Help Democrats Lower Gas Prices Now
Apr 25, 01:14 PM | Harry Reid
I was at home in Nevada while Congress was in recess last week. Driving around meeting with constituents, I saw firsthand that gas prices were once again shooting up to unprecedented levels of more than $3 a gallon. These high prices are unacceptable, and they are a direct result of the failures of George Bush, Republicans in Congress and their buddies at the big oil and gas companies.
Today, Democrats proposed an amendment to provide immediate relief to consumers. The amendment introduced by Senator Menendez will provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to the American people by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days. During the period of this gas tax holiday, the cost of gas will be reduced by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. We will pay for this tax cut by eliminating tax breaks and giveaways to big oil.
Senate Democrats need your help to show public support for this amendment. Show your support for the Menendez Amendment by becoming a citizen cosponsor today.
Become a citizen cosponsor today.
It was George Bush who promised during his first campaign that he would “jawbone” his family friends, the Saudis, into lowering oil prices. Yet every summer the price gets higher and higher. Why is your family paying more at the pump? The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released a report last week concluding that in California, “corporate markups and profiteering are responsible for spring price spikes, not rising crude costs . . . as the oil industry claims.”
Democrats want to address the problem directly, and our amendment will provide immediate relief to consumers. Senator Frist and Republican leadership believe there is no political price to pay for being in bed with big oil. Lets show them the truth. Fifty thousand of you signing up, as “Citizen Cosponsors” of this legislation would make a huge difference.
Become a citizen cosponsor of the Menendez Amendment today.
High gas prices hurt everyone. They lead to increased costs for food and place a heavy burden on those who commute to work. I receive hundreds of letters every week from Americans whose budgets are being stretched thin by skyrocketing prices. Gas is not a luxury for families—it is a necessity.
The fact is the big oil companies control the supply and know that families really have little choice in the matter – they literally have consumers over a barrel. While we are paying record prices, the oil companies are reaping record profits.
About the Menendez Amendment
The amendment will provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to consumers by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days. During the period of this gas tax holiday, the cost of gas will be reduced by $0.184 per gallon and the cost of diesel by $0.244 per gallon. Drivers will receive real relief every time they go to the pump during this period.
Protects the Highway Trust Fund. Under this amendment, the Highway Trust Fund will not lose one dime. Funds generated by reducing the tax breaks and giveaways to Big Oil will be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund in an amount equal to the revenues lost through the federal tax holiday. The Highway trust fund will continue to collect the revenues needed to continue all of the projects currently planned and funded.
Big Oil Will Pay the Price. After reporting record profits of over $100 billion last year, Big Oil is the most profitable business in the world. This amendment will provide direct relief to consumers and be fully paid for by repealing three major tax breaks that Big Oil clearly does not need and eliminating unnecessary and expensive royalty relief.
• Foreign Oil & Gas Foreign Tax Credit and Income. Under present law, US companies can claim a foreign tax credit for taxes paid to another country and not royalties and similar payments related to an economic benefit. The provision denies foreign tax credits for payments to a foreign country if the foreign country does not have a generally applicable income tax.
• LIFO – Oil & Gas. Under current law, businesses are generally permitted to use a last-in, first-out (LIFO) method to account for their inventories. This allows companies to create a tax advantage during times of rising prices. This proposal limits the tax benefits of this LIFO method of accounting for integrated oil companies with gross receipts in excess of $1 billion.
• Elimination of Amortization of Geological and Geophysical Expenditures for Large Oil & Gas Companies. Eliminates the tax break for accelerated depreciation for these expenditures for fully integrated oil companies that was passed in the Energy Bill.
• Eliminates Royalty Relief and other Direct Spending. The amendment also eliminates royalty relief and other direct spending for oil and gas production incentives in Titles III and IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 totaling approximately $700 million. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the major oil company CEOs testified that they did not need these incentives.
Comment
- Dear Harry,
With all due respect, a 0.184 cent/gallon price reduction will have very little impact on my bottom line. I drive a car with a 14 gallon tank, every time I fill up, this plan will save me at most a whopping $2.57. I can’t believe that the Federal government only adds 0.184 cents per gallon tax to the cost of our fuel.
Sincerely,
Bill Winston
— Bill Winston Apr 25, 02:17 PM # - We need alternatives to oil, not politically-motivated attacks at oil companies and Repubs. While I’m no fan of Big Oil, I want Dems to make a committment to real changes in the energy landscape. Unfortunately, this bill addresses a symptom, not a cause.
As owner of a V8, 1984 Pontiac, I can honestly say that I appreciate high gas prices, because they force us to start conserving. Cheap oil means that, in a few years, we’ll find ourselves without a steady supply of energy and no alternatives in sight.
Let’s make real changes, please!
— Curt McDermott Apr 25, 02:52 PM # - Dear Sen. Reid,
I am normally a stalwart supporter of the Democratic Party, but I part ways with both parties on their blind pandering to the public’s addiction to cheap oil and gas and other types of fossil fuel energy.
Please consider, before you and the rest of the Democrats push for lower gasoline prices, that we have never paid the real price of a gallon of gas in this country. I had the opportunity to live in Germany for 2 years in the 1980s, and my wife and I typically paid over $5.00 per gallon in 1988 dollars!! At first, we were shocked and awed by this when gasoline prices in the U.S. were hovering around $1.20 per gallon. But after discussing the reasons for the high prices, we realized that those reasons were more important than our need to pay artificially low prices. Some of those reasons included a built-in cost adjustment or use tax that paid for improvements to the national highway system, which is still one of the best in the world; a tax on gasoline use that paid for the environmental costs of using fossil fuels and subsidized research into cleaner fuels and other anti-pollution solutions; a built-in incentive for people to carpool and combine trips to cut down on the overall vehicle use and taught people to conserve on energy.
I believe that America, in the long term, would benefit more from paying the “real” costs of gasoline. If we had to pay $7 or $8 per gallon of gas, how many people would: stop buying gas-guzzling SUVs; or stop driving alone to and from work; or start combining errands; or ask themselves if perhaps they could ride a bus to work; or pressure their Congress and state legislatures to subsidize construction of comprehensive mass transit systems? How much more attractive and cost-effective would alternative, renewable, less- or non-polluting energy sources become if we had to pay to the “real” costs of gas and oil?
If we continue to suck up and use petrochemicals like there’s no tomorrow, the earth’s ecosystems will soon decide that there is, indeed, no tomorrow for us, and by then it won’t really matter what a gallon of gas costs.
Sincerely,
Alan Freed
— Alan Freed Apr 25, 03:09 PM # - #1 Bill
Based on what I see, $.184 per gallon is the federal tax rate. Where I live (Illinois), another $.19 per gallon state fuel tax is added to that, plus 6.25% sales and .3% underground storage tax. If I’m paying $3/gallon at the pump, $2.44 is for the gasoline, $.184 is for federal taxes, $.19 is for the state gas tax, and another $.186 (actually, a fraction less) is for the other state taxes I just mentioned. Unfortunately, Congress can only touch the federal tax.
Actually, I’m glad somebody is actually listening. It will be interesting to see if Republicans sign on to this or come up with something different.
— Steve Apr 25, 03:16 PM # - I totally agree with the above writers. This a most stupid move by the Democrats. We need to get in line to reduce our use of oil and get used to higher costs and start conserving rather than foolishy and shortsightly squandering what we have. Higher prices send the right signal to the economy: conserve. I have a couple young children. I wish you would think a little further than the next election…
David Bill
— David Bill Apr 25, 03:17 PM # - Dear Senator Reid, I favor increasing the tax on gas! Although there are so many awful things done by the Republican administration, I think that their refusal to take effective steps to halt human sources of global warming is going to turn out to be the very worst. The Democrats should not be aiding the Republicans in this folly, but pushing bills to encourage alternative energy, reduced use of fossil fuels and curbing of emmissions. I am a retired scientist and current on much of the scientific literature. Nearly 100% of scientists concur that global warming is a severe threat and in great part caused by human activities. The most recent articles indicate that we are close to a tipping point in being able to halt disasterous consequences. I am extremely disappointed that you have chosen to push so wrong an action for what you think is an immediate political advantage.
— Anne Cohen Apr 25, 03:58 PM # - Your plan to temporarily eliminate the federal tax on gasoline will only give the oil companies an opportunity to raise their prices by $ 0.184. It does nothing to curtail their price increases and, in fact, will only add to the already onerous deficit. Action needs to be taken to curb the increases.
— Burton Harris Apr 25, 03:58 PM # - Way too little too late!
2 cents a gallon is the response of an empty suit.
Ther is real blood here, and its in the never-before-seen windfall profits of the Cheney/bush corruption kingpin oil companies.
The fix is easy. Windfall tax that reclaims all the mega profit on just the price skyrocket. Do that, and my bet is the price will “suddenly start coming down.”
— Corky Brown Apr 25, 04:01 PM # - Wow, good to hear others have the same thoughts I do. The high gas prices are a great thing for our country. If they are artificially inflated then it means that we may take action now rather than waiting till the last drop of oil/sunlight is used up (sunlight due to pollution). Perhaps we can make some serious strides in the direction of SUSTAINABLITY.
Thanks for the efforts to do something, but I think this one may be a bad idea.
— Misha Apr 25, 04:09 PM # - Ouch!
Dear Harry,
I must respectfully & strongly disagree with your latest effort, and I am very disappointed in you. Sponsoring this nonsense is exactly the wrong thing to do and it sends the wrong message. I agree with the comments sent by other bloggers, and vigorously oppose this latest effort. Lowering gas prices has the wrong effect – it will increase consumption. We need to DECREASE consumption!!! Everything that helps with decreasing this effort should be pursued. We don’t pay enough for gas, i.e., compared with Europe. Our taxes for gas are not high enough: Gas taxes should pay for all the consequences of using gas: air pollution, health effects in children and the elderly, global warming, destruction of the environment (roads, toxins from gasoline), and let’s not forget the military expense needed to secure oil from the middle east – such as our excursions into Iraq. That expense should be tacked right onto the gas bill. Americans are bad at conserving natural resources, and they are bad at giving up their SUVs. Anything that makes it harder for Americans to kick the gasoline addiction habit (like reducing the cost of gasoline) should be avoided like the plague. If you want to make the gas price lower, reduce demand – let’s see some creative ideas by the democrats. Here is one:
Let’s add $3-$4 federal gas tax to each gallon of gasoline, perhaps phased in over the next 6 months to give the economy time to adjust. Now commit this revenue exclusively towards research into alternative fuels, fuel efficient transportation and environmentally conscientious use of fuels. Demand will go back, prices will fall, we will come up with new technologies we can sell to the Chinese (they will need them too), and the Saudis and terrorists get less of our money. Instead it goes right here back to the US, where WE get to use it for our own benefit.
Here is another one:
Ride a bike instead, where possible, and fight obesity and diabetes at the same time. Biggest childhood disease we have right now.
And another:
Invest more into public transportation. Use some of the gas tax revenue to make public transportation more attractive and affordable.
Please forget about this amendment. I will call everyone and ask them not to support it. You gotta come up with something better. This amendment is a shortsighted, screwball idea. The Democratic party still doesn’t manage to capitalize on all the failures of the Bush administration precisely because it cannot come up with creative, attractive alternatives. This is just another example of it.
— Bo Apr 25, 04:18 PM # - Why has the corporations portion of the Federal Tax revenue fallen from 30% to 7% since the 60’s, under the Republicrats. Why has the tax base shifted from a tax on profit to a tax on wages? Why has there been an explosion of taxes like sales tax and gas, that take more from the least wealthy?
Yeah, give ‘em hell Harry; just don’t expect me to support your corporatist legislation to provide wage suppression by sanctioning illegal migration.
It showbiz time again.
When we were fussing about the Dubai port deal the Demolicans renewed the Patriot Act.
Always playing its citizens for fools…....
— Larry Clark Apr 25, 04:40 PM # - I was moved by your email, not to sign the petition supporting the idea of a gas tax holiday, but to find a way to tell you that I think it is a misguided effort. On finding your blog, I see that there are many others that feel the same.
Please – RAISE gas taxes. Use the money to pay for research into other energy sources. The higher price for gas will make those alternatives more affordable, and will slow our rabid consumption of an invaluable but finite resource.
— Richard Moss Apr 25, 04:53 PM # - I agree with the amendment and wish it would go further; either extend the period the tax is gone or get rid of it altogether. The federal gas tax, along with the other state and local gas taxes, only benefits the government and does nothing to improve anybody’s situation. We all still have to buy gas at the same gas stations, regardless of income level and regardless of price.
What should occur is a removal of the federal gas tax to the consumer, along with the end of any entitlements (welfare) provided to the energy companies from the federal government. All the entitlements do is provide the oil companies with added revenue to factored into the profits without them having to do anything (and they won’t do anything). We end up paying them for the gas and then pay them more for doing nothing. If we don’t have the gas tax and the oil companies don’t have the entitlements, the oil companies will be forced to earn all of their dollars, not just the dollars we give them buying gas added to the free money they get from the government. They will be forced to be more competitive and invest in alternative energy or whatever.
Dump both the taxes we pay and the entitlements the oil companies receive.
— Steve Apr 25, 05:07 PM # - I’d like to add my voice to all of the comments above. Normally, I support every single Democratic initiative. This one—NO. It’s wrong for the environment. Not only would I, like the others who left comments, far prefer to raise taxes, I want to see Americans using public transportation, bikes, Segways, and walking. The higher the price of gas, the more these methods become the norm.
Sorry, Senator—I know that Americans WANT lower gas prices, but it’s the wrong thing to do.
— Dori Grasso Apr 25, 05:20 PM # - I’m glad to see that many others have written to agree with me on this, but I’ll add to it. I’ve agreed with just about every other initiative you’ve sent to this mailing list, but I strongly disagree with this one.
I don’t like big oil, and I hate that the oilmen in the White House very likely are helping to keep the prices up for themselves and their friends.
But the last thing we need is to help Americans feed their addiction to oil by even temporarily lowering the gas tax (which will only help oil companies anyway).
The current high gas prices are forcing people to change their habits. That’s good. They are differentially hurting owners of Selfish Utility Vehicles. That’s also good.
We need to reduce demand. My personal favorite idea is a strong gas guzzler tax on all new vehicles with lower mileage than the average car, but at the very least we should never consider lowering the gas tax.
I agree with the rest of your battles, so please keep fighting for the people; but on this issue you’re on the wrong side.
— Ken Apr 25, 05:21 PM # - 18 cents??? Your kidding right? If this is the best that the democratic party can do I’m voting Independent…. we need eco friendly, innovative solutions. NOT yet another liitleness based, mud slinging campaign.
I am sadly disapointed.
— J Apr 25, 05:31 PM # - Don’t take that 18 cent from the government. You already gave it to the oil companys. Get it back.
— Robert Stanley Apr 25, 05:36 PM # - WAIT A SECOND! TEMPORARY RELIEF?!?! Do you think that oil supplies and prices will be different in two months?!?!?
THIS TAX REPEAL IS NOT THE ANSWER!
When will my Democrats in Washington stop thinking about the short-term quick fix, and begin leading our country with the best solutions for the long term?!?!
Instead of a temporary tax repeal, why not use this growing anger in America to power these two ideas:
1. Real support and encouragement of alternative and environmental fuel and motors (i.e. Hybrid gas / electric engines).
2. Since Bush has been in office, the big three oil companies have enjoyed tremendous, ever-increasing profits. They are certainly not sharing those profits with their shareholders, cause I know that! Go after Big Oil!
Thanks.
— Richard Valenza Apr 25, 05:37 PM # - Although I have appreciated Harry Reid’s willingness and strength to stand up when other politicians are too busy being politicians, here I stand aside. It is an outrage, UNAMERICAN, immoral and should be illegal for oil companies to be making record-breaking profits and executives walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars during this need to rethink our consumption. (I see Americans breaking their back workin harder than those fat guys, but that is the same old song waiting to rise up again.) Lowering gas prices is not the answer. This is a precious, unrenewable resource. It should be costly and thoughtful dealt with.
— Scott Carpenter Apr 25, 05:49 PM # - There are some good thinkers writing good comments here. I sure hope Harry and others read these and seriously consider them. If this were to happen, then this blog would be doing some serious work.
— Scott Carpenter Apr 25, 05:51 PM # - Harry,
I’m a democratic thinker from way back, however my fellow commentors are absolutely correct, and I must respectfully disagree with your proposal above.
It is well known that petrolium resources are limited, and the use of them is damaging to the environment. I believe that the majority of the world, not just Americans, and regardless of political stance, can agree that reducing overall use and dependance on derived products would be beneficial to our country’s political image, the planet as a whole, and economies at all levels once industries such as transportation shift toward alternative energies. They will, too, for fossil fuels are obsolete, and the need for transportation and energy remains.
Why then are we proposing to lower prices? Simple, age-old business sense says this will only increase demand, or more accurately, increase the consumption of fuel. It’s already difficult enough to generate interest in alternative fuels, whether from investors and entrepreneurs, to Joe Consumer shopping for a new vehicle. Cheap gas can only drive everyone involved in the wrong direction.
From an everyday perspective, tax cuts on fuel will only provide temporary, and frankly, negligible financial relief for most Americans. When gas prices have more than tripled in the past six years and now sit over $3, twenty cents per gallon is sofa-change, even for the working class. The only long-term effect of such a reduction is negative; the Federal Government will have that much more headroom to compensate, and when sixty days is up and prices suddenly jump to at least twenty cents more then before the cut, complaints will fall on deaf ears.
I think what needs to happen is not a price adjustment, but a price audit. In fact, fixing fuel prices could potentially have a more positive, reassuring effect, while the slices of the pie are evaluated. Leaving existing percentages in place, but repurposing them for research or alternative production and overhead would be a much more productive solution, and a gateway for general acceptance of alternatives by the business and consumer alike. I for one would happily pay as much as a dollar more per gallon, provided I knew for a fact that my money was going where it’s supposed to, and that I would see some tangible result some months later.
While I appreciate your pull in favor of my skinny wallet, I know that it does nothing for the future, economically or environmentally, and nothing to wean ourselves from fossil fuel.
Thanks for reading.
— Matt Apr 25, 05:59 PM # - Dear Harry –
I am normally highly supportive of you. But your call to lower gas taxes is exactly what the US does NOT need. Democrats ought not pander to a misinformed notion of what the public wants from their politicians. The public wants leadership. Rather than lower gas taxes, raise them to encourage conservation – and do so in a revenue neutral manner if that is what it takes to raise gas taxes. Lead. Ask Americans to take a stand for long term energy independence and for conservation and the environment.
— Richard Weaver Apr 25, 06:05 PM # - I just want to add one more voice of dissention. I am really disappointed with this short-sighted effort. Rather than support our oil addiciton, I would prefer to see efforts that reduce dependence. As others have stated, we need long term solutions, i.e. better urban planning and, of course, energy alternatives, rather than providing a few pennies for temporary “relief.” Thanks for providing this forum!
— Kingsley Apr 25, 06:10 PM # - Dear Harry – I hope you read the comments on your blog re: the Menendez Amendment. Your views and leadership on this issue—i.e., pushing to reduce taxes on gasoline—is as wrongheaded and shortsighted as can be, for most all the reasons elucidated in the comments on your blog. Please, PLEASE, give us real leadership on alternative energy initiativies, decreasing oil consumption, addressing global warming, etc., and stop pandering to short-term interests. Under real leadership, the American people have always been willing to sacrifice, whether at the pump or otherwise. Absolutely go after a repeal of the absurd giveaways to the oil companies, and invest it in forward looking programs. But do not aim to further starve the government of funds for investment/research and encourage greater consumption by reducing taxes on gas use! WHY WON’T THE DEMOCRATS LEAD ON THESE ISSUES? Regards, Tom.
— Thomas Marton Apr 25, 06:17 PM # - Senator Reid, what are you thinking? Don’t be so petty and think this will get you more votes.
Do something Senatorial and actually good for America.
Oil is not going to get more plentiful, we’ll just squander it like after the 70’s fuel shortage.
We need to finally come to grips with the fact that we cannot continue to waste energy like before.
You are just delaying the inevitable and making us more vulnerable to control by others. We need to come to grips with reality. The government must mandate auto manufacturers to retool and produce the type of vehicles America now needs. This retooling can be financed by enacting a windfall profits tax on oil companies. We need to get moving on this before we’re controlled by the Arabs or worse yet the Chinese government.
Sincerely,
F.P. Kirsch
— Franz P. Kirsch Apr 25, 06:32 PM # - I have no clue what my dear Democratic party is thinking.
This proposal will provide fodder for the Media and they will continue to say there is no plan.
The deep, deep relationship between this administration and oil producing Arab nations should be exposed. Those who are making billions should be exposed as well.
Former Vice-President Al Gore certainly has a wealth of knowledge as far as long term planning regarding this matter.
Most of us pay a lot of state taxes on gasoline. Most Americans also believe that no politician will stand up to the oil companies because of campaign contributions.
I do not know what my Party is waiting for, the hubris of this Administration continues and we DON’T FIGHT BACK WITH FACTS.
This is certainly not “Give ‘em Hell Harry.”
— Mary M. Smith Apr 25, 06:40 PM # - I doubt very much that Reid spends any time at all reading the posts at this site. This site was created by one of his staffers to appease Reids constituency. Whatever we say here will never reach Reids ears, unless of course we have a large bag of money to share or dirt on our President.
— Kee Apr 25, 06:54 PM # - I’m usually a litle more populist than my fellow Democrats, but they are making some pretty good points here. A gasoline tax holiday is only going to postpone the inevitable. Gas prices are going to keep going up and up and up. The end result of this Amendment’s logic is no tax on gas, and huge subsidies to oil companies to keep gasoline cheap (bigger than the ones we have right now).
The high gas prices hurt me badly, I drive – alone – 20 miles to work in a 1996 automobile. High gas prices are going to hurt working families the hardest. But this may be a lesson we may need to learn from the free market.
I could only support this amendment if it came as part of a bill with real energy reform. Reform with teeth – browbeating Detroit into higher fuel efficiency for cars.
This Amendment also won’t bring the price of gas down significantly enough to help matters for long. In the end, we have to learn that most conservative of lessons: how much are we willing to pay before we change our behavior?
— Patrick Apr 25, 06:56 PM # - Roughly 60% of our oil consumption is domestic oil. It costs Exxon roughly $22 per barrel to extract and ship that oil. Foreign oil today is costing us $75 per barrel. The profit margin on domestic oil is where the oil companies are REALLY gouging us. No wonder they want to drill offshore and ANWR. That is a $52 profit on EACH domestic barrel.
Not bad, huh?
Just think how far along the road to alternative energy sources we could be if Pres. Carter’s energy proposals were taken seriously in the 1970’s. Jimmy was pretty ineffective, but he was no energy policy dummy.
Too bad legislators didn’t listen then.
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 07:02 PM # - Dear Senator Reid:
I concur with the other comments. You may be trying to buy votes by promising gas money back in the voters pockets but you are taking the low moral (and short sighted and dumb) road to do so. Use these high gas prices as proof that the current administration is incompetent in yet another area. The world’s gas producers are in the cat bird’s seat; able to charge America whatever they want for oil. Because the current administration has been unable to bring about more efficient cars and lacks the foresight to develop alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels in all areas of energy consumption, the American consumer is going to pay. The sooner competent leadership is put in charge who can and will turn around this dependence on oil, the sooner the American public will gain back control of their energy dollar. Don’t promise people cheaper gas. It is not going to happen and the reason it is not going to happen is that the oilmen are currently in charge of the White House.
— Steve Cohn Apr 25, 07:22 PM # - The Gov’t tax on gasoline is 4 x what the oil companies make. At least they’re providing us with a product. Your party, over the past 3 decades has created this gas tax (what have we been provided for all that tax $?) and laws prohibiting drilling, new refineries and nuclear (although I heard you are allowing Cuba to drill off our coast). And you want to give us .18/Gal holiday…might as well put a spike through our heads. You really need to resign asap..all you can come up with is “it’s Bush’s fault”..well ya know..you were sent to DC by the voters (it still baffles me why you were elected) to take care of business for We the People..Please resign so We the people of Nevada don’t have an embarassing 4 more yrs. of your obstructionism and do nothing.
— lvdrummer Apr 25, 07:55 PM # - Let the prices keep going up! (Even add more taxes, we could use the extra money to help pay for social security.) It is about time we catch up to Europe and get used to high prices, it might encourage people to conserve and invest in the future. We drive a honda with a 10 gallon tank and spend about $30 every 2 weeks. If it keeps going up maybe people will start using public transportation or riding their bikes. I think subsidizing gasoline is a stupid idea and giving a temporary break or reduction is even dumber.
P.S. I actually do think nuclear is a good idea, one of the cleaner fuels and very safe. It has gotten a bad rap in the past but I think we ought to reconsider it as a companion to solar and wind as sustainable sources of energy.
— Nina Apr 25, 08:35 PM # - Harry: What a dumb idea you have. Sure, cut the tax breaks for Big Oil that Bush pushed for, but lowering the price of gas sends exactly the wrong message…that somehow gas is cheaper. If gas had been more expensive all along, we wouldn’t be stuck with inefficient cars and trucks and poor mass transit. And tax revenues from gas or windfall profits can lower the tax burden elsewhere.
— Joel Apr 25, 08:41 PM # - Yes, I agree with the majority of opinions on this blog thread. Not only is a tax holiday short-sighted vote trawling, but it will also increase the national deficit!
Please focus your efforts on true energy reform. The ballot results would improve dramatically if voters saw the Democratic party honestly working to improve the welfare of our citizens.
— Jeff Barnard Apr 25, 08:49 PM # - Go JC, GO!
The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”
– Tyler Drumheller, CIA Head of Covert Operations, Europe
Sound familiar? No this isn’t another Downing Street Memo. It’s a 26-year veteran of our own intelligence community, Tyler Drumheller, speaking to Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes. Drumheller also spoke to Josh Marshall who reports that the former senior-level CIA official had shared this account in depth with the Robb-Silbermann Commission and was shocked that no mention was made in that report.
There can be no clearer evidence that the time is right for a real investigation into the pre-war intelligence (anyone heard from Phase II?). We can expect the administration and their remaining adherents to cry “traitor, traitor” because, after all, anyone that doesn’t submit to their interpretation of events hates America and loves terrorism. Fortunately, that’s not going to stop us. We are going to get to the bottom of this issue and no smear campaigns or swift boating will keep us from the truth.
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000432.htm
— bill_o_carolina Apr 25, 09:48 PM # - snipped/
Media ignores 60-minutes CIA’S intel disclosure over no wmd’s
Summary: On CBS’ 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller proved that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush’s central case for war—that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have almost entirely ignored the story.
In the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have—with the exception of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann and several brief wire articles—entirely ignored the story.
The 60 Minutes report is the latest in a string of explosive disclosures concerning the Bush administration’s apparent cherry-picking of prewar intelligence. But as with previous damaging disclosures regarding the White House’s actions in the buildup to the war, major news outlets largely ignored it.
None of the three major networks reported on the story on either their morning shows or evening news broadcasts. (Remarkably, this included CBS, the network that originally aired Drumheller’s disclosure.) http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=9982
— bill_o_carolina Apr 25, 09:51 PM # - It is BIG CORPORATE MEDIA, BILL O…......
No one believes the lie about “liberal media bias” or “liberal elite media” anymore except a few limbaugh dittoheads, hannity freaks and FOX groupies. The rest of the country knows that repubs and corporations are hand in hand. The media is in the hands of a very few powerful people today. We get to hear what they want us to hear by selective subject broadcasts and approved news releases. Thank God for the internet, NPR and Public TV.
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 10:03 PM # - Sorry Harry, I can’t support you on this one. Gas should be expensive. That’s the only way we’ll get Americans to use less. And there are two reasons why we need to use less: 1) It’s the primary contributor to global warming, and 2) Very soon the world will be producing less oil every year.
Europeans have been paying around $6 per gallon for years now. Do you hear them whining about high gas prices? No! They’ve adapted. And it’s high time Americans adapted.
When gas here gets to $6, $7, or $8 a gallon, which it will, trust me, you can bet people will start taking conservation and fuel efficiency seriously.
Come on, Harry, stand up and tell the truth! We progressives are desperate for someone to speak truth to power and sadly, the Democratic establishment won’t do it. Will you?
— Doug Abbott Apr 25, 10:26 PM # - I am so mightly impressed by the astuteness of the commentary here. But above all by those who urge HIGHER gasoline taxes and most of all a long-range coherent energy policy. Old Harry, the typical can-do-nothing Democrat, looks to rally the voters by pandering to us with his pathetic ‘eliminate the federal excise tax’ ploy. How is it, Harry, that ordinary citizens, who don’t spend all their time in Washington, understand policy far better than you??
I have great hope for the citizenry, but none for the Democrats.
— Michael Mason Apr 25, 10:37 PM # - I am so weary of aimless, good-hearted Democrats without the guts to tell the truth. We need HIGHER gas prices, not lower, if we are to ever have the incentive to develop alternative fuels. Continuing to burn oil is the way to anihilation, not economic growth.
We need leadership that will tell us the difficult truth, fight for universal health care, end our bullying of the third world, and stop trying to please everyone. We need Democrats with real plans, not just complaints. Where are they???
Mimi Wuest
— Mimi Wuest Apr 25, 11:12 PM # - I’m heartened by the show of support here for higher gas prices. We live in a free market, and allowing prices to rise will force us as a society to deal with the issue. Cheap gas is the problem, not the solution. Hell, let’s increase gas taxes. Show a little backbone, okay?
— Matt Hagen Apr 25, 11:24 PM # - I’m amazed at the comments posted. Of course higher gas prices will foster conservation but that is small comfort to Americans who are struggling to deal with this precipitous increase in the price of gas.
This is a short term solution but it will provide some relief at the pump, and since oil companies are booming they don’t need those government subsidies. This makes a lot more sense than Bush’s plan to allow more pollution as a means of lowering gas prices.
— A. Brennan Apr 25, 11:57 PM # - I echo most comments in saying that this is a stupid move…..both politically and, more importantly, for the good of the country. I agree with framing issues more effectively but we don’t have to become like Republicans in making every issue nothing more than symbolism. That’s how we’ve gotten where we are and is not the way out. In fact, gas price increases have been positive in getting people to actually talk about energy. In the past few weeks I’ve had friends talk about selling their SUVs and even taking mass transit. In Birmingham, AL those are very positive steps. And they said those things without rancor. They were smart enough to realize it will eventually need to be done so why not start now. Gas prices and Big Oil are the Republicans rope. let them hang themselves with it.
— Steve Perrett Apr 26, 12:58 AM # - As much as we all see the benefits that come with higher gas prices i.e. conservation of our remaining petro resources, less impact on the environment and more expensive alternative energy sources being employed because they’re no longer overpriced, the fact is most Americans can ill afford higher gas prices and certainly the many businesses that rely on reasonable fuel costs to operate must be concerned. Keep our current taxes intact, consider an additional tax that reacts to rising fuel costs by going up in like fashion but not coming down if and when prices dip. Earmark these new tax dollars for the many useful subsidies descibed above. We’ll reach our threshhold for what we’re willing to pay for gas sooner and all those higher prices for fuel that we all know are coming will be matched in tax dollars. Tax breaks can be shared with businesses that are ultra sensitive to the higher fuel costs on a per mile/gallon basis.
For a more immediate impact, stop filling up our gas tanks. A half a tank of gas in all the cars in America roughly equals a 4 days supply of gasoline at a usage of 400,000,000 gallons per day. I’ve heard the term boycott mentioned…we do control the demand side of the equation…to a point. Granted not everyone is filling up know but most do because it’s easier. Make 2 stops a week rather than one. Put $20 or $25 in instead of filling up. You’ll be in and out of the gas stations quicker and the oil companies will see immediately that their paying customers are willing to do more than lip service to protest their greed. I’ve been doing this now for a couple of weeks. My awareness level is much higher of my gas usage when the fuel guage is always below half full. Go ahead lighten your load by pushing around 8 to 9 gallons less all week. Take all that junk you don’t need in your vehicle out and see how much less fuel you use…thats what the hybrids have done. See you at the pump!!
— Tim Brisbois Apr 26, 04:25 AM # - 1. Open ANWR
2. Start drilling off the coast of Florida
3. Start drilling off the coast of California
4. Ease restrictions on typses of fuel (there are currently hundreds of blended fuels that various governments have mandated, primarily California)
5. Allow oil companies to build new refineries
6. Build wind mills off Nantucket
7. Build more power generating nuclear facilities
The U S Congress has the power and the obligation to make all of the above happen. The President does not have the power, Congress does. It is time for Congress to take action on the energy problems which they have not addressed even though there have been plenty of wake up calls since the early 70’s.
— Kee Apr 26, 07:59 AM # - Drilling in ANWR to become less dependent on oil is like telling me to grow my own tobacco as a way to quit smoking.
— Patrick Apr 26, 08:53 AM # - Repealing taxes is not going to solve this putative problem—let the prices remain high, for it is a signal of scarcity. If you mess with the price, people’s consumption patterns won’t change, and in the long run the inevitable crunch will be crushing. Let’s stop being the pathetic Democratic Party of the recent past and be a truly intelligent and viable option over Republicans.
— Samson Apr 26, 09:35 AM # - #46Drilling in ANWR to become less dependent on oil is like telling me to grow my own tobacco as a way to quit smoking.
— Patrick
Bad analogy, Patrick. We are not talking about using less energy, that will never happen. What we need to is become energy independant, not letting foreign sources determine our path. The items I listed are a start. If our guvmint had taken some or all of those steps in the early 70’s there would not be a problem today.
— Kee Apr 26, 09:40 AM # - Dear Harry and fellow readers:
I am thrilled by the high proportions of writers who realize that we need higher—MUCH higher—prices as the necessary economic incentive for conservation.
I am not so naive as to suppose that the public in general holds such enlightened views. Rather, the general public expectation of cheap energy is no doubt what prompts this current round of Democratic Party pandering. But while thus understandable, it is still disappointing and embarrassing. Perhaps the most we can hope for is that after the November elections the Democratic Party can actually move away from this cheap oil nonsense and toward sound incentives for conservation.
— Jerry Bachman Apr 26, 10:30 AM # - Proof positive that Democrats can find more creative ways increase oil profit than the Republicans can. Two shades of red.
— R. Douglas Apr 26, 12:05 PM # - Higher prices without actions to become energy independant do nothing other than make things more difficult for those at the low end of the income spectrum.
Band aids do not cure disease, they merely hide it, something Congress has been doing for over 30 years.
— Kee Apr 26, 12:05 PM # - Dear Harry, I agree with you on just about everything else, but this is an absolutely horrible and shortsighted idea.
The behavior of American drivers and our out-of-touch administration is never going to change is gas prices stay low. We need HIGHER gas taxes, together with an end to tax cuts for oil companies, all of which should fund renewable energy programs and mass transit. We must force auto companies to increase fuel economy standards. Other industrialized countries understand all of this. Most have high gas taxes and great mass transit.
Democrats should not enable America’s misguided energy policy by trying to pander to some voters who desire short term relief. The majority of voters understand that long term energy policy requires sacrifice and innovation and will respect leaders who stand up and make change happen.
— Jennifer Whitlock Apr 26, 12:20 PM # - # 48 Kee: The smoking analogy is one I like, because (I think) it adresses the whole issue. It is the difference between OIL independence and engergy independence.
If OIL independence is our ONLY goal, than, you’re right – it ain’t a good analogy. But, the goal (in my mind) is to end our dependence (addiction) on OIL, foregin or domestic.
I realize it will take some time to do that, which is why we need to get to it starting now. We will never stop using oil – but we have got to find some alternatives. A little competition will bring those oil prices down quicker than any windfall tax ever will.
If all we do is figure out ways to get more oil, we’ll be right back at this same debate as soon as demand exceeds supply and prices go up again.
— Patrick Apr 26, 12:39 PM # - First I want to say I appreciate your efforts to fight for the American people. I also appreciate receiving your news letter and I do participate as often and in whatever way I’m able.
However, I don’t think I can support the Menendez Amendment and I will tell you why. It’s only a temporary solution to a very serious problem. Plus having only 60 days of cheap gas prices will cause a lot of mayhem at the pumps with people fighting and pushing each other to get the cheap gas while they can. I was just a kid during the OPEC oil embargo in the 70’s but I do remember waiting in line with my Mom at the gas stations and seeing the people get very angry when the gas stations managers would come out and tell those still in line waiting that there was no more gas. A few times even fights would break out. I can easily see that sort of thing happening during the so called “Gas Holiday”.
So what’s a better solution? I actually there is one. Right now Senator Maria Cantwell has a bill called the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act which she is trying to get passed. Her bill would make price-gouging a federal crime and strengthen the power of those who regulate the practices of big oil companies. Whether the bill passed or not I’m not sure but even if it didn’t legislation like this would be a long term solution not just a short term one and long a term fix is what we need not just a 60 free-for-all at the pumps.
Thanks for listening,
Sincerely
Linda Johnson
— Linda Johnson Apr 26, 12:46 PM # - Dear Senator Reid and Democratic Leaders
I will NOT sign this petition.
The American people need and deserve REAL solutions to our nations energy crisis.
NOT short term feel good fixes –
We need much higher gas mileage on our cars to be REGULATED – THAT should have been done a LONG time ago – why haven’t you done that ?????
We need an EPA that sets VERIFIABLE and RELIABLE Standards—- ????
We need to heavily invest in renewable energy systems – and build public transportaton systems -???
WE NEED A PLAN
We need our leaders to FACE UP to this challenge of increasing efficiancy and lowing our dependance on oil.
This petiton only serves to hide the reality from the American people – and make us feel like it is our right to have low energy prices – it is NOT our right – I’ve already heard media pundits advocate aggressive action against MORE oil rich countries to secure OUR oil ! ! ! ! !
Please take a REAL stand – be honest – be tough – BE BRAVE – lead our nation into a future – with a future
Sincerely,
— Bart Daly Apr 26, 12:53 PM # - MICHIGAN GOVERNOR HAS PETITION TO BUSH TO LOWER GAS PRICES, EVERY GOVERNOR SHOULD USE THIER STATE WEB SITE TO DO THE SAME.
— EDMUND GOLEMBESKI Apr 26, 12:58 PM # - #53: But, the goal (in my mind) is to end our dependence (addiction) on OIL, foregin or domestic.
— Patrick Apr 26, 12:39 PM
Reduction of our energy consumption will only happen if one thing occurs…a massive deep deep depression. Barring that, our energy requirements will continue to grow with our economy.
— Kee Apr 26, 01:00 PM # - Interestingly what I see here is a bunch of Democrats stating we need more guvmint intervention and higher prices. Unless I have overlooked one, there has not been a single post, other than mine, saying we need more energy sources and exploration.
— Kee Apr 26, 01:02 PM # - Before you do something stupid, read and understand what is really going on. We are at or close to peak oi – that’s why the price going up. We need even higher prices to switch to alternatives as quickly as possible before it’s too late. Our government debt and private debt is way to high to survive the econmic problems of peak oil. So I beg of you – stop this stupidity and understand what is really going on.
If you think prices are related to high gas prices – check out this: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/2/123923/4955#more
Tons of other graphs and articles are available at www.theoildurm.com that shows we are close to peak oil and conservation and alternatives are the only way out.
— Roger Tucker Apr 26, 01:20 PM # - #58 kee
Read my #13 comment.
The two parts of the Menendez I like are the dumping of the gas tax and the removal of a corporate welfare program that gives our tax money to the oil companies.
The only thing the federal gas tax does is provide excuses for members of Congress to create more unnecessary pork projects by both Democrats and Republicans. And all the entitlements to the oil companies end up doing is letting them receive revenue for doing nothing. We end up paying the tax at the pump when buying the gas they produce, then paying them again in entitlements through corporate welfare programs.
What the Democrats have adopted is an approach Republicans should have taken in forcing oil companies to earn all of their revenue and force them to invest properly in developing alternative energy production. They won’t do anything if the government just gives them money to do nothing. Republicans would do well to take this amendment and expand on it.
— Steve Apr 26, 01:27 PM # - The solution is to make the oil companies loose the tax breaks which cause such exobitant profits. I care less about getting a .20/gallon temporary tax break, than stopping big oil from screwing us day after day, year after year and laughing all the way to the bank.
— Jane Reese Apr 26, 01:46 PM # - In the interest of fiscal responsibility (which Republicans are incapable of), I think that it would be a mistake to reduce the gas taxes. The #1 order of business for the Democratic Party should be elimination of the Federal deficit. Sure, high gas prices hurt, so let’s vote those Republican rascals out who have gotten us into this mess. And let’s take some personal responsibility for reducing our consumption of this polluting fuel.
— Bert Bivens Apr 26, 02:44 PM # - Steve, sorry, I overlooked your comment. I should have known you were on top of it.
— Kee Apr 26, 03:39 PM # - Many of the steps you have taken recently toward reality-based public policy are widely appreciated, especially considering the courage required nowadays for such an approach. In this context, your support of a gasoline-tax holiday is especially disappointing. Please stop pandering to the uninformed and unthinking constituents who continue to demand cheap energy even at the cost of huge government subsidies, a disastrous balance of payments, and ill-advised military adventures against other sovereign nations. If John Anderson’s proposed 50-cent-a-gallon Federal gas tax had gone into effect (preferably with subsequent increases for inflation), our nation—and the world—would be much healthier now in many important respects.
— Jon Allen Apr 26, 03:44 PM # - I am horrified that the democrats are talking about eliminating the federal gas tax. I thought the democrats were the environmental party. If you want to subsidize the poor for the high gas prices fine. If you want to reduce the profits of the oil companies, that’s fine to. However, encouraging high gas consumption is one of the worst things the federal government can do to the environment.
What we need is increased gas taxes with the money going to develop decent mass transit as is done in Europe. Lets see an amendment that ADDS 5 cents/gallon each month for 4 years.
— Lawrence Safran Apr 26, 04:08 PM # - Interesting amendment, however the fraction of a cent on every dollar won’t affect much change. So here’s what you need to add to the amendment to make it effective for the American People.
1. Price caps somewhere between $1.75 and $1.90 per gallon at the pump.
2. Windfall profits tax on the Oil Barrons – these guys are making record profits while we are paying record highs. The tax should be applied to our infrastructure – schools – development of alternative forms of energy, and should not be applied to exploration or the funding of wars.
3. Federal, State and local regulations should be implemented to prevent the exploitation of a captive market.
4. Allow the import of foreign vehicles like the Volkswagon that gets 90 MPG and mandate immediate changes in fuel efficiency standards. We have the technology, what we lack is the will to achieve results in the congress. After all what is more important – Honestly what is the purpose of owning a vehicle with a V-8 or a V-6 when the speed limit is 55 or 65 mph? Are these companies incouraging vehicular criminality by pushing vehicles on the public with ads that promote speeding and reckless driving? What’s up with that?
The bottom line is that $.184 per gallon does nothing for us when we’ve seen the price go up by over a dollar.
— Sean McAuley Apr 26, 04:15 PM # - America is “addicted” to oil, and the Democrats’ solution is to make heroin cheaper?
How about this? Rather than reduce the gas tax, restore it to what it would have been if it were the same percentage of fuel price as it was in the 1980s—approximately 20%. Inflation has reduced the effective gas tax tremendously.
However, because we don’t want to see everyone hurt by increasing taxes, make the first $3000 in wages exempt from payroll taxes (these taxes hit the poor hardest).
As others above have pointed out, we need to encourage conservation and smart use of gasoline.
I would support reducing subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies.
Let’s penalize inefficient gas guzzlers, not wealth-creating work.
— Michael Perkins Apr 26, 04:35 PM # - While there are excellent points made here, i’m wondering if any of you guys work at a sandwich shop or a day care center, a nursing home or a construction site in BFE.
It’s really hard to take the long term view when your job is threatened because you can’t afford to drive to work.
Food or gas?
— minna Apr 26, 04:57 PM # - Dear Harry,
I am in total disagreement with this admendment. Please read Peaking Of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management* by
Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader. This is a DOE-sponsored study.
Harry, in short, neither “Big Oil” nor OPEC can any longer control the price of oil. We need to face the fact that in the not too distant future, new production will not be able to meet decline from mature oil fields. Soon $4/gal gas will look cheap. We need conservation, not efforts to spur consumption.
Paul in Silver Springs
— Paul Strohm Apr 26, 05:09 PM # - Re: the food or gas question
That’s why the best proposal includes a reduction in the payroll tax, giving every worker something back in every paycheck. Make the total tax break equal to the average increase in the gas tax.
We can break our addiction to oil, if the right incentives are in place.
— Michael Perkins Apr 26, 05:46 PM # - Dear Harry,
Your support for this bill is just another example of how far afield the democratic party has moved from reality. While those that identify themselves as neo-conservatives (Fukyama might take issue with that) are equally dellusional, your stance on gas taxes is completely farcical. I’m not going to scream peak oil, just mention it lightly. What I am going to say is that near term supply issues, as described in this article:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/23/12186/9663
would suggest that we need to be CONSERVING and REDUCING and LOCALIZING. Alternatives WILL NOT help significantly. Go read the literature if you doubt it. Ethanol is a pipe dream of the corn lobby. Thermal Depolymerization requires an industrial infrastructure that can only exist on cheap fossil energy.
It is better to incrase prices now (INCREASE THE TAX!!!!) and use that money to improve efficiency, invest in world political stabilization, compensate farmers who transition to organic agriculture, etc.
Check out “The Power of Community,” a 50 minute DVD by The Community Solution. There is one example, it is not like the USA in many ways, but we can still learn.
Please get at least one half of the one party system back in touch with reality.
— David Huck Apr 26, 05:47 PM # - Mr. Reid
This amendment is disgraceful and insulting political pandering.
I agree that the gas needs to be adjusted, but it needs to be adjusted UP, with every dime used to fund and devolop real solutions, most notably encouraging less driving (via public transportation, a real, viable rail system, etc).
Please reconsider your motivations. My kids are going to be dealing with our shortsightedness for decades to come.
— Howard Thompson Apr 26, 05:48 PM # - Dear Senator Reid:
You, as a high-profile leader in this country, have an opportunity to offer legislation to actually mitigate the real problem – our excessive consumption of energy in this country. You should be preaching conservation, and offering incentives for those who conserve. Instead, you are pushing policies that would encourage consumption, while at the same time punishing oil companies which will result in decreased investments into capital projects.
We need something more than political pandering from both parties, Senator Reid. We need someone with the guts to tackle the real problem. The solutions are not going to be easy. But the sooner you face up to the fact that the age of cheap gas is over, the faster we can move on to making changes that will reduce our actual consumption.
Sincerely,
Robert Rapier
— Robert Rapier Apr 26, 06:00 PM # - The link to THE OIL DRUM, given by David Huck, just above, hits me with more truth than anything else on this issue ever has.
— John Apr 26, 06:03 PM # - WOW Harry, a whole .18 cents per gallon, you are so wonderful.
Here’s a quarter Harry shove it up you ass.
Time to go back to Search Light.
Stop slobbin’ Kennedy’s Knob.
— GTB Nevada Voter Apr 26, 06:08 PM # - America fights in Iraq for oil, and I just read that,
China signed an exclusive $78Billion contract for oil from Iran
Also they have locked up 60% of the total oil produced by Sudan.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpchi254715916apr25,0,570220.story
After leaving the US,Chinese President Hu stopped in Saudi Arabia for talks the arabs said ” oil cooperation is on track”.
We owe trillions of dollars to the Chinese, if they want to call our loans they will distroy this country. Either we are going to end up fighting them for the oil or we must wean ourselves from the nipple of mother oil.
I don’t want my children fighting over a billion Chinese, I’d rather use our wealth and knowledge to make us oil independant.
Lets get started…......
Franz P. Kirsch
— Franz P. Kirsch Apr 26, 06:19 PM # - I get the DSCC newsletter and was pointed to this site.
I think that a “tax holiday” is as stupid an idea as all of the Republican tax reductions. How in the world will this help reduce prices? Now if you decided to give a credit for gasoline use to low income taxpayers, that would be helpful to them.
But to reduce oil prices, you will have to find a way to reduce demand. Sure, it is likely that the big oil companies and countries have manipulated the supply, but this proposal will have zero effect.
I would really like to see an alternative to the current administration, and changing Congress would be a start, but if this is the kind of initiative Democrats come up with, I have a real problem with providing money or other support to your cause.
Ed Bolson
— Ed Bolson Apr 26, 06:30 PM # - I was absolutely appalled to see this ludicrous proposition and relieved and delighted to see the outpouring of protest here on the blog. I can only hope that the Democratic party listens to this outpouring.
While taxing “big oil” is certainly a positive, this short sighted attempt to give consumers a nearly meaningless “break” at the pump completely misses the point that what we need is incentive to CONSERVE, not another battle to protect our right to WASTE. The additional revenues generated from revoking corporate tax breaks should be spent on efforts such as improved public transportation options, funding for research and development of more efficient cars and manufacturing methods, and the generation of incentives to REDUCE our oil use. WAKE UP Democrats!
— Rboudin Apr 26, 06:37 PM # - Actually, I don’t think we need to encourage less driving. In the short term, less driving would be the best solution to the gas price situation; but building better mass transit, etc. takes time, and there is a better long term solution:
Push high mileage vehicles and punish low mileage vehicles through taxes.
I don’t know the average mileage of a new car today (car, not counting SUVs or light trucks), but whatever is it, there should be an excise tax on all new vehicles (including SUV’s and light trucks) below it, of 10% per MPG below it. The worst SUV’s might draw a 100% tax (meaning you pay as much in extra tax as the price of the SUV).
So, we strongly push everyone into more fuel efficient vehicles. We also could have a tax credit for 20% (or so) of the price for hybrid or alternative fuel cars.
I really don’t want myself or others to have to drive less, although I also want people, including myself, to have to conserve energy. It’s possible to do both in the long term, by still driving as much but driving cars with much better MPG or, better yet, alternative fuels.
— Ken Apr 26, 06:45 PM # - Please Harry, this kind of transparent pandering will come back to haunt you. The problem is Peak Oil – read the Hirsh Report! – and the longer you and the other Democrats refuse to face up to the elephant in the room, and instead try to salve a problem that will not go away, the worse it will be for all of us.
— Geoff Apr 26, 07:10 PM # - Harry, I am very glad that the Democrats want to make this an issue, but I do not think this is the correct approach. We don’t need to lower taxes, and increase the defecit, that’s the Republicans way. What we need to do is hold accountable the large companies that are manipulating the markets and making record profits. Perhaps we threaten to put a 6 month cap on retail oil prices and serve notice that either these guys play by the rules, or Congress will regulate them as a matter of national policy. This will be viewed as anti-business, but we can counter that it only restricts one industry, and helps countless more. It will help our economy, our uncertain stock markets, and of course, the American family.
The Democratic Party needs to stand up on the right side of the issues, and not with some half minded approach. We need to hold accountable the Bush cronies and the irresponsible big business executives. We need to make sure everyone knows we are being responsible to the budget and the out of control deficit.
Lets make a difference, a real difference.
Lee Kalish
Saugerties, NY
— Lee Kalish Apr 26, 07:19 PM # - Harry,
You should be ashamed for this stupid pander.
Please show some leadership and guts.
We need real investment in energy efficiency, transit, green buildings, transit-oriented urban development.
Reducing gas taxes will just encourage more driving, increasing demand farther and driving prices higher, but giving the increase to oil companies instead of the public coffers.
Please reconsider any plan to reduce or eliminate gas taxes. Instead we should institute a revenue-neutral plan to increase gas taxes to European levels, with a matching decrease in income taxes. This would address the growing trade deficit resulting from importing so much expensive oil.
Thanks,
Tom Volckhausen
— Tom Volckhausen Apr 26, 07:20 PM # - I think those on the “It’s the liberals fault because those damned tree huggers won’t let us drill off of Florida and California or in the Alaskan wilderness” bandwagon should understand that while we certainly do have a problem with gas prices, a MUCH bigger problem is the looming issue of global warming due to the increase of greenhouse gases created by the burning of fossil fuels. STOP listening to those idiots at FoxNews that choose to call this “junk science”!!!! Just go to FoxNews website and read what their science “expert” has to say about the subject! The problem is that by the time these idiots finally admit that global warming is real it will be 310 degrees in the shade!
We can’t “drill” our way out of this situation! We need to realize that we need to get that JackAss out of the White house and get someone in (Democrat or Republican) that understands what the TRUE threats to this country are! We are the most powerful nation on the planet but we act like ignorant morons by pretending global warming is a fantasy. Our troubles stem from our dependence on foreign oil due to our use of fossil fuels and our leaders reluctance to cut ties to big oil. Who in their right mind believes that we would be in Iraq if they didn’t have oil??? If we didn’t need their oil I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that good old Bushy Washy wouldn’t give a rats ass about Democracy in the Middle East! He’d create some other monster for us to worry about.
— Pcruz Apr 26, 07:36 PM # - Harry – this brain-dead proposal is why people are saying that the best thing to ever happen to Republicans is the Democrats. Can’t we please stop commiting suicide with dumb ideas like this? I associate with the vast majority of comments here. Raise the gas tax, don’t lower it. And while you’re at it, maybe you could level with the American people about the reality of oil: that it is just going to get scarcer and more expensive and we better figure out what to do next when it’s gone in 50 years. But, Harry, you do have some guts to invite comments, give you that.
— Jim Kingsdale Apr 26, 07:50 PM # - I have sent the URL to this blog along with a request to my senators, Schumer and Clinton, along with a request that they read carefully the true feelings of the people.
Perhaps everyone else will send it to their senators.
Franz P. Kirsch
— Franz P. Kirsch Apr 26, 07:51 PM # - We don’t need a federal gas tax holiday – we need conservation! With all due respect, I think the Menendez Amendment is a terrible idea; is it any wonder that Democrats can’t gain ground if this is what you have to offer? It’s time to ask Americans to become partners in a shared solution to the energy problem; in the short term, that means asking everyone to find ways to conserve energy. Last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX, said about increasing gas prices: “…this is primarily a demand-driven price increase. If every person in the world who uses gasoline or diesel fuel would cut their consumption by 10 percent, the world would soon be awash in oil and the price would probably go down a dollar a gallon in the next six months. But who’s going to do that?” While there appears to be more behind gas price increases than just consumer demand, I do think many Americans could, and would cut energy consumption if they understood that doing so would lead to lower fuel prices. What sacrifices have average Americans been asked to make since 9/11? Absolutely none. President Bush urged us to go shopping. It’s time for the Democrats to find their spines and ask Americans to sacrifice just a little bit for the common good while our leaders work to develop a comprehensive energy strategy.
— Hailey Wood Apr 26, 08:05 PM # - Harry,
The best way to determine who is responsible for the auto gas price rip-off is to check and see where the gas price is at the normal rate. Go to Gasbuddy.com and you will see in Cheney’s home state of Wyoming the price is only $1.98 per gallon and at Bush’s home location at Midland Texas the price is only $2.09 per gallon.
— Don Brickey Apr 26, 08:28 PM # - There are two thousand dead American soldiers and untold numbers of dead Iraqi women & children. Why doesn’t this enrage the American public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
There are two billion people on this Earth who do not have the basic necessities of life. They live on less than $2 a day. Without food, clothing, medical care or a stable government they cannot escape a life of deprivement and suffering. Why doesn’t this enrage the American public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
The United States of America is in debt $8 trillion dollars & the Federal Budget Deficit threatens to push this number up several trillion dollars over the next several years. Why doesn’t this enrage the public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
The artic ice is melting, the climate is changing, hurricanes are popping up in the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate, New Orleans and the Mississippi coast are still demolished, and the next hurricane season is a month away. Why doesn’t any of these things enrage the American public as much as $3 a gallon gasoline?
The United States of America has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25% of the world’s resources. Do you want to know who is responsible for high crude oil & gsoline prices? Americans.
Not greedy corporations. The greedy & obese & recently increasingly violent U.S. of A. has created this problem. The public just cannot stop buying SUVs (bigger and bigger, like some sort of mobile cancer on America’s roads) nor will they stop driving (suburbs, exurbs, etc.).
The United States of America has become a fat, lazy, uncompetitve nation of whiners who feel that they are entitled to deplete all of the Earth’s resources by birthright. There are other nations—such as China and India, both very large and ancient—which have also become addicted to consumption.
With 2.5 billion self-involved greedy consumers in the world it is logical to suppose that prices will have to rise. Earth’s resources are finite but human greed is nearly infinite. If Americans have SUVs, the Chinese and Indians will have them as well.
Have you contemplated how much gasoline will cost once there are 300 million cars in China and 200 million cars in India?
A lot more than it does today. Mr. Reid, you should tell the public to prepare for $6 or $9 a gallon gasoline. If the public objects, tell them that they have no choice except to consume less. Park the SUVs forever, live where you work & work where you live, grow food locally, bring an end to the consumption-driven economy, and find a way to make peace with a billion Muslims because otherwise something really terrible is going to happen in the Middle East.
Sincerely,
David Mathews
— David Mathews Apr 26, 08:29 PM # - Since the immigration topic is closed, and there doesn’t seem to be one on corporate crime, this will have to go right here. This is about “deferred prosecution agreements” for corporations that do crooked shit.
I don’t know how to create a link, so just copy and paste this in your browser. It is short, but pithy…..don’t want to bloviate; that is O’Lieley’s job.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0426-21.htm
— Poor Daddy Apr 26, 08:34 PM # - #88, David….......
As long as the economy is growing (on paper), we have our TV shows, can drive anywhere we want, the kids stay out of our hair with their video games, and we can buy way more useless junk than we need, why should we give a half a shit about all that stuff???
Get REAL, dude!!!
— Poor Daddy Apr 26, 08:41 PM # - Reducing the gas tax is EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO.
It may make it easy to pander to ignorant voters, BUT:
IT WILL COST MONEY.
IT WILL COST JOBS.
IT WILL NOT CUT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE; it will only give more of it to the oil companies and foreign oil producers.
Give me another $2/gallon in taxes and rebate it to me as a SS/FICA deductible, so I can STOP spending income taxes on defending oil and START spending it on what I really need!
— Engineer-Poet Apr 26, 08:51 PM # - I read the first 20 posts and see that the radicals on the left do not want a gasoline tax decrease proposed by Reid but some, in fact, propose raising the gas taxes so gasoline costs $5 per gallon or more. This goes to prove that Democrats do not give a damn about the poor and middle class except in November when the elections roll around.
— joro Apr 26, 09:11 PM # - Senator Reid,
A much better solution would be a large tax increase, every penny of which was rebated back to licensed drivers. The rebate would be based upon the average miles driven and mpg for the previous years. This gives people an incentive to drive less, as they will then make money if they use less gasoline than the average driver.
Trying to reduce the cost of gasoline is pure pandering. You, and the Democratic party need to show leadership, acknowledge that there is a problem, and that the solutions are going to be painful.
— Mark Apr 26, 09:14 PM # - Dear Senator Reid,
I must respectfully disagree with you band-aid approach to fuel prices. WE ALL KNOW that the tax is not the issue. It is simply and painfully obvious the oil company profits.
There is no reason except greed for prices to at their present level. Respectfully, I request you show some gumption, and take APPROPRIATE ACTION by addressing the issue at the source, the oil companies.
Best regards,
Jeff Turner
— Jeff Turner Apr 26, 09:23 PM # - #29
Roughly 60% of our oil consumption is domestic oil. It costs Exxon roughly $22 per barrel to extract and ship that oil. Foreign oil today is costing us $75 per barrel. The profit margin on domestic oil is where the oil companies are REALLY gouging us. No wonder they want to drill offshore and ANWR. That is a $52 profit on EACH domestic barrel.
Not bad, huh?
— Poor Daddy Apr 25, 07:02 PM #
Facts for 2004: US produced 9.27 million barrels per day and consumed 20.5 million barrels per day. His cost/profit figures are more ridiculous. Poor Daddy is either rotten at math or a Democrat.
— joro Apr 26, 09:25 PM # - #30
The world’s gas producers are in the cat bird’s seat; able to charge America whatever they want for oil.
— Steve Cohn Apr 25, 07:22 PM #
Steve, how much does China pay for Oil? How about India? England? Spain?
— joro Apr 26, 09:29 PM # - #32
P.S. I actually do think nuclear is a good idea, one of the cleaner fuels and very safe. It has gotten a bad rap in the past but I think we ought to reconsider it as a companion to solar and wind as sustainable sources of energy.
— Nina Apr 25, 08:35 PM #
Nina, we tried to build a solar energy farm here in Nevada where the sun shines about 360 days a year. The liberals, at the behest of the radical left wing environmental wackos such as the Sierra Club, prevented the project from going forward. Seems there was some abundant desert turtle that would have to be relocated if they did not like the solar collectors. A proposed wind farm was also shot down because some desert weed was going to be endangered and some pesky sparrows might die. In order to solve our nations energy problem, Democrats must be voted out of office.
— joro Apr 26, 09:37 PM # - Hello joro,
Who cares about the tortoise or the sparrow when obese Americans want to sit on their sofa eating fatty foods while watching television & then drive down to the mall in their SUV to purchase a bunch of cheap Chinese-manufactured products (on their credit cards) which they will use only once before throwing away?
If it will make anything better for the anti-environmentalists, I will make the following proposal: Why don’t you just kill all of the animals and cover the entire country in asphalt?
It’s not like the animals do anything. They don’t pay any taxes, don’t have any jobs, don’t go shopping at the mall, don’t buy SUVs, and they never vote. We might as well kill them all because otherwise Americans might have to cut back our consumption of the world’s nonrenewable resources.
Of course, it’s very easy for humans to destroy environments. We’ve pretty much destroyed the entire Earth on behalf of wealth, luxury, comfort and pleasure.
Once humans have destroyed everything, exactly where will humans go … do you propose the Moon, Mars, or into the Universe in search of another planet to destroy?
Who cares about plants & animals? Just those stupid environmentalists.
But the plants & animals are unique, irreplaceable and vital to the Earth’s functioning as a living planet. Destroying the Earth for any cause is just plain suicidal.
Instead of massive new energy projects, Americans ought to begin a nationwide powerdown. Americans should begin to make substantial sacrifices so that their children and grandchildren do not have to suffer.
Americans consume too much of everything. Under these circumstances, the wisest course of action is for Americans to diminish our demand for oil, energy & the Earth’s resources.
— David Mathews Apr 26, 09:54 PM # - #61
The solution is to make the oil companies loose the tax breaks which cause such exobitant profits. I care less about getting a .20/gallon temporary tax break, than stopping big oil from screwing us day after day, year after year and laughing all the way to the bank.
— Jane Reese Apr 26, 01:46 PM #
Jane, do you participate in a 401(k), an IRA, a pension trust, a health insurance plan, a mutual fund? I bet you do and all of those plans own oil company stock and share in the oil company profits. What that means is that when Harry Reid or the Democrats pander for votes by yapping about taxing oil companies, they are after all of the plans you particpate in for your own benefit. Don’t let the Democrats con you for your votes.
— joro Apr 26, 10:01 PM # - #67
However, because we don’t want to see everyone hurt by increasing taxes, make the first $3000 in wages exempt from payroll taxes (these taxes hit the poor hardest).
— Michael Perkins Apr 26, 04:35 PM #
So you want to bankrupt Social Security sooner than it is now destined to go bankrupt because Reid and the Democrats obstructed and filibustered any fixes to the system!!!! Why?
— joro Apr 26, 10:09 PM # - #95, joro…..
I got those figures from….....BILL O’REILLY’S RADIO SHOW three days ago!!! No bullshit.
He’s either lousy at math, or he’s a REPUBLICAN!!
Ha, ha, hooey, ho, ho, hee, hee!!!
— Poor Daddy Apr 26, 10:18 PM # - I certainly agree with eliminating the tax breaks, and subsidies, to big oil, but gasoline taxes should be raised not lowered. The problem is that gasoline is too cheap in the the U.S. If you wish to really deal with the problem you need to discourage consumption and raise CAFE standards. A major way to reduce consumption and be revenue neutral is to significantly increase gasoline taxes but provide a tax credit (not just a deduction) for the increased tax. This sort of tax shifting has worked quite well in European countries and there is no reason it should not work here.
If we are at, or close, to peak oil (and I think we are), yesterday is not too soon to begin reducing energy consumption. In addition, global warming is real and serious. We owe it to ourselves as well a future generations to leave a livable planet. Let this be the wake up call and start now. Stand up for real ways to control gasoline prices and to protect ourselves and the rest of life with which we share the planet.
Just so you know, I am a life long democrat and am currently our Democratic precinct chairman.
— Jerry D. Unruh, Ph.D. Apr 26, 10:20 PM # - #98
— David Mathews Apr 26, 09:54 PM #
So what you are saying is that you are opposed to the use of alternative fuels. Democrats seem to want America and Americans to suffer by living in conditions worse than those that exist in third world countries.
— joro Apr 26, 10:32 PM # - #101.
— Poor Daddy Apr 26, 10:18 PM #
O’Reilly is an idiot. He was a unionized public school history teacher and doesn’t know diddly about economics. My guess is he gave misinformation or you heard what you wanted to hear like all Democrats and then spewed it out here on Reid’s blog along with all of his lies.
— joro Apr 26, 10:42 PM # - CONSERVE GAS
Rory Reid, Harry’s son, is Clark County Commission Chairman. Citizens have been screaming to fix the signal lights in the county and Reid has done nothing. Usual traffic patterns here have you stopping at every corner controlled by traffic signals and the standard wait is 3 minutes of idling. I should check to see how much the oil companies are contributing to the Reid’s campaigns.
— joro Apr 26, 10:53 PM # - I’m very concerned the Melendez Amendment is the wrong action for Democrats to take.
Given constrained supply (and no other rationing system), the market price rises to the point where demand is not greater than supply—the point of sufficient “demand destruction” where enough people consume less.
Prices wouldn’t go down from removing the federal tax; you’d just be giving another 18.4 cents per gallon to the oil companies!
A windfall profits tax for public benefit would be much better, that would transfer money from oil companies and OPEC countries back into Americans’ pockets.
Please also read http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891.
— Darrell Apr 27, 01:07 AM # - Why just for 60 days? Why not completely remove all federal taxes?
— El-ahrairah Apr 27, 04:32 AM # - Obviously this entire energy problem is Bush’s fault. 30 years ago when we had major oil shortages, long gas lines and were only allowed to buy fuel every other day George W. Bush did nothing about it.
Well since he didn’t, I guess the demmies will have to bail him out by raising taxes on gas and raising taxes on oil companies, which of course will be passed on to investors like you and me. Perhaps if enough taxes are raised oil will start procreating. Problems can always be overcome by getting more guv’mint intervention, right?
— Kee Apr 27, 07:48 AM # - Dear Mr. Reid,
It is difficult for me to understand your thought process. If the United States and the World is running out of a scarce commodity (oil), why in the world would you sponsor a law that would encourage people to use more. Price always has and always will balance supply and demand.
Making it easy for people to consume more only uses up the valuable time we have left to develop ways and means to transition away from fossil fuels.
When are you people going to start looking for viable solutions and stop with the band-aid approach to life threatening issues.
I sure hope you rethink your approach here and increase the tax not decrease it.
Sincerely,
Rick Swenson
— Rick Apr 27, 07:51 AM # - WOW!
Look at all these posts (most of them at the top of this thread) that say we need to raise the price of gas, rather than lower it. And almost everyone of them are using a screen name that are first time posters. Obviously some environmental group somewhere encouraged their member list to go forth and spread propaganda.
— kerry lost Apr 27, 08:05 AM #