THE PORKERS WILL DO ANYTHING BUT CUT MONEY THEY GET FROM US. The would rather destroy the enviroment first before cutting into their prime pork. Its too bad some of those porkers do not look like a pig.

Enviroment and parks when they become exinct as they are our source of life will not only cost us, my guess they will build little domes to protect themselves in while the rest of us live in the outside world that gets degraded.

It is now called the porky congress club and no outsiders aloud.

Either permanently repeal ALL gas taxes, or do nothing at all. Don't play games with temporary suspensions or rebates. Just political butt kissing. Repeal all enviromental and other regulations on the production and distribution of all petroleum products. Permanently repeal all subsidies of any kind to the petroleum industry.

Otherwise, keep the government completely out of the process and let the market set the price of gasoline by supply and demand. If people don't like the price, than they can change their behavior accordingly.

One aside. Even if refineries were built, it would only be a temporary fix. Global supplies of oil are now peaking and will soon begin to fall. New refineries would soon stand idle as the supply of oil falls off. Get rid of damn regulation and begin a massive crash construction program of nuclear power plants.

Yet another gimmick from the Bush Administration and Republican Party. We pay twice as much as we should for gasoline because of their gas taxes, then they want to dole some of the gas taxes back to us as if we are children on an allowance. This $100 gas rebate reminds me of the $400 and $600 tax refunds given to us in the early years of the Bush Administration. Itsy-bitsy rebates or refunds are no substitute for a free market.

I had something clever to say, but your over-zealous spam blocker thwarted me.

My two cents:

Wondertastic. More Keynesian garbage. If this rebate scam gets popular, we might see European gas prices. Bikes anyone?

QUOTE: "Itsy-bitsy rebates or refunds are no substitute for a free market."

Neither is the current status quo of Big Oil. As far as I'm concerned, it's more of a rigged monopoly. Making matters worse, this proposal by the Republicans won't do jack crap to relieve the pain caused by the far too high oil prices, and the excess profits Big Oil has reaped, backed by our politicians and the Bush Administration.

Oil rules and all of America is at fault. For 50 years we have built massive roads and Wal marts, driven bigger cars, and plowed up earth to support the Oil Economy. Worse, we are tied to the Mid East and at war to defend it.

Everyone on this blog and in the USA is at fault!

It comes down to this. If you don't like gas at the price it is at, don't buy it. Walk, ride a bike. Better yet, move to Hugo Chavez's Communist paradise and pay 12 cents a gallon for gas. Of course, no jobs, other commodities are in short supply and all the rest of socialism's ills apply, but the gas is cheap.

I like not to buy gas, but then how do you get to work in a 1 1/2 hour commute because you cannot afford to live in the city.

for example there are some areas where there are no buses.

I think everyone will come around to the idea of rebates. We just need to give Tony Snow a chance to articulate the message. Once he has put his mind control powers to work, you will all be converted. Everything is going according to plan.

The market will provide for transportation. Ridership on public transportation is already up very significantly. Increased demand for public transportation will result in service to areas not currently served by public transportation as entrepreneurs rush to fill niches in the transportation chain. Also, now that cheap fossil energy is not available, entrepreneurs will now find it economically viable to bring alternative powered transportation to the market.

I should also state. High prices are what are needed to bring an evolution to more advanced modes of transportation. As long as gas was cheap, entrepreneurs had no incentive to work on products for which there would be little or no demand. Now that demand is being created by expensive fuel, you will rapidly see this technology being developed.

Yes, it will be rough for consumers in the transition from fossil to alternative fuels. There will be a lag before the market provides transportation alternatives. But this must happen and is the best way to get this country off of its dependence on fossil fuels fast.

Libertarian Party

I am not amazed at your extreme ignorance.

Are you tired of high gas prices? Then urge the government to stop giving billions to the oil companies each year! This money is given to them in various ways, but all together it gives them an extra boost of support.

By taking this funding away the playing field would be leveled to at least some extent and true alternative energy technologies could emerge that would eliminate the need for oil.

Check out http://www.blacklightpower.com as an example.

An absolutely REAL technology varified by dozens of labs, corporations, and even NASA. Shrink the hydrogen atom down and release at least one hundred times the energy of burning it chemically. Shrink it down again and you get even more energy.

No radiation, no pollution, and abundant cheap energy.

This is one example of a technology that could change the world.

But it will not happen because the government only sponsers research into alternative forms of energy that will never work like "hot fusion" which requires huge buildings, billion dollar reactors, and billions of dollars of funding to get NO useful results.

Additionally, cold fusion is an absolute reality and is being worked on around the world by some of the best scientists around. It is now more commonly called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Libertarian Party, stop ignoring the ROOT of problems.

I am disgusted right now.

You do not know if there were already a solution to run cars on something else years ago. But guess what I am sure government step in because they didn't want to lose money on their controlled oil. For all you know the same thing with cures on diseases. They stop things that might be a cure for something, in the meantime they give our money to other countries and pork themselves. WAKE UP PEOPLE

I can tell you for sure what WON'T work. Price controls. Windfall profit taxes. Anti-trust actions.

If the government takes this action, than we will have massive gas shortages in weeks as the market is twisted into knots by government interference and oil is sent to other nations were it can be sold at a better margin. I know this well because I have already lived through it once, in the 70's. The government did the same damn fool things. The results were gas shortages and ultimately led to stagflation. A nasty state of affairs where the gross output of the economy shrinks while at the same time inflation runs rampant.

Do you folks really want to return to this nasty state of affairs??? If not, tell the government to stop its interference in oil prices before it gets started.

Those damn oil companies and their record profits!!

Oh wait.. record REVENUES?

Can someone remind America what the freaking difference is already?

Anon (the one-issue Libertarian, apparently)

While I tend not to blame the president for the cost of fuel, the $100 rebate is ridiculous. Even a temporary end to the gas tax would be a far more sensible solution to this problem. As has been said, government regulation of the industry is a mistake. The free market always has been and always will be better at balancing itself as far as prices are concerned. Some will cry that the United States must be more fuel efficient, but where the disagreement lays is how to achieve this attitude of conservation. It is not through government legislation. Despite the high prices there still has not been, as of yet, enough pressure on oil reliant industries to produce more fuel efficient products. 3-4 dollars a gallon gasoline for a sustained period of time should create the required pressure. Like it or not, that is the silver lining to this "gas crisis." If the toll on the economy would be too great to sustain gasoline that expensive, then the strict legislation on the building of new refineries and drilling here at home needs to be lifted, to say nothing of the gas tax.

Although it pains me to see me money draining away every time I fill up my gas tank I think this is the onkly way in which new vaible energy sources will be produced. Also, I think its a good thing that the demand for public transportation is on the rise.

{Quote}
Libertarian Party

I am not amazed at your extreme ignorance.

Are you tired of high gas prices? Then urge the government to stop giving billions to the oil companies each year! This money is given to them in various ways, but all together it gives them an extra boost of support.
{End Quote}

The LP doesn't support corporate welfare. If you read up, it might alleviate some of your own ignorance about the Party.

It's not the government's job to fund an energy source, nor block its progress or production. It's also not their job to hike up the price, and then point the finger at the company as the sole reason for the extra burden.

Repealing taxes won't help either. The lowering of prices by removing taxes will increase demand, which will bring the prices right back up again.
(Although I'm for repealing all taxes anyway)

A hundred dollars! Yipee! Like being on a sinking ocean liner and someone suggests throwing one deck chair overboard.

Mark B - you stated "I can tell you for sure what WON'T work. Price controls. Windfall profit taxes. Anti-trust actions."

Why exactly won't trust busting work? It worked when AT&T was broken up. Or are you referring to the fact that oil is an inelastic product like narcotics and supplies can charge whatever they wish?

I don't qualify for the 100 dollars - I didn't earn over 100k last year. Oh, you didn't know about that little provision? If you're married you have to earn over 140k.

Rather than giving the rich (I consider earning over a 100k rich) pocket money so they can fill up - what 3 times maybe. Why not cut the 5 billion in annual corporate welfare to the oil industry?

There are two good reasons to have gas taxes: 1. pollution 2. road maintenance.

If cars are polluting and harming us all, the only way to alleviate the rent seeking is to make gas more expensive.

If the government pays $X million for building and maintaining roads, what better way to recoup that cost than by gas taxes (tolls are another alternative, but not always practical)? Without such a tax, the market would be inefficient in this case, as we - the taxpayers in general - would otherwise be subsidizing the costs of those who drove the most. We'd be paying as much in taxes as they do, even though we are responsible for far less of the costs, which only encourages them to do so even more.

(Ignoring environmental concerns for the moment) the government should tax enough to recoup those costs - no more, no less - to make the market efficient. The only time they should change the tax rates is when the costs of building and maintaining the roads goes up or down. "The price of gas is getting high" is NOT a valid reason.

Several points re: some of the above.

1. We are not running out of oil. We are running out of traditionally-sourced, easily extracted oil. The Canadian tar-sands and Wyoming oil-shale deposits hold a minimum of 40 years worth of oil at present consumption rates. These sources are price competitive with our presently sourced oil at $40 / barrel, and extraction has begun, albeit slowly because a whole new infrastructure needs to be developed. (See, $20 oil wasn't really such a good thing after all.) And coal gasification, perfected by the Nazis in the 1940s,is a source of even more.

2. Trust busting? The top three US oil companies control only about 8% of oil production, and about twice that in distribution. There are over 1,000 US companies exploring for, extracting, and distributing oil. And none of them controls the price. Prices are set initially at the wellhead by producing coutries, and then by the auction action of the commodities markets.

3. And finally: Stop Your Bellyaching! Gasoline TODAY, in constant dollars, is about the same as it was during the Carter administration. Europeans are paying twice as much. State, Federal, and local taxes represent a larger share of the price of a gallon of gas than the combined profits of all the explorers, producers, distributors, and retailers. You're libertarians for christ's sakes, not liberals. You're supposed to know, and appreciate, this stuff.

I also find ironic the doublespeak of the Bush administration (though certainly he is not alone among politicians). Not long ago, he vowed - to bipartisan standing ovation if memory serves - to lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. The only practical way to do that is for prices to rise. And now that that is happening, he wants to run counter to his promise.

it would be better to support green energy. this allows the individual to invest and capture there own energy. the government can not tax someones personal solor pads(then again they tax alot of things they should not. we need to ween the public of gas. if we used less we would not have to worry about the puroblems in the middle east. and we would not have to worry about the enoviorment

Yes, let's just all start riding the bus to work, since we are paying for it with our TAXES anyway!! (oh that's right -- I have to walk 2 miles to get to the bus, then take it downtown, then backtrack 30 min to get to work) Brilliant idea, Mark B.

It would be nice if we COULD let the free market work. Gasoline use would end within a couple of decades if the gummint would allow a free market.

END THE OIL OLIGARCHY!

YAWN. Once again the LP is asleep and it's members clueless.

The repeal of environmental "regulations" in order to "help" oil refining is the one thing in the article that I simply and flatly disagree with.

Pollution by corporations is an issue that libertarians seem to have very little traction with. Whether this is a fair or true impression, it undoubtedly exists. Most people that I talk about libertarianism with eventually bring this up as a deal breaker for them. It's a very large concern of mine as a libertarian, especially when the party fails to make use of its own good ideas.

Why are companies allowed to emit pollutants into the air and water that then end up on my property and in my body?

The only way to protect my property rights as a citizen is to enforce those property rights, and enforce them I darn sure want to do. Most environmental laws, to me, seem as polluted as what they're designed to prevent. However, cheap gasoline is not cheap if it results in a ruined planet or poor health.

I have asthma, so I can tell you a thing or two about living with air pollution in a large city vs. the time I've spent living in rural areas.

How about a coherent policy from libertarians to replace environmental regulations with pollution as property right infringement law, rather than calls for repeals of the sort of laws that have, however un-libertarianly, contributed to an improvement of air quality? The explanation at

http://www.ruwart.com/environ2.lpn.wpd.html

Makes a lot of sense to me. Why don't we call for that strategy instead of a "repeal" of regulations?

Libertarian philosophy seems to work the best with direct cause and effect. In the case of pollution from places like the government (the nation's largest polluter) and our refineries, there can be significant time delay and geographical distance between the pollution being released and the damage done. Restitution and private property rights would seem to tighten that loop right up. Repealing the few craptastic regulations that we have, in the absense of private property rights and restitution law, would seem to invite disaster.

Trusting the current oil-related markets to protect the environment in the absense of environmental laws has not worked in a single situation that I can find.

We have the right ideas, yet even in an article directly addressing the issue, they don't show up.

I hope gas goes to $5.oo a gallon and stays there. We had a crisis under Clinton and long pump lines under Carter. Everytime this happens people say all the right things; build more refineries, open up exploration, research alternative sources and make people more conservation aware and lower our dependence on foreign sources. Then somebody comes up with a short term solution, prices drop and it's business as usual. Screw solar energy, I need new car(guilty), bigger house(guilty), and we re-elect the same clowns(not guilty). And by the way, the average house in 1972 was thirteen hundred square feet, today, over 2000. How much more are we bigger and better consumption crazy Americans paying to heat and cool these places?

The proposal to give out $100.00 rebate checks to offset gas prices may sound good but it is avoiding the overall issue of energy and energy independence. This is a problem that has been festering since the 1970s and has now come home to roost.

What should be done? Here is what I propose:

1. Eliminate all restrictions on energy and oil businesses, for they are an impediment not only to these companies but to consumers.

2. Give tax credits and allow the private sector and private individuals to invest in renewable energy sources such as ethanol, gasol, hydrogen and other.

3. Allow for drilling not only in the Artic national Wildlife but also on the coast of Florida and California, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. According to the Rand Corporation we have significant finds in these states and others.

4. Eliminate all state and local taxes on gasoline and oil products. This is one of the main reasons the United States has high gas prices.

5. Allow for the private sector to build oil refineries in the United States. A refinery has not been built in the U.S. in over thirty years.

6. Eliminate all enviornmental restrictions that have been a hinderence in terms of making the United States energy self-sufficent.

There may be some that might not like what I have proposed. Nevertheless, I am open to see what their proposals would be.

Let me say this as well: for far to long, the United States has been at the mercy of radical environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Earth Liberation Front and others. These groups are mostly responsible for the energy situation we now find ourselves in. Now I believe in protecting the environment but I also believe in capitlism, self-sufficiency and tapping into resources. These groups are the barrier to making that goal a reality. These groups are the ones that say that we cannot drill for energy and protect the enviornment at the same time. I say the direct opposite. It is time, in my view, that these groups get out of the way.

Quoth johnny bagpipe:

-----
I don't qualify for the 100 dollars - I didn't earn over 100k last year. Oh, you didn't know about that little provision? If you're married you have to earn over 140k.
-----

You have it exactly backward. Those are the maximum, not minimum, incomes to receive the "rebate" (which is still a stupid idea).

There are two welfare states that exist today.

One is for social welfare, supported by the leftists, centrists, and neocons.

The other is for corporate welfare, supported by the same cast of characters.

True libertarians and true conservatives oppose both welfare states.

This distinction had to be made.

NEWS ARTICLE, national anthem to be sung in Spanish, ok we have raised mexican flags, and now song. NEXT MEXICAN PRESIDENT.
MEXICAN USA

Thomas, thank you for correcting me. I was wrong.

My proposal is thus:

Let the free market work. If the price of gas goes up - so be it. People will carpool or use public transportation or buy more fuel efficient cars or telecommute. If it rises high enough, the transportation industry will be more willing to turn to energy alternatives. What I don't want to see happen is the gutting of environmental laws for a quick fix that'll end up doing more harm than good. I don't want any more of my tax dollars going to companies that are making money hand over fist

The lp block won't let me post by problems with your proposal alex. Too long maybe. Maybe I can summarize.

Corporate welfare in any form is bad.

Refineries aren't being built because a small suppy = greater profit. Economic 101

Environmental restrictions aren't a business obstacle its just a cost of doing business - like safe working conditions

Above is posted my proposal

Let me say this as well: for far to long, the United States has been at the mercy of radical environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Earth Liberation Front and others. These groups are mostly responsible for the energy situation we now find ourselves in. the same time. I say the direct opposite. It is time, in my view, that these groups get out of the way.

Posted by: Alex Pugliese at April 28, 2006 12:14

NO!!!! WE DO NOT SAY GET OUT OF OUR WAY. WE HAVE TOO MUCH SICK PRODUCTS IN THE AIR, WATER THAT HAVE CAUSED CANCER, DESTROYED AND CAUSE NEAR IF NOT SOME EXTINCTION OF WILDLIFE. IF WE HAD BETTER RESPECT FOR THE ENVIROMENT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE BETTER FOOD PRODUCTION AND NOT ALL THE PROCESSED GARBARGED THAT YOU COUCH POTOTOES EAT AND GET FAT AND SICK.

good grief, I should have proofread.

Corrections and edits:

I ment blog not "block".

Tax credits are a form of corporate welfare

"Repealing taxes won't help either. The lowering of prices by removing taxes will increase demand, which will bring the prices right back up again"-Anthony

Which in the long run leads to an increase in supply and brings the price back down again.

Most credit cards offer 5% now on gas and other purchases. So that's about $100 in rewards right there. Now repealing the federal gas tax would have a much bigger impact, rather than just throwing pocket change back at the taxpayer and slapping them in the face.

"NO!!!! WE DO NOT SAY GET OUT OF OUR WAY. WE HAVE TOO MUCH SICK PRODUCTS IN THE AIR, WATER THAT HAVE CAUSED CANCER, DESTROYED AND CAUSE NEAR IF NOT SOME EXTINCTION OF WILDLIFE. IF WE HAD BETTER RESPECT FOR THE ENVIROMENT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE BETTER FOOD PRODUCTION AND NOT ALL THE PROCESSED GARBARGED THAT YOU COUCH POTOTOES EAT AND GET FAT AND SICK." -Anonymous

It's this standard alarmist attitude that gets us regulated up the tailpipe. Through evolution and just general bad luck, 99.9% of the species have been wiped out on this planet, nothing to do with us. Trust me, the earth(environment) will survive, she is resilent.

For the nay sayers and Cerebral Masturbatirs in our world, the root of the oil crisis has been the Republicands, Democrats, and the Traditional Left and Right.

The sollutions are the following:

1. DRILL FOR OIL WHERE AVAILABLE INCLUDING OHIO.

2. Get rid of ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS. SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH, STATE FROM CORPORATIONS, STATE FROM EDUCATION, GET RID OF ALL OF THE RESTRICTIVE AND RIDICULOUS LAWS INCLUDING THE PROTOCOL OF KIOTO.

3. PRIVATIZE THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

4. MANUFACTURE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF ENERGY: WIND, ALCOHOL, AND EVEN FECAL MATTER. IN FACT, FARTS ARE A WAY OF USING NATURAL GAS [WE HAVE PLENTY OF FECAL MATTER AND FARTS IN THE WORLD INCLUDING WASHINGTON].

5. SINCE EVERYTHING IS INTERTWINED: ENCOURAGE AMERICANS TO DO THE WORK OF UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS.

6. ENCOURAGE MARRIAGE BETWEEN EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF RACE,ETHNICITY,CREED , AND COLOR AND HAVE THEM LIVE WHERE THEY WANT TO IN AMERICA TO HARNESS OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.

7. AS FOR THE NATIONAL ANTHEM, I REMEMBER READING SOMEWHERE THAT THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER HAD ITS ORIGINS IN AN ENGLISH BAR SONG THAT GLORIFIED DRUNKENNESS. WE SHOULD ADD VERSES THAT GLORIFY LIBERTARIAN THEMES SUCH AS FREEDOM FROM EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT.

I would also like to add that the rebates proposed by Congress are a form of cerebral masturbation that occurs in Washington.

I think that the rebate is a dumb idea, but not because $100 is a paltry sum. Think of it in terms of the difference between $2.25/gal. gas (last year) and $3.25/gal. gas (this year). An extra hundred bucks would let you enjoy last year's prices for another hundred gallons or so -- in my heavy-commuting case, for another six weeks. Others would be able to "roll back time" even longer. That's not an insignificant benefit.

I think the rebate is a dumb idea because it is simply rearranging deck chairs. Someone -- the government, the oil companies, whatever -- will get all that money back and more as time goes on, and nothing about our fundamental situation will have changed. In other words, it is a distraction, a time-waster, a cynical pandering for votes during an election year.

"Repeal all enviromental and other regulations on the production and distribution of all petroleum products."

You're nuts. I have to live on this planet too and there is no way I will sit by while this one goes down. Do you have any idea what would happen to the enviroment if the oil companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted? Its times like this when I am thankful that this party does not have serious influence.

Even if you repealed all regulations the oil companies still couldn't do what they wanted because they would still get sued to no end by the people affected by that pollution. It's in their best interest to have a clean operation. By throwing them out in the wild and giving them no special legal protections, you are now making the oil companies more responsible and less likely to pollute. The biggest polluter is our government, right now they can do whatever they want with absolutely no consequences.

You talk about an act of desperation on the part of republicrats and democrats. This is exactly the stupidity we should expect from these pathetic politicians when they are running for there lives just before an election. These people are pathetic.Where are they getting the billions of dollars required to give millions of americans a hundred dollar rebate? Are they going to borrow it from china and let the taxpayers pay it back? Just eliminate the federal gas and diesel tax. Then cut the size of government by 10% each year. for nine years.

Bagpipe Johnny says, "Refineries aren't being built because a small suppy = greater profit. Economic 101"

It's not quite that simple, of course. When prices go up, the existing suppliers rake in the cash, as they are doing now. But competitors are also encouraged to come into the market, to augment the production capacity of the established players, or to undersell them and get the business, depending on their particular situation and capabilities. Those competitors would build new refineries, and they would use oil recovery methods that, perhaps, weren't cost-effective when oil was cheaper. But for all of that to happen, prices must remain high long enough for new refineries to come on line, and new oilfields (or other methods of production) to yield useful amounts of crude. And if that happens, we could find ourselves in a situation of a crude or gasoline glut, which would force prices down so low that the new players could no longer compete: they would either go under entirely or, at best, be absorbed into the majors. This would almost certainly happen IF the majors are now manipulating world supply to create artificial shortages and price spikes. In that case, they would wait just long enough for the new players to do all the dirty work of creating new refineries, opening new fields, or devising new methods of crude production; then they would expand the supply to the point of beggaring the new guys, who would be pleased to sell out, rather than losing their shirts. And that's just one scenario.

Does government have a role to play in lowering barriers to entry to the oil industry? Can government grease the skids to allow refineries to be constructed and come online more quickly? What can government do to encourage vigorous, diversified competition in this market and prevent harmful accumulation of power, short of socialist economic intervention in the market, or weakening of property rights? Thoughts, anyone?

Well. I am just going to say a few things after reading all your guys post.

First I agree with Michelle. I too have been greatly influenced by Ruwart. In fact I had used her influence as the topic of many of my essays when applying to colleges.

Second, the LP does need to realize that there is a difference between regulations on business and regulation on the environment. The environment and Earth as far as I know belong to the people and creatures born on it. And we need to protect it. We have that responsibility, I know the LP is "pro-choice on everything", and that should include the choice of future generations to be born into a clean and healthy Earth.

Third, I agree with those libertarians who say high gas prices are a good thing because they will force the free market and supply and demand to expand the markets into alternative energy sources and public transportation.

Great, they are giving me BACk my $100.

There have been some conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan that have said that that the $100.00 rebate check to offset gas prices is an insult. That it is attempting to buy off the conservative vote. Both have stated this on NBC's Today Show and in the New York Times.

As for me, a libertarian, it solves nothing. Nothing in the short term. Nothing in the long term. It is just sad.

http://www.rense.com/general70/doro.htm

We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

* 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
* 18-times as much oil as Iraq
* 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
* 22-times as much oil as Iran
* 500-times as much oil as Yemen

And it's all right here in the Western United States.

Mary2: Ahh yes. Shale oil.

The only problem is that oil needs to be at about current prices or higher to make it worth while extracting. The processing costs are huge since it's basically mixed in with rock. We'll see what happens, but I'm not optimistic.

Hi, I have a solution to our gas problem. First, change the gov. tax structure to percent like my state(CA)does. Second, make the tax inverse to price. So using retail numbers (so the masses could understand it)at $2.00 a gallon the gov. would get 100% tax and at $3.50 the tax would be 0%. These numbers are just an example. This would make the gov. pay close attention to the market, make sure to reduce the gov. bureaucracy (hundreds of blends, etc.), and make sure that supply is stable. This would also put the Dems. in a spot they don't want to go. This is a win-win for us.