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/)

[Shady]

Spot on. The Socialists will stop at nothing to enslave the Middle Class, we are their pawns in pursuit of power. Liberty is their enemy. Liberty is fueled by energy. Restricting energy to the masses is the same tactic that African Zealots are using with food, or they would be sent to the gallows by their subjects. It’s the same thing, people.

[NonLinear]

BTTT

[syriacus]

Democrats got THEIR change in Election 2006,

Are WE better off now?

[Doc Hunter]

I think the greatest shortcoming is the Constitution doesn't require candidates to have an understanding of economics (i.e. Formal education or practical experience). Their view of Economics is what it will do for ME financially. Our current crop all belong in jail!

[Doc Hunter]

I think the greatest shortcoming is the Constitution doesn't require candidates to have an understanding of economics (i.e. Formal education or practical experience). Their view of Economics is what it will do for ME financially. Our current crop all belong in jail!

[TomGuy]

Blame the Dems yada yada yada.

Blame the Pubbies yada yada yada.

As long as each side can keep the finger-pointing going, the status quo is maintained. That keeps the politicians happy, getting those special perks from the oil industry. That keeps the oil industry happy, as they are making huge profits, which keeps their stockholders happy. That keeps the oil supplying nations (usually dictatorial) happy, as they earn $Billions.

And the sheeple fall for it.

It has been going on since Nixon was president, so,

Blame the Dems yada yada yada.

Blame the Pubbies yada yada yada.

[As the politicians, oil execs, oil stockholders, oil suppliers sing: ‘Hi ho, hi ho, it’s to the bank we go....]

[LibertyRocks]

It continually amazes me how liberals blame Bush for anything and everything that is going on in this country that they don’t like, or think is bad... It should be obvious to people that prices have doubled - not since the Iraq war started as they most often claim - but since 2006 when Dems took control. Of course, you wouldn’t know it reading the MSM, because they too blame Bush for everything...

[Red Badger]

Yes, all those evil oil stockholders..................

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Bill Clinton took most of the coal in the state of Utah out of play with the stroke of a pen. Bush had plenty of time to put ANWR into play with the same pen and he didn’t. Bush isn’t the cause of this mess but he can claim his fair share of credit for the blame. He also had a 2-house majority that didn’t reintroduce the bill Clinton vetoed. Shame on all of them.

[philly-d-kidder]

On That New CNN Show yesterday With Shaeed Fakaria.. he had That Scandinavian Scientist .. LomBorg (Sp) This Guy was awesome.. He laid out how with the Trillions of Dollars of stuff Proposed to prevent Global Warming by 2050 it would save two Years of warmer temperatures if we would do nothing.. Point - set =Match! This is a Hoax..

Anybody enjoy the Vail skiing this weekend!!haha

[MrB]

You got it.

It’s not about the environment, or about “sustainability” - that’s the jargon for the useful idiots.

It’s about reduction of individual liberty and increases in collective (government/elite) power.

Too many people are just living their lives as they see fit, regardless of how those who know better want them to live.

[Thermalseeker]

Blame the Dems yada yada yada.

This is exactly the point I was arguing with my Liberal neighbor over the weekend. All this Republican/Democrat finger pointing is fodder for the masses. At this point it's all water under the bridge.

The real question is how much longer will it be before Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, get off their collective asses and get out of the way?

I expect nothing from Democrats except repeated "plans" to tax us into oblivion, as if that were, in some way, going to help matters. If the Republicans were serious about curing our energy woes they would be publicly beating the Dims about the head with their flawed plans. They aren't and this is an election year. If not now, when?

Either the Republicans are clueless and have no idea what to do, or they are complicit and have a vested interest in high fuel prices. Personally, I think it's the latter.....

[MrB]

They should be required to read at least 3 of Dr Sowell’s books -

Basic Economics
Applied Ecomonics
Vision of the Anointed

and pass a test covering the topics therein.

[LibertyRocks]

Oh, I agree, don’t get me wrong... However, the liberals blame EVERYTHING on Bush, and Bush alone. (One would think he’s been President for 50 years or something...)

[MrB]

Yeah, the evil oil execs are conspiring to NOT supply the product that they sell and make money from.

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.

[FlashBack]

Great post..bkmrked

[Laserman]

It may be finger pointing, but admitting the source of the problem is valuable if we are to do something about it. The oil companies make only a few percent profit on their investment. It just happens that that investment is huge and thus the profits are large. No other business would operate to make as small a margin on their product as oil companies do.

The Dems ARE the primary reason we are in the predicament we face. Has we drilled more, built more nuclear, used coal and other resources we have, we would not be in such bad shape. At least President Bush tried to do something about it. Congress has failed us!

[Smokin' Joe]

It has been going on since Nixon was president, so,

Yeah, that explains why the price has been steadily going up. Except for the crash of 1982, the crash of 1986, the doldrums leading up to Gulf War 1, the crash of '99....

Actually, it doesn't explain much of anything

The American people in general could not care less about oil, so long as it is cheap. There were quite a few years when things were d@mned lean in the oil patch, when top-heavy corporations fell over and were consumed by the most efficient.

Now, people whine and gripe over CEO bonuses which were awarded for decisions to invest billions, made when oil was all of 15-20 dollars a barrel, which have paid off since, becuase, unlike most folks, these guys saw the shortage coming, fueled by low prices, loss of production from uneconomical wells which were plugged and abandoned, and the shift toward less fuel efficient vehicles, not to mention increasing global demand.

No one was accusing anyone of singing "... ‘Hi ho, hi ho, it’s to the bank we go...." back then.

That keeps the politicians happy, getting those special perks from the oil industry.

So who got what? Name names, I'm all eyes.

[NavyCanDo]

THE 5 PLACES TO DRILL “NOW” If the bonesheads in D.C. would let it happen.

http://townhall.com/video/TheFivewithAmandaCarpenter/1450_061108Oil

[Walmartian]

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

[Hoodat]

That’s gonna leave a mark.

[Hoodat]

I think the greatest shortcoming is the Constitution doesn't require candidates to have an understanding of economics

The second greatest shortcoming is that it doesn't require voters to have an understanding of economics.

[Thermalseeker]

Congress has failed us!

On both sides of the ever blurring aisle. We keep hearing the same old tired lines coming from the Republicans that we've heard since the mid 70's. Lots of lip service, but no action. Granted, the 'Pubbies are in the minority, but that doesn't stop them from naming names of specific congresscritters who are instrumental in blocking access to drilling, nuke plant permitting, refinery permitting, etc. The Republicans have had the single best campaign issue with which to retake the majority in both houses of Congress dropped into their laps, smack dab in the middle of an election year, and still, they do nothing of any consequnce. This shows me that the 'Pubbies are just as complicit in creating our energy woes as any of the Democrats in Congress.....

[Piquaboy]

You need to go back to school with those dumb ass remarks.

[Laserman]

I agree that the Republicans have done their share of “going along” and have not shown leadership. A pox on both of their houses. But I hold the Dems more responsible. They have built a party out of environmental hoaxes and blaming big business. The list in the article has only the tp 10. A complete list would fill many pages.

[NavyCanDo]

“Build new nuclear plants -Improve electricity grid”

More than 8 Million homes in the U.S. are still heated by Oil. WHY?
I can understand why it may take decades to develop a non-petroleum car engine that can actually perform as well as the engine it’s replacing – but there is no reason homes should still be heated by oil, when they could be using electricity. Home heating oil is the “low hanging fruit” that everyone in D.C. seems to be ignoring. Getting those homes on an improved electricity grid could have a huge impact on lowering oil consumption.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

The liberals yell first and they yell the loudest. The GOP usually wants to take the higher road, but unfortunately the ‘rats keep on yelling and acting like the buffoons they are.

We need some conservatives in Congress with a backbone and a mouth.

[TomGuy]

If the Republicans were serious about curing our energy woes they would be publicly beating the Dims about the head with their flawed plans. They aren't

Correct!

Bush gives a wishy-washy speech and politics goes on as usual.

If the Pubbies had any backbone (or real interest in creating solutions), they would be out en masse every day banging the drum.

Instead, they are about as useless as (ole country saying) teets on a boar hog.

There has be NO leadership -- not from the Dems, not from the Republicans -- on solving the energy situation since Nixon -- 39 years and counting.

[TomGuy]

Supply

Demand

When supply exceeds demand, prices fall.
When demand exceeds supply, prices rise.

If you are the supplier, you are not going to flood the market with product. Why not? Because that would make prices fall.

So, does the oil exec prefer selling 1 billion gallons of gas at $2.50 or selling that 1 billion gallons at $4.00?

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

[TomGuy]

So who got what? Name names, I'm all eyes.

Why do you think any person would spend $Millions to run for an elective position that pays around $150,000.00 per year in salary? Yet, many of the 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate have. Why?

[TomGuy]

those dumb ass remarks.

Is that the level of your capacity to respond to debates and discussions?

How sad.

[BufordP]

Neal Boortz in his 15 June 2008 archive has some great info on the Cuba-China oil drilling controversy.

[FrankR]

Vote "NO" to ALL incuments, Dem and Pubbies. We need to do two things...1) Get their attention; 2) Start with a clean slate, which would put the people back in the loop.

Any new electees would see what we do to people that cater to special interests and leftist kooks.

[thulldud]

So, does the oil exec prefer selling 1 billion gallons of gas at $2.50 or selling that 1 billion gallons at $4.00?

He can do it only as long as somebody else doesn't come along with $2.50 gas and eat the market. You can't drink gasoline, and storage of volatile compounds isn't free.

You are exposing yourself to ridicule by your posts. Watch for incoming.

[Williams]

How much were Clinton and the democrats paid to veto ANWR and close down our largest clean coal deposits into a bogus national park? Hasn’t Bill received millions from the oil rich ME since leaving office?

[Ditter]

Our house is heated with natural gas, that is cheaper than electricity.

[MrB]

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

Are you intentionally ignoring that the cost of the raw product has increased, and that the profit margin hasn't changed?

Also, any businessman worth his salt knows that the more people you supply with their needs, the more money you make.

[NavyCanDo]

“Our house is heated with natural gas, that is cheaper than electricity.”

Ours is too and you are correct, it is cheaper and a good alternative to home heating oil. There should not be a corner of the country left that cant get natural gas or electricity on line to heat homes.

[JimRed]

Vote "NO" to ALL incuments, Dem and Pubbies. We need to do two things...1) Get their attention; 2) Start with a clean slate, which would put the people back in the loop.

Yes, accompanied by TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!

[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.