« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

What is a gallon of gasoline worth?

For that matter, what is anything worth?

One correct answer is: “Whatever people are willing to pay for it.”

Less than a year ago, we collectively explored the edge of the envelope on gasoline prices. It turns out that the value of the miracle elixir that propels the average family’s SUV 18 miles down the road has been established, by us, to be in the range of $3.50 to $4.00 per U.S. gallon. At $4.00, we began to consume significantly less, but the effect was not noticeable at lower price levels.

It would appear that Obama & his people have noticed.

OMB Director Peter Orszag admitted as much on This Week With George Stephanopoulos.

[Note: 3/22/2012 link no longer works. Transcript immediately below the fold.-- Ed.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Republicans have taken aim specifically at the revenues in this package, especially the idea you have to get about $600 billion from capping carbon emissions. Here was Newt Gingrich speaking this week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRICH: How dumb do they think we are that they can pretend that an energy tax isn’t an energy tax, and they can pretend that every retired American who uses electricity isn’t going to pay it, and every person in New Hampshire who uses heating oil isn’t going to pay it, and every person who drives a car isn’t going to pay it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve talked a lot about honesty and transparency in the budget. The Republicans are saying you’re simply not being honest, that this revenue from the carbon — from capping carbon tax is going to be a tax on everyone, pure and simple.

ORSZAG: What’s very clear is this budget delivers a tax cut to 95 percent of working families. I mean, I think we have to come back to the basic question here. I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being pro-market is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations.

That is the heart of this argument. And I think it’s — I think we’ve already — we’ve seen what the effects are over the last eight years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do concede that this capping of carbon emissions is going to increase energy rates for just about everyone in the country? And that is the equivalent of a tax, isn’t it?

ORSZAG: Well, I think we have to be — let’s be fair about this. Either you’re going to look at what — what is collected through the tax code and what’s returned through the tax code.

And on that basis, there’s a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, or you have to go all in. Let’s also count the benefits that families get through Pell Grants, the benefits that they’ll receive through constraining health care costs, the benefits that they get from weatherizing their homes, and so on. All in, this budget makes the vast majority of American families much better off.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not — you’re not disputing that this package — the cap-and-trade on its own will increase prices for — for most Americans, but they’re going to be getting other benefits in the budget?

ORSZAG: Absolutely.

Orszag, who appears to be the love child of Stephen Colbert and Nathan Thurm, apparently doesn’t know how to answer a question directly. But what comes across loud and clear is that the new administration fully understands that their plans to tax energy to pay for health care and to “get off our addiction foreign oil” and to Stop Climate Change! and whatever else they think of, will make energy more expensive for every consumer.

Simply put, the $2.00 difference between the current price and what we got pretty used to paying for a gallon of gasoline eight months ago is a pretty tempting target for a Big Government Socialist.

From my perspective, however, there’s another answer to the question in the title.

Something, in this case a commodity, is worth whatever it costs to replace it in inventory.

For oil & gas, that means keeping enough rigs running to find new supplies as fast as they’re consumed. It also means that the activity has to be profitable enough to be attractive to the investor.

As I tried to explain in my recent diary, we are exploring the edge of another supply/demand envelope: rigs are being shut down and workers laid off. The stock market has been the coup de grace for several public independent oil and gas exploration firms. Their focus is on survival, not on putting drilling rigs back to work. So far, rig activity has fallen off due to the fall in oil and gas prices,but Congress passes the punitive measures in the President’s new budget, drilling will be even less attractive.

Fewer rigs working means less supply. As supply dries up, there will be upward pressure on prices, so if we return to the supply/demand picture we had just last summer, and we layer the government’s share of the take on top of that, the only limit on price will be, once again, whatever the neediest customer is willing to pay.

High energy prices are a keystone of the Democratic strategy. Not only do current gasoline prices represent a fat revenue target, their alternative energy promises are only feasible if they’re competing with artificially high fossil fuel prices.

As I suggested in the above-referenced diary, we as Republicans need to expend every effort to make Obama and the Democrats own energy prices. Let every “ding” of the gas pump evoke “Obama”. Hang it around his neck like a smelly, dead carp.

COMMENTS

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    As a purely intellectual exercise, I have long felt that higher fuel taxes would be a good ALTERNATIVE, to other taxes, such as payroll.

    But only if the transition resulted in a net tax cut.

    There are several reasons. (1) as the administration points out it would spur conservation. And it would be to some extent a voluntary tax since you have at least some control on how much fuel you use.
    (2) It would help make alternative energy more cost effective, the goal being to lower our consumption of foreign energy.
    (3) It would be more efficient than income taxes since even those who currently do not pay such taxes would have to pay at least some fuel tax.
    (4) In a logical world it would spur more domestic production of nuclear energy, but only if you remove all the democrats out of the way first.

    Of course, they don’t propose replacing any taxes so it is only an academic exercise.

    • David123

      and tracking where everybody drives their car. A gasoline tax is roughly like a mileage tax but without the Big Brother aspect, and it gives everyone an incentive to drive a higher mileage car.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        only a fuel tax would spur the use of alternate energy and conservation. If you had a car that ran on electricity or pure ethanol it would still be taxed by a mileage tax. And a car that got 50 mpg would still pay the same mileage tax.

        • Vladimir

          …is that the government gets bigger at the expense of industry.

          The marketplace should regulate flow of capital into & out of the energy sector.

          Energy firms need the profit to replenish the supply.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            even if we shrunk the government it would need tax money, I am trying to come up with a tax that would be better than the current ones.

          • ehosterman

            than other taxes. large gasoline taxes are no more vonuntary than the value added tax. They are insidious and priced into every commodity you buy because everything has to be shipped. We’ve already seen the ruinous effects of $4.00 gasoline on the economy. A better tax wouild be one where it was apparent to even the densest simpleton (substitute name of local congreeperson here) what they were paying. I don’t like hidden taxes because they are too easy for congress to increase. Gasoline taxes are such taxes. Most people have no idea how much tax they are paying and to whom.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            I prefer sales taxes over income taxes for a large number of reasons.

            A fuel tax might cause a ripple effect in the economy but it has the desired object of promoting conservation, energy independence and alternate energy. If you slashed enough of the other taxes you could offset any depressing effect.

            The alternatives are outright government meddling as in carbon offsets and fiat CAFE standards.

          • ehosterman

            letting the market set the price of commodities like oil, natural gas and coal and dropping most of the ridiculous limits that the US government placed on domestic energy production. We have no need of congressional meddling like carbon offsets and CAFE standards. Alternative energy will promote itself, when it’s cost effective, otherwise, trying to force a market for an uneconomical product like ethanol on the public is just an exercise in lowering all of our standards of living.

  • GregInFla

    Don’t forget. Many government organizations tax electricity. Just look at your electric bill. Cities, counties, they all are on there. One item to think about: electricity prices are tightly controlled by utility commissions at the state/local levels. So if we get pushed to electric cars, the government will be determining the price you pay to “fill it up.” Nationalize the utility companies, and socialism advances.

    • mom2oneson

      same thing with my gas bill that is paid to the city. They are just like banks, banks have to limit interest but they can make plenty on fees.
      My gas bill is usually around $30, less than half of that is usage!

      • GregInFla

        If I use my AT&T landline for a single long-distance call (using sprint as LD supplier), that first minute costs about $6-7 in fees/taxes (like access fees, universal sumthin fee, federal recapture charges…). Even though the cost is 7 cents/minute. Needless to say, cell phone gets used.

  • liandro

    mainly because gas prices, energy issues, and the tie to national security have all been floating around in my head. I’ve been a little curious as to why, if people were willing to pay $3+ and not $4, we were then paying under $2 for so long. And I do again with Kyle8 that, in many aspects, I find a gas tax attractive compared to so many other taxes. If it WERE possible to switch them around (preferable, as was suggested above, to a net tax decrease) I think I would support that.

    Question–if the administration DID try to raise the gas tax, should congressional Reps go along if they can get an equal tax decrease somewhere? I realize that is assuming we could hold the line in the Senate, as well as perhaps wishing for a winged unicorn. But, theoretically, you could appeal the enviro-fringe and others to try to build a coalition for such a thing. You could then chalk it up as a “positive” Republican’s are trying to do, especially if the tax you lowered was to, say, unemployment tax (which effects small businesses proportionally harder) or something of that nature.

    I do recognize one of the points of this diary was to emphasize the stress a gas tax increase could have on production, oil rigs, etc. But it does appear that there is some room to maneuver there, assuming we could build a coalition powerful enough to do it.

    And before anything bashes me too hard, I repeat that this is more for discussion purposes then anything else, as my grasp of the oil industry is nothing close to impressive.

    • mom2oneson

      a good chunk of food prices are for the distribution/transportation of it. Higher gas tax just proves their “we need pass this so people can put food on the table” is a lie. It’s a lie they need to pass their bills so people will eat and it’s a lie that they care if people eat or not.
      It’s going to hurt public transportation too, I’m not sure but I think most are already subsidized by cities or counties or some form of government. It can be impossible for some people to get to work when their bus cuts back routes. Plus thesesales based tax, charge the lower income a higher % of their income.

  • bk

    When you buy gas, you insert your National ID card and it also reads a signal from the mandatory National Auto ID chip embedded in the car. If the pump determines that you are “rich” or your car is a gas-guzzler, the pump adds an “ecobuster surcharge” of between 50 cents and a dollar per gallon according some calculations done by the National Gasoline Price Fairness database. If it determines you are “not rich” or you’re driving a hybrid or some glorified death trap the size of a shoebox, the NGPF DB assigns you a gas tax “rebate” of between 10 and 25 cents per gallon.

  • Vladimir

    …I’m really kind of stunned that RedStaters are even debating the merits of a gasoline tax that would, say, double the cost of gasoline.

    $4.00 gas was going to be the death of us all just last summer, remember?

    There was a lot of gnashing of teeth about Big Oil’s profit numbers when the gas price was high, but two things are relatively certain:
    1. ExxonMobil, or whoever, is fundamentally in the energy business, and they will reinvest the vast majority of their profits, thereby securing more future supplies at a lower cost.
    2. The Obama administration doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ if gasoline prices are high. They like it that way. They will “invest” their profit in unproven, speculative technologies and new entitlement programs. This will do nothing to help the energy supply picture or the economy in general.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      seriously

      as Rush said Satyrday and today: We care about people

      One of the main lies I want to kill is the one that the dems and media have told for 40 years, that we don;t care about the poor.

      We do care. that;s why we favor the free market. The results help all, and esp the reduction of the number of poor people and a better life for those that are.

      Energy is what made the modern prosperity!

      It is vile to suggest artificially raisingt he price of a necessity just as it has been vile to prevent Americans from getting at their own oil for 31 years.

      Democrats did it

      Lets let them own it.

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        ;-) or at least some cool game-pieces to move around a board?

        • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            in a RedState Brother way…. …. of course ;-) lol

            We gotta interject some levity from time to time… or we’ll go nutso … like the folks (way out loony-bin types) at DailyKooks…

            Now is about time for a $pecialist Artwork… where is he? lol