Hey, Congress. Want to make those hated numbers on gas pumps spiral even higher? Then slap heavy new taxes on "windfall" oil profits and watch the digits whirl upward.

For that reason alone, supporters of the U.S. Senate windfall tax measure that stumbled last week should forget they ever thought up the idea. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was correct, in this case, when he said, "if you tax something, you get less of it." A 25 percent punitive tax will encourage decreases —- not increases —- in production.

The Senate defines "windfall" as adjusted profit above a "reasonably inflated" multiyear earnings average. Profit invested in renewable fuel operations or refinery improvements wouldn't count toward the windfall.

It's easy to see why Big Oil's a tantalizing target in an election year. The kings of crude are harvesting mind-boggling profits from the current energy crunch, but outraged pundits and politicians often leave out meaningful context.

Take ExxonMobil Corp., the world's largest energy company. From January through March, it reported net income, or profit, of $10.89 billion, up 17 percent from the year-ago period. That's more than twice the amount earned by No. 3 in profits, AT&T Inc., the highest-ranking nonenergy company in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

But ExxonMobil's profit margin was about 9.3 percent during that quarter. By that measure, ExxonMobil ranked No. 17, according to Thomson Reuters research.

The profit-margin champion? Drug maker Pfizer Inc., at 34.7 percent, nearly four times that of ExxonMobil. There's no rational reason why Congress should likewise want to hit the maker of Viagra and Lipitor with a windfall tax for selling too many profitable pills.

A windfall oil tax, while it may make motorists feel better —- at least until the next time they gas up —- is also no substitute for the sober, long-term energy strategy the U.S. desperately needs and that Congress should be working toward. For starters, America needs serious work toward higher auto fuel-efficiency standards and a shift in allocation of money from roads to trains and buses. Congress should also pressure oil companies to renegotiate flawed Gulf of Mexico drilling leases that left as much as $53 billion in potential government royalties off the table.

Those efforts would help ease the energy crunch, unlike the Senate windfall bill that breathlessly labels the current crisis a "threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the United States" and calls for "reliable and affordable" crude oil supplies. The bill's sponsors could benefit from a crash course in basic economics.

Thanks in large part to big profits, the U.S. can probably count on a reliable crude oil supply for the time being. That's no small feat, considering rising world demand, Middle East instability and our struggling economy.

That oil won't be cheap, though. The word "affordable" in the Senate bill should be replaced with "market priced."

If we throw excessive new taxes toward U.S.-bound oil tankers, in short order they could be rerouted to less troublesome countries. And oil companies will be less inclined to invest in new refineries or drill new wells.

Supply and demand are the big drivers of oil prices. And increasing demand in China and India —- and robust demand in the U.S. —- has pushed prices to record highs. Experts have seen this coming for decades, but politicians didn't act because they didn't have enough incentive.

Now that they've got their backs against the wall, they ought to devote their energies to real solutions rather than feel-good publicity moves.

—- Andre Jackson, for the editorial board (aajackson@ajc.com)