I saw this article while I was at work today, and had to wait to post about it.
There have been many threads that have already detailed the fallacy of the Democrats argument that we can just magically switch to alternative energy,
(see bio-fuel fiasco and the ensuing ecological and food price impact that resulted, also see my thread here,
for reasons why their dreams are just that.) that they will not allow drilling, (Semerfortis has
some great threads on this, like this one, www.abovetopsecret.com...
Anyway, I know that we all saw the impact that Bush had on the oil futures market when he lifted the off-shore drilling ban. I admit like all others
that this was merely a psychological effect, yet it did produce a three day dive at the market. This makes Bush look good, and got the populace
screaming at Congress top lift the ban.
So what does the Democratic majority decide to do? They release their plans to raise the gas tax by at least ten cents per gallon. Now this should
have no impact on the price of Oil futures, as the tax is miniscule when you compare the price of gas, and where this tax is added on. But what it DID
do, more than anything, was reverse the trend that Bush started.
So why did they choose that day to release those studies? The Republicans already said that their reasoning for not passing previous bills was their
concern for the earmarks attached. Now, when Oil is plummeting, the democrats release POSSIBLE tax increase information. Why not just wait a week or
two, let the slide continue?
Because Bush would get points, and Congress would continue to look bad.
Here is the article, and I look forward to being ignored by the left, once again.
Congress should first reduce spending on pet projects, known as earmarks, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "I'm not going to let the Senate
spend all this money when nobody is looking, especially when we refuse to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on earmarks."
Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion
over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.
"We'll put all things on the table," Oberstar said, but the gas tax "is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the
higher user fee gas tax."
Actually, lowering the overall price of gas would raise revenue as more people would use it.
[edit on 20-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]