Shame on you Bud Cramer
Posted by BrianBud Cramer joined two other Alabama congressmen in voting for an anti gasoline ”price gouging” bill. Such legislation is nothing more than counterproductive demagoguery that ensures gasoline supplies will be quickly depleted during a crisis due to artificially low prices. Supposedly Bush will veto the bill. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
Just to prove that Congress is more interested in stoking undue anti-petro sentiment than it is in keeping prices low for consumers they did not include wording that would temporarily suspend federal gas taxes during a crisis. It deserves being mentioned that the federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. States add an average of 20.8 cents per gallon in taxes. So even at $3 per gallon just over 13% of the price you pay goes to the government. By comparison most oil companies earn profit margins in the 10% range, which (if their gas business is just as productive as the whole company) means that about 10% of the price of a gallon of gas is profit for the oil companies. It’s pretty clear that the government is the one gouging consumers.
Related content:
May 25th, 2007 at 8:40 am
In general, gas taxes haven’t changed or gone up since 1994. You pay just as much (or little) per gallon of gas today as you did when gas was 99 cents/gallon. By contrast, just six short years ago, refining was around 25 cents/gallon. Today, it’s closer to $1/gallon.
The biggest problem with today’s gas prices is that there is no real reason for them. Oil is cheaper than it was this time last year. There haven’t been any weather issues. No major refinery catastrophies. Oil companies have cited a few slight issues in the refineries, but nothing major that would overly affect production, and one wonders why they are not using some of their record proffits to invest in improving those refineries to work more efficiently IF there truly are any issues.
But overall, I do agree that it comes down to supply and demand. I’ve chosen to stay at home for Memorial Day weekend, and if everyone did just that, we’d see a real impact.
I’ve seen some nasty moves by the oil industry to turn the “demand” in their direction. See also electric cars and electric rails and what happened to them. Several of the additives in gasoline are specifically designed to make your car run less efficiently. Our vehicles are made far less fuel efficient than those sold in Europe and Asia. I’m also willing to bet that you’ll see some heavy opposition from the oil lobby to any government funding of public transportation.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:22 am
From the link: “Republican Robert Aderholt joined Democrats Bud Cramer and Artur Davis in voting for the measure.” That’s two strikes against Aderholt in my book (Syria was the other). The standard they set is “unconscionably excessive” prices. What about unconscionably excessive prices on beer or banking? Singling out an industry that’s not even that profitable is nothing but demogogery.
But then Sen. Clinton wants to seize ‘unconscionably excessive’ profits (windfall).
From CATO via Instapundit:
“In 1962 … gasoline prices averaged 31 cents per gallon. When we factor changes in disposable income, today’s gas would have to cost $4.48 to be a comparable burden.”
Brian, what have you heard about a challenge to Bud?
May 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
It looks like you realized the error of your “no real reason for [today’s high prices]” by the next paragraph. Just like any product, the price of gas is driven by both supply and demand.
The simple fact that few are willing to admit is that gas isn’t all that expensive. I’m not saying that you don’t have to lay down more sawbucks per gallon than in recent years, but that when compared to things like disposable income the price of gas is not high. That fact is borne out by the actions of consumers who are not curtailing their Memorial Day travels and that the average price would have to reach $4.38 per gallon before demand begins to wane.
Reactionary,
I know that a man named E. Ray McKee has already announced that he will run. He is fed up with Cramer’s refusal to cosponsor the FairTax and he is taking matters into his own hands. I’ve heard murmurings that Mo Brooks may run. I plan on calling him to find out. I’m a big fan of Mo’s - he has a verifiable track record against raising taxes.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I’d suggest at least looking into breaking up OPEC (as Wolfowitz and Buchanan have proposed - but problems there with sovereignty). Too bad the Democrats are more likely to try and break up big US oil companies.
“Felmy (API economist) …higher crude prices since the start of the year, attributed to tensions with Iran and violence in Nigeria; a decline in gasoline imports because of a strike in Europe; strong demand in the United States and higher prices for ethanol, which is blended with gasoline to make it cleaner burning.”
“Felmy questioned why the industry would make expensive refining expansions when President Bush is calling for a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use by 2017.”
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/16/news/economy/gas_prices/?postversion=2007051618
Brian, I asked Mo last Saturday if he would run against Bud, he said he had two million reasons not to run (Bud’s campaign fund). I think he’s running for something, just not Congress. I like Mo, more so because he likes Firefly / Serenity.
I don’t know anything about McKee except that he’s an attorney, but I like him so far.