Why Liberals Want High Gas Prices
“If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn’t a wake-up call, then what is?”–Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), April 23, 2006
While Northeastern Republicans (A.K.A. RINOs) have joined the liberals in Congress calling for “hearings” on whether Big Oil has been “gouging” customers in a deliberately collusive manner and for the imposition of “wind fall profits taxes” (as if taxing oil companies more would produce more oil and natural gas), the Wall St. Journal Editors perfectly summarize the real objectives of liberals like Chucky Boy Shumer.
The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today’s high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. “Why isn’t the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?” asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who’s followed the gasoline wars for years.
All Bush has to do here to go from 37% approval to 75% is what we have said all along.
Aside from closing the borders immediately and deporting all “crim-aliens” (illegal aliens who constitutes 40% of the federal prison poulation directly subsidized by the American taxpayers- i.e. not “undocumented workers”), Bush needs to immediately call for Congress to reduce or abolish all federal gas taxes, end the onerous EPA regulations on required oxygenates, and call for immediate opening up of ANWR and other drilling areas in the Outer-Coastal Shelf.
Big oil companies make considerably less than your average Miramax film in terms of raw profit and the price of gas at the pump in the U.S. has risen 25% less than the rise in the global price of crude oil since 2003 according to Wall st. economist Michael Darda as reproted in the WSJ.
While we should always look at technology and conservastion as ways to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, only immediate domestic development and production along with a concommitant reduction in taxes and regulations will result in more plentiful oil and gas, lower prices for consumers at the pump (especially poor and fixed income citizens), and less dependency on unstable ARAB country-suppliers in the near term.
Here is a perfect opportunity for Bush and the GOP to call for an “action plan” that would be primarily focussed on reducing the cost of energy for “average working Americans” and make us less dependent on foreighn oil which he could argue has enormous benefits for our national security.
The question is, will Bush and the GOP leadership emulate Chuck Shumer or Ronald Reagan? The answer will largely determine who controls Congress in 06′ and the White House in 08′.
The American people want and deserve decisive bold leadership now Mr. President!!!
April 30th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Hypocrite libs like chuckie schuma love high gas prices, creating punitive gas taxes flowing to the government, for the libs to squander.
Break up big government, that gouges taxpayers, not big oil.
April 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I’d have to disagree. Higher gas prices may make it more enticing to conserve more resources, and even buy a smaller car, but lets face it: high gas prices piss everybody off. No one, spare the companies making the highest profits of any public company, wants high gas prices at the pump. If the government can do anything such as removing the federal gas tax to be replaced by a profits tax I would be very pleased. It would reduce our burden as consumers while maintaining government funding for things like social services or the military (Whichever you would like to see funded)
However, I would agree that illegal aliens in prison should just be deported. I can’t really imagine what may support any opposition to that, but I’d be interested to hear someone tell me why.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Jordan,
Thanks for commenting on my post. I do, however, take issue with a few points you make.
You say, “Iâ??d have to disagree. Higher gas prices may make it more enticing to conserve more resources, and even buy a smaller car, but lets face it: high gas prices piss everybody off.”
Apparently they don’t “piss” you off since you argue it’s a good thing ultimately in that it will “foce” Americans into Yugos and other dangerously small vehicles.
You say: “No one, spare the companies making the highest profits of any public company, wants high gas prices at the pump.”
You better check the actual data. The average “Big Oil” company Exxon/Mobil had an 8% increase in its revenues and a 7% increase in its profits. This revenue and profit increase is actually diminutive relative to other industries as my partner Kevin has blogged about on numerous occasions on this blog, but even if the “profits” were 20 or even 100% that would not be prima facie evidence of cllusion, price fixing, or “gouging.” In our free market capitalist society, profits, are actually what enables busineeses to thrive, expand, and increase employment.
You say:”If the government can do anything such as removing the federal gas tax to be replaced by a profits tax I would be very pleased. It would reduce our burden as consumers while maintaining government funding for things like social services or the military (Whichever you would like to see funded)”
Huh? While I concur that Congress should immediately introduce legislation that would abolish the federal gas tax, I disagree that a “profits tax” would either increase supply or lower overall gas prices. Can you point to one empirical example whter a windfall “profits tax” has been instituted and has successfully increased suppoly of any good or service or reduced the price paid by consumers? Since you are advocating imposition of said “profits tax” on “Big Oil” companies, I am sure that you are basing this on sound empirical substantiation. I anxioulsy await the “profits tax success stories” you will be intorducing.
Also, you claim imposition of said “profits tax” “will reduce our burden as consumers while maintaining government funding for things like social services or the military (Whichever you would like to see funded)”
How can raising taxes on oil companies lessen our “burden” when it is axiomatic that anytime you tax something you get less of it? Since we need more oil and natural gas supply, how will taxing it produce more and reduce our “burden?” Seens to me increasing taxes on oil successful oil companies would leave them with less capital for new exploration and development which would decrease supply which would subsequently actually increase the price. Whenever governments impose price controls which is exactly what a “profits tax” is in that the govt is artificaially limiting how much a private company can make (profit), those taxes (price controls) always result in tow things: 1. Higher prices for consumers (bad especially if you are a poor/fixed income citizen) and 2. Less jobs (bad for employees of these evil “Big Oil” comapnies who employ millions of people in various vrelated vocations around the world. Would your suggested “profits tax” reduce their burden? You see, government intervention in the free market always has deleterious unintended consequences which most often result in contrived scarcities/surpluses (quite prevelant in Command-Control Communist run countries), higher prices, rationing, inferior quality, and limited choice for consumers.
When evaluating the policy ramifications for any fiscal “prescrition” you must analyze the overall effects from a micro economic-perspective.
Unfortunately, while those who advocate “profit taxes” portray themselves as being on the side of the “little guy” they fail to realize that it is the “little guy” who gets hurt the worst when govt restricts the free market from functioning effectively and efficiently.
You may want to check out Thomas Soweell’s Basic Economics or pre-order my book on Amazon, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies.
Gregg J
Gregg J
May 1st, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Dangerously small cars? What exactly is a dangerously small car? Last I checked, most SUVs still flipped over and burst into flames in a 5 MPH wind. You cannot be saying that all these people driving hummers and big SUVs that will never in a million years haul anything heavier than bags from the Gap or lattes are not a part of the problem.
Define dangerously small car. My Corolla gets great gas mileage and unless I get run over by some yuppie talking on his cell phone driving his Hummer without a speck of dirt on it, I am pretty safe I think.
And I own stock in a large oil company. I don’t mind their profits at all. Good for them. But it is obvious that we would all be better off if people used less gas, regardless of where it comes from.
Although the oil companies didn’t do themselves any good PR wise. It doesn’t take Oliver Stone to figure out something was fishy when gas prices surge right before two of the biggest driving times of the year. Let me guess, when the summer is over and people drive less the prices will go down.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Optimist,
Tough to determine exactly what to respond to. Somewhat incoherent and vague but I will try.
My usage of the term “smaller cars” was in reference to an earlier comment from Jordan that I disagreed with his contention that higher prices are a good thing in that they would force us to drive smaller cars. He contradicted himself by saying that higher gas prices were a good thing but that they “piss everybody off.” The fact of the matter is that his premise, and yours I suspect, if you have one, is flawed in that by increasing taxes “profits taxes” on oil companies who are making a relatively diminutive profit( not that that should even matter)that consumers will “conserve” and be forced into smaller vehicles. The fact of the matter is that taxing productive private businesses is not the answer to high energy costs. The problem is obvious in that liberals have for years obstructed every effort to develop domestic energy sources making us more reliant upon unstable Arab oil/natural gas and their capricious monopolistic cartels. If anyody has engaged in ‘gouging” it has been OPEC. Increasing taxes on oil company profits would only exascerbates the problem by artificailly raising costs leaving less money for R&D, exploration, and hiring. I posed the question, to jordan which he still has not answered and I pose the same question to you. can you provide me one example of how a “profits tax” has ever decreased the cost of a good or service or made that good or service more abundant? That is the real question that those who don’t understand basic economics conveniently ignore.
You also, say that we would also be better off it people used less gas. Perhpas we would. Perhaps we wouldn’t. That assertion is fairly ambiguous and fails to acknowledge a multitude of factors and variables. Are you saying that people are not “better off” now than people in the US were in 1940 when people used less gas? If you are talking about overall std of living, than your assertion would be based on a fallacious standpoint. Perhaps you can elucidate and develop your assertion that “we would all be better off if we used less gas.” Nobody can say for sure how many proven reserves there are in the world. Oil reserves are growing. (1948-1992) Reserves have increased by a factor of 14.Oil reserves in 1990 exceeded one trillion barrels for the first time ever. As I write in my book: According to Danish professor of statistics and former Greenpeace member, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist: â??Energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. ” The price of oil is half what it was 20 years ago.â?ť So I would ask you, if we are living a higher standard of living now as compared to 50 years ago when oil and gas consumption was far less, how can you make the claim that “we would all be better off if we used less gas.” Perhaps I am missing something here. The internal combustion engine under-girds globald manufacturing, commerce, industry, and travel and is primarily powered by oil and gas. If we can produce these two energy sources more cheaply, efficiently,abundantly , and cleantly which the vast majority of scientists think is possible why then would we be “better off” if we used less gas which is the primary energy source which sustains much of the world we live in?
The fact of the matter is that as I quote in the original blog post:
The dirty little secret about oil politics is that todayâ??s high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. â??Why isnâ??t the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?â?ť asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute whoâ??s followed the gasoline wars for years.
Finally, it is an empirically documented fact that SUVs are safer than small and mid-size cars. There is no argument here. I would challenge you to cite one credible peer reviewed controlled study proving otherwise.
Gregg J
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:01 am
well where to start. First off, unlike Kevin, your retorts are usually dripping in sarcasm and sort of mean spirited. You must go through life very frustrated in the absolute belief that everyone in the world is dumb but you. Take a lesson from Kevin’s style, who will disagree with someone while engaging in a good conversation. And get a sense of humor. Even Ronald Reagan laughed.
But to the topic at hand:
1) I said nothing about taxes. Not sure where you got the ammo for your first diatribe there. So just calm down there Frances.
2) Safety concerns: I got tired of reading all the studies by government agencies saying SUVs were unsafe (for those driving and those around them.) They rollover much more than other cars because they are designed like trucks but driven like cars by a general population that doesn’t know how to properly drive a truck.
And I am sure you will find several surveys sponsored by SUV companies saying their vehicles are hunky dory. But a couple of fun sites (http://www.suv.org/safety.html) (http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/) and my favorite ( http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=176&did=949) I am sure you will say all the wondeful numbers and stats here (some from government agencies) are all part of a vast conspiracy, probably led by Hilary Clinton.
3) As for using less, so are you saying that there is no reason at all to try to use less gas? http://www.peakoil.net/ Now I know you will toss out examples of surveys only three people in the world have seen as counterpoints, so I am not sure what the point is of trying to show you opposing surveys. But I trust the Army Corps of Engineers (anything the US military does I trust. I am weird that way.) Take a peak at what they say from the above website.
4) Conservation does not mean rationing. But I find it hard to believe that you think that we should all be taking gas baths and driving cars that get 4 MPG just because it is our right and privilege to use as much of a resource as we want. Gas ain’t like air. It does have an end eventually and there are negative and positive outcomes from its use. Do you honestly believe that our complete reliance and overuse of gas is a good thing? If you are so far gone down that path, then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.
I will wave and smile as I drive past you spending $80 to fill up your SUV every three days. Thanks for the extra tax money.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:52 am
And A quick note on my first post. Here is a quick breakdown of my points to help you:
1) Dangerously small cars? …..Last I checked, most SUVs still flipped over …..: (Just challenging your assumption that smaller cars are more dangerous than SUVs, while at the same time saying SUVs were proven dangerous. And I tried to do it with humor.)
2) Define dangerously small car…..unless I get run over by some yuppie … (More attempt at humor by making fun of people who drive hummers. Hummers aren’t dangerous (they are basically combat vehicles), it is the knuckleheads that drive them that are the problem.)
3) And I own stock in a large oil company. I donâ??t mind their profits…(Just trying to say that I have no problem with oil companies making money, and ended with a thought on how we all would be better off conserving a bit and not blaming oil companies all the time)
4) Although the oil companies didnâ??t do themselves any good PR wise…. (Just making a statement on the fact that oil companies aren’t doing themselves any favors by being so predictable. Nothing illegal about charging more at certain times of the year. Heck, the rose companies do it at Valentine’s Day. The oil companies just shouldn’t be so blatant about it and try to cover it up. Capitalism is fine by me.)
Now did that help? Not everyone is as good as Kevin at posting replies, but I will try harder in the future to make my points crisp and clear for you.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I’m a little too “sarcastic” for you Optimist? You may want to read your last two posts. The term “Pot calling the kettle black” comes to mind. “mean spirited?” I wold love for you to cite some specific examples. I always try to stay razor focussed on the issues withour the ad hominem attacks.
The fact of the matter is that you have spent a lot of time rambling on about insignificant points- moast of which are unrelated to my original post- without responding the points from my previous post. I will assume that you concur with the central thrust of my origincal post and if not, please provide specific areas of disagreement. This should facilitate our discourse.
I don’t have time to respond to your absurd claims as not being as “nice” as my partner Kevin. Let’s get beyond that puerile characterization shall we. Focus on the issues I discuss in my post instead of attacking me personally. If you concur with my assessment great. If not let me know where I am incorrect in specific terms.
And I never said complete reliance upon foreign oil was a “good thing.” In fact if you read my original post I speak specifically of the importance of becoming less reliant by developing domestic sources of gas and oil. Don’t put words in my mouth or alter what I said. By doing so you lose crediblity with me and others that read our exchange. Stay focussed on my original post. Slow down and focussssssss.
Gregg J
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Actually, I agreed with your initial post. I was perfectly happy with your thoughts until I read one of your answers. It was your strange comment about dangerously small cars that I had questions on. So I was commenting on your reply, and not your post. Which again, made perfect sense.
Example of you starting a reply sarcastically (and I just looked at this one): “Tough to determine exactly what to respond to. Somewhat incoherent and vague but I will try.”
No one likes to be called incoherent. Vague sure, who doesn’t like that. But incoherent was a bit mean.
And this quote: The fact of the matter is that his premise, and yours I suspect, if you have one… A bit sarcastic, don’t you think?
And since I would just continue to focus on answering responses in your responses and not on your original post, I will stop. But I would for you to expand on your “why then would we be â??better offâ?ť if we used less gas which is the primary energy source which sustains much of the world we live in?” thought.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Good enough for me Optimist. Glad to know that you concur with my original post/response to Jordan.
For whatever it is worth, I choose my words very carefully and used “incoherrent” to describe as precisely as possibly my assessment of your original response. Don’t take it personally. I don’t even know you. I was using as descriptive a word as possible with no intention of being a big “meanie.”
Also, if I choose to be sarcastic, which I do from time to time, it is because it is my blog (that Kevin and I pay for) and it is my right to use whatever expressive verbiage I choose. That is the beauty of free speech and in my opinion this fantastic technology-the blogosphere. Moreover, sarcasm is a form of wit that I feel plays an important role in our political discourse primarily to add a little flavor and spice to the discussion, and should not be misconstrued as being an ad hom attack.
At any rate, it’s good to know we can agree on the central premise of my original post in response to Jordan’s comments.
Take care and thank you for taking time to post your thoughts on the blog:)
Be blessed.
Gregg J
May 15th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Your site sucks mah ballsssssssss~~~~ [][][][][]I’ll be touching it now…
May 18th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Gas prices are stupidly high. There is no excuse for it. However I have found a way to save and even make money with the high gas prices. Give it a look see it really works. http://www.4ecorp.ws/kmac1234/