Thinking Right

By Van

June 21, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this

Typical loony leftist thinking.

Lets raise taxes to pay for alternative fuels.

So the consumer will pay through the nose for the gas they need, to pay so some pointy head academic can drive his E85 mini car, while paying extra for the privilege.

And to add insult to injury, they will take a food crop and use it for making expensive fuel! End result, food will cost more. But do not worry, they aren’t using their money, they are using yours, unless you have a low paying job, they you will be fired, laid off or part of the cut back in expenses.

Since all taxes paid by corporations are all passed on to the consumer, the incentive is lost.

To break it down for those in mid-town, this is a lose-lose situation.

Food will cost more. Fuel will cost more. You will use “green” power, that cost more. Your vehicle will cost more, to use the “new” green fuels. Your taxes will go up to subsidize all this.

Where is the up side???

By RCH

June 21, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

getalife Missed your response yesterday. As you can see, 29 billion in NEW taxes. If anybody is gouging the price of fuel it is your own govt., which takes out a far amount more in taxes than the oil companies make.

By jbmlaw

June 21, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. We are all delighted to see our Congress pursuing corporate welfare so aggressively, ensuring taxpayer-funded markets for those who produce products that are not economically viable otherwise. As Jim properly notes, this is not exclusively Democrats feeding at the trough; the statists have two leftist Republicans and two farm state Republicans (the constituents of the latter would be primary beneficiaries of the corporate welfare) playing this game. I am certain our leftist friends are disillusioned - they really thought Democrats in power would be different from the corrupt Republican big-spenders.

By yawn

June 21, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Jim’s blog only got 77 posts yesterday. Jim can’t blog about illegal immigration every day but Jim has a quota to meet. Every Jim blog from now on will contain a reference to illegal immigration regardless of how irrelevant it may be to the subject. Go Jim.

Oh, about the energy policy. Figures congress would tax the oil companies and then turn around and give them subsidies for developing and selling us alternate forms of energy.

By Redneck Convert

June 21, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Well, as a good GA redneck, I’m against using alcohol for anything but booze. Its just a shame to see Congress try to create a shortfall in the booze supply by forcing us to use the alcohol in our gas tanks. This will lead to all kind of evil things. Like rednecks stopping on the highway and getting under their trucks and screwing the bottom cap loose on the gas tank and taking a few sips.

Besides, the commies in Congress are against letting the oil companys make big money. But as that rich fellow explained at Billy Bob’s the other day, if the big fish are allowed to get their fill, then pretty soon us rednecks will get the leftovers. The money will just dribble on down the line. Nothing wrong with that. Me, I plan to buy a new doublewide with my share. I been waiting about 6 years for my share after the big tax cuts was passed, and its bound to come pretty soon. I imagine jbmlaw and Van and the other big boys that get the tax cuts are getting mighty sick of all that money by now and are ready to stop holding on to it.

Anyway, if gas gets to 6 bucks a gallon I’ll be mighty glad I don’t have to pay to fill up my beer truck.

There was a mighty big wreck on GA 400 this a.m. Two rednecks hit the wall and it looked like they was feeling no pain. Three lanes going south was closed off. I felt sorry for those good old boys, starting off their day by getting nabbed by cops after a night of drinking and having their cars wrecked besides. I hope they are able to make it to church on Sunday as all good rednecks should.

By RCH

June 21, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw When gas prices are high enough, the profiteers will step in with alternative fuels because a profit is to be made. It is not the responsibility of the Federal govt. to create a false market on yours and mine dime.

By Dusty

June 21, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

Dear Jim Wooten,

NO NO NO. I am NOT ready to pay $6 per gallon for gasoline. What in the world is Congress thinking? Are they thinking at all?

Seems like their idea of independence from oil is to make us all the walking poor. Therefore we could neither afford to ride or eat but we would be INDEPENDENT from oil. What a choice!

I suggest we put Congress on bread and water and make them walk everywhere. Give them a foretaste of what they are planning for us.

Van posed a good question. Where is the up side??

By ACT

June 21, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this

Jim is just using another traditional Republican trick. Fear. It’s futile Jim. The cons are going to take some monumental azz kickins in 08 and your fearmongering isn’t going to change that.

By Joe

June 21, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

If gas prices rise significantly, then that’s great news. To stop funding terrorism with our dependence on foreign oil and to mitigate the harm caused by global warming, we need to use less gas. Basic economics teaches that as prices rise, demand falls (notice the glut of SUVs on the market lately). Therefore, I support a tax that reduces the demand for gasoline. I’d rather adjust to high gasoline prices (we’ll have more fuel efficient cars and more demand for regional mass transit), then adjust to the effects of global warming (Australia is experiencing a catastrophic drought that has lasted six years now).

By Dave

June 21, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Let the Democrats raise fuel taxes. No better way for them to lose both houses of congress and the 08 presidency. They are doing such a good job of showing who they really are, why get in the way?

By Rich

June 21, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw and others,

Read “Naked Economics” by Charles Wheelan. You’ll find much that you agree with, much you disagree with, and you’ll learn a lot. It’s a fast, highly readable book that anybody interested in this stuff would thoroughly enjoy — guaranteed.

By jm

June 21, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

personally, I would prefer to see some of the existing tax breaks that energy (read oil) companies currently get eliminated, rather than tax their profits. Those tax breaks are nothing than glorified corporate welfare.

Alternative energy sources are nice but are still not practical for large scale, 365 day a year production in all parts of the country. Despite the stigma, nuclear is still the best option in the short term to reducing dependency on fossil fuels. As for a location to put the radioactive waste, I would recommend Crawford Texas.

By Dusty

June 21, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

Yes ACT @9:02

You liberals don’t “fear” anything except fighting for this country’s war on terrorism. I guess you are saving all your “azz kickins” for 08 and one more mighty Democratic defeat.

Have you looked at your possible candidates recently? Larry, Curly and Mo looked better. In fact, I believe the “stoogies” are already serving in Congress as the so called Democratic “leaders”.

Wow, “Democratic leaders”!! That’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

By Curious Observer

June 21, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

So what is Wooten’s solution to the oil dependency problem? I see plenty of criticism of Congressional interference in his beloved free market, but I see nothing that will suggest an alternative—other than to continue to depend on foreign oil and thus put the collective national testicles in the vice grip of sponsors of terrorism.

Wooten and his slavish followers would no doubt oppose imposition of an immediate requirement that auto manufacturers hike the mpg of new automobiles, but that is one solution. Another is a move toward coal-based alternatives for heating and manufacturing. Still another is to ignore the shrill whining of the environmentalists about the supposed dangers of nuclear power. And still another is to accelerate work on fuel cell technology.

I agree that ethanol is not a sustainable solution. It is simply not economically feasible. But instead of taking the negative view of any alternative to the current dependence on oil, why not focus on those alternatives that can work, given a national will?

By Southern Democrat

June 21, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

The fundamental flaw in the argument today is the assumption that current gas prices are market-driven. They’re not. We receive the majority of our foreign oil through a price-setting cartel (OPEC) that operates outside the marketplace.

Further, the argument that subsidies for ethanol would drive up the price of food is simply inane. If that is a grave concern, then roll back the billions we pay in subsidies to farmers to let their land lie fallow (in direct violation of our WTO obligations).

Jim Wooten (and others, including Dick Cheney) seem to equate the ability to drive a gas-fueled car cheaply with freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The privilege of driving a car is subsidized by the state (artificially) at every turn (pun intended) through road construction and maintenance.

Finally, indulge me for sounding like a broken record, but for those in favor of market-driven initiatives, the Kyoto cap-and-trade system is ready when you are!

By RCH

June 21, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

JM Technolgy is already being developed to use the spent uranium fuel for other products,(Same as they did with unusable coal slurry)so you may be giving Crawford Tx. an economic boost. We should have been building nuclear plants for the last 35 years. What stopped us?

By KR

June 21, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

I’m not a fan of ethanol and I think the use of alternative fuels should be a personal choice.

That being said, Jim points out the horror that by 2016, gas prices might be over $6 per gallon, a 100% increase in 8.5 years.

To keep it in perspective, gas is currently priced at about $3.10 per gallon. Anyone want to hazard a guess at what gas cost in 1998? About $1.30 per gallon.

So, what is the real difference here? Congress’ meddling or simply the effect of inflation over time?

By KR

June 21, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

I’m not a fan of ethanol and I think the use of alternative fuels should be a personal choice.

That being said, Jim points out the horror that by 2016, gas prices might be over $6 per gallon, a 100% increase in 8.5 years.

To keep it in perspective, gas is currently priced at about $3.10 per gallon. Anyone want to hazard a guess at what gas cost in 1998? About $1.30 per gallon.

So, what is the real difference here? Congress’ meddling or simply the effect of inflation over time?

By Thrash

June 21, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

No wonder this Congress has an approval rating LOWER than the President’s and LOWER than any Congress in history. Welcome to the Democrat controlled world again.

By ATC

June 21, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

So Jim, please explain what happened to the price of gas between 1998 and present. Most of that time with a Republican congress no less. Jim you’re full of sh&t on this one.

By getalife

June 21, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

The consevative position to do nothing and keep paying higher and higher prices to the enemy is pathetic.

Then again, when Reagen decided to deal with immigration, he made it much worse.

The point being, they have to wean the oil addiction and stop funding the terrorists.

Americans will have to sacrifice even though most sacrifice nothing in the Iraq occupation.

Corn ethanol is not the solution but has created a better economy for corn producing states.

A combination of all alternative energy is the solution.

But lets not take the conservative position and do nothing.

By jm

June 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

RCH - two reasons no new nuke plants have been built: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. America is full of nimbys and no one wants a reactor in their backyard (just like no one wants an oil derrick of their coastline).

By David

June 21, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. Every state should have 3 or 4 reactors. Make all the rails electric, develop long running auto batteries. This is one area that France has excelled and we could learn from. The potential for disaster is far less from nuclear than economic and war disaster caused by having our energy needs controlled by Islamic extemists.

By Southern Democrat

June 21, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

I feel safer.

http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

Good golly!

By Anonymous

June 21, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Of course he is. Whenever any path away from “cheap oil” is discussed, it’s the responsibility of Republican flacks to try to stir up fear and outrage.

Gotta keep those Texaco lobbyists happy, y’know.

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Getalife, I think you are right when you stated that a combination of alternative fuels is the solution to this crisis.

Ethanol is not the cure all, we couldn’t produce enough to keep up with demand.

Another solution? Walk, bike, carpool, etc. Also, I think more money should be spent on (gasp) public transportation.

By RCH

June 21, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

getalif Hell must have frozen over. We finally agree on something:”A combination of all alternative energy is the solution”. But higher taxes on oil companies is not the solution. They will simply pass it on to the consumer. Encouraging alternative fuels with tax breaks and incentives will speed up the process of alternative fuels.

By Rick

June 21, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Lets see Oil Cos make .08 per gallon profit, gas Stations make around .04 per gallon. Between the state and federal government taxes the government makes an average of .60 a gallon. So WHO is gouging the public? All you LIBERALS who want to screw the oil cos, you better HOPE your pension plans are not into oil are you are gonna get higher gas price and less pension. WAKE UP!

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

RCH, People who do not realize that oil companies will pass their expense along has their head in the sand. I don’t know about most, but I know that I can’t afford $6/gallon for gas. If it gets much worse, the Bosch’s will be walking everywhere.

Most people’s solution to increased expenses is to just put them on credit cards which will lead to a whole other crisis for our economy. I for one, would rather walk, than to have $20,000 in credit card debt.

By RCH

June 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Jm How many individuals have died in theUnited States from an nuclear accident. How many have died in the pursuit of oil. Take your pick!

By Anonymous

June 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

If eliminating tax breaks for energy giants is viewed as “increasing taxes,” then I’m all for a huge tax increase.

By icecube

June 21, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

You are all in complete denial about peak oil — which has already occurred (the sweet, light good stuff).

I will be very surprised if gas doesn’t cost closer to $16/gal — (SIXTEEN!) by 2016.

It will probably cost $6/gal. well before 2010.

By MG

June 21, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

I would think that as a conservative, Mr. Wooten would be in favor of letting consumers pay for the true price of oil so that alternative energies not reliant on the anti-democratic sheikhs of the Middle East. Our legislators are finally beginning to pursue an energy policy that will help keep us out of costly foreign wars and passing the cost on to everyone “equally” just like a sales tax.

But all Wooten can do is complain about the price of gas. So much for your ideological consistency.

By icecube

June 21, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

You are all in complete denial about peak oil — which has already occurred (the sweet, light good stuff).

I will be very surprised if gas doesn’t cost closer to $16/gal — (SIXTEEN!) by 2016.

It will probably cost $6/gal. well before 2010.

And it doesn’t much matter what the Congress does.

By george

June 21, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

You must take peak oil into consideration when talking about the rising price of gas. By 2016, I guarantee we will have already passed the peak in global oil production. This is why gas will be more than 6.00/gallon. In fact it will be a lot more than 6 bucks. Try 12 bucks or more and not readily available. Those days in the early 70’s will look like heaven compared to what we have coming. Just look up peak oil online and readup on it. You’ll see what I’m talking about. This is not a political issue anymore. We are talking about the survival of civilization as we know it.

By Aquagirl

June 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

The priviledge of driving a car is subsidized by the state (artificially) at every turn (pun intended) through road construction and maintainance.

Yep. And we subsidize the extra cops for traffic (except in Atlanta), the “public” lands that are for the use of oil companies only, pipelines, etc.etc. etc. Jim, in his continued depression, is assuming cheap gas is as natural as the two-party system. It just grew there and will remain forever, like Stone Mountain.

Don’t forget the cost of our foreign policy, being involved in the middle east. That costs troops and their lives, and lots of defense spending. All so the right-wing can cart their fat a%$#es around in gigantor SUV’s, as clearly enumerated as their right in the Constitution.

The upside to higher oil prices: less use. Ultimately that’s good, no matter what you Supersize-It-All types think. Less driving means less pollution. Less time commuting. Higher transportation costs means buying more locally. Of course, that means Supersize Americans will have to consider weaning themselves from Wal-Mart $5.97 spandex and produce grown in Chile.

This bunch won’t make any sacrifice whatsoever for the good of their children. And their support of a war launched by oil-financed terrorists is sticking a yellow ribbon on their gas-guzzlers. If we pull them out of the trough, expect a lot of oinking and squealing. It’s natural behavior for pigs.

By Lou

June 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

” the time has come the wisemen say..to talk of many things of sailing ships and candle wax of cabbage and kings” … I use to work to bring money home for a better life for my family. Now I work to keep the government going. When are the “rich” congressman going to realize that while $6 a gallon is tip change for them it is going to destroy our economy. And then will finish it off by raising taxes… Osama forget your suicide bombers congress is destroying us from within.

By getalife

June 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Bosch,

Yes, it is called sacrifice and we need to get off our fat, lazy a*-es and sacrifice.

RCH,

If anything, our government should roll back the subsidies and cut the taxes they get to drop prices.

By Anonymous

June 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Awesome. We might get some of those Hummers and other gas guzzlers off the road. It will be 2016, not 1916, I’m sure a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk will also be more expensive. A big pity party for those of the right who cannot face up to reality.

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Rick, I hardly think that all the liberals in the country are out to “screw” the oil companies. We, just like you, want to have REAL solutions to this problem. And it appears to me, that some of the more level headed (conservative and liberal both) here this morning are in agreement to actual real solutions.

I, like many, are totally sick of the political games being played on both sides of the aisle. I’m tired of our dependence on oil, and the horrific consequences this addiction has caused, and the politicians blaming one another (again, on both sides) and nothing REAL being done about it.

Let’s all be a little pragmatic here and stop with the “the liberals are doing this/the conservatives are doing that” bullsh!t. In case you haven’t noticed, this is a AMERICAN issue, and an AMERICAN problem.

By Greg Del Secco

June 21, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

We need to elect 535 new congressman/women, not considering anyone who is a career politician. Then find a president that is willing to take charge and lead this country in the right direction. With the choice of candidates given to us today, I understand why people don’t vote, even though I am not accepting of it. We still have to choose the lesser of all evils. Since there is really no candidate that is really in it for the betterment of our lives, instead continuing to en$rich$ theirs…..Nancy Pelosi is a great example of a tough talking lyer, who behind the scenes is as corrupt and unethical anyone before her…….

By Ray

June 21, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

While I agree that the alternate energy movement is a joke, I must disagree that $6/gal is a bad thing. Actually, I would welcome it today as it would no doubt cut down on the traffic. Driving is a privelege earned, as is having a car, as is commuting a distance. Let those of us who can afford to do these things at $6/gal be allowed to do so.

By RCH

June 21, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

My favorite long term energy solution is wave turbines. They are located off shore under water. They are not effected by drought or lack of sunshine. The impact on the environment is minimal and there is no waste product. I think this is the wave( no pun) of the future.

By w.adams

June 21, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Now we know why Congress has a 14% approval rating. These Liberals are DANGEROUS to this country. Alternative Energy you say?? Drill in Alaska and we won’t need the Arabs any more. It is really that simple. Fred Thompson in 08’

By tread

June 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Sure, the Heritage Foundation researchers say…whatever…I hope it does go that high, the sooner, the better, then only the fatcats will be driving…ride a bike to your anti-illegal alien protests. We should be paying for what we use, period. I’ll say it like some others have…SACRIFICE and stop whining about “big government.” The Republican around here so no issue with big oil making big profits as long as they can get gas for near nothing and continue driving the quarter mile to mcdonalds. someone even had the gall to mention pensions as it relates to oil companies…haha. that is a good one.

By Scott Alderman

June 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Before they are ever placed in office, every newly-elected member of Congress ought to be required to take a basic lesson in economics and capitalism. This energy bill is pure politics, and is so anti-economically based it is pathetic.

My 14-year old son figured it out: if we allocate more corn to be used as fuel, the price of corn goes up. If the price of corn goes up, the price of many, many food items goes up, including secondary ingredient items like beef, pork and chicken.

If we are trying to get away from oil and gas, the oil and gas companies and the investors (around the world, by the way) who own them will not invest in new capacity, R&D, etc. — so what happens to the price of oil and gas? Duh-h-h-h!

To all members of Congress who vote for this bill: Learn something about basic economics. Most of you are smarter than this, even if you don’t realize it.

By THE ONLY GOOD LIBERAL IS A DEAD LIBERAL

June 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Watching the hate America leftist filth on here puke up their irrational hate yet again is in one very limited sense kind of reassuring for normal patriotic Americans. Leftists thrive on fear, socialistic divisiveness and hatred. These witless apoplectic moral fascists tolerate NO opposition to their poisonous cut and run defeatism. It inexorably leads one to the inevitable logical paraphrase of an old saying brimming with unassailable wisdom.

THE ONLY GOOD LIBERAL IS A DEAD LIBERAL!!!

Its freaking hilarious how these puffed up eco whacko pinko scum refuse to take any blame for the failure to build even ONE new petrol refinery in how many decades? Whilst they hypocritically slither around, often in petrol guzzling convoys of SUVs and limousines bleating like constipated chattering monkeys about global whining.

WAY TO GO JIM - Your column today made the Drudge Report. So our witty merciless b!tchslapping of the cowardly leftist Bush hating turds will have a slightly wider audience today!!

WE MUST DEPORT THE 20 MILLION OR SO ILLEGALS LEECHES IMMEDIATELY!!

By Hyman Dos

June 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is dismissed. “Poor” old Jim can always be the door greeter at the Miami Wal-Mart, oh no he couldn’t, he isn’t multilingual.

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Getalife, Exactly, and as Aquagirl pointed out so, well, truthfully, many of the lazy, fatass, WalMart loving, Americans are not willing to make those sacrifices. They will lay around on their hugely obese fat asses (after an all you can eat buffet from Ryan’s) and complain all day not know that they are actually the problem.

By mw shadow

June 21, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

I like what thechristianpolitico dot cam has to say about this.

By getalife

June 21, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Watching C-Span, there are some really good debates on energy.

Peak oil reached its peak during the Carter years where we conserved, it dropped and then has been rising ever since.

At some point in the future the oil will be gone. Senator Dorgon was talking about a hydrogen car that emits water vapor.

Very cool.

By Gibb

June 21, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Of course the Heritage Foundation is going to come out with findings of a monsterous increase in gasoline, they are a conservation think tank (as the very first page on their own website will tell you). What else would you expect of them? Where is the analysis by an un-biased party, if there is such a thing anymore?

But to play devil’s advocate, let’s all assume that it is correct and that we will all be paying $6+ a gallon. Since so many of you seem to be believers of this report, what do you intend to do to prepare yourselves for this inevitability other than moan and complain? Hmmm, how about downsizing vehicles (you don’t have to buy a Corolla, but do you really need the Hummer?) or how about buying a house closer to work?

I see so many people complain about their commutes and the costs associated with them, but I rarely see anyone doing anything about it. You want the government to build more roads for you to be able to drive your 40 mile commute alone in your SUV, and somehow you don’t see that this is as much of a subsidy as the government offering more transit options to folks who don’t want to live as you have chosen.

If gas prices reach $6/gallon, I will welcome it because I’ve taken steps to prepare myself (and no, I am not rich or make a lot of money). The majority of you can sit there with your heads in the sand if you want.

By G Vander Plaats

June 21, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Just to clarify, the $.54 cent tariff on imported ethanol is to help offset the $.51 credit that all producers get. Thus, the real effect of the tariff is that it costs Brazil $.03 per gallon to bring ethanol here. They pay a $.54 tariff and obtain the $.51 credit. Without the tariff, the U.S. would subsidize foreign ethanol production.

By dgaggi

June 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

I hope all of you that voted for the Democrats becuase you were ticked off at the REPULICANS are happy. How soon we all forget what happens when the Democrats are in control. The government gets bigger, they tax the crap out of us to pay for their stupid pet projects, and last but not least we get poorer. I just wish that the Democrats lame brain ideas were reported more.

By GEbling

June 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. Their customers pay the taxes for them through increased cost of the goods. A $10 billion increase in oil taxes is the same as a $10 billion increase in the price consumers will pay for gas. Anything that travels by truck to the supermarket will go up in price as the companies that deliver those goods will have to pass on the increased delivery cost. This is a formula for inflation and economic disaster. Left wing extremists are pandering to their ignorant constituents who believe this will stick it to big oil. Bend over America! The left wing extremists are about to stick it to you.

By Dan

June 21, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

At least the Dems are working toward getting the US energy independent…instead of giving away windfalls to the oil companies leading us by the nose, like the last couple Congresses did… Besides, I thought conservatives thought proactively taking care of problems was the American way…Saddam anyone? Funny how getting servicemen and women killed over oil is better than a bunch of us taking a hit in the wallet over oil. Hypocrites.

By Patriot

June 21, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Folks: Instead of focusing on ‘this bad story’ and ‘that bad story’, all we AMERICANS need to do is to STOP DRIVING FOR ONE DAY. Period! If that doesn’t put the fear in the Big Five oil cartels that WE, AMERICANS are wide awake and wise to the cartels’ extortions, nothing will.

Everytime I read or hear about something that portends bad tidings about this country’s future, I’m reminded to do one thing - ACT NOW! while we still have a chance to reverse the vast amount of damage being done to THIS GREAT NATION. The longer we wait, the sooner it will be too late to do anything but RE-act, and that’s the weakest position one can take.

People, you have strength in numbers - you’re simply and constantly reminded that you don’t according to those who would have you believe otherwise. Stand up for your future!!!

By Roger

June 21, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Oil is waaay undertaxed. Oil markets do not have to account for the huge costs associated with maintaining a military presance in the mid-east. Sure, they price in “risk premium” but they never bear the full risk.
1) Military defense costs are external to the accounting of oil companies. They are free riding.

2) Oil companies don’t pay for any costs associated with Global Warming and unsual weather brought on by an increase in carbon emmissions.

3)Oil companies don’t pay for the health care problems created by carbon emmissions.

By Mackie101

June 21, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

All of you fearmongering goons had better wake up! If the oil companies hadn’t bought out all the alternative technologies in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. Oh yeah, and thank Reagan, Bush I and Bush II for further dragging our country’s collective asses on this one. If our country had decided to fund research for alternative energy during the last big oil crisis in the ‘70’s, we’d be sitting pretty by now. But no, idiotic Republicans conspired with the oil companies who had no reason to change their scheming ways in order to keep us on the oil-based path that’s been obsolete for the last decade or so. The result? We’ve been actively funding the very people who are plotting against our country and wish to make us submit to their complete and absolute tyranny (I’m talking about the Saudis, among others). And every red-blooded American knows just how much the Bush’s LOVE the Saudis! Their relationship with them has made them wealthy beyond belief, so do you really think George W. is going to rock the boat with himself and his Papa and the rest of the leeches inside? We’ve known this day was going to be coming for years. Stop complaining and deal with it. Obama for ‘08!!!!!

By Dennis

June 21, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

In his column today, it’s interesting that Jim Wooten just reports these possibilities, and takes no stand on them.

Maybe it’s because Republicans raising taxes! My Gawd, the world is coming to and end.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Good Sense

June 21, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Ride a bike! You’ll be healthier, weigh less, feel better and it works better than makeup for women. Ride more -Drive Less!

Take a walk! You’ll be happier and healthier. Good for short errands. Walk more - Drive Less!

or

Be a slave. Work for the car. Work harder for the car. The car will tell you when to stop and how much work you will do for it.

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

So, what did King George II do for a living before he was Governor of Texas? I wonder what he’ll go back to doing after he is President.

I mean, he won’t make much money as a speaker after he’s president.

By h_charles

June 21, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Good. Maybe then Americans will stop wasting energy and drive fuel efficient vehicles instead of obnoxious Suburbans.

By Anonymous

June 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

GEbling, according to your logic we not only shouldn’t tax corporations… we should increase the subsidies, bribes, and other favors our legislature already does for them! Because after all, it “costs” nothing—and surely their savings will be passed along to us consumers, just as their expenses are.

Right? Is anyone dumb enough to believe that?

By THE ONLY GOOD LIBERAL IS A DEAD LIBERAL

June 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

I see the stream of ‘Drudge referred’ leftist scum is already adding to the usual pile of puke from Bush hating leftist turds.

Funny how these eco whackos NEVER discuss how the lefties global whining nutters and Greenpee ce types (geddit?)prevented ANY new oil refineries being built for decades!!!

Why don’t these smug leftist scum go drive their over priced Prius’ over a cliff en masse like good little lemmings??!!

By klynch67

June 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

The tree huggers are so smart….lets all scrap our gas burners and drive electric cars…thene the energy companies raise the price of electricity and have to build more coal fired power plants to keep up with demand….it will cost $100 to charge up your electric car and the power plants will pollute more than all the gas cars did. Good plan.

By RCH

June 21, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Bosch Lets see, Bill made 10 million last year telling lies.

By Mackie101

June 21, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

All of you fearmongering goons had better wake up! If the oil companies hadn’t bought out all the alternative technologies in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. Oh yeah, and thank Reagan, Bush I and Bush II for further dragging our country’s collective asses on this one. If our country had decided to fund research for alternative energy during the last big oil crisis in the ‘70’s, we’d be sitting pretty by now. But no, idiotic Republicans conspired with the oil companies who had no reason to change their scheming ways in order to keep us on the oil-based path that’s been obsolete for the last decade or so. The result? We’ve been actively funding the very people who are plotting against our country and wish to make us submit to their complete and absolute tyranny (I’m talking about the Saudis, among others). And every red-blooded American knows just how much the Bush’s LOVE the Saudis! Their relationship with them has made them wealthy beyond belief, so do you really think George W. is going to rock the boat with himself and his Papa and the rest of the leeches inside? We’ve known this day was going to be coming for years. Stop complaining and deal with it. Obama for ‘08!!!!!

By klynch67

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

The tree huggers are so smart….lets all scrap our gas burners and drive electric cars…thene the energy companies raise the price of electricity and have to build more coal fired power plants to keep up with demand….it will cost $100 to charge up your electric car and the power plants will pollute more than all the gas cars did. Good plan.

By Term Limits

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

WE NEED TERM LIMITS ON THESE CLOWNS; SOME OF THESE SENATORS HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 40 YEARS - LOOK AT KENEDY WHAT A CLOWN ** WE NEED TERM LIMITS**** WE NEED TERM LIMITS**** WE NEED TERM LIMITS*

By Stiles

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

So What… Have you ever heard of Inflation”

I’m not going to defend the actions of Congress,but I would like to take issue with the title of Jim Wooten’s article. Why is $6 dollar gas such a big worry. Through inflation, the cost of gas will naturally rise over time. If gas hits $6 by 2014, it will have increase 7% per year over the increase due to inflation. I guess 7% isn’t nearly as provocative a number as the 104% that Jim parrots from the Heritiage Foundation.

By Jim

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

The price of gas will go up as demand increases and/or supply decreases. Simple econimics. As oter countries become energy pigs like the US, the price will go up! Get used to it. Not sure if it was mentioned because I got tired of the political complaining… but, why not buy some stock in an energy/oil service company??? If they are making all the profits and passing on any taxes to us down-trodden, why not become one of their owners? I bought some in February and have made enough to cover alot of price increases…

By Slick57

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

It all comes down to greed in one form or another that got us into this mess. We need to do our part individually to get us back on the right track. Why do Americans need 2 ton SUVs, cars with 300 hp and insist on traveling at 85 mph on the interstates? In the seventies we roughed it with 85 hp cars and 55 mph speed limits. Let’s do it again!

By Zute

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

It’s time to take back Amerika. We need a revolution to clean out the scum who have hijacked our way of life.

By Term Limits

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

WE NEED TERM LIMITS ON THESE CLOWNS; SOME OF THESE SENATORS HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 40 YEARS - LOOK AT KENEDY WHAT A CLOWN ** WE NEED TERM LIMITS**** WE NEED TERM LIMITS**** WE NEED TERM LIMITS*

By Term Limits

June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

WE NEED TERM LIMITS ON THESE CLOWNS; SOME OF THESE SENATORS HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 40 YEARS - LOOK AT KENEDY WHAT A CLOWN ** WE NEED TERM LIMITS**** WE NEED TERM LIMITS**** WE NEED TERM LIMITS*

By Calvin Hobbes

June 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Water is a more precious commodity than gas and as the article points out we are experiencing severe droughts with shortages for farms as well as drinking water. With global warming and pollution contaminating supplies it will only get worse. We need to start dealing with this now. We may have to pay $6 for gas, but it will really hurt when we pay a lot more for food and water.

By Jeff B

June 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

This bill is rediculous. I thought the dems were fighting big corporations and corp welfare. This bill just hurts the working classes to benefit the wealthy who can invest in this tech. It shows the true heart of the Dems….

By JB

June 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

I Say Fire the whole bunch of them.What is government looking for? a social riot?Keep pushing ….

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

RCH,

Touche’

You have to admit, Bill is a better speaker

I didn’t hear any of Bill’s speeches, so what kind of “lies” did he tell.

By THE ONLY GOOD LIBERAL IS A DEAD LIBERAL

June 21, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

@mackieturd

tell us how many millions the Arkansas rapist Klinton has made off the fascistic towel heads in Dubai!! I note you predicktably make NO comment on that.

By catlady

June 21, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

jm, don’t forget Brown’s Ferry (AL) where a contractor checked for a gas leak with a lighted candle, as I remember. Or something similarly idiotic that has cost billions and billions of dollars to the ratepayers (TVA) and decades to “fix” the problem caused by an ignorant idiot. Also, TVA did a study, in about 1970 as I recall, that proported to show that the area was safe from earthquakes, a few years before they discovered the rift going through the area. And of course now we have terrorists.

Only God can use nuclear energy responsibly.

By erikvilius.blogspot.com

June 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

I’m no liberal but it only makes sense that a significant increase in energy prices will produce more efficient cars, appliances, homes, etc - as well as stimulate a variety of energy alternatives. We need an economic Marshall Plan to keep us from being held hostage to big oil and the emerging petro-states. The time to begin is now.

By RonPen

June 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Let’s try a novel concept and let market forces determine where we go, rather than trying to have government pick the winners and losers. Already the refining companies are holding back on capacity given all of this discussion on “energy” policy. When a gallon of gas gets to the point where alternatives make economic sense, the market will go there. Already we are closing in on the break-even point on oil shale. Let the market work, period.

By Jeff B

June 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

This bill is rediculous. I thought the dems were fighting big corporations and corp welfare. This bill just hurts the working classes to benefit the wealthy who can invest in this tech. It shows the true heart of the Dems….

By Steve

June 21, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

By Redneck Convert

June 21, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Well, as a good GA redneck, I’m against using alcohol for anything but booze. Its just a shame to see Congress try to create a shortfall in the booze supply by forcing us to use the alcohol in our gas tanks.

This is near sghted, I’ll pay $5.00 a gallon for alcohol as lomg as it is a good drinking grade, this will burn bettr in our cars. $5.00 a gallon to drive and drink!! now there’s a program I can get behind (well at least fall over from!)

By Greg

June 21, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Huge piece of misinformation here:

“Ethanol requires more energy to produce than it generates as fuel…”

Ethanol produces 30% more energy than required to produce it. I’m guessing Brazil is ignored as an aberration of physics.

I’m amazed he didn’t include global warming in this speech.

Still, 30% is not enough of an energy bonus. While he derrides wind and solar as too expensive, he ignores the fact that their greatest cost lies in initial building of such facilities. We have an identical cost-benefit curve in the internet and telephone infrastructure. High initial cost, low maintenance, more profit in the long term.

Both wind and solar are the precusors to a hydrogen based economy. But, that would eliminate all the existing refineries, pipelines, and a total rebuilding of the energy infrastructure of the US. Long term it’s the ideal solution. In the short term, it’s all a huge cost.

Basically, this nut isn’t going to see any rise in the stocks in his portfolio. So, of course, he and every other fruitcake financial analyst out to make the most cash they can before they die is dead set against it.

By Steve

June 21, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

What better way to benefit the largest donors to both parties. 90% of farm subsidies don’t go to small farmers, but to large corporate farms.

The current scheme gives the farm lobby 50 cents for each gallon of ethanol from corn taken out of the food stocks. Soon we have a corn shortage and the price of corn skyrockets. This is nothing more than a legal way of stealing from consumers and taxpayers at the same time.

We will never be able to replace all of our gasoline with ethanol made here. There isn’t enough land. The market will find another option and it will take even longer to do that now that government is involved.

By erikvilius.blogspot.com

June 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

I’m no liberal but it only makes sense that a significant increase in energy prices will produce more efficient cars, appliances, homes, etc - as well as stimulate a variety of energy alternatives. We need an economic Marshall Plan to keep us from being held hostage to big oil and the emerging petro-states. The time to begin is now.

By erikvilius.blogspot.com

June 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

I’m no liberal but it only makes sense that a significant increase in energy prices will produce more efficient cars, appliances, homes, etc - as well as stimulate a variety of energy alternatives. We need an economic Marshall Plan to keep us from being held hostage to big oil and the emerging petro-states. The time to begin is now.

By Curious Observer

June 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

I hope all of you that voted for the Democrats becuase you were ticked off at the REPULICANS are happy.

I’m ready for another Republican administration—just as soon as I get a rectum replacement.

By ihateyou

June 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

You’re all idiots. Democrats. Republicans. You’re all idiots. Think for yourselves. Both parties are corrupt. You are distracted by American Idol and Paris Hilton. Wake up. They’re all corrupt. There is no difference between the left and the right. It’s all an illusion. The free market will fix it all in time despite what politicians try to do. Your dollars are your only real votes. Vote wisely. I wear a tinfoil hate. You’re all idiots and I love you.

By Dr. Brauwn

June 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

It’s insane to subsidise anything. It has to pay for it self to be viable.

In Sweden people drive Hydrogen for years without any trouble. Why all this bullsh!t here in the US? A whole barrel of fuel only cost $1.80 to refine and harvest, so why all the phony cost? It’s scam and they make us get used to it becasue they are worried losing their income when we go away from oil. Oil companies are backwards, and so are the politicians.

By harry

June 21, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

I suggest that these clowns in Congress be forced to give up ALL OF THEIR PERKS FIRST. Then let them and their families lead the parade in paying higher prices at the pump. I’m guessing that the politicians have a government fillerup station where they can get gas cheaply (i.e., at tax payer expense). So let’s have THOSE PUMPS go to $3 a gallon more than the average in the neighborhood. And FORCE them to buy from those pumps.

By Norm Ezzie

June 21, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

when it comes to this nation’s energy woes- they can’t tell the truth! That said…try us at: www.storminnorm.com “its all there,every damn bit of it”- and when did all the talk from the Net change a damn thing lately,heh? Think about it!

By Norm Ezzie

June 21, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

when it comes to this nation’s energy woes- they can’t tell the truth! That said…try us at: www.storminnorm.com “its all there,every damn bit of it”- and when did all the talk from the Net change a damn thing lately,heh? Think about it!

By Dennis

June 21, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

By yawn June 21, 2007 8:49 AM “Jim can’t blog about Oh, about the energy policy. Figures congress would tax the oil companies and then turn around and give them subsidies for developing and selling us alternate forms of energy.”

Seems most of today’s readers have missed this truism. ‘specially those on the right who support that policy without even realizing it.

All we’re waiting for is for the energy companies to get legal, exclusive control of “alternative energies”.

(And making your own, “homegrown” fuel will be against the law the same as making your own whiskey. Expect ATF to come knocking on your door if you try it).

In the “greatest country in the world”, that’s how it works, folks.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Jill

June 21, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

I am so sick of the corrupt government (democrate and republicans alike) asking the tax payers to pay for this crap when they drive big SUVs, fly around in private jets, own several huge homes, etc. Al Gore is making a fortune off of scaring people about Global Warming. When the government cuts back then I will cut back. Between them asking me to pay for illegals and this crap I have had it. It is time to get rid of the whole bunch of crooks.

By Philip

June 21, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

If Congress (and states) were really interested in lowering the price of gas, all they need do is roll back taxes on gas. These taxes exceed the profits made by “greedy” oil companies. One more step would finish the job: end all the foolish environmental restrictions on building new refineries, off-shore drilling and drilling in Alaska. Instant price decreases AND leverage against Islamo-fascist oil barons. Visit Doses of Reality for more!

By Dr. Brauwn

June 21, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

It’s insane to subsidise anything. It has to pay for it self to be viable.

In Sweden people drive Hydrogen for years without any trouble. Why all this bullsh!t here in the US? A whole barrel of fuel only cost $1.80 to refine and harvest, so why all the phony cost? It’s scam and they make us get used to it becasue they are worried losing their income when we go away from oil. Oil companies are backwards, and so are the politicians.

By Dr. Brauwn

June 21, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

It’s insane to subsidise anything. It has to pay for it self to be viable.

In Sweden people drive Hydrogen for years without any trouble. Why all this bullsh!t here in the US? A whole barrel of fuel only cost $1.80 to refine and harvest, so why all the phony cost? It’s scam and they make us get used to it becasue they are worried losing their income when we go away from oil. Oil companies are backwards, and so are the politicians.

By Bosch

June 21, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

RCH, So tell me about wave turbines (is that the right term, I didn’t feel like scrolling up), that’s interesting, I don’t know anything about them. How do they work?

I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning about how Columbus, GA is joining a lawsuit to sue over water rights. No one ever really talks about that, but that is a really serious issue.

By Jake

June 21, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

The price of gasoline has increased by over 225 percent in the six years that that Bush was in office with a Republican controlled Congress. Despite this fact, today on this blog, GOP apologists have the gall to complain about Democratic policies causing the price of gasoline to rise? Talk about double standards.

By RP

June 21, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

If only they were brave enough to show what this is and directly tax the middle and poor class who will suffer from the passed on taxes the most. Who is this going to hit? The single mother with two jobs that she has to drive to, to make ends meet. Way to show your love for the poor libs!

By Volum

June 21, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Many of us believe that gas prices should be outrageously higher.

I drive a car that gets 32/38mpg, and I try not to use it whenever possible. I take my own actions in my own life, and I don’t have any sympathy for those who don’t.

Oil and Gas aren’t renewable resources that we have the right to abuse to our whim. I have just as much a right to breathe clean air, as you have to drive. So, let’s meet in the middle, ok?

By Nap

June 21, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Ethanol is not the answer. Hydrogen research is needed with incentives to open hydrogen stations and technology. Hydrogen can power the process of aquiring more hydrogen, it can power our homes and manufacturing plants and our vehicles. It will be a major change but over 20 or so years our ec