The first problem I have with that is the Fed gov't sticking its nose into matters of state gov't. The second is that it's illogical and a solution looking for a problem. Mandating the removal of taxes is just going to add to the problem of high demand. People who do not wish to pay the going price simply need to use less of it. Carpool, move closer to work, work closer to home, etc. That's how we get price relief. We quit using so much of the stuff. Apparently, high prices is the only way that's going to happen.
Another problem is to remove all gasoline mixtures and allow only one.
If you mean the 'boutique' blends forced on us by the EPA and the envirowhackos, I agree 100%. We need perhaps one 'dirty' fuel for the boonies, and one cleaner fuel for the metro areas. Elevation might dictate some other needs but, again, that's market-driven instead of letting the envirowhackos have their way.
Next is to allow only the low and highest octane of fuel and eliminate the middle rating.
Let the market decide that. Many retailers sell only two grades already. If additives (e.g. ethanol) aren't involved, the mid-grade (where you find one) is often just a mixture of the other two.
Most all cars can burn low octane and it would take many years for it to do any damage to the car. Valve clatter and a slight loss of power could be a nuisance, but so what.
Actually, I just heard on the radio again this past weekend that most of the newer cars which "require" premium are computerized to such an extent that they will automatically detect predetonation ("ping") and retard the spark to eliminate it. Thus, those cars only require premium to achieve their best acceleration. If you don't mind somewhat-reduced performance -- e.g. maybe that Beemer will take an extra second or two to get to 60 MPH at full throttle -- you can use Regular without damaging anything. Interestingly, although our Lincoln required 91 octane, we always ran 89.5 (even 87 once by mistake) and never once heard a ping at other than full throttle.
This is a national security problem.
While our dependence on foreign oil is indeed a national security problem, the price of gasoline is not, no matter how high it gets.
"Drilling in ANWAR is not going to bring prices down. It will take many years after drilling before oil can flow."
Add to that refining capacity. When was the last new refinery built in the US. It's also hard to get approval for refinery expansions. Mostly thanks to the envirowacks.
What is the purpose of profits?
Oh, I don't know, let's see; like in the case of oil.
By most accounts the world's reserves of oil are either (a) diminishing or (b)getting harder (more expensive) to retrieve from lower depths. By most accounts the world's use of oil is skyrocketing as the world economy expands. So, we have both higher development and extraction costs and increasing demands. Sounds like pressure from both supply and demand to me.
So, how will you meet those pressures? You will invest in existing resources which the sellers will demand higher prices for and you will invest in new technology to get more from existing resources and new technology to get product from harder to reach new sources. How will you do that? With current profits that you can invest in tomorrow's business. What will it take? Billions.
Think you can go into the oil business today at $2.50 a gallon retail? You're dreaming and you do not understand economics or the worldwide oil industry.
By fixing prices, you run the risk of a gasoline shortage. You may get gas at lower prices, but how much of it you could get would be anybody's guess.