Blame Congress for soaring gas prices - From Heritage.org

April 29, 2008
Blame Congress for soaring gas prices

It's time for consumers to strike back against the real culprits behind rising gasoline and food prices.

Who deserves blame? Middle East sultans? Oil company executives? Commodities speculators?

How about blaming our very own United States Congress? For decades, Congress has led our government into disastrous decisions by being the patsy of radical environmentalists, naysayers and prophets of doom. Recent presidents have done little to resist.

Now American consumers pay the price while politicians try to evade and shift the blame.

However, we can lower gas prices by reversing misguided federal policies, and lower food prices, too. It's all about what we learned (or should have) in Economics 101 – supply and demand.

The stifling of domestic oil and gas production and the suppression of new refineries and nuclear power plants have choked off the supplies of domestic energy, forcing us to rely on foreign oil. In the international market, we must bid against the growing energy appetites of China and India, and we're held hostage by the oil cartels of OPEC. The world market is unstable and expensive, and we shouldn't be at its mercy.

Politicians keep promising a plentiful supply of alternative energy, but that remains far in the future, and much of it will be more expensive than $4-per-gallon gasoline. Ponder this: How could you afford any fuel that needs government subsidies to compete with $120-a-barrel oil? Those will never be affordable for consumers.

We don't have a shortage of oil and gas reserves; they've just been placed off limits. They include parts of Alaska, other public lands, the Gulf of Mexico and offshore areas. The American Petroleum Institute, or API, reports that opening up these areas would provide enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years, plus enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. But 85 percent of coastal waters have been declared off limits, along with similar restrictions on 75 percent of the onshore prospects.

That's why 60 percent of our oil is now imported. And these restrictions caused America to lose more than 1 million jobs in oil and gas during the past 25 years. How many "green collar" jobs have we gained to replace them?

Similar federal policies have blocked construction of oil refineries and nuclear power plants for more than 30 years, again increasing our dependence on foreign supplies of energy.

Yes, our modern technology can produce the energy we need without harming the environment. Unfortunately, liberals have sought to demonize the oil and gas industry, hoping to destroy its credibility so the public will see it as a greedy bunch of rich polluters.

With gasoline so expensive, oil executives were called before Congress to discuss record-high profits. The hope was to justify taxing them for another $18 billion, on top of the $90 billion they already pay. Politicians then would give that $18 billion to subsidize other types of energy that are too expensive to operate profitably.

Yet the profit margin for oil and gas is about 7 cents for each dollar invested, according to Business Week. That's about the same margin as Avon Cosmetics, Amazon.com and Bed Bath & Beyond. And toothpaste maker Colgate-Palmolive. Apple, with high-tech gurus, was twice as profitable. So were Coke and Pepsi. And Microsoft and Google made four times the average oil company's rate of return.

But is anybody angry about the high cost of toothpaste, iPods or soft drinks? Why don't more profitable companies get raked over the coals by Congress? Because Congress doesn't need them as scapegoats. Lawmakers have messed up America's energy supply so badly that they need someone and something else to blame. They're creating a diversion – trying to brainwash the public into how to think and who to accuse.

Another reason for high gas prices: federal and state regulations that require dozens of "boutique fuels," dictating different blends of gas for different regions. As a result, we no longer have an efficient national market that enables a surplus in one area to be shifted to another part of the country. Boutique fuels require expensive refinery shutdowns to change output from one formula to another, lowering production and risking overproduction for one area and underproduction for someplace else. Consumers pay the price.

A big part of boutique fuels is the ethanol mandate, now set by Congress at $18 billion a year, which shifted the corn supply from food to fuel. The mandate set off a domino effect as the government pays farmers to grow corn rather than other grains, and to sell it for fuel instead of food. And because corn is the major feed for livestock, the prices of meat, eggs, milk and so on climb along with prices for grain, flour, baked goods, etc.

Nobody wants to be blamed for food riots and world hunger, but the public is realizing those are the outrageous results of ethanol subsidies.

Besides, ethanol reduces all-important gas mileage. As the Heritage Foundation's Ben Lieberman put it, "America's energy policy has been on an ethanol binge, and now the hangover has begun."

Unfortunately, we've lost time while we were on that binge. Now, if we want to get serious about lower gasoline prices (and food prices), here's a simple five-point checklist:

1. Understand the causes, especially the role of government

2. Open up reserve areas

3. Build refineries and nuclear power plants

4. End expensive and wasteful mandates, especially ethanol

5. Let the free market develop alternatives for the future

Finally, remember patience: These problems didn't develop overnight and can't be solved overnight. America's consumers should wake up and realize taxes aren't the only way elected officials reach into our pockets. It's time to slap away those hands.

Ernest Istook is recovering from serving 14 years in Congress and is now a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

First appeared in World Net Daily

4 responses
Four dollar a gallon gas is causing problems in some rural gas stations in Washington state. The gas pumps, which have manual dials that display the prices--remember those?--weren't designed for anything above $3.99 9/10. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but how about more fuel efficient cars? I was at the car dealer not too long ago and I saw cars on the lot being sold that were getting less than 20 miles per gallon. Blaming Congress doesn't solve the problem, unfortunately. The real question is: now that we're in this mess, what do we do?
Sounds like a real problem selling gas. But all they have to do is tape over the price and collect the money in the store using a chart. Most likely pre-pay.
I think having an alternative fuel available makes sense. This gives us a back door. But economically the only people who can benefit from ethanol is the farmer who grows the corn. Putting up smaller co-op based ethanol refineries closer to the farms would allow them to devote only a portion of the corn they produce to alternativce fuel. They use the ethanol to run thier equipment and there would be no need for mass subsidies to fund this BS. Farmers get cheap fuel and can compete better in the global economy. Ethanol can't be piped and has to be trucked...take the shipping costs out of it and it becomes an economical alternative...for the select few.
This is where we will end up.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660759158947266385
The gov't is building a hybrid hummer to use gas and HHO. So it won't be that long in the scheme of things.
Happy BD Gracie!
Having lived in Saudi Arabia 1976-1979 (Tabuk) and 1981-1984 (Riyadh) I have a different take on all of this. We need to import oil when able, BUT our construction workers and management need to go to these countries and build their infrastructure including roads, schools, hospitals, airports, hotels, power plants, water plants, etc. In this way, we the Americans working abroad bring back the petro dollars and other economies are uplifted. Particularly, we need to go to Africa and spread petro dollars around!
Some of what you suggest makes sense and has been going on for many years. The problem is though that they want our money and don't want us interfering. The more a country industrializes and moderizes, the more energy it consumes...no gain there when that increases the demand of an already declining supply. Look at what China's growth is now doing.
We need to process our oil in our refineries, create jobs in our country, build more nuclear plants, seek and employ technology that reduces our need and then...help other countries. You may not know this but we are currently importing refined gasoline because OUR refineries can't pump enough oil and OUR refineries are pumping out fuel as fast as they can.
What this means is that we are spending more than should be necessary if we were self sustaining. And what we are spending...leaves the country never to return. This is what is referred to as a negative cashflow.
We need to get our house in order and serve as an example of what to do instead of what not to do. With that we gain a little credability in the world community. Right now they are laughing at us.