Where The Rubber Meets The Road: We Don't Take Bribes

But that's what Senator Bill Frist and Senator Debbie Stabenow would like us to do, as Captain Ed reports today as these two numbskulls woud like us to take a $100 rebate check to "ease the burden" of gasoline consumption. Excuse me? Is this a bribe. I feel dirty, now. The New York Times reports that Democrats and Republicans alike aren't too happy with this idea.

The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

Angry constituents have asked, "Do you think we are prostitutes? Do you think you can buy us?" said another Republican senator's aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan.

That's exactly what they are thinking. The idea is that if we get these checks, and the administration works on opening up ANWR and upping refining capacity that the prices will drop. The problem is that such an idea will take time. It is not something that can happen in the here and now. What I have heard, in terms of solid ideas, is that Congress suspend all gas taxes--federal and state--for a temporary amount of time to ease the burden on the taxpayer. You simply shut them off. It's not as though the federal government doesn't reap enoug in taxes as it is, and the suspension of those taxes would make people happier. In addition, a reduction in those taxes will also encourage people to travel this summer. Travelling means spending money. If they have more money to spend on goods and services over the summer, and aren't worried about the high cost of gas, their money will be better spent somewhere other than the pump.

Conservative talk radio hosts have been particularly vocal. "What kind of insult is this?" Rush Limbaugh asked on his radio program on Friday. "Instead of buying us off and treating us like we're a bunch of whores, just solve the problem." In commentary on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume called the idea "silly."

Despite the fact I don't listen to Rush anymore, he's right on target. That is basically what this idea is. It's treating the American public like they are whores. "Here's your money, so quit whining." It doesn't work that way, senators. Americans are sick of going through this every frelling year. It was even worse for Arizonans in May of 2004 when the Kinder Morgan pipeline broke. Not only did gas prices in the Valley go nuts, but there were also shortages. We dealt with rising gas prices last year, as well. They rise during the summer time, and drop in the fall and winter. But it shouldn't be like that. And this rise in gas prices is unacceptable to the working public. EVERYTHING in industry is run on gasoline. From the produce picked in the fields, to it arriving in your local grocery store, it all revolves around gas. When that price goes us, so does the price for goods. Is Congress willing to write us a rebate check to cover that cost increase, as well? This rebate check idea is a band-aid, and it's utterly worthless.

The reaction comes as the rising price of gasoline has put the public in a volatile mood and as polls show that cynicism about Congress is at its highest level since 1994.

There should always be cynicism for Congress. A wise man once said that if you wanted something screwed up quickly, involve the government. And as we can see by Congress's way of doing things lately, they are quite adept at screwing things up. This is just another example.

Still, Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, whose office played a main role in pulling the proposal together, said the rebate was an important short-term step in a broader array of measures that began with last year's energy bill. Constituents "believe government ought to step up to the plate rather than loll around in the dugout," Mr. Ueland wrote in an e-mail message on Sunday.

Except their constituents don't want a short-term solution. they want a long-term solution. Short-term ideas tend to be ignored or forgotten. And the last thing we need to do is have ANWR shelved again. Not only would it greatly reduce these cost fluxuations, but it is a national security issue; it cuts down our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

After members of Congress returned from the spring recess, when they got an earful about gas prices above $3 a gallon, they raced to propose solutions that might take effect before the elections. Democrats were pushing for a 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon, and the Senate Republican leadership settled on the rebate.

I hate to say it, but I side with the Democrats on their proposal. Sixty days is a start, but it needs to be extended longer through the summer. This is when gas prices reach their peak each year because of the travelling that is done. And the idea that I have heard floated by some is a price-fixing solution. The problem with that is it never works. Fixing the price, or capping the price, won't help the situation. But a suspension of the taxes on a gallon of gas would be.

Those leaders and Finance Committee aides said many Republicans opposed the Democratic plan because they feared that oil companies, which pay the gas tax, would not pass savings on to the public, or that the laws of supply and demand would push the price up again.

If the taxes are suspended, and the price doesn't go down, then there is evidence of gouging the public. The public will react by taking their business to service stations that aren't gouging. To the members of Congress I submit that such an idea is referred to as voting with one's wallet, which is something the consumer is able to do, and has done in the past. Case in point, the Kinder Morgan pipeline break in Arizona. Chevron stations were the first ones to jump their prices, and they quickly rose to over three dollars a gallon. The consumer did a sort of boycott on Chevron stations until they lowered the prices. It's also worth noting that Chevron stations during this time, had a problem with maintaining their supply, which further lent to the people avoiding those stations. When they did get their gas, the prices dropped. I call it gouging, still. Others call it supply and demand. True, they may be correct, but when the supply was abundant, they still jacked their prices up at a time when the average gallon of gas in Phoenix was under $2.29 a gallon.

There was also the probable opposition of House Republicans, who have been reluctant to jeopardize the flow of the gas tax revenue to the highway trust fund that underwrites road and bridge projects.

"Our folks thought it might amount to nothing for consumers," said one aide who was granted anonymity to discuss internal leadership deliberations.

A reduction in taxes amounts to nothing for the consumer? Really? What bureaucratic bravo-sierra is that? And as for the highway and bridge projects, can they not "rob Peter to pay Paul" with other areas of the budget? The president promised slashes in the budget, yet little of that has been done, and in Congress the fight still continues over that. Mary Katherine Ham continues to report on moves made by Senator Coburn. Last week she brought up this point. It's about his desire to curtail the pork spending in Washington, which is also lending to this problem. Instead of shifting some money from Point A to Point B, why not use the pork money on things like the railroad to nowhere to offset the suspension of the gas taxes? Seems to make sense to me, and I'm sure it would for a lot of consumers, as well.

Under the proposal, $100 checks would be sent late this summer to an estimated 100 million taxpayers, regardless of car ownership. Single taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above about $146,000 would be ineligible for the checks, as would couples earning more than about $219,000. The $100 figure was determined by Mr. Frist's office, which calculated that the average driver would pay about $11 per month in federal gas taxes over nine months.

The rebate was the signature element of a broader Senate Republican leadership plan announced Thursday that included new incentives for the oil industry to increase its refining capacity and for consumers to buy hybrid cars. It would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling and would impose an accounting change forcing oil companies to pay higher taxes on fuel sold from stockpiles.

I can see this fight looming. Anytime ANWR is mentioned, the Left loses its collective mind, and fights the proposal tooth-and-nail. It happened over the Defense Appropriations Bill earlier this year, and everytime it's brought up, there is outrage over wanting to use a tiny portion of a vast tundra to drill for oil. For some odd reason, the enviro-nuts feel that the caribou would "have their view ruined" by oil rigs. Do we really care what caribou think? Do they vote? Do they pay taxes? The answer is no. Therefore the answer to whether or not we care if their view is spoiled is irrelevant.

The proposal would also give the executive branch new authority to set fuel standards for cars, an idea that will get a hearing in the House this week.

David Winston, a Republican pollster who advises the Senate Republican leadership, called the rebate an intuitive way to show voters that Republicans were on their side. "It is like putting the American family budget ahead of oil company profits," Mr. Winston said. "How do you help the American families out? Well, give them some money."

BZZT! Thank you for playing Mr. Winston. If you want to help out American families, you don't simply give them a handout like Congress does for welfare queens. To truly assist the American family, you reduce their tax burden. A suspension of the gas taxes is a sound and viable route to go. You don't do it permanently. It's only a temporary measure.

But disapproval started flowing in almost as soon as the idea surfaced, said aides in several Republican offices. One senior aide to a Southern lawmaker said the calls were surprisingly harsh. Some complained that the rebate would amount to only two fill-ups at the gas station.

I can fill my tank at the beginning of the week, and not really have to worry too much about it until the weekend. I drive to work everyday, and there are the occasional errands (grocery shopping, home projects shopping, etc.) that have to be done. Between Marcie and I, it costs us close to fifty dollars right now to fill our tanks. There's my two tanks worth. That rebate is gone in a week. A suspension of the gas taxes would ease the burden considerably for us, and for the majority of the nation. Especially if it's a suspension of both state and federal taxes on the gas.

Even though some voters have been outspoken in their opposition to the $100 rebate, Democrats still want credit for being the first to think of putting money back in taxpayers' pockets. A few days before the Republicans went public with their plan, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, proposed a $500 rebate plan, a figure that she said was more commensurate with how much the higher gas prices will cost Americans this year.

Great. So instead of one week's worth of a burden lifted, I get five instead? No. Sorry. Doesn't fly, but with her in a bitter reelection bid in Michigan right now, it's no wonder than her plan is more of a oneupmanship game with Frist than anything else.

Ms. Stabenow also criticized Republicans for linking the rebate to oil drilling in the arctic refuge.

Republicans know that drilling in the refuge "is highly controversial and not going to happen," Ms. Stabenow said. "I question their sincerity in putting this forward."

Whereas the GOP leaders blow their toes off with lame-brain ideas like this, the Democrats blow their whole damn foot off. I stated above that they'd fight this, and am I not right? To them, we're destroying the environment. To us--the clear thinking GOP base--we're lessening our reliance on foreign oil, and doing it not only to ease the brunt to the consumer, but also looking at the move in terms of national security. After all, what will Iran do to really hurt us if we're drilling in ANWR. Such down the Strait of Hormuz if you want, but once ANWR is opened, that effect is negligible. We don't buy Iranian oil, but a closure or blockade of the Strait would make other nations suffer. That stinks, and we would help in any way we could to maintain the flow of oil, but it wouldn't hurt us too much at that point.

When the Republican program might reach the Senate floor is still uncertain. Mr. Frist had suggested that he might try to attach the plan to the emergency spending bill the Senate is debating, but aides said that was now less likely and that Republicans might ultimately bring their proposal forward on its own.

On television news programs on Sunday, several Republicans emphasized the need for long-term solutions and played down the rebates. "I don't think much about the $100 rebate," Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, said on "Late Edition" on CNN. "We're going to have to produce more domestic oil, natural gas. We're going to have to build pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants."

To Senator Lott I say quit worrying about what PorkBusters are doing interms of the oversight the Congress won't provide, and concentrate on that long-term solution. He was the one complaining last month that the PorkBuster bloggers were focusing too much on what is spent in Congress. Again, take that pork money and put it towards something more worthwhile, like highway and bridge projects, and suspend the damned gas taxes.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, struck a similar note on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "I don't think it's a real answer," she said. "It's a temporary Band-Aid. I don't think that it's, again, the long-range solution."

This, of course, comes from a representative from Alaska who was in favor of the Gravina "Bridge to Nowhere;" a pork-barrel boondoggle finally killed by the Congress. She's right on this, though. The rebate check is a joke to the consumer, and shows America that Congress, while it might "feel our pain" is doing nothing really to solve the problem.

But in his e-mail message, Mr. Ueland, the chief of staff to Senator Frist, dismissed the accusations of pandering as the inevitable price of taking any action. "It's the way of the world to dog Washington when members respond to constituent concerns, but to be responsive is part of how the system is designed."

Spin, spin, and more spin. If the GOP runs with this idea, if they back Senator Frist on this fool's errand, then they are in serious trouble. And it will send a message to the base--the voters they are counting on in November--that they think they can slide by with this carrot, and not suffer the stick punishment the base may mete out. No, no. This is simply stupid. It's one of the many brain-dead ideas proposed by people who don't want to do what is necessary, and are content with a short term solution that will, in the long run, serve as no real help.

There needs to be some people in the Congress (especially the Senate) that put an end to this sort of idiocy before the base revolts. And that revolt will be felt on election day. People aren't happy with either side right now, but the Democrats have the right idea by lessening the tax burden on the consumer. If the GOP wins this fight, and those rebate checks go out, the only epitaph on the gravestone will read: "Here lies the GOP; killed by their own inadequacy, and the failure to recognize their constituents as taxpayers rather than whores waiting for a handout."

Publius II