|
Regarding your first point, I have a couple of thoughts.
First, the actions of the oil companies clearly demonstrate that no savings will be passed on to the consumer until the political climate is so deadly that they must in order to forestall government action. How else do you explain the co-incidence of record high prices and record high profits, without record high constriction of supply?
Second, I don't think the idea behind taxing oil company profits is to lower prices at the pump. It is to use the money received to do something else. There are many people (myself included) who feel that truly low gasoline prices are absolutely against our interests in the long term. When gas is $2 at the pump, its price does not reflect its cost, in terms of environmental, political, health, and international-relations damage. Finally, at $4/gallon, we have found a price which instigates changes in people's behavior -- driving less, carpooling, combining trips, buying less extravagantly wasteful vehicles.
In my mind, the best long term energy policy would involve imposing a tax on gasoline which would keep the price above $4/gallon and using the money taken in to fund renewable energy research and subsidize the creation of a renewable energy infrastructure. This would cost consumers more now, though, which makes it essentially non-viable as a policy during an election. However, I think the long term benefits would far, far, outweigh the short term pain. To be clear, I don't think that this is Obama's intention, but with this as my view, I have a different perspective on the importance of lowering gas prices compared to yours.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|