Bush Orders Probe Into Gas Price Cheating By NEDRA PICKLER,

[ducks]

Bush Orders Probe Into Gas Price Cheating By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
59 minutes ago



President Bush is trying to calm Americans' outrage over soaring gas prices by ordering an investigation into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated, his spokesman said Monday.

During the last few days, Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into possible cheating in the gasoline markets, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Bush planned to announce the action Tuesday during a speech in Washington.

Bush is under pressure to do something about gas prices that have reached nearly $3 a gallon. In a new CNN poll, 69 percent of respondents said gasoline price increases had caused them personal hardship. Other polls suggest that voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the issue, and President Bush gets low marks for handling gas prices.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged Bush in a letter Monday to order a federal investigation into any gasoline price gouging or market speculation.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada dispatched his own letter, calling for a multi-pronged approach to restrain gas prices. Among the steps were swift enactment of anti-price gouging legislation, an appeal to oil companies to refrain from further price increases; use of more alternative fuels and increased attention to existing fuel-saving laws and regulations.

Bush was working on the speech aboard Air Force One as he flew home Monday evening from a four-day trip to California that ended with a swing through Las Vegas. McClellan outlined part of the speech to reporters traveling on the plane.

McClellan said Bush also will announce that his attorney general and Federal Trade Commission will send a letter to all 50 state attorneys general, who have primary authority over price gouging, to remind them to stay on top of the issue and offer federal help to do so. And he will call on energy companies to reinvest their profits into expanding refining capacity, developing new technologies and researching alternative energy sources.

"I think you'll hear the president say very clearly that he will not tolerate price gouging," McClellan said.

Bush has consistently said that gas prices are high because global demand is rising faster than global supply and that the problem cannot be solved overnight. McClellan said Bush will talk about how experts predict that the price is expected to increase this summer and how the switch to a summer fuel mix is contributing to the problem.

Bush's actions are part of a four-part plan to address gas prices in the short- and long-term, McClellan said. The steps McClellan outlined are:

1. making sure consumers and taxpayers are treated fairly;

2. promoting greater fuel efficiency;

3. boosting gasoline supply at home;

4. aggressive long-term investment in alternative fuels.

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

[thispego]

good job ducks :tu

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Political forum?

[boutons_]

The biggest percentage increase has been at the refinery gates, not at retail.

Aren't the Repugs supposed to be free-marketers, letting the market set prices?

Since when do the Repugs start interfering with businesses and business profits?

What about price gouging by the drug companies? Abusive monopoly by MS?

[dimsah]

The biggest percentage increase has been at the refinery gates, not at retail.

Aren't the Repugs supposed to be free-marketers, letting the market set prices?

Since when do the Repugs start interfering with businesses and business profits?

What about price gouging by the drug companies? Abusive monopoly by MS?You can buy generic equivalents for most drugs.

You can't with gasoline.

If they can provide a better explanation than the standard

"well, it's the summer driving season" then maybe I'll buy into it a little more,

but at a time when gas in my area has gone up over 70 cents in the past month,

and oil companies are still raking in record profits? I'm going to need something more substantial.

[Yonivore]

You don't have an unalienable right to gasoline. Quit buying it...that'll show 'em.

[Yonivore]

The More I Read About Gas Prices, the Angrier I Get at Politicians

The Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008286) exposes how a good part of the increase in gas prices was caused by Congress itself. Lord help us if they decide to do anything else!


There's been unconscionable behavior all right, most of it on Capitol Hill. A decent portion of the latest run-up in gas prices--and the entire cause of recent spot shortages--is the direct result of the energy bill Congress passed last summer. That self-serving legislation handed Congress's friends in the ethanol lobby a mandate that forces drivers to use 7.5 billion gallons annually of that oxygenate by 2012.

At the same time, Congress refused to provide liability protection to the makers of MTBE, a rival oxygenate getting hit with lawsuits. So MTBE makers are leaving the market in a rush, while overstretched ethanol producers (despite their promises) are in no way equipped to compensate for the loss of MTBE in the fuel supply. Ethanol is also difficult to ship and store outside of the Midwest, which is causing supply headaches and spot gas shortages along the East Coast and Texas.

These columns warned Republicans this would happen. As recently as last year, ethanol was selling for $1.45 a gallon. By December it had reached $2 and is now going for $2.77. So refiners are now having to buy both oil and ethanol at sky-high prices. In short, the only market manipulation has been by politicians.

For the record, the FTC has an entire crew that pores over weekly average gas prices in hundreds of cities, looking for evidence of gouging--to no avail. Perhaps this is because no oil company controls enough of the market to exercise enough power to raise prices. The Hastert-Frist call for an investigation is nothing but short-attention-span political theater.

Beyond the ethanol fiasco, the oil markets are once again providing a tutorial in supply and demand in a global commodity market. Strong economic growth from the U.S. to China is driving up demand, even as political uncertainty in oil-producing countries such as Venezuela and Iran is leading to supply worries and some speculation. The Federal Reserve has also played a role by flooding the market with dollar liquidity that has produced higher prices across all commodity markets.
If the Congressmen are so concerned about our pocketbooks, they could suspend federal taxes on gas. And, when's the last time you tried to figure out how much of the per/gallon price is State Taxes?

So, high gas prices do get me burned up, but at the politicians, not the oil companies.

Am I and the WSJ right, scott?

[Yonivore]

Then there's this:

Bill Murchison (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/billmurchison/2006/04/25/194913.html) tries to blow some cold air on all the hot air there are on gas prices. Nothing so unleashes political demagoguery as high prices that upset consumers. Politicians rush to blame the evil gas companies instead of the laws of supply and demand.


You'd suppose our leaders would be trying to address the problem of undersupply at a time of rising demand and international tension.
Like telling the environmentalist whackoes to go frig themselves and start building refineries, drilling in ANWR, rolling out shale oil recovery technologies, competing with Fidel in the Gulf, and building a few Nuclear Power Plants.


Alas -- there on TV last weekend was [Ted] Kennedy, advising that President Bush "should have called the head of the oil companies into the White House and started jawboning." By which I think he means demanding the companies lower their prices. In the Kennedy worldview, prices tend to be set not by market forces but by -- to employ the senator's word -- "greed." Evidently, the companies thought they could rob us blind without Ted Kennedy's noticing. Hah!

The senator then goes on about a windfall profits tax, cheerfully oblivious to some facts you might have hoped were lodged firmly in his personal recollection. The Congressional Research Service estimated in 1990 that Carter's windfall profits tax (really an excise tax) decreased domestic oil production by 3 percent to 6 percent, while pumping up dependence on foreign oil by 8 percent to 16 percent. Thank you, Congress.
It's so depressing that these politicians, and there are GOP politicians ready to jump on the demagoguery bandwagon, rather than to look realistically at what is causing the price jump. There is increased demand, concern about the supply from Iran, delays as they switch over the the summer formulations, limits on refineries, and limits on drilling for new sources. Put these together and you get higher prices. But these are a lot harder to do anything about. And so the hot air.

[Sec24Row7]

This is just posturing.

There is actually a reason for global oil prices to be so high.

[Ocotillo]

Then there's this:


It's so depressing that these politicians, and there are GOP politicians ready to jump on the demagoguery bandwagon, rather than to look realistically at what is causing the price jump. There is increased demand, concern about the supply from Iran, delays as they switch over the the summer formulations, limits on refineries, and limits on drilling for new sources. Put these together and you get higher prices. But these are a lot harder to do anything about. And so the hot air.

Increased demand is not going away.

Iran is the unstable oil producer du jour. We can expect instability in the governments of most major oil producing countries.

The summer formulation thing will be seasonal.

Limits on refineries, refineries are not something you can throw up over night.

Limits on drilling for new sources, nonetheless, it is a finite resource.

Gas prices likely will not be going down and likely will continue to go up because of the demand as the rest of the world becomes more industrialized.

Alternative fuels have to be developed and not just paid lip service to.

[JoeChalupa]

Drive smarter, not harder is my motto.
I don't have a choice but to pay the higher fuel costs during vacation. I just hope the price has settled by June.
If there were scooter lanes I'd buy one.

[101A]

What about price gouging by the drug companies?

Which industry leads the country in lobbyist & campaign contributions to BOTH sides of the aisle?

Which former senate minority (and majority before that) leader's wife was the highest paid lobbyist?

You get a gold star.

[SA210]

Funny that he orders probe on his friends. :rolleyes
Mr. President, I trust you.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/antiwar_generationbetrayed.jpg

[Yonivore]

Increased demand is not going away.
Develop alternatives.


Iran is the unstable oil producer du jour. We can expect instability in the governments of most major oil producing countries.
Regime Change is the answer.


The summer formulation thing will be seasonal.
As it always is except for the fact that the switch from MTBE and Ethanol has many refineries pants in a wad. Not to mention Ethanol providers who were unprepared for the demand.


Limits on refineries, refineries are not something you can throw up over night.
Which is why they should have shut the Environmentalists up years ago and started building. There's no time like the present to start though.


Limits on drilling for new sources, nonetheless, it is a finite resource.
There's an estimated 1.5 Trillion barrels of shale oil under the Rocky Mountains, more than the Middle East countries combined. Shale extraction technology is almost there...

Not to even mention ANWR and the Gulf. We shouldn't have to be dependent on foreign oil. Period.


Gas prices likely will not be going down and likely will continue to go up because of the demand as the rest of the world becomes more industrialized.
So, I will buy a diesel and make my own fuel, buy a hybrid, drive less, or whatever it takes to transport myself from point A to point B.


Alternative fuels have to be developed and not just paid lip service to.
Once it become market driven and not regulation driven, alternative fuels will be developed.

[Yonivore]

Definition:

Price Gouging. Price Gouging is defined to be any profit made by a company in an industry that is defined to be a Suspect Industry.

Suspect Industry. Any company that is engaged in any energy activity, or any company or industry that is designated by any elected official of the Democratic Party to be a Suspect Industry by any public statement. Under no circumstances will trial lawyers, the health care industry, unions or the abortion industry be included within this category.

[xrayzebra]

Funny that he orders probe on his friends. :rolleyes
Mr. President, I trust you.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/antiwar_generationbetrayed.jpg

You are such a dumb shit. (pardon the phrase, but sometimes things
have to be said). And hypocrite to boot.

[scott]

The More I Read About Gas Prices, the Angrier I Get at Politicians

The Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008286) exposes how a good part of the increase in gas prices was caused by Congress itself. Lord help us if they decide to do anything else!


If the Congressmen are so concerned about our pocketbooks, they could suspend federal taxes on gas. And, when's the last time you tried to figure out how much of the per/gallon price is State Taxes?

So, high gas prices do get me burned up, but at the politicians, not the oil companies.

Am I and the WSJ right, scott?

Directionally, I think the WSJ got it right - but I don't agree with the details of their premise.

First and foremost, the ethanol legislation in the Energy Bill was big time pandering to corn lobbyists. As I've postes several times in this forum, corn is one of the least efficient feedstocks for ethanol production. High import tariffs and subsidies are what is making corn competitive as an ethanol feedstock, and even then only marginally. If our politicians were serious about alternative fuels and ethanol in particular, it would stop protecting the corn industry and allow imported feedstocks and to a lesser degree imported finished ethanol into the market. That just isn't happening. The end user price for ethanol would likely be unchanged (I'll touch on that later), but it would result in higher margins for ethanol producers, which would in turn attract more production facilities (despite what people like to believe, businesses are out to make a profit, not to fill the world with gumdrops).

As for pricing, it is expected that ethanol prices would rise to their current level - it's a gasoline blendstock in demand, so naturally it will price with gasoline. Simple alternative economics - ethanol is pricing at its intrinsic value: gasoline less freight (more on freight later). Ethanol is too small of a part of the big picture to be a price driver at this point.

Ethanol pricing, however, is not the reason for high gasoline prices. If gasoline were $2.40, ethanol would probably be $2.40 less freight as well. If gasoline goes to $5.00, so will ethanol. The real issue is another thing I've posted several times in this thread, in that replacing MTBE with ethanol requires we use more gasoline in the blend. Most ethanol blends are 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline where MTBE blends had a lower percentage of gasoline in them. Just by virtue of not being able to use as much blendstock, the gasoline pool shrinks. This reduction in gasoline supply is the most significant price effect from the increased use of ethanol.

The other pricing effect is the inefficiency in transporting ethanol. It has an affinity to water so it can't travel in the same existing pipelines as finished product. It needs to be trucked or railed to its end destination (at a higher cost - although that gets accounted for in the "gas less freight" price of ethanol so its not an issue). The problem is the use of inefficient transportation. Pipelines are ratable, predictable, and timely. Trucks and rails cars... well are not. What happens when the ethanol shipment is 2 days late?

But, in the end, the effect of ethanol on gasoline prices is a drop in the bucket. In the end, its demand outpacing supply. And a common mistake is trying to make the connection between crude oil supply with finished product demand. The bottleneck continues to be refining capacity, just as myself and even NBAdan were pointing out two or three years ago on this very message board. The National Geographic even had a cover story in the summer of 2004 on this very issue. Record profits for oil companies all along the supply chain from the production field to the retail pump should not come as a surprise to anyone - its the natural market reaction. Without record profits, no new capacity will ever be built. A windfall profit tax will only ensure that we are stuck in a continually worsening situation forever.

[exstatic]

Here's an idea George: shut the fuck up about bombing or invading Iran. That might calm the oil market a bit. I know your friends are making out like bandits because of this, but so are Khatami and Iran.

[RandomGuy]

Which is why they should have shut the Environmentalists up years ago and started building. There's no time like the present to start though.

Only if you and your children drink the groundwater nearby, eat the fish downstream, and breathe the air downwind. You sign up for that, and I'll say that refineries are great.


There's an estimated 1.5 Trillion barrels of shale oil under the Rocky Mountains, more than the Middle East countries combined. Shale extraction technology is almost there...

This is another pipe dream. You seem to be in favor of everything that makes money at the expense of people's health. This would be short-sighted energy policy that kills people long term and causes more harm to the economy than the lack of energy ever did.
Let's get to the first bit: Shale extraction is energetically expensive, as all mining operations are.
You have have all the tech you want to pull it out of the shale, but the energy you spend mining, transporting, and attempting to clean up after the mining will eat up most of the energy you get out of this idea.
That is to say nothing of the mining methods and carcinogens that would be created in the process of mining.


Not to even mention ANWR and the Gulf. We shouldn't have to be dependent on foreign oil. Period.


How much oil does the US use per day?
How much oil is in ANWAR?

As for the Gulf, if it can be done reasonably cleanly, go for it.


So, I will buy a diesel and make my own fuel, buy a hybrid, drive less, or whatever it takes to transport myself from point A to point B.

Biodiesel is 70 times dirtier in terms of sooty output than the equivalent gasoline engine. Biodieses IS cleaner than regular deisel and if done well, could replace a portion of diesel in the US, but I wouldn't want to live in a city full of nothing but biodeisel vehicles.

Your solution of driving less is spot on. I say move next to where you work, and walk. This is the closest to a panacea on energy that there is, with the added benefit of cleaner air. The next best thing is to invest in mass transit.


Once it become market driven and not regulation driven, alternative fuels will be developed.

Sadly I agree. This administration pushes unrestrained amoral market forces over ethical policy almost every time. The sad thing is that it takes $4 gasoline to get them to push for the right thing instead of going at it from the beginning.

The administration's newly found commitment to alternative fuels is one of the few things I think they are doing right.

[RandomGuy]

Don't get me wrong here.

Free market capitalism is a very creative force, and allows individuals to achieve their potential.
It is also horribly amoral. It is up to people to have the ethical sense to know this.

A dollar bill doesn't have a conscience, but we do and should.
Even "free" markets need rules and oversight to ensure ethical outcomes.

[boutons_]

Does anybody really believe dubya is going after oil companies profits?
After starting a a phony war to push up the price of oil?
After giving the oilco's $15B for "research"?

==========================

GOP Blocks Measures Boosting Taxes on Oil Companies' Profits

Provisions Passed by Senate Would Raise About $5 Billion

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; A06

While Republican leaders sharply criticize soaring gasoline prices and energy industry profits, GOP negotiators have decided to knock out provisions in a major tax bill that would force the oil companies to pay billions of dollars more in taxes on their profits.

House and Senate tax writers have been struggling to reach an accord on separate tax bills approved last year to extend some expiring tax cuts enacted during President Bush's first term. But House Republicans have raised strong objections to Senate-passed provisions that would raise nearly $5 billion in taxes over five years -- primarily by changing arcane accounting rules that have allowed oil companies to substantially lower their tax bills, according to House and Senate tax aides familiar with the talks.

The actions of Republicans hashing out a tax bill behind closed doors indicate that, despite tough talk from the White House and Capitol Hill, the party is not ready to hit the oil companies hard -- even on measures that have broad support in the Senate.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) made it clear yesterday that the leadership would only go so far in punishing an industry enjoying record-breaking profits if that punishment could have broader negative consequences. In January, Exxon Mobil Corp. alone reported the highest corporate profit in U.S. history: $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the entire year.

"The windfall profits [tax], when it was tried in the '80s, failed miserably because it led to less discovery. It led to less production and was a failure," Boehner said. "There is no reason for us . . . to go there again."

Since Congress returned to Washington this week, lawmakers under pressure from angry constituents have threatened to take action against the oil companies. With crude oil prices well over $70 a barrel, Sens. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) vowed yesterday to push for a vote in the coming days on a 50 percent excise tax on profits on oil selling for more than $50 a barrel. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has suggested a similar tack.

Even Bush called on Congress yesterday to temper one small provision in last year's energy bill that offered oil companies a quick tax write-off of the costs of oil exploration.

"Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures," he said .

But in the closed-door talks on tax legislation, there has been no such sentiment in dealing with two of the three Senate provisions that would boost federal taxes on the oil industry.

The biggest of the provisions would change accounting rules that apply to oil in storage. Currently, oil companies are allowed to calculate the taxable value of their inventories based on the value of the oldest stocks, when oil may have been worth $30 a barrel. But much of the inventory may have been pumped from the ground when oil was selling for more than double that. Critics say that understates the value of the companies' oil supplies purely to lower their tax payments.

Another would prevent oil companies from deducting from their U.S. taxes the royalties paid to foreign governments.

The third, which would repeal the provision in last year's energy law allowing companies to write off in two years the cost of geological exploration, received new life after Bush's speech, Senate tax aides said.

Those measures were first proposed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to pay for a $500 tax credit to defray home energy costs. In letters to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Snowe suggested yesterday that the Senate oil tax measures be taken out of the broader tax bills and passed separately to pay for alternative-energy development.

But the Bush administration has strongly opposed Snowe's measures from the start, especially the accounting change, which would hit the five major oil companies to the tune of $4.3 billion in two years. In letters to Congress on Feb. 23, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow used underscored text to stress that "the President's senior advisors would recommend that the President veto the legislation if this provision remains."

The tax change Bush spoke of yesterday is less dramatic than it may seem, oil industry tax analysts said. The Senate had hoped to repeal the quick write-off of exploration costs, but Bush merely wants to stretch it out from two years to five years, as proposed in his February budget plan, according to Mark Kibbe, senior tax policy analyst with the American Petroleum Institute.

"We would not necessarily be opposed to that at all," Kibbe said.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

=========================

Of course, the raging insanity is going after oilco's profits, when the real culprit is ineffecincy and waste of oil due to not pushing oil conservation to the technological limits.

[SA210]

Funny that he orders probe on his friends. :rolleyes
Mr. President, I trust you.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/antiwar_generationbetrayed.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Only if you and your children drink the groundwater nearby, eat the fish downstream, and breathe the air downwind. You sign up for that, and I'll say that refineries are great.



This is another pipe dream. You seem to be in favor of everything that makes money at the expense of people's health. This would be short-sighted energy policy that kills people long term and causes more harm to the economy than the lack of energy ever did.
Let's get to the first bit: Shale extraction is energetically expensive, as all mining operations are.
You have have all the tech you want to pull it out of the shale, but the energy you spend mining, transporting, and attempting to clean up after the mining will eat up most of the energy you get out of this idea.
That is to say nothing of the mining methods and carcinogens that would be created in the process of mining.



How much oil does the US use per day?
How much oil is in ANWAR?

As for the Gulf, if it can be done reasonably cleanly, go for it.



Biodiesel is 70 times dirtier in terms of sooty output than the equivalent gasoline engine. Biodieses IS cleaner than regular deisel and if done well, could replace a portion of diesel in the US, but I wouldn't want to live in a city full of nothing but biodeisel vehicles.

Your solution of driving less is spot on. I say move next to where you work, and walk. This is the closest to a panacea on energy that there is, with the added benefit of cleaner air. The next best thing is to invest in mass transit.



Sadly I agree. This administration pushes unrestrained amoral market forces over ethical policy almost every time. The sad thing is that it takes $4 gasoline to get them to push for the right thing instead of going at it from the beginning.

The administration's newly found commitment to alternative fuels is one of the few things I think they are doing right.

RG, if we live on such a dirty planet and it kills people,
how come we are living longer now than ever?

You got any common sense at all?

[01Snake]

Does anybody really believe dubya is going after oil companies profits?
After starting a a phony war to push up the price of oil?
After giving the oilco's $15B for "research"?




First it was went to war FOR Iraq's oil....now its went to war to PUSH UP the PRICE of oil. What will the reason be next week?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the real culprits are the illegal immigrants. They're the reason my gas costs so much.

[Nbadan]

Drivers run out of gas to save money
Tuesday, April 25, 2006


LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Some California drivers are resorting to desperate measures to beat the surge in gas prices at the pump -- deliberately running dry on the state's freeways and simply waiting for rescue.

"Every time fuel goes up, we start noticing it. But right now we are noticing it a lot more," Andy Lujan, owner of California Coach Towing in Orange County, said Tuesday.

Lujan's 20 trucks roam the busy freeways of Orange and Los Angeles counties as part of a publicly funded patrol that gives a free gallon of gas to drivers who have run out of fuel. It also offers other basic assistance to drivers whose vehicles have broken down.

"You say to some of them 'hey, you've run out of gas' and they say 'yeah, it's too expensive.' I think the percentage is going to increase," Lujan said.

Gas prices in California, where the car is king, are some of the highest in the nation at more than $3 a gallon and rising....

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/25/life.gas.reut/index.html)

There was one guy a while back who was stopping every morning and trying to get his one free gallon," said Dayan

:lol

[Nbadan]

Democrats propose federal gas-tax holiday:


Democrats are set to introduce a measure that would create a "federal gas tax holiday" by eliminating the federal tax on gas and diesel for sixty days, RAW STORY has learned.

The measure, proposed by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), would reduce the cost of gas by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. The move, aides say, will provide $100 million dollars per day in relief.

Democrats say the money will be made up by cutting six billion dollars in tax breaks to oil firms. Currently, the money from the federal gas tax goes to the Highway Trust fund.

Democrats are also working on an amendment that would give federal authorities more power to investigate price gouging, aides say. The measure could be introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who is examining the idea.

Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats_to_propose_cutting_gas_tax_0425.html)

[Nbadan]

http://thebattman.spymac.com/TheBattman/Images/GasMap.jpg
According to Gas Buddy liberal states have the highest average PPG

[Yonivore]

http://thebattman.spymac.com/TheBattman/Images/GasMap.jpg
According to Gas Buddy liberal states have the highest average PPG

It's the TAXES, stupid!

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

Yeah, it's the fixed-taxes that are driving up the price of gas.

[Yonivore]

:rolleyes

Yeah, it's the fixed-taxes that are driving up the price of gas.
No, you idiot, it's fixed taxes that makes gas more expensive in blue states. Without the taxes, the map would all be the same freakin' color.

In fact, I think New York and California top the list of states in fuel tax.

[Sec24Row7]

Democrats propose federal gas-tax holiday:

Democrats are set to introduce a measure that would create a "federal gas tax holiday" by eliminating the federal tax on gas and diesel for sixty days, RAW STORY has learned.

The measure, proposed by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), would reduce the cost of gas by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. The move, aides say, will provide $100 million dollars per day in relief.

Democrats say the money will be made up by cutting six billion dollars in tax breaks to oil firms. Currently, the money from the federal gas tax goes to the Highway Trust fund.

Democrats are also working on an amendment that would give federal authorities more power to investigate price gouging, aides say. The measure could be introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who is examining the idea.




Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats_to_propose_cutting_gas_tax_0425.html)

ROFL... cut the tax breaks given to oil companies and give it back to consumers at the gas pump.

Never mind the fact that Oil companies will raise their prices to recoup their loss of that 6 billion.

Good job Dan.

You complain about REAGAN's voodoo economics... lol

[Yonivore]

Federal gas tax = 18.4 cents per gallon

State gas tax varies from around 8 cents in Alaska to around 31 cents in New York. But even then, you've got to decipher each state's laws to see how much, above this is added.

For instance, in Texas, it's a flat 20 cents per gallon. Period -- So, you know you're paying 38.4 cents per gallon in taxes in Texas.

In California, they claim it's 18 cents per gallon. But, then you've got to add 6% state sales tax, 1.25% county tax, 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee, and various other local sales taxes where applicable.

Like I said:


It's the taxes, Stupid!

[Yonivore]

Here, I drew you a picture:

http://www.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/6DCBDA15-29EF-456E-A411-8D32AB25637C/0/GasTaxMapAug2005.gif

[Oh, Gee!!]

Federal gas tax = 18.4 cents per gallon

State gas tax varies from around 8 cents in Alaska to around 31 cents in New York. But even then, you've got to decipher each state's laws to see how much, above this is added.

For instance, in Texas, it's a flat 20 cents per gallon. Period -- So, you know you're paying 38.4 cents per gallon in taxes in Texas.

In California, they claim it's 18 cents per gallon. But, then you've got to add 6% state sales tax, 1.25% county tax, 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee, and various other local sales taxes where applicable.

Like I said:


It's the taxes, Stupid!

But the untaxed, base price of gasoline at the pump has gone up. Hence, we are paying more at the pump than we were last year and the year before. The taxes are an additional item to bitch about, but you can't deny that the price of gas itself has increased.

[scott]

No, you idiot, it's fixed taxes that makes gas more expensive in blue states. Without the taxes, the map would all be the same freakin' color.

That would be incorrect.

[boutons_]

Senate Panel Demands Oil Co. Tax Records

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; 6:39 PM

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee Wednesday announced an investigation into taxes paid by major oil companies and asked the Internal Revenue Service for the companies' tax returns.

The Senate Finance Committee promised "a comprehensive review of the federal taxes paid" by the oil companies on their record profits last year.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, said the panel was concerned about high profits and executive compensation at oil companies.

"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley in a statement.

With gasoline prices soaring and oil companies announcing record profits, "it's relevant to know what the real financial picture is for this industry," Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said.

It's highly unusual for the Senate committee to seek corporate tax records. The last time it was done was when the panel asked the IRS for the tax records of Enron Corp.

The committee announcement came as Congress showed increasing concern amid political fallout over high gasoline prices and oil industry profits. Lawmakers began moving on various fronts to eliminate loopholes and some tax provisions that save oil companies billions of dollars.

In a letter to the IRS, Grassley and Baucus said the tax records of the major oil companies are needed to conduct "a comprehensive review" of the companies' compliance with tax laws.

"As pressure mounts to address extraordinarily high gas prices that consumers are facing at the pump, we feel we should better understand the federal tax posture of the industry," the two senators wrote IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.

© 2006 The Associated Press

======================================

This is all bullshit demagoguery by the Repugs.

The Repug administration has failed to collect royalties in the 100s of $M per year over several years from the energy co's for extraction of oil and gas from federal lands and off-shore fields in US territorial waters.

Energy co lobbyists were hired by Bureau of Land Mgmt to write leases for energy cos that stretch out for decades, to write leases the energy co's haven't even asked for, and to write them at a rate impossibly high for the energy co's. to exploit.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

croutons,

Answer me this - what does increasing taxes on oil companies do? Not a fucking thing. Just means that the price goes higher and you and me are paying even more for gasoline.

There's a simple solution - roll back the federal and state taxes on gasoline, which combined average somewhere around 40 cents on every gallon sold.

Obviously this isn't a permanent fix, but with the fags on the left cockblocking any new refinery development for the past 25 years, it's gonna take some time to fix.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

BTW, got this from a bud in the oil industry, even he thinks the companies are fucking everyone over:


...................April 10, 2006.....April 12, 1999
Crude Oil............$1.59...............$0.35
Refining Cost
and Margin...........$0.63...............$0.70
State and
Federal Taxes........$0.57...............$0.48
Distribution
and Marketing........$0.01...............$0.09

Price Per
Gallon...............$2.80...............$1.62

I'm too lazy to look up what a barrel of oil cost on Apr. 10 vs. what it is now, but you get the idea.

Say back on the 10th, looking at my credit card receipts from the 11th, gas was 2.74 a gallon in Dallas. Taking out the .38 cents in taxes in the state of Texas, the gas company made .36 cents profit on every gallon of fuel.

Of course that is offset for the companies as it's obviously higher per gallon in other states, but you get the idea. State and federal taxes are almost a match to refining costs.

[Yonivore]

That would be incorrect.
Well, they'd at least be in the same area of the color spectrum. I understand variations in distribution costs and environmental regulations...but, I believe the major variant in cost, right now, is tax.

[scott]

Well, they'd at least be in the same area of the color spectrum. I understand variations in distribution costs and environmental regulations...but, I believe the major variant in cost, right now, is tax.

It's more of a regional supply-demand thing than a distribution/regulation thing. Demand in Montana is not equal to demand in Florida and supply in Oregon is not equal to supply in South Carolina. Thats the biggest cause of variance. After that, I'd say it's distribution costs, taxes, then regs.

[01Snake]

Ann weighs in.....

IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PUMP
April 26, 2006


I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station."

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package." The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production. This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter — another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told — on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true — that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

[scott]

BTW, got this from a bud in the oil industry, even he thinks the companies are fucking everyone over:



I'm too lazy to look up what a barrel of oil cost on Apr. 10 vs. what it is now, but you get the idea.

Say back on the 10th, looking at my credit card receipts from the 11th, gas was 2.74 a gallon in Dallas. Taking out the .38 cents in taxes in the state of Texas, the gas company made .36 cents profit on every gallon of fuel.

Of course that is offset for the companies as it's obviously higher per gallon in other states, but you get the idea. State and federal taxes are almost a match to refining costs.

The numbers and math is off - but one of the points is valid... my company, the largest refiner in North America, paid more in taxes last year than it made in profit.

[xrayzebra]

But the untaxed, base price of gasoline at the pump has gone up. Hence, we are paying more at the pump than we were last year and the year before. The taxes are an additional item to bitch about, but you can't deny that the price of gas itself has increased.

OG, it is the Congress, first and foremost. I have said it time and time
again. Increase the supply, meet the demand and prices will come down.
Government makes more off of fuel than anyone in every way. They
tax us at the pump and BIG oil pays whopping taxes on their earnings.

Anyhow, here is a good column on Congress and the farsightedness, you know
like the next election. That is what their cater-walling is all about anyhow.
The next election. Not about a real solution. :depressed


Gas prices shouldn't surprise us

By Charles Krauthammer

Apr 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- If you thought the Dubai port deal marked a record high in Washington cynicism, think again. Nothing can match the spectacle of politicians scrambling for cover during a spike in gasoline prices. And this time, the panderfest has gone all the way to the Oval Office. President Bush has joined the braying congressional hordes by ordering the Energy and Justice Departments and the FTC to launch an investigation into possible gasoline price-fixing.

What a disgrace.

Precisely 10 years ago (April 29, 1996) as gas prices reached a shocking $1.27 a gallon, President Clinton ordered his Energy and Justice Departments to launch investigations to find out why. In my column that week, I offered a wild guess as to why: "Supply is down and demand is up.'' I offered Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary and Attorney General Janet Reno a $100 bet (I roll high on sure things) that their million-dollar probes would do nothing more than confirm my hunch.

No takers. Even Cabinet secretaries don't throw C-notes away. Sure enough, months later these perfectly pointless investigations discounted charges of price gouging and attributed the price hike to ... increased demand and decreased supply.

Today, every time an Iranian mullah opens his mouth about nukes, the risk premium for Persian Gulf supply interruptions jumps again. Crude oil prices alone account for about $1.70 of what you pay for a gallon at the pump. So 10 years later, I'll wager again. Here's what the Bush search for price gougers and profiteers will find:

(1) Demand is up.

China has come from nowhere to pass Japan as the number No. 2 oil consumer in the world. China and India -- between them home to eight times the U.S. population -- are industrializing and gobbling huge amounts of energy.

American demand is up because we've lived in a fool's paradise since the mid-1980s. Until then, beginning with the oil shocks in 1973, Americans had changed appliances and cars and habits and achieved astonishing energy conservation. Energy use per dollar of GDP was cut by 30 percent in little over a decade. Oil prices collapsed to about $10 a barrel.

Then amnesia set in, MPG ratings disappeared from TV ads and we became ``a country of a million Walter Mittys driving 75 mph in their gas-guzzling Bushwhack-Safari sport-utility roadsters with a moose head on the hood, a country whose crude oil production has dropped 32 percent in the last 25 years but which will not drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fear of disturbing the mating habits of caribou."

I wrote that during the '96 witch hunt for price gougers. Nothing has changed. Except that since then, U.S. crude oil production has dropped an additional 12.3 percent. Which brings us to:

(2) Supply is down.

Start with supply disruptions in Nigeria, decreased production in Iraq and the continuing loss of 5 percent of our national refining capacity because of Katrina and Rita damage. Add to that the mischief of idiotic new regulations. Last year's energy bill mandates arbitrary increases in blended ethanol use that so exceed current ethanol production that it is causing gasoline shortages and therefore huge price spikes.

Why don't we import the missing ethanol? Brazil makes a ton of it and very cheaply. Answer: The Iowa caucuses. Iowa grows corn and chooses presidents. So we have a ridiculously high 54-cent ethanol tariff and ethanol shortages.

Other regulation requires specific ("boutique'') gasoline blends for different cities depending on their air quality. Nice idea. But it introduces debilitating rigidities into the gasoline supply system. If Los Angeles runs short, you cannot just move supply in from Denver. You get shortages and more price spikes.

And don't get me started on the missing supply of might-have-been American crude. Arctic and Outer Continental Shelf oil that the politicians kill year after year would have provided us by now with a critical and totally secure supply cushion in times of tight markets.

In March 2000, the price of gas hit $1.80. Scandalized congressional Republicans shamelessly pushed for repeal of Bill Clinton's whopping 4.3-cent gas tax increase. Now that the president is a Republican, what do you think Senate Democrats are proposing? A 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax. It would cost $6 billion and counteract the only good thing that comes with high gas prices -- the incentive to conserve.

George Shultz once said, "Nothing ever gets settled in this town." But even Shultz, who has seen everything, must marvel at the perfect regularity, the utter predictability, of the bottomless cynicism of Washington in the grip of gasoline fever.

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2006/04/28/195434.html

And yes I agree with Krauthammer about Bush, who in the hell is
advising him on this problem has their head up their butt or Bush
does. Every damn politician in Washington knows what the problem is,
they just don't have the guts to fix it.

[boutons_]

"paid more in taxes last year than it made in profit."

Sure, companies, at least the ones not smart enough to evade/avoid taxes, pay 30% in taxes on profits. The Fortune 500 averages about 15% profit, except the pharmaceutical price-gouging cartel, that does better at about 17%.

The point of "company taxes are higher than company profits" is?

btw, even if a person has a negative income (spending mor than the make, ie, a "loss"), and more American than ever are in (way) over their heads, he still has to pay income tax, while companies don't.

Don't try to make a case that companies, with their army of tax accountants/book-cookers/tax-lawyers/profit-shifters have it hard.

[xrayzebra]

"paid more in taxes last year than it made in profit."

Sure, companies, at least the ones not smart enough to evade/avoid taxes, pay 30% in taxes on profits. The Fortune 500 averages about 15% profit, except the pharmaceutical price-gouging cartel, that does better at about 17%.

The point of "company taxes are higher than company profits" is?

btw, even if a person has a negative income (spending mor than the make, ie, a "loss"), and more American than ever are in (way) over their heads, he still has to pay income tax, while companies don't.

Don't try to make a case that companies, with their army of tax accountants/book-cookers/tax-lawyers/profit-shifters have it hard.

boutons, once again you twist the truth to suit you. Many folks don't
pay any taxes on income or very little. And in many cases get Earned
Income Credit. In other words get money back which they didn't pay in
to begin with.

And who's fault is it that someone gets in over their heads? Not mine
I can tell you. The dirty little secret is that many people pay in
more on SOC and Medicare than on income taxes. Have any of your
congressmen ask you if you can afford those deductions (taxes).

[boutons_]

Say It With Me: Supply and Demand

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 28, 2006; A19

If you thought the Dubai port deal marked a record high in Washington cynicism, think again. Nothing can match the spectacle of politicians scrambling for cover during a spike in gasoline prices. And this time the panderfest has gone all the way to the Oval Office. President Bush has joined the braying congressional hordes by ordering the Energy and Justice departments and the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into possible gasoline price fixing.

What a disgrace.

Precisely 10 years ago (April 29, 1996) as gas prices reached a shocking $1.27 a gallon, President Bill Clinton ordered his Energy and Justice departments to launch investigations to find out why. In my column that week, I offered a wild guess as to why: "supply is down and demand is up." I offered Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary and Attorney General Janet Reno a $100 bet (I roll high on sure things) that their million-dollar probes would do nothing more than confirm my hunch.

No takers. Even Cabinet secretaries don't throw away C-notes. Sure enough, months later these perfectly pointless investigations discounted charges of price gouging and attributed the price hike to . . . increased demand and decreased supply.

Today, every time an Iranian mullah opens his mouth about nukes, the risk premium for Persian Gulf supply interruptions jumps again. Crude oil prices alone account for about $1.70 of what you pay for a gallon at the pump. So 10 years later, I'll wager again. Here's what the Bush search for price gougers and profiteers will find:

· Demand is up. China has come from nowhere to pass Japan as the number No. 2 oil consumer in the world. China and India -- between them home to eight times the U.S. population -- are industrializing and gobbling huge amounts of energy.

American demand is up because we've lived in a fool's paradise since the mid-1980s. Until then, beginning with the oil shocks in 1973, Americans had changed appliances and cars and habits and achieved astonishing energy conservation. Energy use per dollar of gross domestic product was cut by 30 percent in little over a decade. Oil prices collapsed to about $10 a barrel.

Then amnesia set in, mile-per-gallon ratings disappeared from TV ads and we became "a country of a million Walter Mittys driving 75 mph in their gas-guzzling Bushwhack-Safari sport-utility roadsters with a moose head on the hood, a country whose crude oil production has dropped 32 percent in the last 25 years but which will not drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fear of disturbing the mating habits of caribou."

I wrote that during the '96 witch hunt for price gougers. Nothing has changed. Except that since then, U.S. crude oil production has dropped an additional 12.3 percent. Which brings us to:

· Supply is down. Start with supply disruptions in Nigeria, decreased production in Iraq, and the continuing loss of 5 percent of our national refining capacity because of damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Add to that the mischief of idiotic new regulations. Last year's energy bill mandates arbitrary increases in blended ethanol use that so exceed current ethanol production that it is causing gasoline shortages and therefore huge price spikes.

Why don't we import the missing ethanol? Brazil makes a ton of it, and very cheaply. Answer: the Iowa caucuses. Iowa grows corn and chooses presidents. So we have a ridiculously high 54-cent ethanol tariff and ethanol shortages.

( iow, what's good for Iowa, is bad for the USA )

Another regulation requires specific ("boutique") gasoline blends for different cities depending on their air quality. Nice idea. But it introduces debilitating rigidities into the gasoline supply system. If Los Angeles runs short, you cannot just move supply in from Denver. You get shortages and more price spikes.

And don't get me started on the missing supply of might-have-been American crude. Arctic and outer continental shelf oil that the politicians kill year after year would have provided us by now with a critical and totally secure supply cushion in times of tight markets.

( only a (very high-priced) cushion, but not the chair which would still overseas, and still leave the USA dependent on carbon fuels, asshole )

In March 2000, the price of gas hit $1.80 per gallon. Scandalized congressional Republicans shamelessly pushed for repeal of Clinton's whopping 4.3-cent gas tax increase. Now that the president is a Republican, what do you think Senate Democrats are proposing? A 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax. It would cost $6 billion and counteract the only good thing that comes with high gas prices -- the incentive to conserve.

( we know when gas prices go down, car efficiency goes down or stays stagnant (for the last 16 years). INCREASING the taxes on transport fuel keeps the pressure applied to conservation, while keeping the the tax $$$ in US accounts rather than into foreign hands. )

George Shultz once said, "Nothing ever gets settled in this town." But even Shultz, who has seen everything, must marvel at the perfect regularity, the utter predictability, of the bottomless cynicism of Washington in the grip of gasoline fever.

[email protected]

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[scott]

"paid more in taxes last year than it made in profit."

Sure, companies, at least the ones not smart enough to evade/avoid taxes, pay 30% in taxes on profits. The Fortune 500 averages about 15% profit, except the pharmaceutical price-gouging cartel, that does better at about 17%.

The point of "company taxes are higher than company profits" is?

btw, even if a person has a negative income (spending mor than the make, ie, a "loss"), and more American than ever are in (way) over their heads, he still has to pay income tax, while companies don't.

Don't try to make a case that companies, with their army of tax accountants/book-cookers/tax-lawyers/profit-shifters have it hard.

I won't make that case, nor will I ever make the case that you have half a brain.


The point of "company taxes are higher than company profits" is?

The point is that while people like you keep crying about how oil company profits are behind high oil prices and there is some dirty price gouging going on, the share of the money you spend on gas that goes to Uncle Sam is bigger than the share that go to the people who have spent billions of dollars to be able to make gasoline in the first place.

You constantly amaze with your ability to jump on whatever side of an issue that happens to be the opposite of what a Republican is on. It is supply and demand, myself and others have been saying that in this forum for years. The meantime you've complained about evil oil companies and their price gouging. Now that Republicans are making the same dumb mistakes as Democrats, you are ready to jump on the bandwagon of sanity. News flash: there is no room for crackerjacks like you.

[boutons_]

"people like you keep crying about how oil company profits are behind high oil prices"

I'm not crying about that. I actually think dubya's fake investigation is total bullshit that will accomplish nothing, just as intended. dubya's lip-service as he sucks off the oilco's.

I don't think the oilco's are price gouging, nor that they should taxed or penalized in any way for their obscene profits.

The oilco's are supplying an addiction, just like illegal drug businessmen. Like any effective cartel, they will restrict supply to push up the prices, with help from non-market influences like dubya/dickhead starting a phone war in a critcal oil region

The problem is the the addict, not the oilcos.

btw, the Dems will do on better.

The US electorate and the political system simply don't have the wisdom and willpower to produce politicians that will truly lead the USA in the right direction.

And clearly, the "free market", which is not really free, it is gamed, has got us into this mess in the first place, and benefits enormously from being here. The "market" will not fix the problem, either.

Scott, kiss my ass, your stereo-typicial right-wing dumbshit.

[xrayzebra]

Say It With Me: Supply and Demand

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 28, 2006; A19

If you thought the Dubai port deal marked a record high in Washington cynicism, think again. Nothing can match the spectacle of politicians scrambling for cover during a spike in gasoline prices. And this time the panderfest has gone all the way to the Oval Office. President Bush has joined the braying congressional hordes by ordering the Energy and Justice departments and the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into possible gasoline price fixing.

What a disgrace.

Precisely 10 years ago (April 29, 1996) as gas prices reached a shocking $1.27 a gallon, President Bill Clinton ordered his Energy and Justice departments to launch investigations to find out why. In my column that week, I offered a wild guess as to why: "supply is down and demand is up." I offered Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary and Attorney General Janet Reno a $100 bet (I roll high on sure things) that their million-dollar probes would do nothing more than confirm my hunch.

No takers. Even Cabinet secretaries don't throw away C-notes. Sure enough, months later these perfectly pointless investigations discounted charges of price gouging and attributed the price hike to . . . increased demand and decreased supply.

Today, every time an Iranian mullah opens his mouth about nukes, the risk premium for Persian Gulf supply interruptions jumps again. Crude oil prices alone account for about $1.70 of what you pay for a gallon at the pump. So 10 years later, I'll wager again. Here's what the Bush search for price gougers and profiteers will find:

· Demand is up. China has come from nowhere to pass Japan as the number No. 2 oil consumer in the world. China and India -- between them home to eight times the U.S. population -- are industrializing and gobbling huge amounts of energy.

American demand is up because we've lived in a fool's paradise since the mid-1980s. Until then, beginning with the oil shocks in 1973, Americans had changed appliances and cars and habits and achieved astonishing energy conservation. Energy use per dollar of gross domestic product was cut by 30 percent in little over a decade. Oil prices collapsed to about $10 a barrel.

Then amnesia set in, mile-per-gallon ratings disappeared from TV ads and we became "a country of a million Walter Mittys driving 75 mph in their gas-guzzling Bushwhack-Safari sport-utility roadsters with a moose head on the hood, a country whose crude oil production has dropped 32 percent in the last 25 years but which will not drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fear of disturbing the mating habits of caribou."

I wrote that during the '96 witch hunt for price gougers. Nothing has changed. Except that since then, U.S. crude oil production has dropped an additional 12.3 percent. Which brings us to:

· Supply is down. Start with supply disruptions in Nigeria, decreased production in Iraq, and the continuing loss of 5 percent of our national refining capacity because of damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Add to that the mischief of idiotic new regulations. Last year's energy bill mandates arbitrary increases in blended ethanol use that so exceed current ethanol production that it is causing gasoline shortages and therefore huge price spikes.

Why don't we import the missing ethanol? Brazil makes a ton of it, and very cheaply. Answer: the Iowa caucuses. Iowa grows corn and chooses presidents. So we have a ridiculously high 54-cent ethanol tariff and ethanol shortages.

( iow, what's good for Iowa, is bad for the USA )

Another regulation requires specific ("boutique") gasoline blends for different cities depending on their air quality. Nice idea. But it introduces debilitating rigidities into the gasoline supply system. If Los Angeles runs short, you cannot just move supply in from Denver. You get shortages and more price spikes.

And don't get me started on the missing supply of might-have-been American crude. Arctic and outer continental shelf oil that the politicians kill year after year would have provided us by now with a critical and totally secure supply cushion in times of tight markets.

( only a (very high-priced) cushion, but not the chair which would still overseas, and still leave the USA dependent on carbon fuels, asshole )

In March 2000, the price of gas hit $1.80 per gallon. Scandalized congressional Republicans shamelessly pushed for repeal of Clinton's whopping 4.3-cent gas tax increase. Now that the president is a Republican, what do you think Senate Democrats are proposing? A 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax. It would cost $6 billion and counteract the only good thing that comes with high gas prices -- the incentive to conserve.

( we know when gas prices go down, car efficiency goes down or stays stagnant (for the last 16 years). INCREASING the taxes on transport fuel keeps the pressure applied to conservation, while keeping the the tax $$$ in US accounts rather than into foreign hands. )

George Shultz once said, "Nothing ever gets settled in this town." But even Shultz, who has seen everything, must marvel at the perfect regularity, the utter predictability, of the bottomless cynicism of Washington in the grip of gasoline fever.

[email protected]

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

ahhhhhhh, butons, have you missed somethng earlier in this thread?
I think so.

[scott]

I'm not crying about that. I actually think dubya's fake investigation is total bullshit that will accomplish nothing, just as intended. dubya's lip-service as he sucks off the oilco's.

Dubya's investigation is total bullshit, and you are right, it will accomplish nothing because there is nothing to accomplish. He's playing politics and pandering to the public as a run-up to the election, just like the Democrats have been in doing in their calls for such an investigation.


I don't think the oilco's are price gouging, nor that they should taxed or penalized in any way for their obscene profits.

The oilco's are supplying an addiction, just like illegal drug businessmen. Like any effective cartel, they will restrict supply to push up the prices, with help from non-market influences like dubya/dickhead starting a phone war in a critcal oil region

So you don't think the Oil Companies are price gouging, they are just violating anti-trust law by colluding with one another? Glad you set that straight.


The US electorate and the political system simply don't have the wisdom and willpower to produce politicians that will truly lead the USA in the right direction.

You, the rest of the "Bush says the sky is blue so here's my article saying it's red" crowd and the blind Dubya supporters in this forum are proof of that.


Scott, kiss my ass, your stereo-typicial right-wing dumbshit.

I love it, I can be accused of being a stereo-typical right-ring dumbshit and a flaming liberal socialist pig in the same forum. I guess we can't all be as enlightened enough to post "dubya/dickhead" in all of our posts while flipping flopping back and forth from one side of an issue to another.

There is a reason you are a joke on this forum, and it isn't your sense of humor.

[boutons_]

Americans are spoiled rotten with their cheap gas.

They don't have the balls to face up the enormous challenge of switching away from expensive, vanishing oil.

Now, with China and India beginning to ramp their thirst for oil for their 2B+ people, the US is fucked.

====================================

As Gas Nears $7 a Gallon, More Britons Take the Bus

By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, April 28, 2006; A12

LONDON, April 27 -- David Graham pulled up to the gas pump in his shiny black sport-utility vehicle with a "for sale" sign taped in the window.

Graham, 48, a London building contractor, pointed at the price on the pump -- the equivalent of $6.62 a gallon, which means it costs him $125 to fill his tank. "That's why this is for sale," Graham said. "I can't afford it anymore. I have to walk everywhere. Things have gone mad."

As Americans contemplate the misery of a summer of $3-per-gallon gas, drivers in Britain and much of continental Europe look on with resigned envy. High taxes long ago created some of the world's most expensive gasoline on this side of the Atlantic, where a family car is deemed more a luxury than a necessity and many people rely instead on extensive public transportation networks.

But even in Europe, where consumers are used to paying pump prices double, or more, what Americans pay, there is growing alarm over the effect of rising crude oil prices on fuel costs.

Many motorists are driving less and altering the way they shop, take vacations and carry out other routines, according to interviews and opinion polls. Many airlines, delivery services and other fuel-dependent businesses are either passing increases on to consumers through higher prices or taking deep profit cuts.

Andris Piebalgs, the European Union's energy commissioner, warned last weekend that high oil prices were "destroying economic growth" in Europe.

Kate Gibbs of Britain's Road Haulage Association, which represents truckers and trucking companies, said the prices were driving many small trucking companies out of business. "They just can't take it anymore," Gibbs said.

Uncertainty about the West's growing confrontation with Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil supplier, instability in major producers such as Nigeria and Iraq, continued fallout from Hurricane Katrina, and growing demand for oil in China and India are among the reasons analysts cite for the worldwide surge in pump prices.

Drivers in 11 European countries are now paying an average of more than $6 a gallon for gasoline, according to Britain's AA Motoring Trust. "We have always looked upon you Americans with a lot of envy" about gas prices, said David Williams of the trust, an independent research group that advocates for British motorists.

European governments have long used gasoline taxes not only as an important source of revenue, but as a policy tool to drive down oil consumption and reduce pollution.

Williams said taxes account for about 66 percent of the pump price in Britain -- so of the current average price per gallon of $6.48, about $4.27 goes to the government.

U.S. drivers pay an average of about 46 cents per gallon in combined state, federal and local taxes, according to the Tax Foundation, an independent organization in Washington.

"We would like to see zero fuel duties, of course," Williams said. "But we have to put our hands on our hearts and admit that the government needs money for all kinds of things, and this is one way to get it. People do want their schools and hospitals to be better, so this is just practical politics."

( and it's better to put fuel taxes on lower volumes of fuel into the hands of the govt rather than consume cheap fuel and export for money to the oil producers. Yes, the USA gets some of the petro-dollars back in investments, but the USA doesn't own those petro-dollars. and how much of America is good to sell for Muslim petro-dollars? )

Six years ago, when government taxes represented an even larger share of fuel costs, truckers, taxi drivers and other protesters blockaded Britain's oil refineries and storage depots to stop delivery to gas stations. The weeklong strike nearly paralyzed the country.

British government officials said that in an effort to help consumers, they had frozen the primary tax on gasoline since 2003. It has remained at 47.1 pence per liter -- about $3.17 per gallon at today's exchange rates. On top of that duty, consumers also pay a 17.5 percent consumption tax.

In his 2006 budget, announced last month, Gordon Brown, Britain's finance minister, continued the freeze until at least September.

"The government doesn't believe in temporary measures," said a Treasury spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity following standard practice here. "As soon as you start making decisions based on short-term fluctuations in the market, you take yourself out of a stable situation."

( ... compare that policy with the short-term idiotic, demagogic pandering in Wash DC this week.)

In the Netherlands, gas is selling for about $6.16 per gallon, which includes $3.10 in duty and 19 percent sales tax, said Jelle Wils, spokesman for the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Wils said the government had held "heavy discussions" about tax cuts and other relief measures for consumers but decided not to interfere with market forces.

"We cannot do anything about these prices because they are market prices," Wils said.

But consumer anger is clearly growing. "It's extortion, " said Alan Pirrie, 54, an industrial cleaner who lives near Coventry and drives 100 miles to London and 100 miles home six days a week -- 1,200 miles a week.

( ... made possible only by cheap fuel, now impossible by expensive fuel)

Pirrie said it costs him almost $120 to fill the tank of his small Fiat van, and he has to fill up three times a week. "Of course they should cut the tax, but there's no chance," said Pirrie, who said he and other drivers expected prices to continue rising. "It's life."

The average gasoline price in Britain has risen 19 percent since January 2005. Many stations are charging well above the $6.48 national average; at least one in London's chic Chelsea neighborhood was charging nearly $8 a gallon last weekend.

"It's disgusting," said Elizabeth Jones, 50, a pharmacy assistant, who was pumping $40 worth of gas -- for half a tank -- into her little Ford Fiesta in a working-class neighborhood in west London.

Jones said she now takes the bus to the grocery store instead of driving. She and her husband sold their second car because they couldn't afford to fill two tanks.

Alan Skitt, driving a small Renault Kangaroo van in Poplar, a modest neighborhood in London's East End, called the price increases "awful." He blamed President Bush, contending that the Iraq war had contributed significantly to the volatility in the price of oil.

"It's mad, isn't it?" said Heidi Alley, who was driving her compact Ford in Poplar. She said 10 pounds -- about $18 -- worth of gasoline used to last her four days, but now lasts only three. "I've got to run round with the kids. Either you pay it or you're walking."

Special correspondent Alexandra Topping contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[xrayzebra]

^^boutons, the Europeans have always had their transportation system. Until
recently, within the past 15-20 year span, they didn't own cars. Now the
article is completely screwed up. Most cars there are tin cans with lawn mower
engines. You have a hard time fitting four people inside, in many cases two. And
trying to find a place to park is almost an impossibility. Other than there highway
system, built in recent years, their city streets are narrow little things. They
park on the sidewalks and in their yards. Their gas had always cost an arm and
leg because of their really high taxes.

[Yonivore]

scott. From where does the money come to pay corporate taxes?

I'm not sure relating taxes to profits is very illuminating. In fact, if the corporation paid no taxes -- profits would have probably been the same due to the absence of that obligation and its affect on the cost of doing business.

Its not like taxes are paid out of profits...in fact, taxes are factored into something the corporation can control; product prices (raising them), product quality (spending less on component and constituent ingredients by buying substandard), employee wages (lowering them), etc...

[Yonivore]

Here, let Thomas Sowell give you all an economics lesson:

scott. I belive he stated your premise fairly succinctly; "What something cost is history, what it is worth now is economics."



Oily politicians: Part II (http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=195370&loc=/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/04/28/195370.html)
By Thomas Sowell
Apr 28, 2006

One of the beauties of an economy coordinated by price movements is that nobody has to understand it in order for it to work.

If vast new iron ore deposits are discovered tomorrow in Timbuktu, 99 percent of the people on this planet may be wholly unaware of it -- and yet the prices of everything from paper clips to automobiles would begin to decline, from Singapore to Seattle. Moreover, people around the world would adjust their behavior in response to this event that they know nothing about.

Many people who were not sure about buying a new car might decide that they could now afford one at the new lower prices. People who were thinking of buying wooden desks could begin to reconsider, when they discovered that steel desks had become much cheaper than they expected.

In short, the whole world would adjust their economic behavior in response to a discovery that most people were wholly unaware of.

This economic benefit of price-coordinated markets is also its biggest political vulnerability. If people don't understand what is happening, politicians can tell them anything -- and get their support to take actions that look good, even when the consequences will be counterproductive.

Political responses to the current high price of gasoline are a classic example. World demand for oil has risen out of all proportion to the amount of oil supplied. That is the problem and prices are a symptom of that problem.

Politicians have long been known for seizing upon immediate symptoms and ignoring underlying causes and consequences. Back in the 18th century Adam Smith wrote of "that crafty animal" the politician, who is preoccupied with "the momentary fluctuation of affairs."

Politicians are still crafty in the 21st century and still have their eyes on fleeting opportunities to make political hay. The high price of gasoline is the opportunity du jour.

Nothing is easier than to blame high prices on whoever charges those high prices, regardless of what the underlying cause is. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about Big Oil or little stores in poor, high-crime neighborhoods that charge higher prices growing out of the economic consequences of poverty and crime.

In these and other cases, the economics behind the high prices is of far less interest politically than denouncing the sellers for "greed," "exploitation," "gouging" and the whole political vocabulary of undefined rhetoric and unsubstantiated notions.

Much is made of the fact that gasoline prices go up before the higher priced oil is turned into gasoline. What something cost is history, what it is worth now is economics.

Back during the first Gulf War, a speculator bought oil in Venezuela and had it shipped to the United States, in order to profit from the high oil prices brought on by the war. But, by the time his oil tanker reached the United States, the war was over and prices had fallen so much that he couldn't sell his oil for enough to cover his costs.

What his oil cost him was history. What it was worth now was economics.

Price movements up or down provide incentives for people to consume less or to consume more -- and to produce more or produce less. From the standpoint of the economy as a whole, the history of any particular batch of oil is irrelevant.

Prices need to ration all oil according to existing supply and demand. At the same time, prices need to provide incentives to produce more oil or less oil, according to the same supply and demand conditions.

"Windfall" profits and windfall losses are all part of the same adjustment process. If politicians seize the windfall profits and leave windfall losses alone, what that means over a cycle of years is that the average rate of return on oil production falls below what is needed to attract the investments that greater oil exploration and production require.

This is not a matter of economic theory. It is a matter of history documenting thousands of years of politically controlled prices. Significantly, those who are making the most noise about gasoline price today have the least interest in that history.
No, I haven't read Part I so I don't know on what he's following up.

[scott]

scott. From where does the money come to pay corporate taxes?

I'm not sure relating taxes to profits is very illuminating. In fact, if the corporation paid no taxes -- profits would have probably been the same due to the absence of that obligation and its affect on the cost of doing business.

Its not like taxes are paid out of profits...in fact, taxes are factored into something the corporation can control; product prices (raising them), product quality (spending less on component and constituent ingredients by buying substandard), employee wages (lowering them), etc...

The passing on of the cost of taxes to the customer is the point. (And there are demand effects to these higher prices, but no supply effects... a distortion of the free market) One reason the tax payments in relation to profits is important is because of Congress's recent decision to call for an audit of the top 15 oil companies' tax returns. Maybe they need a reminder of how much oil companies mean to their precious programs.

As for product quality being inversely correlated to taxes... I'm not buying that.

[scott]

What something cost is history, what it is worth now is economics.

Great line, thanks.

[boutons_]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2006/ta060430.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2006/tt060430.gif

[boutons_]

April 30, 2006

Bush Aide: No Silver Bullet for Gas Prices

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:24 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's new chief of staff said Sunday that the White House plan to address high gasoline prices will have only a modest impact and the ultimate goal must to be reducing dependence on foreign oil.

( no, you oil company flunky. The ultimate goal is engineering oil out of the US economy altogether. )

''This is a very large problem,'' Josh Bolten said on ''Fox News Sunday'' in his first interview since taking over April 14 as Bush's top aide. ''It's built up over many years -- decades, in fact. It's not going to be solved in the short run by some silver bullet.''

Administration officials, on the Sunday talk shows, drove home the importance of reducing U.S. consumption of foreign oil. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called it a ''trap'' and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman acknowledged that rising gas prices had become a crisis. But he suggested that finding short-term fixes to soothe consumers angered by pump prices topping $3 per gallon might be difficult.

''The suppliers have lost control of the market. Demand exceeds supply,'' Bodman said, citing demand worldwide from China, Indian and other growing economies. ''Clearly, we're going to have a number of years -- two to three years -- before suppliers are in a position to meet the needs of demands.''

Rice left the impression that the president is not going to take action against oil-producing nations for high prices through the World Trade Organization, as some lawmakers have urged. She said the United States is encouraging oil-rich countries to increase production, but the long-term solution is to diversify sources of energy.

''We need to deal with the long-term problems of technologies that may get us out of this trap,'' Rice said on ABC's ''This Week.'' ''But I can tell you that if anything has surprised me as secretary of state, it is the degree to which the kind of search for hydrocarbons is distorting international politics. That means that the quicker we get about the business of reducing our reliance on oil, the better we're going to be.''

( ... you dummy, That's been true since you were in gradeschool)
Bolten said he didn't know how much the president's plan would lower the price of a gallon gas. ''I expect the effects would be relatively modest,'' he said on NBC's ''Meet the Press.''

''All of those policies need to come together because we need to leave behind a legacy in which this country is headed toward weaning itself from its dependence on foreign oil,'' he said. ''We've been going in the wrong direction for years, for decades.''

Bush said last week that he wants Congress to give him the power to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars. The fleet average of 27.5 miles per gallon has not changed for two decades.

Bolten said the president does not have a specific increase in mind and the transportation secretary would take time to figure it out. Bolten said Bush does not just want to raise the standard, but change it so that it is based on vehicle weight and size.

Bodman reiterated his opposition to imposing a tax on oil companies if they make excessive profits. When tried several years ago, the windfall tax ''did not work. It resulted in decreased production,'' Bodman said.

Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, defended his industry's profits, saying U.S. companies have consolidated over the years to compete with the growing size of foreign oil companies. U.S. oil company profits ''typically come close to industry average,'' he said.

He also said the unrest in Iraq has exacerbated the situation by disrupting oil production.

''As soon as you can stabilize the civil situation, they'll significantly be able to ramp up production. But it would take years,'' Cavaney said.

Bodman agreed. ''As we see Iraqi security forces gradually take control, we'll see improvements,'' he said.

Another oil industry lobbyist, former Sen. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, said ''saber rattling'' on Iran is contributing to the high cost of crude oil. ''We'd see gasoline prices above $5 or $6; crude oil above $100 if we bomb Iran,'' he said on ABC's ''This Week.''

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said on CBS' ''Face the Nation'' that the U.S. must start looking at increasing domestic supply such as ''sensible drilling.'' Rolling back gas taxes or handing out $100 rebates, as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has proposed, might soothe consumers this summer but not in the long run, she said.

''There's a lot of finger-pointing and blaming that's going on right now,'' said Murkowski, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. ''What we're faced with are the laws of supply and demand, and Congress isn't going to be able to repeal the laws of supply and demand.''

But Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the U.S. cannot assume it can ''drill our way out'' but should renew efforts on boosting competition and creating an alternative fuel market. ''We need a strong law in place to protect consumers today.''


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

[boutons_]

April 30, 2006

No Evidence of Pump Price Profiteering: Bodman

By REUTERS

Filed at 12:19 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration sees no direct evidence of profiteering by big U.S. oil companies and is doing all it can to tame near-record prices, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Sunday.

With average U.S. gasoline pump prices near $3 a gallon and politicians clamoring to rein in record oil industry profits, President George W. Bush is trying to stave off a potential election-year problem for Republicans eager to hang on to control of the U.S. Congress.

Asked on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' if oil companies are exploiting consumers, Bodman said ``we see no evidence of it, but this is one of those situations where I guess I would call it 'trust but verify.'''

Bodman pointed to an ongoing probe by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission into gasoline prices.

Bush last week unveiled a string of actions to tame energy prices, including suspending filling the U.S. emergency crude oil stockpile and taking a closer look at environmental rules that have limited gasoline supplies.

``This administration is doing everything it can do'' Bodman said.

U.S. Senate Republicans last week unveiled their proposal to soften the gasoline price blow by giving taxpayers a $100 check and suspending an 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal tax.

Some Democrats and at least one Republican, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have said the government should tax ''windfall'' industry profits.

Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N) in January reported U.S.-record profits of $36 billion over the past year. Many Americans were stunned by the size of the $400 million retirement package for former Exxon chief Lee Raymond. The company also last week reported an $8.4 billion profit for the first three months of 2006, its biggest first-quarter profit ever.

``If you do not tax these corporations ... they will continue to run up the profits to sky heavens,'' said Sen. Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat.

Bodman reiterated that such a tax is a bad idea because it could spur the industry to produce less oil to avoid paying, which happened when such taxes were last enacted in the 1970s.

``That was tried 30 years ago -- it did not work,'' Bodman said. ``That proposal does not hold water.''

Separately, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday he will head a task force of state governors to simplify ``boutique fuel'' rules that can exacerbate fuel shortages , and will soon cap the number of blends to comply with energy legislation signed last year.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd.