Basic Misunderstanding

Not quite, fella.

He brought the receipts.

Senator Fetterman takes a sledgehammer to the Democrat narrative on gas prices under President Trump.

FETTERMAN: “I checked where gas was a gallon, two years ago in 24 and it was around $3.60-3.65 a gallon, and the world wasn’t on fire.”

“And you know,… pic.twitter.com/TSkMt7U1Pa

— Overton (@overton_news) March 26, 2026

In the video above, you'll notice that Senator Fetterman referred to a Sheetz- not Sheets- store/gas pump in York, Pennsylvania, not in New York. There is a total of 826 Sheetz stores in seven states in the USA, with Pennsylvania being the location of the greatest numbe (316). Eight of those are in York, located in central Pennsylvania, the region from which Fetterman hails.

Yet while the tweeter (Xer?) is wrong on that minor point, Senator Fetterman is wrong on the large point. On March 18, 2024, the average price in the USA for regular gas was $3.453 per gallon and a week later it was $3.523 per gallon.

That is 29 cents or, as they post on gasoline pumps, .29$ more per gallon than a year ago, and the price is rising weekly.

Fetterman undermines his own argument as he notes "when you're having a military engagement, of course you're going to find some fluctuation on it." But that's just the point. The price of a barrel of oil now is not rising for the same reason that it normally has. In the past, it has risen because we came out of a pandemic or because of r elatively normal, fluctuating market forces. It now is soaring because of an attack President Trump decided to launch.

The jump in energy prices is not the most important reason to oppose the Iran war. However, it is one reason and Tehran has proven that its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and surge global economic insecurity is a powerful weapon. It will play a critical role in any negotiation between the USA/Israel and Iran and would put Iran in a stronger bargaining position than it would have been without this armed conflict.

Give John Fetterman credit for having the courage to buck the colleagues in his Party on an important issue. Give him absolutely no credit for being dangerously wrong.

Share |

Gas

There are few things conservatives, aside from arguing for reducing taxes on the very wealthy, are more fond of than accusing liberals of "elitism" or simply making things up. And so it was that on the March 11 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Batya Ungar-Sargon maintained

This week, as we saw gas prices climb really high, we heard a lot of these rich, very liberal celebrities out there being like, you know, "I am willing to pay up to 15 dollars or President Biden saying "it's going to hurt, it's going to hurt" or Bette Midler saying "I'm willing to pay more." She's worth 250 million dollars. It's class warfare masquerading as vanity morals. It's the morals of the elite and who has to pay the price- the working class..... It's like the 'let them eat cake' of 2020. Let them drive electric cars, right?

Is the willingness of liberal celebrities to pay more for gas over Russian sanctions the new "let them eat cake"?

Watch @bungarsargon and @FrankBruni call out "class warfare masquerading as vanity morals" on #RealTime: pic.twitter.com/jCOpouDWBK

— Real Time with Bill Maher (@RealTimers) March 14, 2022

Encouraging through government tax policy or subsidy the electric vehicle industry is an issue in its own right, although ridiculing it while gas prices "climb really high" seems like awfully bad timing, or would be if fellow panelist Frank Bruni brought anything to the table.

I myself have questioned survey results indicating that Americans are very willing to pay significantly higher gas prices as a cost of cutting off energy supplies from Vladimir Putin's Russia. Nonetheless, they say they would do so, and it's likely they include many members of the working class. We learned on March 8:

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll on the security crisis in Ukraine shows Americans would like political leaders to provide a united front supporting Ukraine, ahead of domestic political rivalries (80%). The survey also shows three in five Americans (63%) continue to be willing to pay more for gasoline to continue to support a democratic country, including a large majority (80%) who support stopping oil and gas purchases from Russia.

It turns out that Ungar-Sargon was not only engaging in an ad hominem attack, but also a made-up one.  Seemingly, she was repeating a popular social media complaint about Midler based upon a tweet of hers which said nothing about gasoline for $15:

The rich elites like Bette Midler hate you https://t.co/l4VjMfBaLJ

— Anarch O'Toad ☘️ (@Anarcho_Toad) March 11, 2022

 

Typically, conservatives blast the left personally while alleging something which does not exist. Unfortunately, it frequently works because no one expects the charge because it is made up. It's hard to defend someone against a claim which comes out of left field from the feverish right-wing imagination. That's especially true when the liberal on the panel is someone such as Frank Bruni, who, truth be told, takes up space.

Share |

Long Way To Go


Lawrence Lewis blogs on Daily Kos "The odds that President Obama will be reelected are strong and growing stronger. The economy is staggering back to its feet, no one can credibly claim that the Republicans are better on national security, and the field of Republican candidates continues to be an embarrassment of embarrassments."

Opining on the editorial page of the Boston Globe, Tom Keane argues that if nominated, Mitt Romney will "pivot" to the center, a debatable proposition; and that if Romney loses, Republicans will complain that the party did not nominate a conservative and will be even more obstructionist. "obstreperous" and uncooperative.

That is undoubtedly true but, like Lewis, Keane also believes it highly likely President Obama will be re-elected "given the economy’s turnaround and the GOP’s own ugly infighting."

Don't go making reservations for the inaugural ball just yet.      Thestreet.com columnist and CNBC contributor Daniel Dicker writes "With gas prices spiking so early in the new year, it's easy to predict that the United States will see $4 gas sometime this summer. I would even put the chances of $5 gasoline at one in three."     He notes that gasoline demand in the nation is at a 10-year low and supplies are so plentiful the U.S.A. now is a net exporter.        With the ever-increasing tensions in the Middle East, Tehran may take its oil "out of the global supply chain."         Meanwhile, he explains, hedge funds, money managers and institutional funds are bidding up the cost of oil by adding to their commodity holdings as they continue to buy stocks.       Dicker concludes "It sounds bizarre, but it's true -- asset investments -- bets on oil -- are costing us every time we fill up."

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in July 2010, granted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission authority to draw up new rules on commodities speculation, including oil.   The CFTC avoided doing so but, prodded by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, in October finally "voted to impose position limits on commodity speculators."    But as David Dayen noted, Sanders recognized "Under this rule, a single Wall Street speculator will still be allowed to hold positions equal to 25 percent of the physically deliverable supply of crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil. That’s not enough.”     It's unclear when the rule will take effect and even then, it's unlikely it will significantly restrain oil speculation.

Of course, you won't hear any of this from the GOP presidential candidates, who will increasingly (as Newt Gingrich already has done) blame President Obama for rising gas prices.         The mainstream media will treat their complaints as if they're credible.     The ongoing worldwide increase in demand (a relatively minor factor) and the volatile nature of the Middle East will be blamed for the run-up in prices.    But news outlets will largely ignore the impact of corporate America because the explanation for the increase at the pump is a little complex, insufficiently sexy, and uncomfortable to Wall Street.   Speculating endlessly on the political impact, the "liberal media" will pound on the subject by showing the price signs at gas stations, interviewing irate motorists, and virtually ignoring speculation.

If we are to believe everything we hear or read from the usual suspects, we would think that the only economic factor bearing on the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections is the unemployment rate.      Unemployment and under-employment are still at horrific levels, and the media would have better served the citizenry if it had made the effort to explain the rationale behind economic stimulus and the salutary effects on joblessness of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.    

That, obviously (cliche alert), is water over the bridge.       But as gas prices rise, the guys and gals on television will be shocked! shocked! to find President Obama's favorability numbers decline and the projected match-up between the President and his opponent(s) tighten.     It will not be smooth going for Obama, no matter the radicalism of the Republican Party and the weaknesses of its nominee.



Share |

High Prices, Big Profits

Today, July 31, 2008, Exxon-Mobil announced second quarter earnings of $11.8 billion, the largest quarterly earnings posted by any corporation in world history. (Royal Dutch Shell announced a profit of $11.7 billion.) The previous record was held by.... Exxon-Mobil. Their profit margin: 10.85%.

In response, Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey were joined by Democratic U.S. Representatives Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Rahm Emanuel of Illinois at a press conference to blast the profits of Big Oil while Americans are paying record prices at the pump. The hill.com reports

Democrats criticized Exxon Mobil for spending $89.5 billion in stock buybacks over 2005-2007, and just $2.9 billion in research and development during the same time. They sent a letter Thursday calling on the oil company executives to invest their profits in alternative sources of energy.

Still, Republicans will repeat their mantra: "drill, drill, drill." It would be too generous to suggest that they are innocently being held up and played for suckers by "the most selfish group of companies that I've ever seen," as Schumer described them. No, they are fully aware that their policies have one motive: fatten the profits of the oil industry.

It's Big Oil- no. 4

The New York Times reported on 6/18/08 two responses by prominent Democrats to the insistence of Repubs to encourage the oil companies to drill on domestic lands and offshore. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid argued:

So all that Cheney can talk about, the Oil Man Cheney can talk about, is drilling, drilling drilling. But there is not enough oil in America to make that the salvation to our problems.

And after the President urged an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling, Reid responded

The Energy Information Administration says that even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won’t have a significant impact on prices.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, taking a different tack, argued:

The president’s proposal sounds like another page from the administration’s energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they’ve already leased.

Both on policy and politics, I think, Pelosi's approach is sounder for the Democratic Party. There is enough oil and gas accessible to energy companies to drive up the supply and drive down the price- if it doesn't happen, it's because those companies have decided that plunging American families into bankruptcy is a small price to pay to get the price of a gallon of unleaded to $5.00. Take the populist approach now, Senator Obama- it will save time when in October you need to address the concerns of voters in the likes of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

It's Big Oil- part 2

The New York Times reported on 6/18/08 that White House Press Secretary Dana Perino stated that her boss would urge Congress to “pass legislation lifting the Congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling.... the president believes Congress shouldn’t waste any more time.”

The Times explains that a congressional moratorium was enacted in 1982 and renewed annually. In 1990 it was suppplemented by an executive order signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush and in 1998 extended to 2012 by President Clinton. The executive order could be lifted by President George W. Bush, whose "top aides" have recommended the action.

But the President has instead called on the legislative branch to lift the moratorium. This is a clever move by a president whose shrewdness always has exceeded his courage. Calling for Congressional action serves these political purposes in that it:

- allows a state to act as it sees fit, thus putting the onus of action on its chief executive (rather than the President);

- enables the President to blame Congress, if convenient, thus focusing the ire of environmentalists on the legislative branceh;

-demonstrates Bush's commitment to "change," to doing something, even if ineffectual;

-gives GWB license to blame Congressional Democrats for standing in the way of energy independence- and for pursuing a "partisan" agenda which, in part due to the (mostly early) rhetoric of the Obama campaign, is nothing public officials want to be associated with.

And, of course, it diverts attention from the oil industry with which this failed president is so cozy.

It's Big Oil- part 1

Sean Hannity: It's the government at fault: "Why don't you look after yourself and the government that taxes us? You don't explore. You don't extract crude. You don't refine it. And you don't deliver a product." Rush Limbaugh: It's the Democrats and the "environmental extremists" at fault: (They) "prevent exploration, prevent oil drilling, and stop block new refineries." George W. Bush: It's Congress at fault: "Congress must face a hard reality. Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil." John McCain: It's the federal government at fault: "I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions (on exploration and production) and to put our own reserves to use."

And the truth, from a 6/18/08 story in the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail:

A report by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources.... states that oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and waters, spread out all across the country, that are not producing anything. An additional 4.8 million barrels of oil could be produced daily if the land was utilized.

Hannity, Limbaugh, Bush, McCain, and others will keep shilling for the oil industry. It's up to Congressional Democrats to stand up for consumers.

Sean Hannity, Making No Sense

Syndicated talk show host and GOP TV talk host Sean Hannity interviewed on radio former U.S.Representative J.C. Watts (R.- OK), a conservative black who served in the House after he wisely chose not even to attempt an NFL career as a quarterback. Sean clearly was surprised that Watts was considering voting for Barack Obama in November (apparently for racial reasons), and ticked off the (conservative) positions on which he believed they agreed. One of these was "we want to secure the borders for safety reasons, not for any other reasons." If this is in fact Hannity's only reason for a strict anti-illegal immigration policy, given that we know that our northern border is less scrutinized than our southern border, can a proposal by Sean Hannity for securing the U.S.A.-Canadian border be far behind?

Sean never misses a chance to assure us that domestic oil companies are selflessly pursuing increased supplies of oil to serve the American consumer with little interest in their own profit. Thus, during his interview with Watts he breathlessly asserted to his audience "fifteen percent of what we pay at the pump is taxes, it's unbelievable."

When George W. Bush assumed office in January, 2001, the nationwide price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline was approximately $1.43. Now it is approximately $4.00, a rise of approximately 280%. Subtract that 10% for taxes, and it still is $3.60 (and taxes were included in that 1/01 price of $1.43). Yes, Sean, the price at the pump and the pain caused the American consumer must be government's fault. Here is something Hannity would find really unbelievable if he did a little research: As of October, 2005, when the maximum gasoline tax rate in the United States was 17%, in France taxes composed approximately 70% of the purchase price. In April, 2006, when the U.S.A. had roughly a 15% tax on gasoline, the Netherlands had a 158% tax on gas. The U.S. had the lowest tax on gasoline of any industrialized country; compared to similar countries, governments in the U.S. take less; the oil companies take more. An inconvenient truth for conservatives and Republicans, but a truth nevertheless.

What Could McCain Be Thinking?

Alert The Wall Street Journal (and the mainstream media, generally): I am not a knee-jerk free trader, though some people have used a portion of that phrase to describe me. Even if I were, I would wonder whether John McCain is in touch with reality. In a speech delivered on May 20, 2008 in Miami, Florida for Cuban Independence Day, the Arizona senator said

We have made progress toward this vision by expanding the benefits of free commerce, through NAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and our free trade agreements with Peru and Chile. But the progress has stalled; our longstanding bipartisan commitment to hemispheric prosperity is crumbling. We see this most vividly in Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia. The failure of the Congress to take up and approve this agreement is a reminder why 80 percent of Americans think we are on the wrong track.

Maybe there are other reasons for Americans believing our nation is on the wrong track. Consider:

-the mortgage crisis- according to USA Today, "about 2.3% of prime loans were 60 days' past due in February, the highest level in at least a decade, according to data from FirstAmerican CoreLogic LoanPerformance. That's up from 1.4% a year ago."

-gasoline costs- according to U.S. government statistics, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline on 4/21/08- after prices began to rise- was 350.8 and on 5/26/08, 393.7, a rise of 42.9 cents; the average price of all grades of gasoline over the same period rose from 355.7 to 398.6, a rise also of 42.9 cents. That's an increase of over 8 cents per week.

-Persian Gulf II- There now are over 4,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq with no end to this war in sight.

-Corruption- At least ten (10) officials of the Bush Administration have been indicted and/or found guilty of criminal offenses; another twenty-four (24) have resigned due to investigation or because of pending investigation or allegations of impropriety.

Still, the Repub who will be nominated for president believes that failure of Congress to pass the "U.S.-Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement" (Columbia Free Trade Agreement) is a reason that 79% of Americans believe the U.S.A. is on the wrong track and only 15% that our nation is on the right track. Either John McCain is divorced from reality, or he believes that he can delude us voters. But could he really be that elitist?

Gas Tax, Again

In his continuing campaign to demonize Hillary Clinton's advocacy of a "gas tax holiday" (once a windfall profits tax is approved), Barack Obama maintained on Meet The Press this past Sunday

This gas tax, which was first proposed by John McCain and then quickly adopted by Senator Clinton, is a classic Washington gimmick. It, it is a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades.... Now, here's, here's the upshot. You're looking at suspending a gas tax for three months. The average driver would save 30 cents per day for a grand total of $28. That's assuming that the oil companies don't step in and raise prices by the same amount that the tax has been reduced. And, by the way, I have some experience on this because in Illinois we tried this when I was in the state legislature, and that's exactly what happened. The oil companies, the retailers were the ones who ended up benefiting.

Look carefully: Obama did not say "retailers ended up benefiting," or "it was primarily retailers who benefitted," or "most of the benefit went to retailers." No, he said "the retailers were the ones who ended up benefiting."

Now to the facts, courtesy of a 5/6/08 article by George Frost on salon.com. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted for a temporary lifting of the gas tax three times but now calls it a mistake and is quoted as saying "I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all."

Frost refers to "the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday)," when Illinois' 5% sales tax on gasoline was suspended from mid-2000 through the end of 2000. It was entitled "$2,00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium" and was written by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak for the National Bureau of Economic Research. They concluded "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3%compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."

The cut, however small, in gasoline prices may have been facilitated because, as Obama told constituents, "gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas." Placement of a similar advisory on gas pumps would be critical if there is a suspension of the federal gas tax, as suggested by McCain and, conditionally, by Clinton.

Obama's false assertion "the oil companies, the retailers, were the ones who ended up benefiting" smacks of a - dare I say it- "classic Washington gimmick," the old-style politics decried by Obama since his campaign began. Still, in Obama's favor, it does suggest that he might have been on to something when he preceded his remarks by explaining "you're right, Tim, this defines, I think, the difference between myself and Senator Clinton." Because, Barack, as John McCain's meandering statements. and now you, continually make clear, your opponent in this race to the nomination does not hold a patent on deviation from the facts.

Suspension of Gas Tax?

In an editorial today, May 1, 2008, the New York Times has blasted the call by Senators McCain and Clinton for a gas-tax holiday as "an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers."

The Times should be lauded for noting "turning a tax off in May and on in September would be an administrative nightmare," a point I haven't heard, or read, elsewhere. Similarly, The Times correctly asserts "if a suspension in the excise tax reduced the price at the pump, it would encourage even more driving. This would simply push prices back up. Oil companies would be grateful, drivers less so."

Of course, if more driving would be encouraged, it would not be the "expensive" policy the Times cites because it still would bring in significant revenues from the gas tax- even more if it "would simply push prices back up."

The bigger problem with the Times eleven-paragraph editorial is its failure to represent accurately Mrs. Clinton's position on the gas tax. The Times itself, on its news side, had reported on Tuesday, April 29:

Mrs. Clinton said at a rally on Monday morning in Graham, N.C., that she would introduce legislation to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies and use the revenue to suspend the gasoline tax temporarily.

“At the heart of my approach is a simple belief,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Middle-class families are paying too much and oil companies aren’t paying their fair share to help us solve the problems at the pump.”

The Times charged "Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton have hit on a new way to pander to American voters." Failure to mention Senator Clinton's support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies- apparently as a condition for suspending the gasoline tax- is so negligent as to make it appear an effort to distort Clinton's position, to make it appear as unwise as McCain's position. Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman a day earlier had explained "the Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil."

Suspension of the gas tax, with its administrative confusion and cost, is probably not a wise choice, even with a windfall profits tax, which would eliminate or reduce the budgetary expense. But The New York Times, Senator Obama, and other critics must consider the regressive nature of the gasoline tax and continually escalating cost of energy in destroying the hopes of poor and middle-class Americans in a deteriorating economy.

Not So Straight Talk On Gas Prices

Sometimes a person is accused of not being able to keep two contradictory thoughts in his/her head at the same time. Not so John S. McCain. The first quote, about gas taxes, is from McCain at his speech at Carnegie-Mellon University on 4/15/08, the second, about global warming, from an interview on MSNBC's Hardball on 4/16/08:

I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people — from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus — taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up.

Climate change. Climate change. I believe that climate change is real. I think we have to act...
(APPLAUSE AND CHEERS)

And I’ve said that for many, many years. I would just like to put the question this way to my fellow Americans. Suppose that we are wrong and there’s no such thing as climate change but we go ahead and adopt green technologies and we reduce greenhouse gas emissions? All we’ve done is give our kids a cleaner planet, OK? But suppose...
(APPLAUSE AND CHEERS)

Suppose we are right and do nothing. Suppose we just continue this endless debate and continue the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, and we hand these wonderful Americans a damaged planet? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. And by the way, that question was posed first by former prime minister Tony Blair.

So JSM is exorcised about global warming- except that he proposes to increase the release of greenhouse gases by suspending the federal gas tax, thus encouraging driving.

Admittedly, McCain claims that by temporarily ending the 18.4% federal gas tax and 24.4% diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day the American consumer will benefit by spending less. However, I don't recall McCain recommending this 2-3 months ago as Congress was debating the proper form, and extent, of an economic stimulus package. Then, a cut in gas taxes likely would have resulted in the cost of driving, because it is a period when most driving is for cummuting and thus unavoidable. A cut in the summer months- the peak driving period as Americans drive for leisure- may instead prompt Americans to drive more, hence increasing greenhouse gases, a strange urge for a guy professing concern about climate change.

Consider, therefore, an alternative scenario: the oil companies, seeing a suspension in a gas tax and thus a cut in cost to the consumer, realize that they can raise the cost at the pump to near what it previously was- and thus increase their already extraordinary profits, all without the increase in driving and hence greenhouse gases decried by McCain. Could this be what John McCain is after? The Straight-Talk Express guy- perish the thought!