Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices

American Thinker ^ | June 16, 2008 | William Tate

[Ooh-Ah]

This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats' actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.

10) ANWR  If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.

9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: "Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so." 

A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast,  wouldn't that have been a good thing?

8) Insistence on alternative fuels  One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards."  By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump. 

7) Nuclear power   Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.

The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. 

 Need I say more?

6) Coal   "The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants. 

5) Refinery capacity  "High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010," according to Peak Oil News.  And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years,  the Dems' environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. 

4) Reduced competition  With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers -- Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco -- happened on Clinton's watch.  The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton's two terms.

3) The Global Warming Myth  At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari "described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions ... to address both issues simultaneously".   As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005  --the year that trading  was initiated--and this year  --when the trading expanded dramatically -- saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number...

2) Speculation  "Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices ... it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation," writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.  According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically "were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office. 

1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package   According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:

-Promote new oil and gas drilling

-Build new nuclear plants

-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels

A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:

"President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.

Mr. Bush's plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals... for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies." 

[The Bush plan] "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline."

The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his plan was not adopted in 2001.

The Times account continued:

"Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers...Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives..."

Just as President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:

"World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said "exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."

But, as a later Times article notes, "the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan."

In other words, Democrats refused the President's plea to "break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates."

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

William Tate is a former award-winning journalist and the author of the new ovel, A Time Like This  (www.atimelikethis.us/)

[IYAS9YAS]

The same shipping and refining took place to create that $2.00/gal gas as that $4.00/gal gas.

Yeah, but at $135/barrel of crude, it cost $3.21 per GALLON of raw material (42 gallons in a barrel), before it even gets to the refinery.

It's not total profit, it's profit margin. For 2006 alone, Exxon Mobil paid 27 billion in US Federal income tax. For that same year, the bottom 50% of all taxpayers in the US paid 26.5 billion in US Federal income tax. Total taxes for the year paid by Exxon Mobil were around $107 billion.

I have read many times that Exxon's profit per gallon is around 8.5 to 9 cents per gallon. But there is not a state in this country where you'll pay less than 20 cents per gallon in combined federal and state taxes. Who is really to blame?

Yes oil companies are doing well. But look at it this way. The US is estimated to have 300 million people in it. If even only 1/3 of those drive, that is 100 million people driving, 40 billion in profits for the year is 400 dollars per driving person per year. That is $33.33 a month. I realize this is a simple equation, and doesn't reflect actual profits per driver, because that profit comes from a lot more than just retail gasoline sales. We have diesel, jet fuel, heating fuel, plastics and a bunch of other products that are also made from this barrel. So that $33.33 per month per driver is reduced further.

[EdReform]

5) Refinery capacity

Greens Thwart Gasoline Production

[Ditter]

Yes, to heat homes and more importantly to COOL homes. At least here on the Gulf Coast of Texas that is what I am most concerned about. Houses can be cooled with gas but we cool with electricity and heat with gas. As little really cold weather that we have, my fireplace would take care of things most winters.

[doggiedo]

Pelosi can’t be trusted. She lied to us in ‘06 to gain power, promising a common sense plan to bring down gas prices.

It was a ruse. Spread the word. Their obvious plan was to create scarcity and impose controls and rationing.

Just another ploy to lock the common man into economic serfdom and government dependency.

[thackney]

The same shipping and refining took place to create that $2.50/gal gas as that $4.00/gal gas.

It is not the shipping and refining making most of our gasoline price increase. It is the crude oil driving the cost. The same crude oil we are not allowed to produce from ANWR, Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Western Coast and most of our OCS.

[Former MSM Viewer]

Yeah, I feel so good that I am saving caribou while paying $4.00/gallon...

It’s a good thing we didnt drill for oil anywhere on the east coast or Walter Crokites view would be spoiled.

Or the coast of California in case they had to look at an oil rig...

or the eastern gulf of Mexico, or ANWR, or so many places...

We are fools to continue to tolerate the environmental extremists as they actively try to bring down our country.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

[Ex-Democrat Dean]

“I get sick to my stomach evertime I hear a DEMOCRAT say, “WE can’t DRILL our way OUT of this.” Anybody else?”

Has anybody ever heard an explanation from the Dems of why this is so?

Why don’t the Republicans ask that?

And why doesn’t ANYBODY call the Dems about their “fact” that gas would only go down a penny if drilling were to be done in ANWR? Where did this “fact” come from?

Do the Republicans WANT to lose in 2008?

[Smokin' Joe]

First, they spend other people's money. Haven't you seen the contribution forms?

Second, check out the benefits and the retirement program!

No Social Security for these guys.

Most of the Congress were millionaires when they ran for office. Money begets money.

But you still have not shown me even one name of someone in Congress who is getting perks from an oil company. For all I know, any perks they are getting (aside from the generous package they have voted themselves from our pockets) came from the chicken pluckers union.

[DungeonMaster]

#1: They want higher gas prices. My dad just confirmed this yesterday.

[Not now, Not ever!]

Bump, BTTT, as a bookmark.

[Smokin' Joe]

Clinton....close down our largest clean coal deposits

Probably part of a deal with Riyady, who was involved with the Lippo Group who (iirc) controlled one of the two other similar coal deposits in the world.

The other?

In Kosovo...

where the dog got wagged.

[DFG]

Bump

[Democrat_media]

U.S. Oil companies own only about 3% of world oil reserves.

Saudi Arabi, the government of Saudi Arabia, owns 33% of world oil reserves. So if you want to blame anyone blame the non-productive government owned oil companies in the Middle East who even with some private contractors still cannot produce enough oil to keep up with demand.

In addition U.S. oil companies pay more in taxes that they earn in profits. The profit they earn is only at most 10% of sales.

You are blaming U.S. oil companies without proof or knowledge of the facts.

Yes, I hear the liberal media and liberals/Socialist/Democrats and Michael Savage blaming the oil companies, saying the oil companies have paid off the politicians. Liberals do this because they are Socialists or Communists, whatever you want to call these Marxists.Why do you do the same?If that is so then show the proof. Give names like another Freeper asked.

If the oil companies controlled politicians then why are the private companies taxed and regulated so much and restricted from drilling in so many places like ANWR, Off the coasts, In Montana and North Dakota etc.?

U.S. private industry is the only thing in the world that can produce enough energy to keep up with demand. But government has to be shrunken and Democrats and government have to get out of the way of private energy companies so that they can drill for oil, build coal power plants, coal to oil, etc.

Democrats have restricted supply by creating environmental laws,government regulations, and high taxes that don’t allow companies to drill for oil profitably or not at all in ANWR, North Dakota , Off the coasts etc.

In addition Democrats have restricted coal production. The U.S. has 600 years of coal , the most in the world. Coal can be liquified and gasified into oil and gasoline. But Democrats/liberals will eventually ban all coal and oil production because they say that these fossil fuels are destroying the planet with global warming. Global warming is hoax

Also Democrats have not allowed refineries to be built in 30 years, nuclear power plants, coal to oil, oil shale ( 1 trillion barrels of oil in Colorado) etc.

Democrats’ goal is to destroy capitalism. As capitalism goes so will our economy and so will our freedom.

Global warming is not real so it will not destroy our civilization. Democrats/liberals/Socialists will destroy our civilization because they are killing the engine that drives the Economy , Capitalism (private industry). The run up in gas prices is just the first sign that Democrats are succeeding in destroying the economy and with it our civilization and our freedom.

Democrats also want to increase the size and power of government and they use scare tactics and this global warming hoax to do it.

The liberal mainstream media is the main force brainwashing the public into believing in this hoax of global warming.

Government has to be shrunken and not grown. The government is taking away investment capital from the productive private sector and the government is taking away our freedoms and the freedom of businesses and of the economy.

[Nowhere Man]

by Nowhere Man (v2.2) (5-27-2008):

Short term solutions :

1. Repeal all or most of the Federal and State gas taxes on fuel.
2. No designer fuels, screw the EPA, only one type of fuel although the oil companies can still use additives like detergents and so on if they wish.
3. End ethanol subsidies the way it is now. Ethanol “eats” into our food supply. Corn is for eating. I know there are ways to get it from waste products, that will continue.
4. Biodiesel, good idea but let private people and industry work on it.

Long term:

1. Flat tax on all oil (really all corporations) of 10% of income.
2. Drill ANWAR, offshore, through the head of a Caribou, wherever. (3)
2a. Stop those dang Cubans and Red Chinese from slant drilling off of Florida, they are stealing our oil. Use military force if necessary.
3. Build more clean coal and atomic power plants. Solar and wind power are OK if you want to live off the grid but for large applications they fall short.
4. Build more refineries.
5. Develop oil shale and sands.
6. Charge Mexico 2 barrels of oil per illegal here per day. (Michael Savage is right)
7. Charge Iraq for saving them, maybe 10% of their output, don’t want to be too punitive yet we should get something.
8. Use coal to make fuels, if the Weimar Republic and the Nazis could do it, why can’t we?

Longer term borderline Star Trek solutions:

1. Let car companies make fuel celled vehicles that use current fuels more efficiently, hybrids, and so on, let the free market decide.
1a. The hydrogen economy is more of a bust and uses more energy than it saves, it will not work.
2. Work on atomic fusion, although it has “always been 30 years away.”

Appendix

1. Oil, coal and fossil fuels are the only easy and more economical way to provide energy for our civilization. Although we should research into other means like fusion, fuel cells and the like, but the payoff for these “Star Trek” technologies is years away so our current system, right now is the only viable alternative. Rush Limbaugh is correct, “oil is the fuel for freedom” (and just about anything else)
2. Taxing windfall profits of the oil companies is not the answer. I don’t see them as evil or good, they have a job to do, provide fuel for our society. If we tax them more, it will slow down exploration for more oil and they will just pass the cost onto us.
3. To the environmentalists out there, I’m not trying to be mean or nasty, but it is a fact of life that our society and world mainly runs on oil and coal. We need to tap the oil we have right now, we have little or no choice. We can use these fuels more efficiently and cleaner than we had in the past.

[Joan Kerrey]

I’m going to open a restaurant and limit the amount of food I serve per day, despite the demand. I think I’ll get rich that way. ++++++++++++++++++++++ Watch out. I heard rumors that congress is considering nationalizing all U.S. restaurants. Price fixing and portiion control conspiracies won't be tolerated. By the way, I demand to know how much you expect to make from this restaurant of yours and how you can justify making a profit from something people need to survive. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself and don't you realise that congress can not sit back and ignore your expected obscene profits and do nothing. /s

[Joan Kerrey]

good post

[MrB]

Yes, I plan on being one of those “thieves” that the (Cli)Che Guevera worshipers talk about - you know, people who make a profit in business.

(Did you see the latest zotted Marxist post from some punk repeating the “profit is theft” mantra?)

[Democrat_media]

Those are some good solutions.

I would add:

1. Remove all government, federal, state and local taxes on oil and energy companies that make it unprofitable to drill in the U.S. in places like North Dakota where there is 500 billion barrels of oil, sweet crude (at least 70 years of oil).

2. Repeal all Environmental laws and government regulations on energy companies and annihilate the EPA.

3.Open all federal lands and other lands including the coal that Clinton locked up in Utah, Oil shale in Colorado, coasts, ANWR, to private energy companies.

4. Remove all restrictions on drilling, building of refineries, coal to oil liquefaction, nuclear power plants etc.

5. Ban the Democrat party, environmental groups, and unions as they are hazardous to the economy.

[quant5]

Because you have the best access to inside information and there are no restrictions on private investment. Many wonder how the Clinton’s went from $2 M in total assets after Arkansas to $100 M now. Writing books and guest speaking do not create $98 M in wealth. Every politician elected into office (including family & friends) should not be able to invest in energy or food or defense when election and two years prior to leaving office. Then you would see true free markets in energy and food. Until then, enjoy the fleecing :(

[SunkenCiv]

7 Ways McCain Can Use Energy to Beat Obama
US News | June 16, 2008 | James Pethokoukis
Posted on 06/16/2008 2:47:20 PM PDT by Bobkk47
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031955/posts

Inhofe: Dems Running on Empty - Oped in Human Events
Human Events | June 16, 2008 | Senator James Inhofe
Posted on 06/16/2008 9:58:26 AM PDT by EPW Comm Team
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031837/posts

DCCC Chair Van Hollen Defends Not Drilling in ANWR on Misleading Claims
businessandmedia.org | June 16, 2008 | Jeff Poor
Posted on 06/16/2008 10:01:03 AM PDT by Rufus2007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031838/posts

ANWR: “...one of the bleakest, most remote places
..where drilling would have less impact ...”
The Virginian | 6/15/2008 | Moneyrunner
Posted on 06/15/2008 8:44:42 AM PDT by moneyrunner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2031434/posts

Fuel costs threaten to bankrupt airlines
Crain’s New York
Posted on 06/16/2008 6:19:08 AM PDT by chessplayer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031737/posts

Congresswoman pushing for $2.00/gal. gasoline
St. Paull Pioneer Press | June 16, 2008 | From The Deer Stand
Posted on 06/16/2008 3:56:35 PM PDT by From The Deer Stand
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031990/posts