Loading ...
The Big Issue in November?
- Filed under: National Landscape 2008
- Date: May 9,2008
Another day, another new record price of oil. I think this happens 3 or 4 days a week now. I wrote briefly yesterday that the price will come down at some point - markets will dictate that - but it probably won't be any time soon. That ensures that the high prices at the gas pump is going to be a major issue this fall. Just about every American who drives a car will be reminded of every time they hit the gas station this summer. I see a chance here for McCain to make some headway on this issue while the Democrats are wrapping up their primary.
I thought this from Jim Geraghty was one of the best ideas I had seen in some time: Since clinching the nomination, McCain's campaign has been a series of tours - the foreign tour, the bio tour, the forgotten parts of America tour, the health care tour, the "see, I like conservatives" tour. May I recommend the "where gasoline comes from" tour?
Day one, an area off-limits to drilling because of federal regulations. Day two, a refinery — one of those important structures that we haven't built in this country since 1976. Day three, a distribution plant, observing the Byzantine system of blend requirements in each state. Day four, the gas stations themselves, noting that 18 states don't have any oil refineries, meaning that all of their supply has to be transported from out of state.
It almost did not even seem possible that no refinery has been built here since 1976, but I looked it up and it was true. That makes zero sense if you think about it; it isn't like people have started using less oil or anything. Americans need to know why this is the case - and which party has been responsible for blocking energy reform all around, not just refineries. Here is a good map from Gateway Pundit that shows where we can't explore for oil.
Gas prices are going to be high this summer. It is going to be a top issue. McCain has a chance to get out in front here. We are experiencing higher gas prices now (and a lot of high energy prices) because of decades of restricted development of new sources of petroleum and reasons above like not building refineries. The new technology today is not what it was in the 1970's; drilling in places and leaving a small footprint is possible. If people aren't receptive to new drilling and oil exploration now, they never will be. One party has been responsible for this over the years. Hmmmmm, which one you wonder? No, actually, I am sure you know.
Democrats want to tax, litiagte and investigate their way out of this problem. Unfortunately, their agenda will do nothing significant to increase the supply and reduce the price of gasoline in America, but it will give Henry Waxman something to do. Explain to me what Democrats are doing to help the consumer out? I don't see anything. Don't they control the House and Senate these days? What does Nancy "With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford Rubber Stamp Congress" Pelosi think about this? What happened the last time the US trying something like the "windfall profit tax" people like Obama want to implement? Yeah, I wonder how oil companies are going to recoup the money they lose in higher taxes? I can only make one conclusion based on all this: Democrats like higher gas prices. That is what their actions tell me.
Reminder: President William Jefferson Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995. People always say it would take 10 years to get oil from ANWR. It is now 2008. We would have it. Yeah, I know McCain voted against it.
Of course, first we need to be sure McCain doesn't "lose his bearings." What McCain adviser Mark Salter said really is true: We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. "First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is." It really is the way this race is shaping up.
UPDATES:
Right Runner also picked up on this story.
Washington Times: McCain will be doing an "energy and climate change tour." Well I suppose he is halfway there.
26 Responses for "The Big Issue in November?"
People need to wake up and understand that any change or new exploration we do wont bring us any oil for a couple of years best case. We cant just pass a bill and see prices tumble.
Alex - given that it is a traded commodity, and oen which is extremely volatile to expectations and not just results, we can absolutely expect that prices could come down simply by passing a bill saying we are going to allow drilling in ANWR. I am not advocating that, but suggesting that a commodity price won't fluctuate based on a changing future landscape is ridiculous. Are you completely unfamiliar with how the commodity and exchange markets work?
yes mike d all of these liberal metal mdigets have zero clue how things work–they just know to blame it on bush and evil republicans
That was a lot of words and a lot of rhetoric. But here is the realities: the public will blame the oilmen for the price, and since the Republicans are the oilmen, this is a winner for the Dems, no matter grandpa frames the issue.
And you can talk all you want about ANWR and more drilling, but nobody except the oilmen think that is an actual solution.
But I will agree that a windfall profits tax may not be the best approach. Instead, I think the winning solution (and one that the Dems will eventually adopt) is to QUIT SUBSIDIZING THE OIL COMPANIES!
A windfall profits tax will allow the Haneeleer Republicans to make their annoying argument about how all Dems do is raise taxes (which is not true…when they do, it has worked).
So instead, lets jam an argument back up the throats of these oil goons. Lets call them what they are: WELFARE WHORES. It worked for Ronald Reagan, so it can work for Democrats. The oil industry receives upwards of $50 BILLION A YEAR IN CORPORATE WELFARE.
The Republicans argued against that lady in the Cadillac getting a welfare check. So I am sure Hanneeler would have to be against the MOST PROFITABLE COMPANIES IN THE HISTORY OF MAN receiving WELFARE CHECKS.
So I do hope Obama drops the call for a windfall profits tax and instead calls for an end to WELFARE WHORES, or maybe WELFARE PIMPS, or maybe WELFARE KINGS (to play right off of Reagan's Welfare Queen crap).
No one but the oilmen think that is the solution … who would know better?
Yea, let's trust a group of individuals gouging the country to tell us what's best. I'm sure the oilmen also think alternative fuel research is a waste.
"McCain has a chance to get out in front here. We are experiencing higher gas prices now (and a lot of high energy prices) because of decades of restricted development of new sources of petroleum and reasons above like not building refineries."
and your bud farleigh….
"all of these liberal metal mdigets have zero clue how things work–"
If ANWR were drained dry the world's oil supply would be affected by a whopping .3% increase. That's going to really make those commodities traders go apesh*t, I reckon.
The oil prices are being rigged by billions and billions of weak dollars looking for a better return. The oil futures gambling house game is hot. The market isn't working, just like it didn't work in the Dot.com perversion.
Read what the Saudis, you know, the White House BFF's, have to say about supply. There's plenty of supply. Psychological games of manipulation on the futures markets are enriching a handful of people…just like in the Dot.com fiasco.
ANWR and more refineries are both topics for debate, but neither are playing a role in the current runup. This is greed, Wall Street style….greed is good, remember?
Also I agree with Chuck….Big Oil is a just a bunch of welfare whores. And now these whores think they can suck on the government's teat AND raise their prices at the same time. Time to teach a lesson. Obama wants to tax all oil sold over $80 a barrel. That's a good start.
If you want to blame someone….look no further than a blind, deaf,and dumb Bush administration eager to start a war overtop a sea of oil thus catalyzing the futures traders to start running oil prices up because of "uncertainties" in the middle east, etc. That's how this all began. Morons.
$4-5 a gallon gasoline will depress this country in 18-24 months.
Preach on
The above comments, especially those by "The Reverend", show that these liberal chuckleheads have no sense of economic reality. There's no debating them. It's simply going to have to smash them square in the face. And when a bunch of other countries start to pass us by they'll look around with stars in their eyes and all stunned and they'll say "Wha..wha…what happened? Wha..did the Republicans do to us? Algore, Algore, where are you? We're scared. We want to suck on your, er, a government tit some more so we'll feel good again."
You liberal maggots are sickening.
Oilmen want to find oil and know how to. If they say there's oil there and are willing to invest billions finding out, why would anyone think otherwise?
ChucKos,
You always talk about oil subsidies, so let's see some links for subsidies other than those dealing with Bio-fuel. I am not saying you are wrong, but show some proof.
Rev,
The White House has been close to the House of Saud since Truman's visit with King Saud in the late 40's. Clinton never showed them the door when he was in office, nor would Hillary or Obama.
You say that your gas prices are high because of development restrictions.
But the dollar is falling, and why? Because the demand for dollars is falling and again there is everywhere that fear of a dollar collapse.
I really like the "NO" map.
Four Points:
(1) Profits are a cost of doing business. Each and EVERY business unable to cover its costs goes out of business, in every economic system (communist, elected socialist, capitalist). To increase oil company costs by taxing them more money will do two things: (A) drive oil company costs higher and for that reason drive gasoline prices higher; (B) create greater conflict between our 'have's versus our have-nots,' precisely what our elected socialists work daily to achieve. Hillary, Barack, Ted, Nancy and so on love internal conflict of this nature as socialists consider it the only way they for them to gain and maintain public office;
(2) The Former USSR, to include its largest state, Russia, had and continues to have huge quantities of oil for domestic use, and for export. The USSR failed economically anyway, primarily because of its failure to understand how an economy works, failure to understand the cost issue, failure to adequately cover its costs. The USSR failed because it could not - even with heavy application of rifle butt and bayonet - force socialist controls of business to work;
(3) When demand for oil exceeds supply of oil, oil prices rise - ALWAYS. Professional politicians in the USA know this relationship quite well, but many politicians (Democrats and RINOs) prefer to see the USA fail completely than see it continue to succeed without them getting to run it.: and, finally,
(4) You and I have entrusted the affairs of state to the wrong people! This Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America will not solve all of our problems, but will go a long way towards doing so: "Except for the President of the United States of America, the term in elected public office shall not exceed a combined total of ten years for any person." (T. Coyne, (6/19/98).
Respectfully,
Tom Coyne
http://www.coyne-assoc.com
They already are. Perhaps a cohesive policy on mass transit will be required as well. See linked NY Times article that reports large jumps in transit use this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/business/10transit.html?hp
Yes, mass transit is hot and soccer is going to be the number one sport in America soon.
Dr Coyne makes good points about the USSR.
Ohio Exile makes a solid point as well - people just arent going to use PT if they dont already.
There was an interesting segment on NPR yesterday about the very recent upturn in PT in urban areas, and most of the new riders cited the cost of gas as there main reason. People are willing to and sometimes forced by necessity to change their habits, even if there is some inconvenience involved.
I take the RTA so I dont care.
great site..ty for the visit to WHT!..come again~!:)
A cohesive policy on mass transit solves what? Mass transit works in Europe because there a lots of people in a small area. Mass transit works in NYC for the same reason. Mass transit doesn't work in most of the US because the population density isn't high enough for it to make sense.
Don't see the trains stopping around D-town very often.
Hollywood: How does one define mass transit as working? Does it work in Boston? Or in Washington? What about Chicago? San Francisco? Portland? The article talks about record numbers in Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Miami.
You don't think Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati Could have better mass transit (Especially Columbus)? Mass transit does not come overnight. Go back 40 years in Washington DC, and one thing you'll notice (outside of it being an awful place) is that there is no metro, it is a road town. Today, almost 800,000 people a day take metro. Washington DC is a smaller city than the 3 big Ohio cities I mentioned above.
Mass Transit doesn't need to be just Subway. Maybe build train tracks that Run from Cleveland to Cincinnati via Akron, Canton, Columbus, Dayton that runs a couple of times daily. Maybe some Bus Rapid Transit would be appropriate. All that I am saying is that this country treats roads and transit as two seperate things.
Why should 100,000 people taking a train every day be any different the 100,000 people taking a road (assuming they cost the same)? At the moment, roads are built via none of the efficiency standards that are required for transit. The Federal Government alone spends almost $300 Billion over a 5 year transportation bill. It doesn't hurt till we have $3.50/gallon gas. All of a sudden that 20-30 mile commute every day is adding up real fast.
I am not saying Mass Transit is the answer to all of our problems. But dismissing a coherent policy because it may not be appropriate for certain areas doesn't seem to be a wise decision if you are at all interested in at least one of these areas below:
1. lower our dependence foreign oil
2. Improve the environment
3. Spend Less time in Traffic
4. reduce Suburban sprawl
I can come up with more if you'd like. The US has no coherent policy that ties all types of transit (roads, rails, planes) together, and we need one.
I have been worried about Obama and have just looked at the web site that Beware posted here. Obama is much worse than I had thought. We need experience not egomania. We need a hard working patriot not an anti-american showman. Please everyone, Write letters to the editor about Obama, Expose him. Few voters read these blogs, We need to get ths message out about this threat to our security and well being, Obama.
Ohio Exile makes a lot of sense. This country needs a cohesive and comprehensive transportation policy. Mass transit in urban areas can and does work. Even is smaller areas, cities like Akron, there can be improvements.
Ph.D…..You gotta be joking.
"To increase oil company costs by taxing them more money will do two things: (A) drive oil company costs higher and for that reason drive gasoline prices higher; (B) create greater conflict between our 'have's versus our have-nots,' precisely what our elected socialists work daily to achieve."
Taxes imposed on oil companies leading to even higher costs is only a part of the equation. Gasoline prices are going higher right now WITHOUT any new taxes. I suppose that's the divine hand, invisible though it is, of the "marketplace".
There are no shortages of gasoline. No rationing. OPEC repeatedly states that there's plenty of supply. The supply/demand "principles" aren't working…..just as they aren't working in health care and didn't work during the Dot.com grand theft.
Ph.D would have us believe that "socialist" Democrats are pushing class warfare….when, in actuality, the warfare has been raging from BIG MONEY's side for 30 years. That's why working families have lost $1000 per year on average recently while the top 1% have grown exponentially richer.
Energy, health care, education are a few of the sectors of our economy needing controls. For the sake, not of the rich, but of the PEOPLE.
Price freezes are needed. Fuel cell and electric vehicles, wind and solar, higher CAFE standards, and conservation projects and programs need to be implemented.
It will take a Democratic administration to accomplish those things…..the GOP is simply too beholden to BIG ENERGY and BIG MONEY.
Last anonymous, there are public transportation options but no one wants to use them.
Leave a comment