Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/06/2008 9:17:19 AM PDT by BGHater
In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government’s power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline. For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas stations owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared.
Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump. The Federal Government’s boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar’s last link to gold.
Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits. It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976.
Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil.
The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.
Whoa. The broken clock syndrome.......
but, but, Ron Paul is looney! (/sarcasm)
Ron Paul is right about almost everything.
Maybe another wild shrimp subsidy will help lower gas prices.
Finally someone gets it right. Energy prices have gone up partly because of increased world demand but mostly because of the government policies of environmentalists and Democrats. Unless these policies are changed energy prices will continue to rise.
We ARE governed by an Oligarchy.
Finally someone gets it right. Energy prices have gone up partly because of increased world demand but mostly because of the government policies of environmentalists and Democrats. Unless these policies are changed energy prices will continue to rise.”
__________________
So very true.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Ron Paul is right on on domestic policies and off the wall on foreign ones.
Ron Paul is wrong about the war against Islamofascism, but he’s absolutely right about this.
Sheesh...
He may be loony but he’s right on the money in this case. IF he wasn’t so gungho against the Iraq war I might have considered voting for him.
The oil companies are guilty of one thing that is never ever mentioned. Starting in the 1970's they embarked on a strategy of removing excess refining capacity. The excess capacity then was 10-15%. They have even mentioned it in annual reports. They have gone to extreme lengths to prevent any excess capacity being constructed even, in California in the 80's, funding a successful environmentalist campaign against a new refinery. Why do they do this? They want (and have) a flat supply curve and so any increase in demand results only in higher prices. Prior to the 1970's the oil companies choose to maintain excess capacity as a part of a deliberate strategy to prevent entry of new competitors. Granted it's only one of several issues but it is consistently ignored in favor of many minor ones.
You mean someone can be right on some issues and wrong on others and we do not have to call him a loon or as RINO or a Nutbag? I'm gonna have to think on that one..
He's a nut for sure but he's also a Texan who does understand the oil & gas industry -- obvious from his above statement.
The vast majority of people know it already. It's getting the idiots in DC to stop taking money from special interests who are making millions from high energy costs.
Drill everywhere.
Build refineries.
Build nuclear power plants.
If we start tomorrow, our grandkids will be paying $1 a gallon for gas - or less.
Ron has abdicated the chance to save BILLIONS upon BILLIONS for this country by rejecting “good” in pursuit of “perfect”. He has demoralized and shamed our troops. He once compared the US Marines to Mall Security Guards with the late being the better of the two.
He has blamed America for the actions of our enemies. Yes, he is right on this policy letter.
I am through with him though. Have been for quite a while now.
He must be right because he agrees with me!
ping
However, unlike the self defeating third party chasers who reject John McCain totally, I will not stick a fork in my own eye. I live in Ron’s district, if he has a democrat opponent, I will vote for Ron Paul over that opponent.
Suspending the Fed tax and even the many State taxes is cosmetic mostly. It ought to be done so politicians can look good even if they are useless.
The high price of gasoline is a direct result of the low value of the dollar.
Ron Paul used to understand.
Gas cost a quarter when I was in high school. It was a real quarter then. The government started counterfeiting quarters in 1965. If you take any one of those old silver quarters and try to sell it, you will get something around $3.00 for each one, maybe a little more.
It is true that we should be drilling for our own oil in places like the tundra in Alaska. But, if done, this would have minimal impact on the price of oil and its derivatives. The is because no shortage of gasoline. No one has to wait on a line; or see stations with "No Gas" signs. The people who would bring this oil out of the ground would not sell this oil for $30 a barrel. Why should they, when folks are lined up to pay over a hundred bucks a barrel? You wouldn't do it if it were your oil and you shouldn't expect someone else to sell below market price, no matter how "fair" you think it would be.
ML/NJ
Ron Paul - "For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump."
I wonder how much the stacking of taxes at the various levels eventually adds up to "a third". We only hear about the end point federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. At today's price a third would be close to $1.20 per gallon in various taxes.
Ron Paul hits another home run.
Not all taxes on gasoline are paid at the pump. Exxon-Mobil shelled out fully a quarter of its GROSS revenue in all kinds of taxes worldwide last year, a sum equal to the entire gross national product of Peru.
The market price is determined by supply. If you add significantly to the supply, prices will fall to account for the excess supply.
Having said that, the government’s irresponsible spending and monetary policy is a large contributor to current oil prices. Ron Paul knows this and has frequently commented on both the outrageous levels of government spending and the Fed printing money to pay for it. Don’t know why it wasn’t mentioned here, other than that it’s a short article.
If the only way we can win the War on Islamofascism, as you call it, is by invading, pacifying and converting to democracy those countries that have some significant Jihadi presence in them, or are run by cruel tyrants with dreams of getting nuclear weapons, we are bound to lose. We simply can't afford that. We have $10 Trillion in debt, growing fast.
For instance: Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Somalia are on the list. So are some of our allies. Iran's leader is almost as obnoxious as Saddam in his prime. Sudan's leader has probably killed more of his own citizens than Saddam at his worst, previously gave sanctuary to OBL, and allows Jihadi's to train in his deserts, like the Taliban.
The goal of making us safe from Jihadi terrorism is a good one. The method of using the full force of the Army, and the related goal of fundamentally changing Iraqi society are deeply flawed tactics to achieve that goal.
I don't think you understand. The same companies that are drilling for oil elsewhere would be the ones that would be drilling for oil in Alaska or wherever. If they are getting $120 a barrel for their oil now and making nice profits, they would certainly have no interest in drilling for this new oil if it would jeopardize those profits. The only way for the price to drop is for some other entity to come along and sell for less. This is not likely to happen, especially as the price of oil is only slightly high on an historical basis.
ML/NJ
The government regulators and environmentalists have made the cost of building and operating new refining capacity prohibitive. If building new refinery capacity in the US could be done and a reasonable return on investment could be achieved they would have been be built. Think about it. Starting in the 1970’s when massive new regulations went into effect, new refining capacity was not built. Do you see the cause and effect?
Sheesh...
Old reliable tactic. When you can't attack the message then attack the messenger.
Ron Paul for vice president !
The laws of competition don’t seem to work with energy and health insurance, for they all fleece their customers.
Energy and health insurance have one significant thing in common - hyperregulation by do-gooder know-nothing government bureaucrats.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
I don't feel fleeced by the oil companies. Gas is about $2000 a year at the current price level. It allows me to drive all over the place. Taxes, for me, are an insane multiple of that. And for that I get mostly stuff I don't want. Your complaint is misplaced.
ML/NJ
On domestic policy, yes. On foreign policy... not so much.
I love how you people just make $hit up.
That's stupid. You don't like him. Why be a whore?
No. I didn’t make it up. I listened to it on the radio with my own ears.
I don’t think I need your permission and I sure don’t need your weak intellect to help me figure out my vote.
The fact is, I vote for the best choice available. As sorry and worthless of a representative as Ron Paul is, he is better than the Democrat. I am a grownup, unlike Paul and his pathetic followers. I vote for the best choice available.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Geez, you Paul voters are snippy.
See. Now that was funny.
However, Paul's international perspective - the lack of it - would result in foreign oil supplies being eventually seized by terrorists and Communists, who would then use the vast oil revenues for weaponry to destroy the U. S. in its (Paulista) isolationism.
However, Paul's international perspective - the lack of it - would result in foreign oil supplies being eventually seized by terrorists and Communists, who would then use the vast oil revenues for weaponry to destroy the U. S. in its (Paulista) isolationism.
If they are not selling us their oil what are they gonna do with it? Bottle it up, light it, and chuck it at us?
If they try to use oil as a weapon I hope they can eat it because we should withhold any food shipments to the area until they are too weak to keep the oil spigots shut.
That's true, but its only part of the explanation. It seems to me that if more oil is produced and refined domestically, as Paul (correctly) wishes, it should increase supply with less of a demand for foreign oil. It is the foreign oil that becomes more expensive as the dollar weakens against foreign currencies.
Why do you think the cost of the NY Times has increased so much?
ML/NJ
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.