Dems Pimp at the Pump
Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:21PM Oil rose to $75 a barrel last week, meaning the average price of gas at the pump is $2.91 a gallon. Democrats blame Pres. Bush… of course. Whether it be war, peace, prosperity, global warming, or natural disasters, when the truth just won’t do, BLAME BUSH.
The war in Iraq was supposed to be a war for oil, said left wing extremists. Wouldn’t gas prices be lower if that were the case? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, said:
"The increase of the oil price and growth of oil income is very good and we hope that the oil prices reach their real levels."
Sidebar: The usual conspiracy theories are that Pres. Bush has dealings with oil empires throughout the world for profit. A more likely scenario is that leftist extremists have made a deal with the opium growers of Afghanistan for a buffet style all-you-can-eat smorgasbord supply of dope in exchange for relentless fables against the President (like, for example, that President Bush knew about 9/11 and sent a jet to escort Osama Bin Laden and his family safely out of Afghanistan). Let’s face it, leftists are smoking something, and it isn’t cigarettes.
End Sidebar: Why are gas prices so high? Reality: Democrats for over 30 years have caved to environmentalism and refused to allow drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and the west coast and ANWR in Alaska. Reality: Democrats repeatedly vote for tax increases on gasoline and oil. Reality: Demand for oil/gas has quadrupled in the past 40 years, making the US dependent on foreign oil. Supply has not kept up.
Here are some facts: (thanks to GOP.com)
DEMS VOTE AGAINST ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES:
In 2005, 124 House Democrats And 19 Senate Democrats Voted Against The Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #445: Adopted 275-156: R 200-31; D 75-124; I 0-1, 7/28/05; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05)
The 2005 Energy Bill Encouraged Greater Use Of Ethanol. (Accessed 4/21/06)
DEMS VOTE AGAINST ENERGY EXPLORATION:
40 Senate Democrats Voted To Filibuster The FY 2006 Defense Spending Bill Because They Objected To The Inclusion Of ANWR Exploration. (H.R. 2863, CQ Vote #364: Motion Rejected 56-44: R 52-3; D 4-40; I 0-1, 12/21/05)
“ANWR Resources Would Supply Every Drop Of Petroleum For The Entire State Of Florida For 29 Years, Arkansas For 146 Years, Or Hawaii For 249 Years.” (U.S. Department Of The Interior Website, “Facts: Environmentally Responsible Energy Production In Alaska’s ANWR,” www.doi.gov, Accessed 12/19/05)
“[T]he United States Is Sitting On An Untapped Oil Supply That Could Replace 30 Years Worth Of U.S. Oil Imports From Saudi Arabia, The World’s Biggest Oil Producer, According To The National Center For Policy Analysis.” (Joseph Perkins, Op-Ed, “One Sure Way To Lower Gasoline Prices,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, 4/2/04)
DEMS VOTE AGAINST ENERGY REFINING AND TRANSPORTING EFFORTS:
In 2005, 124 House Democrats And 19 Senate Democrats Voted Against The Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #445: Adopted 275-156: R 200-31; D 75-124; I 0-1, 7/28/05; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05)
DEMS REPEATEDLY VOTE FOR HIGHER GAS TAXES:
- In 1992, 131 Democrats Supported Imposing The Federal Diesel Fuel Excise Tax In The Same Manner As The Gas Tax. (H.R. 5649, CQ Vote #360: Motion Rejected 200-207: R 68-90; D 131-117; I 1-0, 8/4/92)
- In 1993, 217 Democrats Supported A 4.3 Cents Per Gallon Increase Of The Federal Gas Tax. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #406: Adopted 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, 8/5/93)
- In 1996, 93 Democrats Voted Against A Temporary Repeal Of The 4.3 Cents Per Gallon Gas Tax, Which Would Have Saved Motorists $2.9 Billion. (H.R. 3415, CQ Vote #182: Passed 301-108: R 208-15; D 92-93; I 1-0, 5/21/96)
- In 1996, 180 Democrats Voted Against Ending Debate On Bill that Would Have Temporarily Repealed The 4.3 Cents Per Gallon Gas Tax, Which Would Have Saved Motorists $2.9 Billion. (H.R. 3415, CQ Vote #180: Motion Agreed To 221-181: R 220-0; D 1-180; I 0-1, 5/21/96)
Supply and demand, high taxes on gas and oil and an inability to use our own abundant natural resources are the culprits; not the President, not the war in Iraq, and not the oil companies, contrary to current concensus by Democrats. The fact is that unemployment and interest rates are so low that Americans have more money to spend on vacations and SUVs. US oil companies make a profit of approximately a 9 cent per dollar of sales. Federal and state taxes equal anywhere from 26.4 to 53.5 cents per gallon. (the national average is in the mid 40 cent per gallon range) Since Democrats have never met a tax hike they didn’t like, it’d be more plausible to pin the tail of blame on the donkey.
If we must blame anyone for the price of gas at the pump, let’s be realistic: it’s the Democrats and their taxes.
Expose the Left Texas Rainmaker Sister Toldjah
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/457709
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (37)
Everyone is suffering from this not just the Republicans. Why can't they see that? I will tell you why, because the cannot get over the fact that Republicans have done a better job than them.
I am sick of having to pay up the wazoo for gas!
Well, to me, opening up ANWR is a bit like someone taking out a home equity loan to pay off a high interest credit card. Looks good at first and maybe it is good in the short haul, but then in a few years, most people have new debt plus the loan and are in trouble all over again...
We lived in Alaska (Fairbanks) from 1986-1994 and my husband did his research in Prudhoe Bay. I was fortunate enough to fly up one time and see the area myself and the drilling and pictures he took of ANWR (I was never in ANWR myself). It's very beautful, very pristine and while I don't pretend to know if that area will ever be opened up, it must be managed like nothing has ever been managed before. The Exxon Valdez incident was pretty terrible...
But I will say that what I saw looked very clean and very well organized. Once a polar bear walked on by and traffic stopped for an hour to let him go on at his own pace so I would say there is sensitivity toward the wildlife (at least when I was there).
That being said though, I really believe the solution is not in opening up ANWR. It provides no real long term solution and buys right into this country's 'need' for more, more, more...
Thanks,
S
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3640903a10,00.html
I agree with you. Liberals can't moan and complain about gas prices on the one hand and allow the federal government to charge a tax on oil with the other.
I'm still trying to figure out why liberals (and even some conservatives) think the government has the right to tax things like oil, cigarettes, etc. They contribute nothing to those industries. Bill Maher (a liberal, I know) once called the government "the mafia who wants a cut".
In cases like those, it's easy to see where his criticism applies.
Excellent post!
You know, whenever I watch news conferences with the Democrats, I always hope beyond hope that they'll be dignified for a change, not lie or demagogue. Unfortunately, I'm almost always disappointed. I really shouldn't hope anymore. Chuck Schumer at a news conference condemning the President for the gas prices started on the typical rant that Bush is a friend of the big oil companies, and how Big Evil Oil companies are the problem. It's a democratic attempt to tie together Fahrenheit 9/11, Halliburton and pretend scandals. They continue to use these buzz words to hog tie the President in the public's eye, particularly when the American public isn't al that swift overall when it comes to understanding the comprehensive nature of these issues. If the economy is as good as it is and unemployment as low, interest rates as low, how can it possible be pinned on the President? Obviously something else is going on.
I pointed out that an average of 9 cents per gallon is the profit of oil companies, whereas the average tax per gallon the consumer pays is 46 cents. Yes, oil companies are the problem! Not to mention all the extra $$ we pay because of the sexed up EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, most of which are not effective, to have oil refined. Of course, our dependence on foreign companies is what drives up the prices the most. I don't believe in being isolationists, but I also don't believe in being dependent upon others for something so vital for energy when we have the domestic resources. Think also of the jobs that would be created if we could drill for oil in these protected areas. It's win/win.
Oh, PS, do a spell check on "Schumer" and it comes out "Schemer"! Now THAT'S funny!
But your point is well taken: gas is on the rise globally. AND IT'S NOT BUSH'S FAULT! Oil from China, Saudi Arabia and India are also driving up the prices from what I hear because of trade practices and a monopoloy on the oil industry.
The dirty little secret is that US gas prices are still some of the lowest in the world, but US consumers want and endless supply of cheap gas without having to expand drilling and refinery operations and without having to face the very real national security implications of dependence on Arab Oil.
Strip away taxes and the investment oil companies use to meet the EPA standards and it'd be under $2 a gallon. Gas really isn't that expensive.
Johnny, according to the little chart the oil companies make $.09 dollar of sales not per gallon. And the price of gasoline in Europe is high because of taxes. Up to 70% of the price at the pump in some European countries is taxes. So, Amy if you strip away the taxes over there their gasoline isn't really that expensive either.
The solution is to wean ourselves off of oil. Big Oil says that they are investing a billion dollars in alternative energy research. If Exxon invests $1B that is less than 3/10% of its revenue and less than 3% of its profits, yet its earnings per share has increased by about 30% since Katrina.
I see no reason to or not to defend "big Oil" any more than I would defend "Big McDonald's" or "Big Donald Trump". I'm simply pointing out that the President isn't personally responsible for gas prices, the panic attack over gas is hyped and Dems are demagoging.
The chart reads "Cents profit per dollar". For every dollar, an oil company makes about 9 cents.
Don't kid yourself, those are huge industries. Government taxes on them are *greed*, pure and simple.
The oil compannies are getting rich while the rest of us are getting poor.
I believe, also, that it is time to start drilling in Alaska. We need to be independent. I am sorry that there are owls that will become extinct, but human beings must come first. Maybe they can relocate them.
Trent, you are absolutely correct!
I think there are two basic aspects to the oil price problem: The price of crude oil (before any taxes are added on), and the taxes added to the price by governments.
The problem with the crude price is that the market is controlled by OPEC, whose members continually set limits on the maximum supply, and also deliberately understate their reserves, in order to keep prices artificially high. Oil is bought in the commodities market on a futures basis, usually for delivery in 6 to 8 weeks from the point of sale. The big traders also artificially inflate the market value of a barrel, by reacting with alarm to every potential threat to future supply.
Then of course, there is the problem of fuel duties. (Here in the UK, duty and VAT accounts for about 71% of the price of a gallon! Our petrol (in USA terms) costs approx. $6.50 a gallon. Imagine paying that much!!)
Its never fails to amaze me, the way in which people can totally turn a blind eye to the biggest leeches on society, and yet frown and growl when there's any mention of assistance to the impoverished billions. If you had a wort on your foot, and the ebola virus, which would you get rid of first?
In most states, the state motor fuels tax is likewise dedicated to roadbuilding. I know my state of Texas does allocate a small portion to education, and a few other states may do likewise. But I think we should still consider all fuel taxes to be, for the most part, a user fee for our highways.
You may be correct that the OPEC cartel is controlling oil prices. But world oil price data don't seem to indicate any sort of control mechanism:
1981 $35.24
1986 $14.38
Jan-1991 $24.72
Jan-1994 $12.34
Jan-1997 $23.18
Jan-1999 $ 9.76
Jan-2002 $18.68
Jan-2005 $35.16
Why would a cartel allow prices to drop so low in 1986, then again in 1994, and then again in 1999? Please note that each trough was progressively lower in nominal dollars.
Neither OPEC nor Big Oil controls world crude oil prices. OPEC continues to try, but has had little success in the long run. The oil companies don't even try.
Leticia, I'm not sure if you're speaking metaphorically, but the owls (are you referring to the spotted owls?) aren't in ANWR. They are in Washington and British Columbia which are far south of ANWR.
For me, I think one of the problems I have with the suggested drilling in ANWR is that a lot of folks seem to think it's going to be this simple, catch-all solution. Self-sufficiency, more jobs, lower gas prices...and a lot of folks also slap a label on it. Environmentalists don't want to drill there over a bird or a caribou or a piece of moss.
Also for me, that's not the case. What bugs me to no great end, is the idea that in this country, we want our cake and we want to eat it too. We want big SUVs but aren't willing to pay for expensive gas for them.There's no sense of moderation or consequences.
In the 70's everyone is in little Toyotas and then it swings to Hummers and Yukons. Then we give tax breaks for people buying SUVs, then soon after, we get credit for buying energy star rated air conditioning systems, we hear about drilling in ANWR and President Bush touting ethanol as an alternative source of fuel (he looked extremely uncomfortable doing it in my opinion). No one says, how about taking the middle ground? How about conservation or other ways to cut back? Opening ANWR is like giving alcholics more booze.
It would also be interesting to figure out, if when they built the pipeline in AK, if it really helped bring costs down...I do know a lot of people came to AK for those jobs to help build it, but when the pipeline was done, so were the jobs...
Well, that's my piece this morning.
S
I remember last year when I paid $3.35 a gallon after Katrina. Today I paid $2.75. I think that's pretty good.
This whole "crisis" is a hoax. It is no crisis. If you look at the chart, it reveals the truth: banking, cell phones and high speed internet are all optional. Its a matter of priority, and Americans are chosing to use optional goods (cell phones, etc.) at a greater rate than gas. For example, I spend $40 for gas a month, maybe $60 including my husband’s gas usage. We spend $65, which is cheap, for our 2 cell phones (optional) and for our digital phone, internet (wireless laptop/ connection) and cable combo we pay $130 a month. That’s more than double what we spend on gas to get where we NEED TO GO.
Food and beverage profits are above gas profits. Are Americans having larger families, more kids and NEEDING to spend more on food/beverage? No. Families are smaller but they opt to eat out more and eat more, getting fatter. And who needs beer, wine, Coke and Pepsi? Its a want, not a need… yet people are willing to pay more for their personal preferences than for necessities like gas.
The chart I posted makes a very valuable comparison between our needs and wants. Viagra, Ritalin, Clariton, and prescription birth control all make a bigger profit than gasoline. I think that’s worth pointing out.
And if I hear Chuck Schumer one more time talk about how we have to bring down big oil, I'm going to march on DC demanding cell phone and cable prices be brought down as well.
Thank you for responding to me.
>I remember last year when I paid $3.35 a gallon after >Katrina. Today I paid $2.75. I think that's pretty >good.
That is pretty good. Yesterday I paid 2.91, but after Katrina, I paid something in the 2.80 range. I guess it depends where you live. I'm in Central PA now.
>This whole "crisis" is a hoax. It is no crisis. If you >look at the chart, it reveals the truth: banking, cell >phones and high speed internet are all optional. Its a >matter of priority, and Americans are chosing to use >optional goods (cell phones, etc.) at a greater rate >than gas. For example, I spend $40 for gas a month, >maybe $60 including my husband’s gas usage. We spend >$65, which is cheap, for our 2 cell phones (optional) >and for our digital phone, internet (wireless laptop/ >connection) and cable combo we pay $130 a month. >That’s more than double what we spend on gas to get >where we NEED TO GO.
I guess it depends on your personal situation. I pay way more for gas than I do for any of my other services per month, but I live in a place where the nearest grocery store is 15 miles away, farms in between us and it. My kids have a 35-40 minute bus ride each way and like last night, we went to a school function...another 15 miles each way. Of course, we chose to live where we live, but it depends. What is a crisis for some, is not for others...(I have to admit, I am planning my driving a little more carefully which I should be doing anyway. I don't want to drive 40 minutes for forgotten milk).
>Food and beverage profits are above gas profits. Are >Americans having larger families, more kids and >NEEDING to spend more on food/beverage? No. Families >are smaller but they opt to eat out more and eat more, >getting fatter. And who needs beer, wine, Coke and >Pepsi? Its a want, not a need… yet people are willing >to pay more for their personal preferences than for >necessities like gas.
Actually, this is my point. With discretionary income that a good number of Americans have (certainly not all), why should ANWR be opened up to fill this need when we can take measures as a society to control it? I'm not a researcher, but we can put money into alternative fuel for cars, there's electricity, there's ethanol, we can make cars more fuel efficient and to run cleaner. We can put money into making public transportation decent...we can give tax incentives to things that accomplish this. Unfortunately, many of us are driven by personal, monetary gain and we need a carrot dangled in front of our noses to make any sort of change.
To me, it's like sacrificing ANWR (and everything it represents) to keep filling a need that doesn't have to be the way it is now...
>And if I hear Chuck Schumer one more time talk about >how we have to bring down big oil, I'm going to march >on DC demanding cell phone and cable prices be brought >down as well.
I agree with you there! I hate paying my cell phone and cable and actually am going to cancel my cell phone when I can without penalty.
But I think what it is with gas, is that aside from putting a pretty good ding in our pocketbooks right now that we can see palpably everyday (even if we don't buy gas on a particular day, the price of it is in big letters on the side of every highway and exit and street corner), it's a symbol.
It's symbol for our economy, it's a symbol for the war (which a lot of people are not happy with right now), it's a symbol for big business, for corporations getting breaks, the environment, the rich, powerful guy against the average working Joe, it stands for so much...
I just hate to see ANWR be opened up and never returned to what it was, when we can prevent it now...
Sorry for being long-winded, S
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/640-per-gallon.html
Chief RZ, yes, I do know that the caribou population has increased. The Western AK herd has tripled in number, perhaps quadrupled and the Porcupine Herd has also increased in number though perhaps not at the same rate. However, those herds are a thousand miles from the Pipeline, maybe two.
I don't think the increase in numbers can be attributed to the fact the Pipeline did not bother their numbers.
But again, for me, it's not about one animal or one species. It's an idea that in this country we have one area of truly untouched wilderness without gravel roads or pads or guys in BP trucks driving by...
Now how many square miles are ANWAR? Do you know? How about $6.40 per gallon? !
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/640-per-gallon.html
I checked out the link you provided. Some people will pay for a lot of things such as bottled water even if they can get it out of a tap cheaper.
But great if the price of gas is the same as it was back in the 1970's, dollar comparison wise. Someone should get those figures to the White House, then they can tell everyone and then we don't have drill in ANWR.
S
Similarly, given non-negotiable start and end points, realistically how rich is my selection of roads?
The alternatives are: walking, running, biking, car, off-road-vechicle, horse, etc.
If you constrain to trains available - right now! then yes, there is a bit of a problem.
Think about the long-run solution, private firms go out of business when they are not profitable. These unprofitable firms have to sell the assets to someone who thinks they can do better. If fact if I think I can run the system better, I will bid a higher price for the assets (the rails etc) than the PDV of the current holder of the assets. In this way Private firms are efficent.
If I have to wait for train operators to go out of business for my choices to take effect, that's a rather unresponsive market, surely? It could take years. In the mean time, I have to make the journey on a bus or a car, or else persist in using the substandard train.
It's the same with the roads. People need to travel; it just strikes me as a natural monopoly.