 07:39 PM # - Quoth Joro (#189):
“Well, how about that? According to Engineer-Poet, we no longer need oil. Problem solved. Thank God we have such brain power posting here who understands these world wide problems and has all the solutions for them.”
I’m sorry, I forgot how weak your mind is and I should have been more explicit. We should make oil superfluous to the American economy so that the oil dictatorships will have nothing to sell to us, and then go bankrupt. To accomplish this, people must have an incentive to use alternatives to petroleum (and give them market share and economies of scale) when they are available. Raising taxes on petroleum is an important incentive.
Don’t tell me there isn’t enough non-petroleum energy to do the job, I’ll just quote chapter and verse back at you. It’s all on the blog anyway.
I now return you to the regularly scheduled Joro troll-fest.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 28, 07:55 PM # - Engineer-Poet…...getting rid of oil dependancy is a noble cause. We could get rid of foreign oil dependancy by drilling in a variety of places owned by the USA.
Raising taxes is stupidity.
— Kee Apr 28, 08:01 PM # - I am deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party’s emphasis on attacking the oil companies and focusing on lowering gas prices, while the Republicans (did I hear that right? Yes, the Republicans) are the ones talking about shifting our country’s emphasis away from fossil fuels and into renewables.
As was pointed out by one commentator, suspending the federal fuel tax is a largely symbolic, election-year drop in the bucket. Others have suggested a list of similarly short-term fixes, most of which are environmentally abhorrent. Besides as soon as gas gets cheap again, the incentive to really make lasting changes disappears until the next crisis. Instead, I would love to see the Democrats show some vision and leadership and introduce legislation to end the tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and use the extra money to:
1. Increase and make permanent tax credits and/or rebates for purchasing hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles so that they are actually cheaper to purchase than their gas-guzzling counterparts.
2. Provide full-price tax rebates/credits to homeowners and businesses that install solar or other alternative fuel systems.
3. Give auto companies tax breaks for developing and marketing alternative fuel vehicles.
4. Give universities research grants to find ways to make alternative fuels practical for everyday use.
5. Commit to building an alternative fuel delivery infrastructure in the same way that a commitment was once made to building an interstate transportation infrastructure. If biodiesel were available at every gas station, more people would be using it.
The technology is already out there to really solve this problem. We just need the guts to actually change the way we live.
— charm Apr 28, 10:53 PM # - Kee, drilling in the USA isn’t going to do squat. Look at US historical data (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0502.html), like well counts and total production. We drilled like mad from 1974 to 1985, and our production still went down.
The solution to heroin addiction isn’t finding a better pusher, and the solution to oil addiction isn’t drilling more wells.
And apologies to charm (#199), but “alternative fuels” won’t do it either. If they depend on fossil carbon we’ll run out of it (our “250 year” supply of coal shrinks to more like 30 years if we shift all our motor-fuel demand to it and keep expanding 2% per year), and there isn’t enough biological productivity to capture sufficient carbon to do it the usual way. If we want to replace oil, we can’t keep burning fuel in drivetrains that are only 15% efficient, and we have to replace most burning fuel with something like electricity.
Fortunately, it’s not that difficult; some people are already doing it. See http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/sf-bay-area-second-phev
— Engineer-Poet Apr 29, 12:06 AM # - #197
I’m sorry, I forgot how weak your mind is and I should have been more explicit.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 29, 07:55 PM #
EP, did you ever consider writing what you mean the first time rather than trying to be cutesy with your prose? I do not believe any of us are here to waste our time trying to interpret what you write. Your hidden meanings would be expected of some politician such as the liar Harry Reid. I could be mistaken. Maybe it is just your lack of intelligence and your inability to express yourself that causes these disagreements.
— joro Apr 29, 01:29 AM # - Reid and the Democrats propose a federal gas tax holiday of 60 days and almost 200 representatives of the radical left wing environmental and global warming wacko special interests come out of the woodwork full of rage and promises that they will start a third party or (gasp) vote Republican. These people are not happy unless the government owns all production and doles out the housing, food, clothing and other needs to the workers just as called for by the Communist manifesto of 1848. The Democrat party, as evidenced by Dick Durbin coming out in favor of and supporting the Mayday demonstrations by the illegals, is further evidence that the Democrat party has been taken over by America’s enemy.
— joro Apr 29, 01:46 AM # - #197
To accomplish this, people must have an incentive to use alternatives to petroleum
— Engineer-Poet Apr 29, 07:55 PM #
I will rush out to buy a huge ranch and begin raising horses, donkeys, mules, oxen and other beasts of burden. According to EP and all of his posts, that has to be the future for America.
— joro Apr 29, 01:53 AM # - #200Kee, drilling in the USA isn’t going to do squat.
+++++++++++++++
According to the experts, Venezuela provides 25% of our oil consumption. Venezuela has threatened to stop delivering oil to the US and once again, the experts say that will drive the price of oil to $100 a barrel.
Since ANWR is estimated to have 25% of our oil needs, simple mathematics suggest we dould now have $50 a barrel oil if Congress would simply do their job.
— Kee Apr 29, 08:10 AM # - #204 kee
I recently saw that America’s oil companies are actually (and voluntarily) purchasing less oil from Venezuela. I don’t have a link, but my memory of the numbers is as follows:
In 2004, Venezuela provided 15% of the foreign oil purchases.
In 2005, it was 10%.
The shift in purchases went to Colombia, and who just signed a free-trade with the US, which has a large reserve of untapped oil. Even through the worst of its times, Colombia has maintained an exceptional (and non-socialistic) democracy in South America. The drug problems of its past have largely disappeared (although I’m sure they’re not gone altogether).
Venezuela’s Chavez has been the latest to prop up Colombia’s Marxist terrorists who, for some ungodly reason, still exist (for several decades) as worthless reminders of the brutality of what should be a dead form of fascism, Communism. Fortunately, America’s alliance with Colombia keeps the terrorism to a minimum and balances that tyrant Chavez.
— Steve Apr 29, 09:47 AM # - #205 I recently saw that America’s oil companies are actually (and voluntarily) purchasing less oil from Venezuela. I don’t have a link, but my memory of the numbers is as follows:
— Kee Apr 29, 10:20 AM # - Interesting… post 206 should have talked about the fact that Citgo is owned by Venezuela. For some reason it keeps being erased rather than posted.
— Kee Apr 29, 10:21 AM # - #207
I know that Citgo is owned by Chavez and Venezuela. I avoid their gas stations like the plague (which is what Chavez is).
— Steve Apr 29, 11:18 AM # - You think ANWR is the “magic wand”? Let me deflate that.
According to http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm, ANWR’s oil reserves may be as great as 10 billion barrels. World oil consumption is running about 30 billion bbl/yr, so draining ANWR would allow us to continue “business as usual” for a whole FOUR MONTHS.
yay. whoopee.
If ANWR’s oil comes down the Alaska pipeline at 2 million bbl/day, it will last about 13 years starting from when it begins pumping (maybe 10 years from now). In this particular case, conservation is better than production and conversion picks up where conversion leaves off. 2 million bbl/day is about 22% of US gasoline consumption. If we replaced our 24-MPG fleet of vehicles with 50-MPG vehicles (like Priuses) starting now, we’d be saving over 3 million bbl/day by 2016. Better yet, switching to plug-in hybrids (PHEV’s) could cut fuel needs by 80% over today, so the 9 million bbl/day could be well on its way down to 1.8 million bbl/day by then.
Better yet, 1.8 million bbl/day is only about 28 billion gallons a year. We could probably produce enough ethanol and methanol from garbage, crop wastes and other stuff to replace 900 thousand bbl/day. Voila, petroleum car-fuel demand down 90%. Diesels (mostly trucks) use about another 2.7 million bbl/day, but if half of that moves to rail (10 times as efficient) it’ll cut needs by another 1.2 million bbl/day. (WalMart is pushing to improve its own truck fleet from 6.5 MPG to 13 MPG, and if everyone follows that it would cut another 675,000 bbl/day.)
Note that I just outlined ways to save about 10 million barrels/day of oil – FIVE TIMES WHAT WE COULD GET FROM ANWR – without ANWR. And the technological advances in things such as batteries would not stand still.
We should keep ANWR as a strategic reserve and NOT TOUCH IT unless we have to. Ted Stevens and his desire to curry votes by getting more oil rebates to his constituents should take a back seat to the national interest.
— Engineer-Poet Apr 29, 01:25 PM # - Steven Colbert was priceless!
Excellent!
http://www.rawstory.com/comments/14832.html
— bill_o_carolina Apr 29, 01:52 PM # - WASHINGTON—President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ‘’to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ‘’execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush’s domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
— bill_o_carolina Apr 29, 03:20 PM # - The Constitution!?
It’s just a goddamned piece of paper anyway, right?
— bill_o_carolina Apr 29, 03:24 PM # - The Boston Globe has done a great service by following up on the signing statement issue that the public first became aware of last December. It is a must read – and one that everyone should make five or more copies and distribute to others to read – and ask those who read it to do the same.
It seems that bush has delivered 750 signing statements in his five years and four months that he has held office. That is a rate of about .4 per day. Get it? The rate at which this is happening is MORE than 1 signing statement (going around the constitution) every 3 days.
What is the big deal, you ask? There are several issues at hand, and the implications are disturbing.
1) The Constitution sets up three branches of government – and a balance between those branches to prevent a monarchy sort of system from developing. There is a directly elected branch which (in theory) represents the will of the electorate legislatively. Congress is given the authority to create laws, and to hold the purse-strings. There is a judicial branch that can review the laws to provide oversight of the laws in terms of following the Constitution. And there is an executive branch that administers the laws and carries out the functions of government, that also appoints members of the judiciary (pending senatorial approval), and that can VETO acts/laws from the legislative branch – only then allowing the law to become law if a super-majority of the representatives of the people (congress) vote to override the veto.
The reliance on the signing statement subverts the constitution by disallowing the representatives of the people from creating/passing law – and due to its secretive nature (these are most often created after the law has been signed by the president and are not seen/known by the press or members of congress) there is no way for the congress to assert its Constitutional right/duty to override the president’s veto – because there is no veto. Thus at a rate of one time every three days, President Bush has denied the peoples’ voice via its elected representatives. And done so in secret.
The reliance of the signing statement also subverts the constitution by claiming the right for the president to use HIS view of the constitution as the final arbiter of the law – rather than the judicial branch of the government. While there could be judicial oversight were there challenges, the intentionally secretive nature of this practice almost ensures that no-one knows so there will be no challenges brought to the courts.
Simply – Bush has determined that the Constitutional power he is granted, to VETO acts of congress – is unnecessary and instead claims an Extra-Constitutional means to subvert the will of the people (acts of congress which are – in theory – the representatives of the people). He also has determined that HIS (extremist and opportunistic) views of the Constitution need no judicial review.
Again – the rate of this extra-constitutional activity by Bush is one time every three days.
2) Done in the dark of night (figuratively). These signing statements are filed after he signs the bills into law. In secret with no notice to Congress in terms of his intentions per laws they passed and he signed.
Thus there is no follow-up; no way of knowing what he has “signed into law” but has directed the govt agencies to disregard. Perhaps this article and the constitutional scholars who are cited (and thus can give Congress a place to start – were they to even care – to look in terms of WHERE there have been signing statements, on what topics, in order to see whether or not the law – or bush’s signing statement is being followed by the exec branch (federal agencies). However it appears that to date – within the government there is little record of what the administration is or is not doing per law – over the passed five + years.
Again – the rate of this extra-constitutional activity by Bush is one time every three days. Aren’t folks in congress starting to wonder which provisions that they put into laws are simply being ignored/subverted? At the rate cited one would guess that there is a whole lot occurring in the executive branch that is intentionally hidden from the light of day – just due to these signing statements alone.
Additionally, according to the Globe story, often what Bush signs works to nullify (in terms of how he is directing the govt agencies to act) ‘compromise deals’ that were hammered out during the legislative process… that is items that were they not in the bill, the bill would not have garnered enough votes to pass. There is no way to describe this except as subverting the process.
3) We, the public, first became aware of this practice last December due to the anti-torture legislative fight, followed by a congressional win, followed by news of the “signing statement” – and echoes from Congress of “What the Heck is THAT?” In that case and its infamous follow-up regarding FISAless searches – the administration proclaimed that it was due to National Security reasons (and thus they didn’t have to tell us anything more to keep us safe). And due to the continued post 9-11 fear, that seemed to work – for a couple of months. However – these 750 signing statements wander FAR afield from areas of national security.
...
— bill_o_carolina Apr 29, 03:35 PM # - IMPEACH THE CRIMINALS NOW!!!
— bill_o_carolina Apr 29, 03:37 PM # - Depleted Uranium in Afghanistan
Has a generation in Afghanistan been poisoned by America’s use of depleted uranium in bombs? See the evidence for yourself, here and here. Be warned: These are the most disturbing photographs you will ever see.
Between 800 and 1200 metric tons of uranium munitions were used in this country. Since medical facilities are so primitive, we cannot know the percentage of pregnancies affected by DU. But: “In the month of May 2005, in one maternity ward in Kabul, 150 babies were born deformed.”
Here’s another disturbing fact: The people who justify the use of DU shells tend to be the same type of folk who argue that abortion is murder.
from; www.cannonfire.blogspot.com
— bill_o_carolina Apr 29, 04:43 PM # - Engineer- Poet, Apparently you think it is okay to do nothing other than continue to avoid oil exploration and drilling by the USA while the greenies dance around a fire and chant incoherently.
“Saving oil” ain’t gonna happen, be realistic!
— Kee Apr 29, 06:12 PM # - My problem was with Senator Durbin on today’s Meet the Press when Jim Cramer challenged these bozos to repeal the tariff on technology from Brazil that would allow us to purchase ethanol cheaply. Durbin says that he wants jobs in Illinois rather than the cheaper gas prices that this repeal would accomplish. Let us license the technology, pay Brazil and let them produce it here like Toyota cars. We have a bunch of idiots in congress and until they wake up I think we should vote out all the incumbents including Republicans and Democrats. They all have their special interests that rise above the general welfare of the nation. We need statesmen Harry!!!! We need to get rid of Bush and Durbin.
— Gary Anderson Apr 29, 11:12 PM # - Kee, it happened already. Look at the data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0511.html
Gasoline demand FELL from 1978 to 1982. Remember, lower 48 production peaked in 1970 and Alaska production peaked in 1980.
We can follow the curve instead of throwing away our national security for the sake of imports. We could cut need for motor fuel two ways:
1. Make vehicles more efficient; a Prius is almost as big as a Camry but gets far better mileage.
2. Convert to non-petroleum energy sources. Electricity is clean, quiet and has a huge generation and distribution network that’s already paid for, so that’s the obvious thing to start with.
And if I catch any greenies dancing around a bonfire chanting nonsense, I’ll be torn between a desire to put them to work recycling Hummers and pleasure that the only fuel they’re burning is renewable. ;-)
— Engineer-Poet Apr 30, 09:48 AM # - “To be sure, both the Democrats and the Republicans purport to have an answer to this obvious question. Menendez’ amendment claims it would be “funded by repealing three unnecessary tax breaks currently enjoyed by oil and gas companies, and also eliminating royalty relief and other production incentives enacted last year as part of the Energy Bill”, while Domenici’s press release talks more vaguely about repealing “tax incentives for oil companies.” This is a favorite game played by the politicians, to pretend that measure X is to be paid for with tax Y. But this is always a complete fantasy. The only kind of money the government collects is green. It all goes into a big pot called revenues, and all comes out in an even bigger fountain called spending. Pretending that revenues Y (and none of the other revenues) pay for program X (and none of the other spending) is simply a ruse to try to convince voters of the worthiness of raising revenue through Y or the relative affordability of spending on X.
If Democrats or Republicans have any proposals for raising additional revenue, either through Y, or Z, or any other means, let’s put them on the table on their own right. Even if we pile up everything anyone has suggested for revenue, with no additional spending and no new other tax cuts, deficits will be increasing as far as one can see into the future. There can be no question that, in the current environment, the fiscal source of a marginal dollar of spending on X or new tax giveaway is more government borrowing.”
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/04/more_political.html
— John Apr 30, 10:48 AM # - Harry,
Forgive me for repating what many others here have said, but from what I can see you politicians dont seem to really get it. Oil and gasoline prices are distractions from the real issue here.
We need to start using alternatives to fossil fuels. The sooner we can do that, the sooner we can lower the cost of oil and do something about greenhouse emissions. How about sponsoring some kind of legislation that will encourage this economy to get off of its oil addiction? The sooner we can do that, the sooner we can make real change for the better.
If Americnas think oil comanies make too much money, then we need to have some real alternatives that compete with them for an energy source. Oil companies will become energy companies when it is in their best interest. Until then, all we will get is silly feel good advertisements, and very high oil and gas prices.
Outrageous oil company profits are a symptom of our need to look for other sources of energy. Until we do that, keep your stinking tax cuts, refunds and silly band-aid approaches. Think outside of the box for a change.
Until I start seeing the discussion change to alternative fuel sources, I know that you are not really serious about doing anything, and will vote accordingly.
— Adam Hoyles Apr 30, 11:04 AM # - Dear Senator,
I’m grateful for the opportunity to post on your blog. I hope you take to heart to study more the proposals that many have made here for raising taxes on oil. With all due respect Senator, I hope you heed the opinions of this small sample of your closest allies.
The Democrats need to reframe this debate from merely high gas prices. No party should win at the polls because they can make oil cheap.
Let’s hear some leadership from the party of FDR and Harry Truman. Far less controversial than global warming, which most people agree on now, is that the world is running out of cheap fossil fuels while demand increases. Imagine when 450 million middle class Chinese start driving SUVs and heating their 2500 sq.feet homes.
What will the Democrats do about this? How do cheaper fuel prices at the pump help? Many suggestions appear on this blog.
Can the Democrats start a national dialogue about this problem? Can the government spear head research and development of a new fuel industry the way JFK did with the space program, helping jump start the semi-conductor industry, helping change the way all people in the world view our planet?
As someone else posted here, it pains me to hear only the Republicans talking about alternative fuels while the Democrats just want to remove the Federal tax that not only does very little from a tactical level, but is the wrong way to go from a strategic level.
Senator, you’ve been using email and your website and blog as a way to get support from Americans all over the country. The question is now, how will you listen to what’s been posted here?
— Tse-Sung Wu Apr 30, 01:46 PM # - I just looked at the all new improved harry reid blog. What a biased left wing POS bunch of garbage that is!
— Kee Apr 30, 08:41 PM # - #222 Kee
You said:
“I just looked at the all new improved harry reid blog. What a biased left wing POS bunch of garbage that is!”
How absolutely right you are!!! It was shameful to have to see President Bush suck up to scumbags like Harry Reid on the Senate illegal alien bill, when EVERYBODY knows that Reid will stab anyone in the back to make political points. That first post of his on the new blog is just such a case. While accusing Bush of a public relations stunt, he does the exact same thing.
Harry Reid is a disgrace. That he is a Democrat is par for the course; a political party of disgraces.
— Steve May 1, 08:25 AM #
commenting closed for this article
