Posted on 04/27/2006 6:37:31 AM PDT by HOTTIEBOY
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.
However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.
Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue.
The energy package, sponsored by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, will be offered as an amendment to an emergency spending measure now before the Senate funding the Iraq war and hurricane relief, according to a senior GOP leadership aide.
Under Senate rules, either the GOP amendment or the Democratic alternative would probably need 60 votes to pass, which is considered unlikely. However, the amendments would give senators a change to cast votes on measures designed to help constituents being hit by high gas prices.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
mmmm socialism from republicans.... what kind of crock is this? do politicians really think the public is this stupid? buying votes and creating government dependencies seems to know no party boundaries.
It goes against my libertarian principles, too, but I do realize that sometimes government interference is needed to get the best solution.
In my opinion the best solution here is minimal dependence on foreign oil for security's sake, and to achieve that we need to change the demand.
It's all just a giant "prisoner's dilemma". The best solution for us all is to cut usage, but without interference/incentives forcing us, we all keep choosing something not in our best interests.
I probably still disagree with the original point but I do agree with your idea of changing behavior. It seems like something needs to be done but I don't have any answers. That's for people a lot smarter than me.
OH MY GAWD WE'RE SAVED.
The Senate never seems to have time to address Social Security reform, border security, or other pressing issues; but it has plenty of time to talk about this gas "crisis" and steroids in baseball.
They're just increasing deficits that Americans aren't willing to do.
But if we all put our half-baked schemes together, maybe we'll find a solution.. :)
We CAN'T do any worse than Congress... :P
They're trying to do the same thing in New York State. The Republican (RINO) Senate wanted rebate checks sent out right before election, with the amount based on how much in property taxes one paid. Pataki vetoed, the Senate overrode, but Pataki has vowed to go to court over this (and other overrides).
The government has got to be one of the worst pass-thru/transfer agents. How efficient can it be?
At nearly $50 to fill my car at current prices, that $100 refund is a joke particularly since the government will take close to $30 of it back in income taxes.
"What is so bad about using the rest of the world's cheap oil and saving ours for a rainy day? I am only half joking."
No need to joke about something like that - its actually a good idea. I'm generally opposed to ANWR drilling and the like unless we do something to curb consumption. Otherwise we're not saving ours for a rainy day. We're just using ours to fulfill our habit.
All of your ideas sound like good ones to me - I do like most of what Walter Williams writes - but his recent piece arguing that there is essentially no problem with a deficit bugged me. It is largely a spending problem, but that doesn't mean deficits don't matter....
Let me see if I've got this straight. They're saying they'll give me $100 but in exchange I have to allow drilling in ANWR.
In other words, they want to give me $100 of my kids' money (deficit spending dontcha know) in exchange for giving public lands (ANWR) to the oil companies.
When did P.T. Barnum get elected to the senate?
The gas problem will make a strong issue in the upcoming presidential elections. If they propose:
Reigning in the EPA and it's mandates that increase the price of gas, eliminating or reducing federal gas taxes, creating a fast track process that will eliminate and/or streamnline environmental regs so new refineries can be built, doing the same with new nuclear plants, and silencing the NIMBY's that don't want drilling done offshore next to their precious seaside homes. That candidate will be high on my list of favorites.
$100 rebate checks lower my respect for anyone that thinks that will solve anything. I want solutions, not political stunts.
Wow! A whole hundred dollars! At current prices (no. VA) about 33.34 gallons. Oops, forgot to deduct the administrative overhead fee to send me the $100 and the increase in my income taxes. Net: a buck 2.80. (If I'm lucky.)
Yes, we could throw at at dartboard and randomly do better than our congress.
This is the same bunch who voted to give $2000 credit/debit cards to refugees of tHurricane Katrina?
What else can they do that is just plain stupid????
My check goes to the border fence project.
http://www.borderfenceproject.com/
I must confess that, as a conservative, I rebel against this kind of thing. Yet part of me wonders whatthe world would be like with significantly less dependence on oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.