On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The major Democratic candidates for President Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for the Act. John McCain was not present to vote on the Act. The Act was supposed to prevent the United States from being dependent on middle east oil and being in the middle of political instability. Unfortunately, this Act does little to accomplish the stated goal and actually forces America to buy more oil from OPEC countries like Iran and Venezuela. These two top Democrats will have egg on their face trying to explain this to voters.
A little known provision of the bill, namely section 526, states: “SEC. 526. PROCUREMENT AND ACQUISITION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS.
No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from unconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.”
Translation: This bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. So, for example, the United States Government will no longer be able to purchase oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, an energy reserve that holds about 2/3 of the recoverable oil as compared to current reserves in Saudi Arabia. To extract oil from the tar sands, greenhouse gas-producing energy is used. This is significant because the US Department of Defense is the world’s largest single buyer of light refined petrol. This will also effect our trade relations with Canada in a negative way. Would you rather buy oil from Canada (an ally) or Iran/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/etc.? The answer is pretty clear. Our ally to the north is a better option.
It turns out that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Energy Committee, has already sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him how the Defense Dept. plans to comply with the provision. Waxman wanted to know how the DOD plans on ensuring the fuel it buys doesn’t come from Canadian Tar Sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing. Waxman seems to want the DOD to expend more money and effort to make sure that the fuel it decides to buy comes from established sources, such as Saudi Arabia, and not from unconventional sources like Canada. It gets worse for folks pushing alternative fuels to protect the environment too.
The language of Section 526 also bans the government from purchasing biofuels like ethanol, since ethanol’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum products, i.e. it takes 1.3 gallons of oil to make 1 gallon of ethanol. It also takes massive land grabs to ecosystems to turn them into farms to grow corn. This entails major carbon emissions that worsen global warming that biofuels are meant to decrease. Studies indicate that the life-cycle greenhouse emissions from ethanol over a 30 year period is TWICE as high from regular gasoline. (See February 7th edition of Science Magazine and a February 7th Study by the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy for supporting details).
Technologically, ethanol’s emissions are not at levels in which they would comply with the law and contribute to meaningful climate change. Even if you don’t believe in global warming, the point is that it would require nothing short of a major technological breakthrough for ethanol to come in compliance with this law (you can include biodiesel too).
So, for all the talk of Energy Independence and Security, we are getting neither. We are barred from domestic drilling in Alaska, Florida, and California by the Democrats. We are barred from adding nuclear plants by Democratic leaning special interest groups and lawsuits filed to stall construction of plants. We are barred from using existing coal-to-liquid petrol (synthetic oil technologies) as well. The fact that President Bush signed this lousy piece of legislation is disappointing. The fact that Obama and Clinton voted for this bill is a sign that they are not really interested in change. This is a classic example of politicians speaking out both sides of their mouth. While that is nothing new, what is truly amazing is that the United States will continue to suffer as a result.
John McCain has been the only major party candidate to mention nuclear energy in a positive light and with vigor of conviction that it will lead us to more energy independence. That is a promising sign for the country.
Clinton and Obama never mention nuclear power. It’s like a dirty word to them. So, the next time you hear Clinton and Obama talking about promoting alternative energy recognize that they are blatantly lying to us. They can and will say anything to get elected. However, they cannot hide from their vote on this bill. If that is experience at work…..well, then they have failed all of us.
Popularity: 20%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
Great points Mike. Soon, thanks to ethanol and higher gas prices, I will be paying $4 for a loaf of bread.
Gotta love it when these knee jerk reactions to the energy crisis end up costing us more in the long run and then it turns out that these miracle fuels pollute more than the fuels they were supposed to replace.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/03/tech/main508006.shtml
But hey, don’t mention nuclear power. All you will get in return is rhetorical comments about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and nuclear waste that barely exists with modern generation reactor designs. It makes more sense to burn coal and oil for power generation than utilizing nuclear or even hydro.
Also mentioned was the Canadian Tar Sands oil deposits. China is buying all that the Canadians will sell them and they are vested heavily in them already. Right now, the methods of developing this resource is considered and environmental disaster. “To extract bitumen from the surface deposits of tar sand, which make up about 20% of reserves, huge excavators scrape away the topsoil and the underlying tar sands are lifted into huge dump trucks. The superficial tar sands are trucked to extraction processes, where they are steamed to extract the heavy, bituminous oil. The resulting oil is piped to refineries. This first step of tar sand extraction is estimated to result in gasoline that carries a burden of “at least five times more carbon dioxide” then would conventional “sweet crude” oil production.” I’m not a tree hugger by any means, but there are better methods than these to get this oil, let alone the fact that there are easier oil deposits to tap, but we might scare a polar bear or two to get at it. Another location that China is getting oil from right under our noses is the gulf coast and Cuba. Laws have been passed to prevent any drilling off our coasts around Florida, so the Chinese are angling into these deposits from far out to sea.
Finally, there are HUGE deposits of shale oil in the Great Basin area of Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. Technology is available to reclaim this oil without strip mining as is done on the Canadian tar sands. Yet here we sit on our hands and continue to depend upon politically volatile foreign oil. Uncle Sam, if you are saving it for a rainy day, you’d better check outside because it’s already clouded up.
What I’d like to know is why the oil companies are allowed to “price gouge” the public, yet it’s not allowed to happen with everyday household goods and services? The oil companies have had record profits consistantly over the past 10 years yet the govt continues to allow them to take advantage the public! I’m all for allowing a business to make a profit, but not to the extent that the oil companies have gone to. Sure we still have the lowest fuel prices in the world, but we should have the lowest prices being that we buy more oil than any other nation.
I just don’t see a change to alternative fuels anytime in OUR lifetime. There are too many greedy companies out there profiting from oil and until something is done about it, it’ll continue until the oil runs dry. Which is a loooooong ways away!
Oil Companies don’t set their own prices. Commodity markets and traders set the prices.
A quick google search truned this up:
“04-10-05 Question: Who sets crude oil prices? The big oil companies? OPEC?
Answer: At different stages of our history, they both did. Even today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries often influences prices by producing more or less crude oil, or by announcing it will raise or lower production.
Some people will never be convinced, but it’s the petroleum market, with its volatility and sometimes crazy gyrations, that determines crude oil prices.
Big oil companies lost their power to control prices partly because of antitrust legislation, and mostly because OPEC began setting prices for its oil in the early 1970s.
OPEC members took control of huge crude oil reserves when they nationalized the operations of companies like Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Mobil and Gulf. By the early 1980s, though, OPEC nations began losing control of pricing power and the market took over.
Every day, traders, buyers and sellers of oil, evaluate supply and demand, look at the outlook foroil producers and consumers, analyse political and economic risks, and look for any news that could impact the market, such as a hurricane heading toward the Gulf of Mexico.
Using sophisticated mathematical models, the day’s news, rumours and gut feelings, they bid crude prices up or down.”
Ok…..so I guess their “record profits” are coming from selling Slupees and candy bars? Yeah…whatever dude!
Their record profits are coming from consumer demand for the product. The demand is not just in the United States. China and India are also making demands on gasoline and other natural resources. This also accounts for the drain on the supply of wheat and corn….which is why food prices hit an all-time high on the consumer price index last year (5.3%)….This increase is the largest upsurge in the last 15 years. So, I guess next you will start labeling Alan Reed at Reed’s Dairy as a corrupt business just gouging people more? Come on. The issue is not big business. I will try and find the statistic, but oil companies make an average of only 7 to 10 cents per gallon on gasoline after the shipping, transport, and refinery costs are factored in. They have one of the lowest profit margins in the industry. It just so happens that they make alot of money on paper because they have a product that is highly in demand. Is that their fault?
If Jose Cuervo Tequila was the only tequila out there and they were making money hand over fist, would you have a problem with that? Or would it just be the fact that they make a good product that everyone who was a Tequila drinker wanted?
It is way too easy to bash the oil companies. If you have a 401k you probably own some stocks of these evil oil companies. Alot of Americans own stock on oil companies. They make money for their shareholders. That is what business’ do….they make money. Politicians like Clinton, Obama, and others bash oil companies for political gain all the time. It’s class warfare to get elected. And once they get elected they intentionally enact policies that help out special interests. Big oil is also a special interest….but it is a necessary interest. Without oil companies to explore for oil, recover and process the oil….we have no economy….and realistically, no way for you to get some Jose Cuervo to drink. Now, wouldn’t that be a shame if we couldn’t get our tequila when we wanted (and needed it)?
Jose,
I found the articles I was looking for. The links are attached for your reading pleasure. Due to space constraints, I am only highlighting the major points of each story. I even found a nice article from The Washington Post (a nice liberal paper)….lest you might think I am leading you down the garden path.
http://www.jb-williams.com/4-25-06.htm
For starters, many average Americans who hold stock in the oil companies, either directly or indirectly through their 410k or mutual fund. But the fact is, the gross profit margin for a gallon of gas in America today, is what it has always been, on average, .08 cents per gallon, (2.5% at $3.00 per gallon). Though retail gas prices fluctuate with crude prices and supply vs. demand, the gross profit margin per gallon remains roughly the same at all times. (No evidence of price gouging here.)
However the federal government profits approximately .59 cents per gallon through gasoline taxes, 7 ½ times or 750% that of the oil producers themselves and 20% of the price at the pumps. Pay attention here, Washington liberals are attacking oil companies for their 2.5% gross profit margin, while Washington is profiting 20% per gallon. Democrats answer? Tax some more?
If oil companies cut their profit margins by 50%, it would drop the price of a gallon of gas by only .04 cents per gallon. If Washington law makers cut their take by 50%, gasoline would cost .30 cents per gallon less. If the federal government didn’t tax gasoline at all, the price per gallon at the pumps would be $2.40 per gallon instead of $3.00 per gallon and the oil companies would still be at a respectable 2.5% gross profit margin. Who is gouging whom?
Are Americans specifically being gouged by OPEC?
Quite the opposite. The most expensive places in the world to buy gas are The Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Denmark and Belgium, all of which are now above $7.00 per gallon at the pumps. Of course, all of which are socialist governments with even heavier taxes per gallon than America.
The least expensive places in the world are Venezuela, Nigeria, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, ranging between .15 cents and .95 cents per gallon at their pumps. That’s because these are the largest oil saturated countries in the world.
America is the single largest consumer of oil products, yet our retail prices are very average in the world market, despite excessive federal taxation. Who is gouging whom?
Where does all the money go?
Based upon a $3.00 gallon of gasoline, the average break-down is as follows.
Gasoline Retailer $.01 cents per gallon
Oil Company $.08 cents per gallon
Refining $.29 cents per gallon
Marketing/Distribution $.32 cents per gallon
Taxes $.59 cents per gallon
Cost of crude $1.71 per gallon (delivered)
Who is gouging who?
The Democrats answer to every problem, tax it some more?
Smelling blood in the political waters in an election year makes every issue a campaign issue perfect for exploitation and current consumer complaints over prices at the pumps is no exception.
Democrats call for an all out attack on those greedy rich oil companies, which is like throwing red meat to their blue state socialist constituents who see not only corporate greed, but capitalism itself as the root of all evil in the world.
Their answer to high gasoline prices? Launch yet another “independent” (partisan) investigation into high gasoline prices during an election year when winning congressional seats in Washington might be the only thing that can save their failed party from extinction.
But will attacking the group making the least on a gallon of gas, the group responsible for ongoing exploration and production of gasoline, solve the problem? Should some new “windfall-profit” tax aimed at penalizing American companies for turning a profit be imposed?
In a word, NO! This attitude is the cause of the problem to the degree you can prove any real problem exists at all. If we should penalize oil companies for making .08 cents per gallon gross profit, how much should we penalize our federal government for making .59 cents per gallon?
Corporations don’t pay taxes!
They do collect and remit taxes. But every penny of taxes placed on corporate income is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher retail prices, just like the .59 cents per gallon of federal taxes being collected on behalf of the federal government at the pumps today.
So will electing Democrats who hope to tax gasoline (or any corporate entity) even more help curb prices at the pump, the supermarket or anywhere else? If so, I’d sure like to hear how?
How do you think gasoline got to be .59 cents per gallon higher than need be? How do you think our government got to the point of consuming nearly 60% of GDP in the first place?
You show me where the problem is and who is doing the endless gouging of average Americans?
Is it the oil companies at .08 cents per gallon? Or is it the government at .59 cents per gallon, for producing absolutely nothing?
Democrats seek to increase gasoline taxes beyond the current .59 cent per gallon level. Can you explain how this will reduce prices at the pump? No…nobody can.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702399.html
Jay Taparia, a lecturer in finance at the University of Illinois at Chicago and an expert on interpreting financial statements, said a quarterly profit or loss can only be judged in context, given the history of the company and its long-term prospects.
“People who are freaking out about Exxon’s record profit are the same people who were freaking out about AOL Time Warner’s record losses” of $98.2 billion in 2002, he said. “One quarter’s net income or loss doesn’t mean anything.”
A $9.9 billion quarterly profit is mostly a function of Exxon Mobil’s size. It had sales of $100 billion this quarter, more than any other U.S. company. At its current rate of growth, Exxon Mobil will be the biggest U.S. corporation this year by revenue, bigger than Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which had $288.19 billion in revenue last year. Generally, the bigger the company, the bigger the bottom line.
Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil “earn” more, depending on what measure is used. Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil’s gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.’s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.
Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.
By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout.
Oil industry analysts yesterday also pointed out that while times are good for oil companies, one of the reasons is the huge American demand for gas at a time when supply is constrained. And the cost of extracting and refining oil in the coming years is only going to increase, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. Energy research firm John S. Herold Inc. last month predicted that despite short-term increases in profits, higher costs will probably make many U.S. oil companies less profitable in the next five years, even as their revenue grows rapidly.
TRANSLATION of the above: Oil companies make an average profit of $.08 cents per gallon. The government makes $.59 cents per gallon. Yet, the politicians want us to believe the evil oil companies are to blame. This goes back to the premise of my article. Politicians like Clinton and Obama use oil company bashing to get elected. They could care less about American economic and energy security.
Thanks for the info Mike. Don’t I feel like an idiot for not doing my research! I was having a discussion on this very topic this evening with my parents who own their own trucking company. They were explaining basically the same things you pointed out.
The fact of the matter is, we really cant complain about our fuel prices. Not when our country still has some of the cheapest fuel prices in the world.
I appreciate you taking the time to post such a detailed rebuttal and breaking it down so well. My ignorance definately got the best of me on this one.
Thanks again
Mike, how is it that only Hillary and Barack voted for this boondoggle, and no one else, and yet President Bush signed it into law?
Don’t they have to have a majority of both the Senate and the House, who then get together and tweak it until it reaches an acceptable level of compromise, THEN it goes to the prez?
The point that I am trying to make is that it seems blatantly partisan to play the blame game only for the two candidates who voted for it (and we don’t know if McCain would have if he were there, it sounds like it had strong Republican backing) instead of saying that Congress was (once again) a bunch of idiots and our president was no better.
Then, take the step further and point out that they voted for it and should have known better, but hey, they’re about the same as the rest of their peers AND the prez on this issue, so…
I realize that you are partisan, most of us are. But the headline immediately turned me off, especially when I read the text and realized they were but two of a boat-load to vote for this. Their position isn’t different than the rest of the yahoos in Washington DC.
It reminds me of the little sniping game the two of them are playing with each other about who voted for the war vs voting against the war, etc.
I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but I’m thinking he’s about the only one who has voted his conscience since he got there. That doesn’t make him right, just a classier breed of politician.
To make this longer, I appreciate that you pointed this out. I think it was a mistake for our government to pass this law, so I’m curious why they did it in the first place…
Nemesis,
Here is a link to the House and Senate Votes on the Energy Independence and Security Act.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-40
Once you get to the site and see the House results, goto the search box in the upper right corner, type in Senate Vote 226. This should bring up the Senate results.
Interestingly, Idaho Republicans Bill Sali and Mike Simpson voted NO on this bill. Senators Crapo and Craig voted YES.
In the House (on the Republican Side)all but 36 Republicans voted NO. Only 4 Democrats voted NO.
On the Senate side, 20 Republicans Voted YES. McCain’s Counterpart John Kyl, of Arizona, voted NO. McCain was not present for the vote.
What this shows me is that this legislation is too long and complicated to truly be understood by legislators. It is also clear that the lobbyists on both sides of the issues did a good job of getting this bill out of committee and to the floor for action. The problem is that in the rush to compromise to get Energy legislation, the Democrats who steered the bill, and a handful of Republicans did not do their homework and have harmed the country. The reason for the headline the way I made it up was to garner attention about this issue–and recognize that the two major Democratic front runners have no clue about energy policy. Sorry if you thought it was partisan, but the voting patterns clearly make this a Democratic controlled issue and they bare the brunt of the blame for introducing such a faulty piece of legislation. I will certainly concede that President Bush should have vetoed this bill. Perhaps he rolled over to get some other legislation passed? That is the only thing I can think of that would make any sense.
Excellent information. American’s don’t realize the special interest groups, that Waxman and others in the US Senate are wanting to get close to. The Question is; why are they doing this, and what are they getting in return for this help.
there is a plethora of oil and gas in the middle east and also in russia. if we’d stop screwing with their internal politics they’d sell us all the oil and gas we wanted.
the oil companies are jacking up the prices, not the countries the oil comes from. idaho needs more hydroelectric dams. the added electricity can be sold to California during the summer and idaho will have extra cash from this.
look how expensive electricity is in places like NY state and PA and CA. Idaho needs more hydroelectric dams and cheap electricity probably is why companies move to or stay in idaho.
Mike, thanks for the extra information. I wouldn’t have minded if you had put Crapo and Craig in your title, too, as even though the Democrats are in the Congressional majority now, they could not have done this at all without Republican complicity, including the prez.
And you hit the nail on the head with the piece about how our legislation is so long and complicated that Congress typically does not even read it…they rely on staff members who are supposed to give them the cliff notes about it.
On top of that, then when the law is signed, and the info gets put into the code of federal regulations, it turns out that there is more to it than the code, and if you want to understand the law you have to know where to find the preamble information to hope you understand the intent.
Part of my job is finding and interpreting federal regulations and it’s just a nightmare to navigate.
Idaho Code is not much better, but it is usually a little shorter.
The other points about how sometimes crappy legislation is passed because it comes from a ’scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ situation is sad, but true.
I’m sure sometimes good things happen, but it just seems that mostly it’s pork or some hidden agenda we have yet to divine.
John O, you are correct that for the most part, all 535 who sit on Capitol Hill tend to bow to special interests. It’s a destructive disease that is strictly non-partisan in nature.
*** edited by site admin, moved to correct discussion thread ***
I am not sure why your comment made it onto a topic about energy policy….maybe you should copy the comment into the Protect America Act thread instead.
Doh! I don’t know why either, probably me keeping too many browser tabs open. Thanks for pointing it out, I moved it to the correct discussion thread.
Thank you Nemesis for pointing out the biased headline for this article. Why were Obama & Clinton singled out when there was plenty of blame in every political corner to spread around? Mike has written some great and thoughtful comments but his political biases wear a little thin with me. When I read a comment or headline that is so obviously spun it is a big turnoff for me. The article could just have easily been headlined:
“Idaho Congressional delegation cancels each others’ votes”
or maybe
“Energy Independence is a joke to President Bush” (after all he signed the bill).
Another thing I’m not sure I understand is how the government is “making” 59 cents per gallon of gas. There is a difference between profit and taxes. I would think that the 59 cents per gallon is either sent to the U.S. Treasury or earmarked for other things, such as highway maintenance. Remember when we got matching federal money to finish the Sunnyside project? Where do you think it came from? I think that tax on gasoline is a fair user fee, especially if it is spent on roads.
It is very misleading to compare one company’s record profits with our government’s tax revenue. It’s apples and oranges.
You go right on thinking that as more and more money comes out of your paycheck. If you want to call it user fees, revenue enhancement, or the like….it still is a large amount of money that the government sucks out of every gallon of gas sold. Inevitably, they want more revenue….they want to tax oil companies….aka, the American People even more. If you call this a fair ratio of “user fees” (.59) to profit margin (.08) then I want to come to your house and “fairly” help myself to more of your property and work proceeds. The government can keep taxing you and taking more money…all the while it is legal. They don’t have to live within their means….they can always increase taxes…and user fees….to supposedly provide services. Normal folks can’t and don’t operate this way. I don’t want to take more money from you to supposedly keep our roads and bridges in repair. Look at the federal budget pie: Federal spending in 2006 for Transportation equaled only 2.7% of the Federal Budget (70.2 billion dollars). 70 billion….have you looked at the roads…they are not in major disrepair and generally are in good shape (minus potholes this time of year). How much more do the politicians want? And most importantly, where are these “fair user fees” (gas taxes) going? Much like Social Security revenue, these gas taxes go into the regular general fund and are used in other pet projects of Congress. They have the population over a barrel and keep squeezing to get more revenue…for more programs…to keep getting elected.
The Headline for the Article was already explained. It is a headline to grab attention to the fact that the two Democratic Contenders for the Presidency want to continue business as usual…just like Bush….he was wrong….and they are wrong. This is an issue of the fleecing of the American People and our national security.
You might think these are “fair user fees” but the reality is that this is a tax…and it is a tax that is hitting Americans hard….and it is not even being dispersed for it’s stated purpose. Ever get tired of being lied to? This bill is more of an excuse to keep going in the same direction….using petroleum…..funding middle eastern terrorists…..collecting taxes…and getting elected. This Act should have been renamed: The Politician Preservation Act of 2007.
Woo Hoo! A title I could agree with.
OK Mike, once again I can see that you are never wrong. Sheesh. If you think that taxes are a big rip-off then let’s just eliminate all taxes and government. Is that what you want? All I said was that tax revenue is not the same as profit.
And…our roads and bridges are in good shape? Do you remember the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis?
You can whitewash the oil companies’ profit margins all you want but you have not convinced me that they are anything but money grubbing weasels. And President Bush enables them to be so at every opportunity. He also signed the same bill for which you criticized Obama and Clinton. But you didn’t put Dubya’s name on your headline, did you?
No, I didn’t put Bush on the headline because he is on his way out. I noted my displeasure with him signing the bill. What do you want? An apology?
I am not for eliminating taxes. I simply want the government to live within it’s means and stop the maddening incremental tax increases to pay for more and more government programs that aren’t giving us the bang for the buck.
As for the Minneapolis bridge fiasco, you can try to blame Bush for that one but the reality is that the federal government hands out transportation monies in block grants. The states then decide where to spend the money. If a given state chooses to prioritize bridges great. If they choose to prioritize highways or interchanges then that is where the most money goes. I suspect your answer would be…well if we just gave them more money it would have solved the problem. THAT MENTALITY IS THE PROBLEM. You can’t keep throwing money at problems to make them go away. We see that in sacred cow education spending. After spending billions in this area, test scores and rankings have NOT increased.
All technicalities aside, if you really believe profit margin of .08 cents a gallon is gouging then I guess your knowledge of economies of scale is severely lacking. If I sell a product that is heavily in demand I am going to make alot of money doing so. I am also going to spend alot of money to make money.
In the case of American oil companies, be thankful that they are working to extract oil from domestic sources…and foreign sources as well. Unless you like walking or pedaling your bike find another scapegoat for class warfare. IMO, the attitude you exhibit is based on discriminatory principles–because oil makes money and you appear to be basing your argument on ideological considerations close to socialism. YOU DON’T MIND IF THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING A “PROFIT” BUT IF PRIVATE COMPANIES MAKE A BUCK YOU SEEM DEAD SET AGAINST IT.
Try telling a family trying to scrape by that .59 cents for tax revenue should be acceptable. I know this is hard for you to accept but facts are facts and people aren’t making it because we let politicians get us into class warfare arguments.
It’s called Divide and Conquer. The politicians divide us and keep getting elected. Meanwhile, the country goes to heck. The House Democratic Spending Blueprint was released this weekend. Their projections show spending to be predicated on eliminating the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. These tax breaks reduced nominal tax rates from the Clinton years of 50% to 33%. So, what they have in store is a return to the 50% rate to pay for all their wonderful spending ideas. This means ALL Americans will be hit with more taxes. They deny it and say they will just tax the rich. Their own budget predictions show just the opposite. So while they get you ticked off at big oil they will be hitting your wallet and taking more pay. Be prepared to work January 1 to June 30 to pay the government off.
So, go right on spouting your Democratic talking points that big oil is gouging all of us….see where that gets you….probably in the poor house!
I don’t know what Democratic talking points you are talking about. I don’t need others to tell me what to say or think.
But apparently it is OK to be a tool for the Republican Party, right?
Yes, I am a tool….a monkey wrench! Excellent observation 853. Please add more substance to your post though. It left me a little empty. I need all the energy I can get to be a tool.
C’mon Mike, I always picture you as a laser level or a nailgun ha ha.. What, exactly, is a “republican tool?” Guest 853?
Mike is nobody’s tool; if you read more of his postings, you will see he doesn’t adhere strictly to either party’s dogma. I truly respect that.
If you read my post I posed a hypothetical question. I never came out and accused Mike of being a Republican tool but his defensiveness says a lot.
It’s alright for mike to accuse me of using Democratic talking points but heaven forbid someone make the same accusation about someone else and their recycled Fox News drivel. babs, if you don’t know what mike’s political leanings are you probably haven’t been paying attention.
By the way, in Idaho we pay fuel taxes of 43.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 49.4 cents for diesel, not 59 cents per gallon. Of these amounts, roughly half is federal and half is state taxes. It varies for gasoline and diesel fuels. http://www.idahogasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
Since some people want to compare the oil companies’ record profits with the tax revenue generated by the sale of oil I have a question for them: How many roads are the oil companies building with their profits? I don’t mind paying fuel taxes if they are used for roads. It’s a fair user fee.
On the other hand, the oil companies lately have been spending some of their profits buying full page print ads begging people to persuade Congress not to raise fuel taxes. I guess it would hurt their bottom line too much if people didn’t buy as much gas anymore.
I will take pains to not make this post about us 853….hypothetical or not, I not a tool for either party and I don’t need Fox News to tell me that the government is gouging us more than the oil companies and they continue to want more. Did you see the most recent proposal out of the US House of Representatives Energy Committee? The Democratic Chairman wants an additional .50 cents per gallon tax leveled on fuel to cut demand, thereby (in theory) reducing the price of oil and gas and protecting the environment. I will give him credit for being upfront about his intentions but it is an economy buster. People can’t afford to get hit with more taxes and run their businesses and personal affairs that require transportation.
I totally agree with you that oil companies don’t build roads. That is a no brainer. However, look at the disparity in taxes raised per gallon from state to state. Roads don’t crumble the minute you pass over the state line to a state that charges less for gas taxes. Government has an insatiable appetite for more revenues.
On another front, oil companies do pay taxes like you and I do. Alot of taxes. Corporate tax rates in the United States are in the top five in the industrialized world. Keep driving them up and watch more business locate overseas in India, Mexico, and elsewhere. Idaho recently adjusted tax policy to give Areva tax breaks if they were to locate here. Why is this? Because tax policy matters to businesses. So, if oil companies advertise against Congress raising gas taxes they have every right to do so. They also have the same self-interest that you, I, and the guy down the street have in keeping taxes low and affordable.
The point in this debate is that the two major Democratic candidates for President voted to pass a bill that makes us more dependent on foreign oil and American oil companies that bring us that same oil. It is double speak going on in Washington by the entire lot of the political class. The class warfare that they have you buying into affords them the opportunity to keep sticking it to all of us while they keep their power and position in DC. So, as you go on about your business blaming oil companies keep in mind that the real culprits are the politicians.
There you go, the ‘Tool’ has spoken. I doubt I will receive any remuneration from either political party. Energy and tax policy matter. I hope you will reflect on the fact that these issues are bigger than bashing oil companies. This post is designed to get people to see how legislation passed by politicians has been perverted against the national interest. Our focus needs to be on kicking the bums out, not bashing oil companies or environmentalists.
Mike, you’re kinda doing it again…
In this last comment, you said, “The point in this debate is that the two major Democratic candidates for President voted to pass a bill that makes us more dependent on foreign oil and American oil companies that bring us that same oil.”
But the truth is, many Republicans voted for this bill (including our own two Senators), and there is nothing to establish that John McCain would NOT have voted for it if he’d have been there that day. And, the president, a noted Republican the last time I looked, signed it into law, because he AGREED with it.
“This post is designed to get people to see how legislation passed by politicians has been perverted against the national interest.”
I would totally agree with that concept. The place where you and I differ is that it really seems you keep trying to make this a mostly Democratic candidate issue, aided in part because John McCain missed the vote that particular day.
We already played this tit for tat game in posts 8 & 9. The measure was voted on by vast majorities of Democrats in both chambers. The vast numbers in opposition were Republicans. I also explained the by line was intentionally listed with Obama and Clinton because energy policy is not sexy to most people so it was to grab attention to the fact that both major presidential candidate voted for the measure to take effect with or without knowing the effects Section 526 would have on US energy policy.
Okay, Mike, if you say so, I see this is going to have to be one of those “agree to disagree” points of view, I guess.
I only brought it up again because you once again mentioned that “the point was that two major Democrats voted for this”, in your comment 26. That really does seem to be your point, despite all the bipartisan votes and support.
But I guess if it’s a game we’re playing, I’ll concede this one to you for now.
Nemisis,
I contacted Senator McCain’s Senate Office and asked for their official position on the Energy Independence Act. I am awaiting their reply. However, I did not some interesting stances on Energy Policy that both he and fellow Arizona Senator John Kyl share. Kyl voted NO on the Energy Independence Act. Kyl and McCain also noted concerns about the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Here is the link:
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=336b5102-187f-4127-87d8-d721b3fd2769&Region_id=&Issue_id=bc036142-6f29-470a-9be9-37d306822ccf
I will let you know McCain’s office gives me a definitive answer. Until then, we can agree to disagree!
Janet,
You need a hobby. Really……
Man, I thought I wrote long pieces. The one above takes the cake!
Yeah, I was thinking I just wasted some major time reading that one…aarrgghh.
Very nice information to me. Good to see it posted.
No real thread to put this on, but this was the first one that came up with Obama’s Name On It:
Barack Obama is championing welfare reform in his new television ad titled “Dignity.” The ad says that Obama “passed a law to move people from welfare to work — slashed the rolls by 80 percent.”
But the television spot fails to mention that Obama resisted the very welfare reform bill that led to the reduction in the caseload. Back in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a federal reform bill in an effort to make welfare what he called “a second chance, not a way of life.”
But then-Illinois state Senator Obama told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper that year that Mr. Clinton’s stance on welfare was “disturbing.”
And on May 31, 1997 Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate, “I probably would not have supported the federal legislation.”
Looks like Welfare is a Joke to Obama too. He can’t even tell the truth about it and tries to take credit for it. Sounds like John Kerry when he was “for it, before being against it”……same thing with the gun decision last week. He was against it before he was for it. Can anyone see what a political hack this guy is turning into. He was against wearing a flag lapel pin stating that some people think the United States Flag is not a good symbol to flaunt. Some people see our flag as a call to torture and murder……yet, now when called on it, he has started wearing it. Seems like political expediency to me and downright lying about his positions that he can’t sell to the American people.
Does anyone actually believe Obama has a chance anyways? (I don’t)
I don’t see things the way you do, Bundy, but there’s the beauty of life in a nutshell.
We can take the same set of data and extrapolate our own conclusions by using our own pre-existing biases.
scary thought on energy independance /oil reserves ,If the United States had to supply its entire demand of 21 million barrels per day without resorting to foreign imports, existing US reserves would last only three years at the current rate of consumption.
So how do you explain Obama’s about face on a host of issues and his Illinois Senate Speeches that are finally being broadcast by certain media outlets? Do you ignore what he said on the Senate Floor in Illinois? Do you ignore what he wrote on League of Women Voters Questionnaires? Do you ignore who he is really getting alot of his cash from?
It’s fine to disagree….but please tell us why you disagree….besides, that is funner to comment about, right?
Ah, Cal. The reason I don’t see things that way is that I don’t see Obama as the only politician who does that, in fact, I don’t see him as any different from McCain in that regard.
So I’m not looking for reasons to NOT like the Democrat, I’m looking for reasons to LIKE the one I will decide to vote for, no matter the party.
McCain called the religious right “agents of intolerance” in the last race but that got him booted quickly…so this time he embraced them and he got much further.
There are at least two of the bills he actually cosponsored (McCain Feingold being one of them) that all of a sudden, he can’t believe Congress did such a dastardly deed.
Romney ran his state in a decidedly liberal way, then became ultra conservative when it was time to run a national campaign. Flip flop all the way.
Since we’re not here to try to prove ourselves right (or anyone else wrong, necessarily) I’m not going to go out and list all the places various pols have flip flopped, because again, it’s not my way of politicking to try to make someone else (usually the “other guy”) look bad.
I like to see what the good things are about the person who is running, and I like to vote for those good things. Tearing down someone so others won’t vote for them is dirty pool (because I know of very few people who have totally clean pasts and also have never reversed their position on things) and I try not to participate in it.
That’s why I said I didn’t see things the same way. I don’t see the things being said or done by one candidate as any different than what’s also being said or done by the other, they both have inconsistencies and historical statements that make us scratch our heads in wonder…
I challenge each party loyalist to come up with the good things their candidate has done, and bring those to light. Stop trying to find dirt (to make mud to sling around) on the other candidate.
Makes for a boring debate, to stop trying to make the other person look bad, doesn’t it?
Nemesis. I agree with you thats what all politicians do. The part thats hard to swallow is Obama has been selling himself as a different kind of polictician and one that will bring change.
I’d also challenge your statement about McCain and the Religous Right vote. They didn’t vote for him. It was either Huckabee or they stayed home.
Just Me, you make a good point that Obama was trying to say he was not politics as usual, so it seems that since we all know he is the same old same old, if we were predisposed to look for bad things we could knock him for that.
But I contend they are ALL same old same old, yet they all try to say they won’t be…so it’s not just him, there.
As far as the religious right, I guess the real issue is that whereas before McCain was disdainful and snubbed ‘em, this time he wooed them…and since he got somewhere this time, it was my bad to assume they gave him some of their votes.