Voters, pick your fix for gas prices

Two choices: GOP says supply is king; Dems want more energy options

Associated Press

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., speaks about gas prices as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., left, listen Wednesday.

By Lisa Mascaro

Wed, May 14, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Click here

Proposals to slash gas prices abound in White House race (5-01-2008)
Gas, Oil Rise to Records As Dollar Falls (3-13-2008)

Senate calls for SPR halt in flood bill passage (05-13-2008)
Oil stockpiling may get key tests today (05-12-2008)
Senate Democrats seek to tax oil companies (05-08-2008)

Washington — So the next time you’re filling up the tank, here’s a pop quiz to consider as the dollars click by: What’s the best way to lower your gasoline bill?

Is it, as Republicans in Congress propose, drilling for more oil domestically, in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to reduce our dependence on supplies from the Middle East?

Or is it, as the Democrats suggest, forcing domestic oil companies to change their habits and threatening to tax them unless they invest in alternative energy technologies?

Don’t worry, you don’t need to come up with the answer anytime soon. Neither proposal is likely to pass in Congress this year, despite the hours of floor time being consumed by the issue.

Think of it as a practice quiz for the fall election, when you will need to decide which party you want in power in Washington.

Here are some of the basics, as told through the comments of Nevada’s two senators over the past few weeks as their parties tried to frame the debate.

For Republicans, the root problem of $4-a-gallon gas is supply.

Supply more oil, they say, and prices will go down. Even more, Republicans believe, just the promise of more oil flowing would ease the minds of speculators, who are helping to drive up prices.

“You want to affect the price at the pump today, you have to increase supplies,” Sen. John Ensign said in an interview Tuesday.

The Alaskan wildlife refuge, as well as the ocean waters off the nation’s coastlines, hold the Republicans’ answer to rising gas prices — even as members of their party have dramatically blocked past attempts to drill in pristine areas.

Ensign believes prices would “go down overnight,” as he put it last week, if speculators knew more oil was coming.

“When was the last time, just ask yourselves, you taxed something and got more of it?” Ensign said last week. “Is that going to increase supply? The answer is obviously not.”

But Democrats, led by Sen. Harry Reid, believe Republicans are relying on what environmentalists call an “old, dirty path” that Americans no longer believe in.

Democrats want to redirect the oil companies away from fossil fuels that are exacerbating global warming and toward development of alternative energy forms.

“We can’t drill our way out,” Reid told reporters in a conference call Tuesday afternoon.

The Democratic plan would roll back the $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks given to the top five domestic oil companies and put the money toward development of wind, solar and other renewable energies that could replace the fuel needed to power industry.

Even more, Democrats would start taxing the big oil companies’ “windfall” profits at 25 percent unless the companies reinvest their earnings in renewable energy. Democrats would also push tougher regulations on oil speculators.

Reid often talks about the $600 billion profits oil companies have made since the start of the Bush administration, while gas prices at home more than doubled.

“We are forcing oil companies to change their ways,” Reid said recently.

So take your pick.

As of now, nothing is likely to pass. The Republican proposal — to open up part of the Alaskan wildlife refuge for oil exploration — failed Tuesday in the Senate, 42-56, with a handful of Republicans, mostly those in difficult reelection campaigns, and one similarly positioned Democrat, voting against their parties.

The Democratic plan hasn’t come up for a vote. It, too, faces dissent from within Democratic ranks as key senators oppose taxing oil company profits.

The House is having similar debates.

Congress may find common ground on one front. Senators agreed, 97-1, to call on Bush to temporarily halt daily oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on the theory that if those supplies entered the retail marketplace instead, prices may be lowered. The House passed a similar bill by a veto-proof margin later Tuesday evening.

Discussion: 18 comments so far…

By junjun

5/14/08 at 5:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOL< the only way to save gas is to use LESS of it. Drive less, ride a motorcycle (my personal choice) or buy an economical vehicle to drive. Not much other choices and its only going to get worse!

JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
By NVMakz

5/14/08 at 6:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Use less and drill much more. Choking supplies which are readily available is lunacy.

Increase supplies of oil-based products, nuclear power plants and other energy supplies. This brings the price down, so alternatives have more "capital" to help get them developed. As long as prices remain painfully high, this extra cash flow not only is going to the oil companies anyway == but is choking out capital which can be used to speed the production of alternatives.

These high prices at the pump represent an unnecessary TAX on everyone, but hitting the poor, the middle-class and the struggling the most. IF caring for the more unfortunate IS the real goal of the Democrat, they'd be opening up drilling and exploration - instead of punishing, extorting and demonizing the hard task the energy companies have.

It's a win-win, but Democrats and eco-moonies don't want to win, they want a few seats more.
By cignetti

5/14/08 at 7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Typical of the idiotic morons that occupy seats in our congress. They are hell bent on destroying the USA. New Nuclear Power if we take that route is at least 10 years away and besides that most of the facilities that built those units in the 1960s and 1970s no longer exist. If we then decide to buy this equipment from foreign sources we further lose control of our country and enrich our enemies. The sad part of this whole scenario is that there no longer exists leaders in this country and most of the masses in this country are stupid. If you want to look at leaders, the leaders of the idiotic morons are Pelosi and Reid.
By jfnance32

5/14/08 at 7:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is 100% true....alternative energy like solar and wind are much more expensive then oil, gas and coal.

Solar and wind will increase prices.

The arguments for solar and wind never state that they will decrease energy prices.

The arguments for solar and wind are that they will reduce pollution and that they will reduce the need for energy that comes from Middle East which is a national security argument.

Solar and wind will increase the price of energy.

So if you like $5.00 a gallon gas then you love the price of solar and wind.
By NVMakz

5/14/08 at 8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Both sides of the energy debate - the eco-socialists and the energy companies - have to start the process of meeting in the middle.

Energy companies = with the world watching - have to be able to develop really tight and reasonable technologies and new engineering to be more efficient.

Ecos need to understand that the economics of this IS that capital will be needed = trillions over the next 20 years or so. The release of economic power and innovations COULD:

Free up needed finances to develop the alternatives faster. Cut the big number of different formulations based on regional, local and sometimes county laws. If memory serves, there are like 25 different kinds of unleaded fuels. Something like 4-5 different diesel fuels. Cut it nationwide to 1-2 unleadeds and two diesels. The economic power of this helps we all.

Economically illiterate national liberals and their Republicrat crossovers are talking up a big TAX increase for "Big-ENERGY". Remember, Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers and infrastructure do. This is a TAX assault on "The People".

Anyway, the time has come to have it out on increasing supplies as responsibly as possible.

Choking supplies hurts the most important voting block the Democrats have = the poor, the struggling and downtrodden and so forth. They are the front line of who are suffering more and hurting. This is not the Republican's fault per se.

Nuclear, light oils products (which go in SO many everyday products), every alternative which can be brought along more quickly because there will be more economic firepower to do it == benefits we all.
By Lizzy

5/14/08 at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

The only way to reduce the cost of gasoline is to bolster the value of a dollar.

That's absolutely correct. the cost of oil really hasn't gone up much, but the value of the dollar has dropped significantly.

I'm not sure why people don't understand this, but maybe if we simplify it, we can stop arguing about drilling and these other countries using up all the oil.

Here's the deal, kids: The value of the US dollar as dropped 1/3. Or, one could say, the value of foreign currency has increased 50% over the value of the dollar. We express oil in terms of dollar value, i.e. a barrel of crude sells for $120 US dollars.

When the value of the dollar drops, the amount of product that can be purchased decreases. In the case of oil, since the cost is expressed as a dollar amount, the cost of oil goes up as the value of the dollar drops.

The worst part about this realization is that we are the sole cause for the high oil costs, and that's why we can't do anything about it. The rest of the world is buying and selling fuel at roughly the same price they have been for the past few years. It's only here in America where our dollar now buys less oil than it used to.

If the value of oil was expressed in terms of the euro, we wouldn't be complaining about the high cost of oil, instead we'd be complaining about the value of the dollar as compared to the euro.
By NVMakz

5/14/08 at 10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Good comments, "lizzy".

Lower energy prices will unleash natural economic forces which will help we all.

The dollar weakens because - in small part - our economic situation is partly due to choking off avenues of energy supply.

A stronger economy helps everyone, rich and poor, of every skin color, of all political beliefs.

Strengthen the dollar by improving our overall economy.

DRILL; dedicate the oil to America and our friends; streamline "boutique blends" to be efficient; drain the swamp of terror/socialist/enemy entities getting rich while bleeding us dry == and so on.....

The Euro's strength brings many more people to visit and invest in America. In oil politics, they're WAY nuclear, produce like NO oil themselves and are getting squeezed by Russia and their friends.

To leave valuable playing cards "in the ground" like this is criminal and unacceptable.
By GOD

5/14/08 at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Very wise points by everyone...

Supply and demand drives the cost of everything. Conservation while increasing supply will lower prices both short and long term.

The minute Congress gets involved just makes the problems worse. They do like to grandstand though, don't they?
By mikeg

5/14/08 at 11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

God you realize that you could reduce gas prices with a simple flick of your pinkie finger, right? And save us all this overwrought hand wringing? How about a little help from the man on high?

What have you been on vacation the last few months? Away in Barbados with Muffy and Buffy at a luxury resort? Get back to work big man.

And could you do something about the war while you're at it, Jefe Grande?
By Laker

5/14/08 at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

If we could just convince the environmentalists the allow drilling for oil on our own land (Heck, the orientals are doing it 150 miles off shore, but we can't), that would be the first step to helping to solve the problem.
Then the environmentalists have to loosen up to allow construction of refineries, power plants and the like.
We've got the resources right under our feet ... but some DIMOCRATS just won't let us go after it ... maybe they've got too much at stake to see the value of the product drop.
By RPJ

5/14/08 at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

As long as we pursue the inane policy of "energy conservation," prices for oil-derived energy sources will continually increase. Oil is a limited resource and will continue to get more scarce. Hence, price increases.

Oil and energy conservation -- and all the rhetoric that goes along with it -- is a political position, not anything realistic on which to base policy.

It would be wiser to use up oil reserves as quickly as possible while researching and developing other sources of energy so that the pending transition would be (relatively) quick and painless. "Conserving oil" (for whom, I ask?) will only mean a long, painful and expensive withdrawal from our reliance on it.

Use it up and move on!
By sam55

5/15/08 at 8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

The angry name-calling in these comments never ceases to amaze me. How about a civil discussion instead?
It is the devaluation of the dollar (interest rate cuts) that has really ramped up our costs at the pump. Combine that with the current "commodities bubble" (brought to us by the same investors who gave us the "housing bubble"), and you have increases in energy costs. Commodities speculation has increased gasoline costs by least 80 cents per gallon, so stop blaming folks who are trying to wean us away from the use of fossil fuels. The cheapest and quickest way to extend fossil energy reserves is to promote conservation AND alternative renewable energy. Americans have no inherent right to consume 25% of the world's energy.
The "drill more here" proponents are mistaken if they think that will help. For example, the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) state that it would provide us 3 years of our oil consumption (it would take 30 years and untold environmental damage to extract it, however). Geologists know that we simply do not have the oil reserves we need in this country. Besides which, one could argue that we should consume everyone else's energy first and save ours for the future!
So please, let's be civil in this discussion, let's stop blaming those people who care about the future of the world, and let's stop putting misinformation out there.
We must begin paying the true cost for our fuel, and that is $4 per gallon or more for gasoline. Americans need to be more energy aware, drive less, drive more efficient vehicles, and think about the kind of world we'd like our grandkids to inherit.
Thanks, sam55
By NVMakz

5/15/08 at 12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

"The "drill more here" proponents are mistaken if they think that will help. For example, the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) state that it would provide us 3 years of our oil consumption.

"it would take 30 years and untold environmental damage to extract it, however" == another talking point blown up as of like 2005........

Your position here is baloney and the "small footprint" model has already been developed. The ecos need to keep up the lie though....

On a football field, the area of half-a-postage-stamp would be needed.

The "3 years" comment is also SO 2001-2002. Actually, it's now more like 18- 20 years = IF America got oil from no-were else (THAT's the short-time-frame libs lie about) . IF Clinton HAD gone to ANWR in 1995 = we'd have much less lib-induced energy pains-at-the-pump now, today....

We need it, Alaskans want to do it, but for the lib-ecopest.

Conservation as a primary - is useless today as a strategy, due to the fact it won't INCREASE SUPPLY!! The unused gas from us just goes to feed the growing economies of (most often mentioned) China and India. They don't mind polluting at will, and the Clinton Administration allowed them to when they bought off of the (rightfully unsigned / approved) Kyoto Protocols. Hypocrites!!!

Cutting off and choking our oil-fuel supplies is not the "cheapest and easiest" way to anything.... It's like opening a vein in our arm and measuring the amount of growing disorientaions and illusions......

Spare me, libs, that global climate warming come-back as well. That narrative is dying by the week.........

The world the Democratic and their eco-nutz want our nation and its children to inherit IS worse and much less than those liberal whiners had in this life. All for a few seats more, for sure!!
By NVMakz

5/15/08 at 12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Correction here: ANWR would replace Saudi Arabia for 20 years or more.

The lie=hook is still that the "3 years" thing IS if America got their oil from nowhere else. This simply isn't the case.
By The_Onion

5/16/08 at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oil is a finite resource that has forced America to finance Middle Eastern countries at exorbitant levels in search of our never-ending energy fix. Conservation and development of more efficient fuels, such as cellulose ethanol (see Brazil) will help us achieve true energy independence in the transportation sector and protect ANWR and our coastlines from unnecessary drilling and harm.

Expansion of solar and wind generation for the electrical sector will be part of the solution, but the fact is we need to be 40-60% more efficient with what we currently use. We need a "race to the moon" on energy efficiency, in both the electrical and transportation energy sectors.

This will save consumer's money and give us the time to develop our own homegrown solutions. This is as American as apple pie and baseball. If you don't think conservation and efficiency will get us out of this mess, just ask your family members who were around in the 40's when our country pulled together and saved civilization from Nazi Germany and the Japanese.

Irony Update: Both Germany and Japan have done more to advance alternative energy development in their countries using some of our American technologies then we have.
By RPJ

5/16/08 at 10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Americans need to be more energy aware, drive less, drive more efficient vehicles, and think about the kind of world we'd like our grandkids to inherit."

Americans? What about the Chinese? Energy policy is far too politicized. Develop it, use it, move on!
By nobody

5/16/08 at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

www.zeitgeistmovie.com
This is only the beginning people. Buy gold and hang on.
By NVMakz

5/16/08 at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gold looks good to me too!!!

Buy some Real Estate in the next 6-10 months. You'll thank yourself in 2012.