Letters to the Editor
-
@ Devizier
You were responding to me when you said:
Meaning, that when the suspension ended, the actual cost of the tax (inflation adjusted) increased. Overall, that's a net profit for refineries and gas station owners, and a net loss for consumers.
It seems to me that this is where the windfall tax and the FTC come in under Clinton's plan. The windfall tax and FTC enforcement could be adjusted to prevent this kind of thing. To me the central question for the short term should be whether windfall taxes and FTC enforcement actions would have the same kind of bad effects as out and out price controls have had in the past. Under the current price which is already outside supply/demand, there is still plenty of motive to sell gas (but see another commment I wrote a few days ago about not trusting oil companies). So the effect of indirectly easing the price may not be so bad. I agree with Leonard about bringing the futures market under at least reporting regulation and probably more, as that is somewhat of a loose cannon variable in the whole equation.
I just have not yet seen (and I realize this is subjective on my part) that argument that causes me to say, "OH, then forget about it." I don't think my sympathies for Clinton are unduly fogging my vision on this.
-
@ Steve Fox
Mr. Fox,
You and your wife have my sympathy, but unfortunately, you've missed the point. As everyone's tried to explain, you would never even see $30 in savings from this boondoggle in the unlikely event that it could somehow be passed by this summer.
What this is about is electing someone who will be honest with the electorate about the challenges we face. Who knows if Obama is that person, but it's becoming very clear that Sen. Clinton is not. If any of the rest of us is to have a chance to someday retire like you and your wife have, have access to prescription drugs, let alone Social Security, we need to get this country back on track. God knows no one my age will have even a small pension to look forard to.
Respectfully,
FredBizzle
Elitist
-
moira kelly on giving McCain a pass
Why is it that the great liberal media - including Mr. Leonard - give McCain a pass?
I'm not sure that's exactly what's going on here. True, Andrew Leonard could have added a line to the end of his article saying, "Also, in light of the above, it's increasingly clear how much of a tool McCain is," and it would be absolutely relevant.
But he could do the same for about three quarters of what he writes. (Maybe not so much the stuff about South Asian cinema, but even there I'm open to being persuaded.) Sooner or later it becomes a given in a forum like this.
-
One item left out in this discussion
Demand for gasoline has fallen, but the price of the commodity continues to rise due to speculative trading by the cow boy investors who have been screwing up economies with get rich quick schemes since the well since someone figured out that the price of goods periodically fluctuate.
Because demand is falling, refiners have been in a pickle lately. They buy the oil at a price, but when they try to sell it for a profit the demand isn't there.
Refiners margins are the lowest they been in years right now, and that puts a differnt twist on this whole discussion.
The FTC can look for "price gouging" (oh and exactly what will the cost of these watch dogs be? more than the windfall boon they collect I assume, especially since that's supposed to fix our roads) but will it find it if refiners can honestly show their low margins of late, and argue that now that there is room to (with the lowering of taxes) they can actually operate as a healthy business again by raising the price of gas?
You know, if the populist fantasy of "Big Oil" where a dozen fat capitalist sit in an ivory lined board room and set the prices for gasoline, this would all be much easier. Instead you have a complex system of coroporations and independent producers, refiners, and speculators all with a hand in how the gas gets from Canada (where much of our foreign oil comes from) to Detroit.
The thrust of this idea is based entirely on a fantasy of villians and innocents, and it's not only wrong, it is the biggest Fairy Tale in this entire campaign.
-
@moira kelly
I'd like to see every city and community with a bus or rail system declare all seats free to the butt for the rest of the year. It would give an enormous incentive for people to get out of their cars - and that would reduce not just demand for gas, but would have a number of other positive effects.
If I wasn't already married, I'd propose . . .
This is a great example of thinking outside of the box. I don't know if it'd work or be feasible in that form, but you bring up the idea of how to address our oil problems by encouraging efficient behavior. And that's a damn good idea.
What I could see out of this is a plan that, instead of cutting gas taxes, the government turns around and provides "fare subsidies" for public transporation of all kind to try to encourage more efficient use of transportation. I doubt "free" could be done (I shudder to think what the BART here in the Bay Area has to pull in yearly), but some discount/incentive plan that's easy to use could have results.
Hell, if free could be pulled off even for six months or three that'd be amazing. I'm two months into a job requiring me to use public transport (or face an insane drive), and I've absolutely fell in love with the options I never had to explore when I lived ten minutes from my job.
I can see this meaning bupkis to any place without much public transport, but heck, it's something.