quote: 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.
As outlined by the senior GOP leadership aide, the energy package would give taxpayers a $100 rebate, repeal tax incentives for oil companies and allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute retailers unlawfully inflating the price of gasoline.
The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.
The GOP senators are also calling on the Bush administration to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months to increase the nation's oil supply. President Bush announced Tuesday that he would halt new deposits into the reserve until after the summer driving season. (Full story)
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats on Wednesday called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers.
"There's no reason why we can't put forth a real energy policy that addresses the needs of this nation," said Rep. Bart Stupak, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "from gouging to market manipulation to biofuels. We can do it." (Full story)
And leaders of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday asked the Internal Revenue Service to let them examine the tax returns of the nation's 15 largest oil and gas companies, as part of a "comprehensive review" of oil industry profits.
"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley, the committee's chairman, in a written statement.
posted
Getting $100 dollars for gas money would be great, but after two or three fill-ups it would be gone and we'd be in the same situation. To me thats in the "band-aid on a broken bone" category, as well as being financially irresponsible, as surely that money is needed for something else right now.
quote:it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration
This is completely unacceptable to me; because gas prices are high someone is proposing destroying the natural habitat of our earthly co-inhabitants. What next? When lumber prices get too high we open up Redwood Forest for industry? I swear, give 'em a foot and they'll take a mile.
quote:The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.
And this is the good idea that all the bad ideas are trying to hide behind. IMO, this is what we need to be pushing, not destroying what natural earth we have left or handing out cash like we have more than enough of it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This really reminds me of that $340 tax "refund" that Bush used to buy so many votes back in the day. Boy, didn't that make us all so much better off?
I'm with Scott, take the money and put it into getting us off of oil. And follow Brazil's example and mandate immediately that all cars sold in America be flex fuel vehicles.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I third that. And I'm with vonk about Alaskan 'exploration' (by which they mean 'drilling') being totally unacceptable. We need a viable alternative energy source or a whole lot of people to start walking to work.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is going to pay for this $100 that each taxpayer gets? My guess is that it will be added to the debt we tax payers will eventually have to pay back (plus interest). So, that means they are giving us $100 now for gas but also taking $100 (plus interest) later. I don't see how this helps me...
...unless they plan on cutting $10,000,000,000 from some budget somewhere to pay for my $100 check, so it's not just my future self paying my present self a little extra for gas. (If I want to do that, I can do it without the government's help, by spending $100 more and saving $100 less.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
In one hundred or two hundred years we are going to be looking back on this period and this decision (or proposal) as mad, if we aren't already. We're merely putting off the inevitable. Of course this money should go into alternative forms of transport and power where it will do some good and move us all forward into a more efficient, sustainable and cleaner era.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a couple of chain letters about that kmbboots. I'm not sure how effective that would be. Most of the gas guzzlers would never get the message and/or wouldn't support/join the blackball. I've heard many other reasons why that wouldn't work, but I can't remember them right now.
But I'll tell you what, I won't buy any ExxonMobil gas for, oh, say, the next year. (I don't have a car)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
$100 to every tax-paying family? That's absurd. It will only go right back to the oil companies, giving them no incentive to lower prices. Furthermore, I'm content with high-ish gas prices--maybe they'll encourage alternative energy development.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope so. I want my hunned dolla'. And I promise I'll buy gas with it... or petroleum jelly at least. Woah, dirty.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
I've gotten those chain letters too, but after reading Snope's explanation, that idea doesn't sound very effective. Of course, I rarely buy from Exxon/Mobil anyway because they tend to be the most expensive company in this area.
And I agree; this $100 plan sounds completely stupid. But I bet a lot of people in this country will jump for it all the same.
posted
People who suggest rebates as criminally stupid as this should never be elected to our Congress. I'm embarassed that someone thought this was a good use of that much money.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: This is completely unacceptable to me; because gas prices are high someone is proposing destroying the natural habitat of our earthly co-inhabitants. What next? When lumber prices get too high we open up Redwood Forest for industry? I swear, give 'em a foot and they'll take a mile.
You are completely correct about the $100 rebate idea, and completely wrong about ANWR.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Didn't de Toqueville observe that one of the perils of representative democracy lay in the possibility that the elected representatives would start stooping to directly bribing their constitutents through legislation?
This is a BLATANT example of that: "we'll make your grandchildren give you $100 if you let us drill in the Wildlife Refuge."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the government has way too much of my money. But this is a stupid way to get some of it back.
Cut spending. *Then* lower taxes. (And I don't mean just the federal income tax that everyone focuses on that takes attention away from all of the OTHER taxes we don't even blink at.)
But don't just send a check to everyone.
And if we do drill in the wildlife refuge, how does that really help? When demand exceeds *that* supply, what do we do then? Whatever we'll do then, why don't we do it now and not drill in the reserve in the first place?
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
But the demand for gas from other companies will go up, giving them incentive to raise prices even further. That means that those boycotting Exxon/Mobile will pay even higher prices for gas from other companies while those not boycotting Exxon/Mobile will reap the benefits of lower Exxon/Mobile prices.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the obscene amount of money paid to Exxon's CEO, it might be fun to do just for the heck of it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone here even know how much gas companies are making off of a gallon of gas? Now compare that to what the federal government makes, and now what your state makes.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
I don't buy from Imperial Oil, which is owned by ExxonMobil, unless I can't avoid doing so. Not because I want them to lower their prices, but because they make the dirtiest gasoline in Canada.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ANWR thing is just dumb. Even if they instantly had more crude tomorrow, there's no way to *refine* it any faster. As I understand it, the demand for domestic oil isn't any higher than it has ever been, largely because they can't refine any more than is already being done so now. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
And the rebate thing is dumb too.
Actually, the sheer amount of whining about rising gas prices in relation to ExxonMobil's profits also seems dumb to me. As I understand it, their profit margins haven't increased. Just the gross dollar profits, which indicates to me an increase in demand, which they are attempting to meet. As I understand it, China's demand for oil has increased significantly, which results in less available and rising prices. That's what happened to the steel market, so this makes sense to me. And happened to the paper industry in the early 90's when paper prices skyrocketed almost overnight. If demand increases, prices go up. It's nearly summer, so demand is going to go up a lot...hence rising prices. And it's not like we're paying Europe's prices (or for that matter, Canada's)....I just shudder to think how much those countries must be laughing at us for being whiners.
On top of all this, I would think that rising gas prices would make environmentalists ecstatic -- if it costs too much to drive, people will think of other alternatives. Like mass transit. Or bicycles. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the federal government just lower the 49 cents tax per gallon off of my gas, and the Washington state government lower their 65 cents tax off of my gas?
My gas would be around $1.80/gallon without taxes (not that I'm proposing NO gas tax, just significantly less).
It's ridiculous that my gas is being taxed at about 40%. Keep your hundred bucks and just stop taking so much off the top.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which also makes me wonder how motivated the government is to really lower gas prices, since the higher the price goes, the more tax they get.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marlozhan, I'd *really* like to see how much tax money is brought in each quarter from gas and see how it ranks against Exxon Mobil's profits.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'll be a cold day in you-know-where when the government releases THEIR gas tax income to the public.
And I wish I could remember the source and the exact info, but if the gas company CEOs gave up their personal profits, it would be pennies off of the total gas price. People do not even begin to fathom how much oil we use, and their profits are nothing when divided across the whole US.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious about how the taxes figure into gas prices too.
I googled and came up with this pdf link from this site, which seems to have some pretty good recent info on it, but my understanding of taxes in general is exceptionally dim, so I'd love further clarification if anyone can offer it.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, gas taxes are supposed to go to something useful, like roads and transit. Oil company profits aren't quite so noble. However, it's always an alarm bell to me when the government makes more money on something than the company that produces it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about the federal government just lower the 49 cents tax per gallon off of my gas, and the Washington state government lower their 65 cents tax off of my gas?
My gas would be around $1.80/gallon without taxes (not that I'm proposing NO gas tax, just significantly less).
It's ridiculous that my gas is being taxed at about 40%. Keep your hundred bucks and just stop taking so much off the top.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), our roads get graded as a D. You can read about it here. The money being spent on roads currently isn't even enough to maintain what we have adequately. I don't think doing away with the tax on gas is a very good idea since that's what mainly pays for those roads. Actually, it's a really bad idea. Dropping the tax, even for a short while for a tax holiday, will only make people that much madder when the tax goes back into effect.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zan, how much of that tax money is 'wasted' on environmental impact studies? Or other studies that pretty much state the obvious? (I'm not, btw, saying that environmental impact studies always state the obvious, just that some of them do and they are always expensive without actually building anything.)
I don't know how it is in Florida, but here, whenever a new road is going to be built or expanded, the green extremists go nuts. We desperately need to widen a bridge not far from my home but it isn't even on the agenda because the proposed cost is well over $50MILLION. Million. Fifty of them. That seems insane for a bridge that spans about 100 yards. And then the county pushed for spending another $700K on a study to find out why a particular stretch of highway is so deadly (lots of fatal accidents, most of which are head on collisions) when it takes nothing but casual observation to figure out. It's a two lane highway with no division that has had a huge increase in traffic as people from Seattle spread out to find affordable housing. I mean, duh...this takes $700K to figure out? Once that study comes back stating the obvious, then we'll have to spend at least another million on an environmental impact report stating that widening and dividing this stretch of highway will adversely impact wild salmon runs, which will then cause the project to be scrapped because they're an endangered species. I can't wait to see how much of my gas tax dollars will go to not build roads. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we have too much problem with environmental impact studies for roads. Most of what I see is for roads which will be widened and that usually isn't too big a problem. In areas where new major roads are needed, such as finishing up the last segment of a bypass loop around Orlando, it gets more sticky.
Even then, the major holdup seems to be figuring out the best way to do it, not whether it will be done or not. Our big problem is that when roads get built, developers follow. Large subdivisions seems to screw up nature more than roads.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Write a letter to your congressperson and representative telling them that you don't agree with this, and want to see oil prices and dependency lowered instead of a worthless rebate.
Writing here is fine and good, but if you don't speak up to your elected officials, it's just so much complaining.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Top 10 Reasons Not To Drill in the ANWR 10. Predictions about the environmental effects on Prudhoe Bay oil development were greatly underestimated. Fish and wildlife habitat losses resulting from construction and operation of the pipeline system were much greater than the predictions had estimated. 9. The waste products of the oil development would be hundreds of open pits containing millions of gallons of oil and industry waste which would definitely have an environmental impact on habitat and wildlife. 8. The environmental impact of oil development in the Coastal Plain will extend far beyond the arctic tundra. 7. The oil companies do not always comply with environmental protection laws and regulations. 6. The oil will only last for a limited number of years but the effect on the Coastal Plain environment will be observable for many years after the drilling has stopped. 5. Construction and operation for the oil development would destroy thousands of acres of local wildlife and habitat. 4. ANWR contains coastal lagoons, barrier islands, arctic tundra, foothills, mountains, and boreal forests which have been undisturbed. 3. There are more than 160 bird species, 36 kinds of land mammals, 9 marine mammal species, and 36 types of fish in the ANWR. 2. ANWR is a symbol for everyone on this planet of the link between wilderness and wildlife and the need for both, now and in the future. 1. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is among the most complete and undisturbed ecosystems on earth.
There are very many pros and cons to be found in the vast land of the internet, but I find that the pros are all revenue based and the cons are all environmentaly based. I tend to lend more credence to environmental issues over any companies revenue.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a terrible, terrible idea. Why don't they just hand the money over to the oil companies directly and cut out the middle men (us)?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fish and wildlife habitat losses resulting from construction and operation of the pipeline system were much greater than the predictions had estimated.
This is very interesting, since as I understand it, several species of animals have actually done very, very well as a direct result of the pipeline. It puts off heat, which has allowed caribou herds to grow far in excess of what was expected.
Further, as far as the mistakes made at Prudhoe Bay are concerned, there were many made, but they were also learned from. Having done this before in an equally hostile environment, any projects in ANWR would be much easier to predict as far as environmental impact is concerned.
Doesn't #3 strike you as a ridiculously low number for a swath of the planet that is so friggin' large? I'm not saying they're not important, but they act like that's a lot. It's not, relative to the vastness that is ANWR.
And to make 10 they had to be repetitive...#1 and #4 are essentially the same thing.
All of this said, I'm not for drilling in ANWR at this time. I think the fact that it's been brought up right now as a supposed 'way to lower gas prices' is as vacuous an argument as that top 10 list.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More tax money goes into road building and road maintenance than is collected in gasoline&diesel taxes, Marlozhan. And even in California, the total amount of taxes paid on gasoline is less than 18% of the total cost. You are almost certainly paying less.
BTW: jenniwren, that link will also give you a fairly decent idea of what the oil companies are raking in. Independently-owned gas stations are probably having their profits hammered into the ground.
posted
"We desperately need to widen a bridge not far from my home."
You desperately need to reduce the number of vehicles carrying only the driver. What you want is for the government to make it even easier for folks to continue being wasteful.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You desperately need to reduce the number of vehicles carrying only the driver. What you want is for the government to make it even easier for folks to continue being wasteful.
You're making a very generalized and over-reaching assumption about why she feels a need to have the bridge widened, without knowing the details of this situation. Try rephrasing this into a question and make your point on the answer instead going into attack mode with no information.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So aspectre, are you celebrating the high gas prices? You should be -- pinched wallets are what make people change their ways.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The total amount of fuel that can be produced by drilling in the ArcticNationalWildlifeReserve -- using the oil reserve estimates made by the neo"conservative"AmericanPetroleumInstitute* -- will be burned in less than 10years IF world demand ceases to increase. That estimated time of depletion was made before China became a major importer of crude oil and petroleum-based products. China is currently the world's second largest importer, following only the US.
* So extremist in their optimistic projections that even the major petroleum companies have distanced themselves from the API.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
