My poiints were pure economics fellas.
If consumption rises, and supply does not immediately follow, prices rise.
When prices rise in the oil market 2 things happen.
Companies go out and find more oil. To do so and bring that oil on-line and turn it into supply at the gas pump takes about 10 years.
In the meantime, prices stay high. High prices lead to increased efficiency, because the technology necessary to becomes cost effective.
Then, couple that increased efficiency (also about a 10-year process) with a sudden surge in supply and you get $10 a barrel oil.
But, during those 10 years, you transfer a very large amount of revenue into the treasuries of the oil exporters.
If a tax were placed on gas to mimic $65 a barrel (easily calculated) then people would make technilogical decisions based on that price information. Thus, efficiency would increase, without a commensurate rise in real oil prices.
This is a very overt and logical market manipulation for a resource that is critical to national security.
I would never advocate the same scenario with any other resource which was not a fundamental key to our economy and where the largest reserves of which were located in a geographic region generally hostile to the United States.
The point is, you are going to get $80 a barrel anyway. Why not have the money stay in the country?
Now, if those are anyone's talking points, please feel free to refute the logic.