House GOP challenges Pelosi for gas price plan

[Gan]

By Jackie Kucinich Posted: 04/22/08 07:14 PM [ET]

House Republican leaders on Tuesday challenged Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to release a plan to lower gas prices that they say Democrats touted when they were in the minority.

“Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a ‘commonsense plan’ to ‘lower gas prices,’ ” the letter said. “In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this ‘commonsense plan’ so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.”

The letter is signed by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), Policy Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) as well as other members of leadership: Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas), John Carter (R-Texas), Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.).


In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Pelosi said, “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” The letter cited policies put in place during the GOP control of Congress that the Speaker claimed had raised prices on American consumers to benefit oil companies.

The House GOP leaders’ letter points out that the price of gasoline has spiked $1.18 since Democrats took over in January and stands at $3.51.

“Once a nightmare scenario, $4 gasoline is now a very real possibility of becoming a summer staple,” the letter stated. “In some cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, it is already a startling reality.”

Pelosi’s office did not respond immediately for comment.

The political drumbeat against high gas prices in the House coincidences with that of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has made the issue a key campaign talking point.

McCain has called for a suspension of the gas tax to help consumers get through the summer months.

The McCain campaign and congressional Republicans have met repeatedly in recent weeks in an effort to coordinate their messages.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-challenges-pelosi-for-gas-price-plan-2008-04-22.html

__________________________________________________ __

"I've got some... ocean front property in Arizona... from my front porch you can see the sea."

"If you'll buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free."

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

Holy shit.. Republicans found their balls again.

Good for them.

[Keller]

Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.

The only item in that list that is even logically possible is price gouging. Removing the subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief will only make fuel more expensive. Maybe it removes an indirect cost (a tax break to big oil = higher personal income tax rates), but that's not going to bring down the fuel prices. Then you have "production of alternative fuels." Uhhhhh, perhaps we should find a reasonable alternative fuel before we just start producing it. Oh, and the alternative fuels we currently have operate in what we call a free market. If there was more demand, there'd be more supply.

For every George Bush there is a Nancy Pelosi. There should be a basic intelligence test to enter public life.

[Gan]

I'd like a reasonable alternative to Congress.


kthx.

[Keller]

I'd like a reasonable alternative to Congress.


kthx.

Get together with Alok and viva la revolution!

[Gan]

Ugh. That would just repeat the 2 party system all over again. There's no way I could see eye to eye with TheE's policy ideals.

[BigWorm]

Why are two of the strongest conservatives on this board advocating for government interference in a free market?

Yes, gas prices are high, but I really don't see what business the government has trying to control the prices of commodities.

I think suspending the gas tax is a very, very, very bad idea. It's what, 5% of the price you pay for gas? A discount that small just isn't going to make a difference. And it also creates the problem of depleting our highway and bridge funding at a time when our roads and bridges are badly in need of upkeep and maintenance (cf. that shit in Minnesota).

[radamanthys]

federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon.

The bigger problem is the state taxes- NY is 32 cents/gallon, plus an additional 4% or so county-side.

so that 3.51 is actually... 2.88? Blah.



a discount that small just isn't going to make a difference. And it also creates the problem of depleting our highway and bridge funding at a time when our roads and bridges are badly in need of upkeep and maintenance (cf. that shit in Minnesota).

Why do people think that tax money gets automatically directed? Like a "gas tax road fund" or the "social security fund". It's just a chunk of the budget that happens to match the general income from that source. If they want to budget more, they can.

[Daniel]

Because we maintain a balanced budget and a few billion dollars thrown into the shitter is a fantastic idea?

[BigWorm]

federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon.

The bigger problem is the state taxes- NY is 32 cents/gallon, plus an additional 4% or so county-side.

so that 3.51 is actually... 2.88? Blah.

So you would agree it's pointless at best and maybe even a bad idea?



Why do people think that tax money gets automatically directed? Like a "gas tax road fund" or the "social security fund". It's just a chunk of the budget that happens to match the general income from that source. If they want to budget more, they can.

Because it actually does go into the Highway Trust Fund (http://www.nemw.org/HWtrustfund.htm). This is separate from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, which used to be the funding source for the trust, but the Highway Trust Fund is now funded entirely by fuel taxes on gas and diesel. This also a similar trust fund set up for Social Security, but I think that fund might also get support from the general treasury fund, though I don't really now much about it.

[Parkbandit]

Why are two of the strongest conservatives on this board advocating for government interference in a free market?

Yes, gas prices are high, but I really don't see what business the government has trying to control the prices of commodities.

I think suspending the gas tax is a very, very, very bad idea. It's what, 5% of the price you pay for gas? A discount that small just isn't going to make a difference. And it also creates the problem of depleting our highway and bridge funding at a time when our roads and bridges are badly in need of upkeep and maintenance (cf. that shit in Minnesota).


I'm not. I just want to see the Democrats show the plan they said they have had for the past 2 years.

And I'm all for suspending the gas tax. ANY tax relief is a good thing imo.

[Clove]

I'm not. I just want to see the Democrats show the plan they said they have had for the past 2 years.

And I'm all for suspending the gas tax. ANY tax relief is a good thing imo.I can't wait. This is hilarious.

[Gan]

Why are two of the strongest conservatives on this board advocating for government interference in a free market?

Its not gov't interference they're asking for but actually a reprieve from gov't interference (which is the gas tax). The free market would not have any tax to begin with. ;)

[BigWorm]

Its not gov't interference they're asking for but actually a reprieve from gov't interference (which is the gas tax). The free market would not have any tax to begin with. ;)

And one of the easiest taxes to justify.

If you buy gas, at a gas station, then you are almost definitely using the roads. There are even exemptions for people like farmers who do not use the roads but do use gas.

The tax goes entirely to pay for roads and bridges. If you don't want your money spent to maintain them, don't drive on them.

[Keller]

Its not gov't interference they're asking for but actually a reprieve from gov't interference (which is the gas tax). The free market would not have any tax to begin with. ;)

Gas is a proxy for road use.

And a free market without taxes is an inefficient market. At the very least, taxes must be levied to pay for the externalities involved with behaviors such as a gas tax for using up roads.

[Back]

Why are two of the strongest conservatives on this board advocating for government interference in a free market?

heh. This gave me a chuckle. And not just because of how hypocritical it is of the posters, but of the Republican leadership.

[Parkbandit]

heh. This gave me a chuckle. And not just because of how hypocritical it is of the posters, but of the Republican leadership.


Clearly you have a learning disability...

And what did we say about you using the term "hypocritical"? You embody the word.. yet still can't comprehend the meaning.

This has zero to do with the free market and everything to do with forcing the Democratic "leadership" to put up or shut up.

[Back]

You forgot...

:rofl:

Anyway, I’m not going 25 pages with you on this because it is a waste of not only both of our time, but also the community here.

BigWorm did the legwork. Its really simple. Don’t just believe what you hear (or read). Think about what you hear (or read).

[Gan]

And one of the easiest taxes to justify.

If you buy gas, at a gas station, then you are almost definitely using the roads. There are even exemptions for people like farmers who do not use the roads but do use gas.

The tax goes entirely to pay for roads and bridges. If you don't want your money spent to maintain them, don't drive on them.

The primary point of my post was to:

1. Point out that Gas is not necessarily a free market item (hence the taxes).

2. The two conservatives posting about the temporary reprieve from gas taxes are not contradictingly asking for more gov.t interference but actually less. In fact, I'm not calling for a temporary reprieve (since I'm the only other conservative thats posted here), I'm point out how Pelosi and company sold everyone (who voted for her gang) a bill of goods.

In other words, your statement was full of shit.

In summation, yes I do know what gas taxes go towards - but that was not the point of the reply. The point was to point out the inaccuracy of the statement: "Why are two of the strongest conservatives on this board advocating for government interference in a free market?"

[Gan]

Personally, I think that suspending the gas tax, even temporarily, is a bad idea.

Bottom line, in the long run it will increase demand/consumption which will simply push prices higher.

There has to be a better answer to cushion the effects the current gas pricing is having on our economy - this just is not it.

Suspending the gas tax is baslically a short term populist fix that will lead to larger problems after the election, and the purpose for the idea, is long gone.

*To add: (I keep having post script thoughts on this).

Adaptation is painful. For a long time America has enjoyed cheap gas, and that has not been any sort of stimulus for the demand/creation of substitute forms of transportation or consumption. McCain's message, or someone's, instead of being a populist (what everyone wants to hear) should be one of patience and moderation. Yes, the high prices suck. Yes that means you should consider modifying your driving habits (including the efficiency of your vehicle). Yes that does hinder distribution of goods and services (trucking) which in turn is passed along in the form of higher prices of goods and services. But it does stimulate local production (the opposite of the Wal-Mart distribution theory).

Local small business owners who in the past have faced steep competition (lower prices) from larger entities who could ship in goods at bulk pricing (with low fuel/distribution costs) now have an opportunity to provide local products which have no shipping costs at pricing thats competetive if not better than the global Wal-Mart type chains.

The network highway infrastructure that has developed here in the US is unmatched anywhere else. The overland trucking infrastructure used to capitalize on that very highway network has helped bring every corner of the US to participate in the marketplace. We just need to use a little enginuity to figure out how to find a reasonable substitute for petrolium that will allow for us to utilize the same highway infrastructure (and same benefit it is to society) but with a different opportunity cost than what fossil fuel consumption represents.

[Clove]

The gas tax shouldn't be suspended- although in CT we could stand a reduction despite having excellent roads (considering we have an 1/2 billion tax surplus).

Gan does a good job of listing some of the many reasons why higher prices are good motivation for much needed changes. Money is what speaks to our society.

[Back]

Nationalize the industry under one governed umbrella, make every American a shareholder with an initial number of shares they could keep, sell or buy more, and compete globally with the aim to globalize the industry.

[Clove]

Nationalize the industry under one governed umbrella, make every American a shareholder with an initial number of shares they could keep, sell or buy more, and compete globally with the aim to globalize the industry.http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4850/facepalm8bu0.jpg

[Parkbandit]

You forgot...

:rofl:

Anyway, I’m not going 25 pages with you on this because it is a waste of not only both of our time, but also the community here.

BigWorm did the legwork. Its really simple. Don’t just believe what you hear (or read). Think about what you hear (or read).

1) There's nothing funny about you or your posts.. clearly not deserving of the coveted :rofl: Now, if we had an :youareanidiot: icon..

2) Bigworm misunderstood it the first time as well.. but even HE fucking got it in the end. You are still as clueless as ever. Once again, since you still missed the point. This has NOTHING to do with free market and EVERYTHING to do with forcing the Dems to release this 2 year old plan they said they had.

[Arkans]

Okay, Backlash, I'm a fairly liberal guy. Honestly, though, do you ever read what the fuck you type or even so much as think?

Christ on a bike...

- Arkans

[Back]

Okay, Backlash, I'm a fairly liberal guy. Honestly, though, do you ever read what the fuck you type or even so much as think?

Christ on a bike...

- Arkans

Indeed I do comrade. And that ain’t even the tip of the iceberg.

Oh the plans I have for you all...

http://zerotosixty.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/medium_dr_evil_1.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Okay, Backlash, I'm a fairly liberal guy. Honestly, though, do you ever read what the fuck you type or even so much as think?

Christ on a bike...

- Arkans

Use a picture.. words obviously confuse him.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/jcfinalcolor1xp.jpg

[Clove]

Okay, Backlash, I'm a fairly liberal guy. Honestly, though, do you ever read what the fuck you type or even so much as think?

Christ on a bike...

- ArkansThat's nearly sig-worthy.

[Clove]

That reminds me... has anyone seen Chillmonster?

[Gan]

Nationalize the industry under one governed umbrella, make every American a shareholder with an initial number of shares they could keep, sell or buy more, and compete globally with the aim to globalize the industry.

welcome back Backlash.

:banghead:


Use a picture.. words obviously confuse him.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/jcfinalcolor1xp.jpg
:rofl:


That reminds me... has anyone seen Chillmonster?
And just when things couldnt get any more idiotic. Are you that bored?

[Clove]

And just when things couldnt get any more idiotic. Are you that bored?Well assuming Backlash and Chillmonster are separate entities, I was sort of hoping the two of them together would cancel each other out. Like a white noise generator for idiocy.

[Back]

Well assuming Backlash and Chillmonster are separate entities, I was sort of hoping the two of them together would cancel each other out. Like a white noise generator for idiocy.

I can’t read every post on this board so I can’t expect everyone to read every post on this board...

But I have read a post by the owner of this forum that confirms that Chill and I are two distinctly different people.

Chill was cool. Perhaps he had less patience or free time as I do. Then again... a few people really tried to run him off for whatever reason.

[Clove]

I can’t read every post on this board so I can’t expect everyone to read every post on this board...

But I have read a post by the owner of this forum that confirms that Chill and I are two distinctly different people.

Chill was cool. Perhaps he had less patience or free time as I do. Then again... a few people really tried to run him off for whatever reason.Really? Do tell?

[crb]

If you want to lower oil prices you either need to lower demand or increase supply.

Drill in more places. Or get people to drive less.

The issue is, convincing Americans to drive less doesn't convince Chinese or Indians to drive less, so the global market will still end up with a high oil price.

That is just the way it is. As long as a couple billion people out there are looking to maybe buy a car and drive for the first time (20 years ago China was all bicycles, now it is all cars), gas prices will rise. They'll rise faster if we don't work to drill more.

The only thing that will make a dent is a functional alternative. Not ethanol, not biodiesel, those are niche products that will never be able to reach the production levels of gasoline. Hydrogen (or all electric, IF battery technology improves) are really the only two options that will possibly supplant oil.

considering they can't yet make a laptop battery that doesn't start losing charge capacity after a year, I don't hold much hope for the fully electric car taking over anytime soon.

[Clove]

If you want to lower oil prices you either need to lower demand or increase supply.

Drill in more places. Or get people to drive less.The current spike is due to a speculation bubble and isn't so much related to supply and demand.


The issue is, convincing Americans to drive less doesn't convince Chinese or Indians to drive less, so the global market will still end up with a high oil price.True but reducing our consumption enough so that we don't have to rely on oil imports to meet our needs would help. OPEC would have to adjust their quotas to compensate for (the loss) of our demand.

[CrystalTears]

But I have read a post by the owner of this forum that confirms that Chill and I are two distinctly different people.
Well he initially declared chillmonster and you were one in the same, but he took it back because he couldn't prove it. Some of us believe otherwise.


Chill was cool. Perhaps he had less patience or free time as I do. Then again... a few people really tried to run him off for whatever reason.
For someone who wasn't "here" for the time that chillmonster was posting the majority of the time, you sure seem to know a bit about him.

As a matter of fact, the last couple of times he posted, no one said anything to him. We only chided him prior thinking he was you. Then you returned and chillmonster suddenly retired. Coincidence?

[BigWorm]

1) There's nothing funny about you or your posts.. clearly not deserving of the coveted :rofl: Now, if we had an :youareanidiot: icon..

2) Bigworm misunderstood it the first time as well.. but even HE fucking got it in the end. You are still as clueless as ever. Once again, since you still missed the point. This has NOTHING to do with free market and EVERYTHING to do with forcing the Dems to release this 2 year old plan they said they had.

I assumed from the way you two started off the topic, that you were interested in the Democrats' plan and wanted to compare it with McCain's plan and that you both agreed with his plan. I didn't understand why, so I was asking you guys why you thought it was good idea. Now I understand that at least Gan doesn't, not sure about PB's stance.

I still think that gas prices are essentially unregulated. 18.5 cents per gallon isn't much of $4 per gallon (less than 5%). I don't feel like that is a burden on the market at all, especially considering the gas tax goes to pay entirely for roads and bridges. I think even the staunchest libertarians can see that this is a fair amount of tax that is based entirely on how much you use a public good (the highway and road system).

Although we tend to differ on a lot of social issues, I actually respect Gan's opinions on many economic issues. I often consider myself a more classical liberal, though I'm not an anarchist/minimist like a lot of libertarians.

[Parkbandit]

I assumed from the way you two started off the topic, that you were interested in the Democrats' plan and wanted to compare it with McCain's plan and that you both agreed with his plan. I didn't understand why, so I was asking you guys why you thought it was good idea. Now I understand that at least Gan doesn't, not sure about PB's stance.


And here I gave you credit you were undeserving of. Maybe it's me.. maybe I'm not quite making it clear enough. So here.. let me try again.

I don't give two shits WHAT the Democrat plan is. The issue has always been for me that the Democrats "plan" is "We can make gas prices lower, just elect us" without actually saying what the plan is. The 2 or 3 Republicans that finally asked their wife for their nuts back have simply asked for this plan that the Democrats have had for 2 years.

That's it. I just want to see the Democrats actually deliver on what they promised for a change. Have a plan? FANTASTIC! Let's hear it! Why have they been keeping this plan secret for 2 years why we are paying high gas prices.. if their plan will reduce them?

Once again.. has zero to do with capitalism or free market and everything to do with the Democrats actually having a plan, instead of just saying it.