The Bobcat Nation

(I had this sent to me this morning)

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May!

The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas.

It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.

BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read it and join with us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.87 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50- $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the market place....not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.

HOW?

Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the TWO BIGGEST COMPANIES (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers

It's really simple to do!!

All You have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all.

Acting together we can make a difference.

If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.

PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.

Not really going to work since most gasoline that you buy at a pump whether under a Conoco, Exxon, Sinclair, Texaco, whatever flag all comes from the same refinery and/or pipeline. If Exxon makes the gasoline and ships it down their pipeline to their terminal where another seller buys it and then sells it to you they still make money.

Dang. Oh well.

The way to reduce the gas price is to convince governments at all levels to stop being greedy and eliminate the gas taxes.

In other words--let the free market do its work without interference.

2 things:

First, in Montana, ceasing to purchase fuel from Exxon would accomplish nothing. Why? Because demand is still demand; the folks of MT would still be buying roughly the same # of gallons, they'd just be doing so from Conoco, Sinclair, and/or Cenex. Guess what? Sinclair buys their MT supply from Conoco and Conoco & Cenex could not possibly provide the additional gallons with their already maxed-out refineries. So where would they turn for additional supply? That's right; Exxon.


Second, rescinding the State Excise Tax on gasoline would accomplish nothing but a short-term savings; ALL of MT's Excise Tax goes directly to the Dept of Transportation. If you dry up their budget, are they simply going to close their doors and stop building/maintaining roads? Of course not; soon they'd be broke and looking for funds which would force the politicians to find another way to fleece us.


The biggest problem with the current state of affairs regarding gas prices, ESPECIALLY in MT, is that there IS NO COMPETITION. Conoco, Exxon, and Cenex are the only suppliers in the state and their prices on any given day are the same. Add to this the fact that MOST retail stations are "locked in" to one of those 3 suppliers and couldn't buy from the others no matter how much cheaper they might be on a given day.

Unfortunately, it appears that Gov. Scheister's statements over the last few weeks are simply hot air; nothing he's said has changed the prices and there is NO apparent effort to truly take on Big Oil, so his posturing on this issue has been worthless. Like it or not, Big Oil has divided up this country in a way that really does restrict, and in some cases eliminate, true competition. They ARE, in fact, acting in a "coordinated" fashion, with the goal of ensuring better profits for all of them. I'm not exactly sure of the legal threshhold for collusion, but I really doubt that a sharp lawyer would have much trouble proving it, at least in Montana...

'93HonoluluCat wrote:The way to reduce the gas price is to convince governments at all levels to stop being greedy and eliminate the gas taxes.

In other words--let the free market do its work without interference.

While I generally agree with the notion that minimizing the tax burden is a good thing, I think we need to recognize that tax policy is a zero sum game. The simple truth is that, because gasoline consumption is linked to use of public roadways, a gas tax is a rational means for a state to raise revenues to cover road maintenance (it is economically similar to a user fee in that regard). Thus, while gas taxes do impose an economic burden (as does any tax), the burden is at least logical and, at least in a loose sense, is proportionate to the taxpayer's use of the infrastructure that the tax dollars are used to fund.

It is inevitable that any tax that is enacted is going to have an effect on markets. If gas taxes were repealed, other taxes would have to be enacted or increased to cover the lost revenue, and those increases would have economic consequences of their own (perhaps on the energy industry, or perhaps on other sectors). While gas taxes appear frustrating because they provide an unveiled, visible increase in the amount you pay at the pump, we must recognize that any provisions that replaced the gas tax would have similar (albeit perhaps more well-disguised) effects, and thus, we can't view simply repealing gas taxes as a cure-all.

--GL

Anyone that would support a repeal of the gas tax had better be ready to travel on some terrible roads. Especially with winter coming to Montana soon. The highway department has to pay for snow removal with state money that is raised directly by the gas tax. Also, the state has to match the money the federal government provides - roughly 20% match. This money also comes from the gas tax. Without the matching funds we do not get money from the federal government. As bad as roads are now, imagine what they would be like without maintenance, let alone improvments

Grizlaw wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:The way to reduce the gas price is to convince governments at all levels to stop being greedy and eliminate the gas taxes.

In other words--let the free market do its work without interference.

While I generally agree with the notion that minimizing the tax burden is a good thing, I think we need to recognize that tax policy is a zero sum game. The simple truth is that, because gasoline consumption is linked to use of public roadways, a gas tax is a rational means for a state to raise revenues to cover road maintenance (it is economically similar to a user fee in that regard). Thus, while gas taxes do impose an economic burden (as does any tax), the burden is at least logical and, at least in a loose sense, is proportionate to the taxpayer's use of the infrastructure that the tax dollars are used to fund.

It is inevitable that any tax that is enacted is going to have an effect on markets. If gas taxes were repealed, other taxes would have to be enacted or increased to cover the lost revenue, and those increases would have economic consequences of their own (perhaps on the energy industry, or perhaps on other sectors). While gas taxes appear frustrating because they provide an unveiled, visible increase in the amount you pay at the pump, we must recognize that any provisions that replaced the gas tax would have similar (albeit perhaps more well-disguised) effects, and thus, we can't view simply repealing gas taxes as a cure-all.

--GL

The problem with the gas tax is that it is basically a federal sales tax, which is very inefficient to begin with. Although EL and Hcat i would love to see the number of different formulations of gasses reduces significantly *el i bet there is a type of gas you have to by for kalispell*

GrizLaw wrote:...I think we need to recognize that tax policy is a zero sum game. The simple truth is that, because gasoline consumption is linked to use of public roadways, a gas tax is a rational means for a state to raise revenues to cover road maintenance (it is economically similar to a user fee in that regard). Thus, while gas taxes do impose an economic burden (as does any tax), the burden is at least logical and, at least in a loose sense, is proportionate to the taxpayer's use of the infrastructure that the tax dollars are used to fund.

I don't necessarily believe that all gas tax money goes to road maintenance. Sure that's the government's line, but I'm sure you've seen the roads in northern Idaho. Roads here in Hawaii are similar in quality--terrible. But yet residents of both states consume gas. To the contrary, toll roads (like the Kansas Turnpike) tend to be the best quality roads on which I've driven.

GrizLaw wrote:It is inevitable that any tax that is enacted is going to have an effect on markets. If gas taxes were repealed, other taxes would have to be enacted or increased to cover the lost revenue, and those increases would have economic consequences of their own (perhaps on the energy industry, or perhaps on other sectors). While gas taxes appear frustrating because they provide an unveiled, visible increase in the amount you pay at the pump, we must recognize that any provisions that replaced the gas tax would have similar (albeit perhaps more well-disguised) effects, and thus, we can't view simply repealing gas taxes as a cure-all.

And here my belief in "smaller government is better" comes in, but that's decidedly another thread.

Not yet, but Gov. Scheister will get that changed soon, I'm afraid...

El_Gato wrote:Not yet, but Gov. Scheister will get that changed soon, I'm afraid...

along with your $.50/gallon "Gratuitiy" to the Schweitzer for president campaign.....wait wasnt that supposto be under the table??

Hell's Bells wrote:The problem with the gas tax is that it is basically a federal sales tax, which is very inefficient to begin with.

Inefficient in what regard? While it is true that any tax will carry administrative burdens, the gas tax is certainly more efficient than alternatives that some states have resorted to to raise revenues to road maintenance (i.e., tolls). I guess my point is that if we think it's a good idea for road maintenance to be funded primarily by those who use roads, a gas tax seems like a reasonably efficient was to achieve that goal; it's not perfect, but I don't see any clearly superior alternatives -- do you?

--GL

'93HonoluluCat wrote:

GrizLaw wrote:It is inevitable that any tax that is enacted is going to have an effect on markets. If gas taxes were repealed, other taxes would have to be enacted or increased to cover the lost revenue, and those increases would have economic consequences of their own (perhaps on the energy industry, or perhaps on other sectors). While gas taxes appear frustrating because they provide an unveiled, visible increase in the amount you pay at the pump, we must recognize that any provisions that replaced the gas tax would have similar (albeit perhaps more well-disguised) effects, and thus, we can't view simply repealing gas taxes as a cure-all.

And here my belief in "smaller government is better" comes in, but that's decidedly another thread.

I share the "smaller government is better" belief. I assume the reason you raise that point is to disagree with my assertion that any repeal of the gas tax would have to be offset by a tax increase elsewhere, correct?

If so, the argument is flawed, for the following reason: to the extent that any tax cut can be offset by spending cuts, we have to assume that the spending cuts could have been made regardless of the tax cut. Thus, whether or not spending cuts are possible has no relevance to the question of whether the gas tax is superior or inferior to its alternatives as a means of raising highway funds.

--GL

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:The problem with the gas tax is that it is basically a federal sales tax, which is very inefficient to begin with.

Inefficient in what regard? While it is true that any tax will carry administrative burdens, the gas tax is certainly more efficient than alternatives that some states have resorted to to raise revenues to road maintenance (i.e., tolls). I guess my point is that if we think it's a good idea for road maintenance to be funded primarily by those who use roads, a gas tax seems like a reasonably efficient was to achieve that goal; it's not perfect, but I don't see any clearly superior alternatives -- do you?

--GL

well yes i do

1) Stop all this needless road repairs...how many times have you driven a mt highway to see a couple of workers and associated equipment ripping up a perfectly good streach of highway? I know this is how burns, baucus, and rehberg say they are "giving jobs to montana" but really is it worth the money we are spending if we are just going to tear up a streach of road so we can say that we have jobs?

2) Place all highway funds into a general fund

Hell's Bells wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:The problem with the gas tax is that it is basically a federal sales tax, which is very inefficient to begin with.

Inefficient in what regard? While it is true that any tax will carry administrative burdens, the gas tax is certainly more efficient than alternatives that some states have resorted to to raise revenues to road maintenance (i.e., tolls). I guess my point is that if we think it's a good idea for road maintenance to be funded primarily by those who use roads, a gas tax seems like a reasonably efficient was to achieve that goal; it's not perfect, but I don't see any clearly superior alternatives -- do you?

--GL

well yes i do

1) Stop all this needless road repairs...how many times have you driven a mt highway to see a couple of workers and associated equipment ripping up a perfectly good streach of highway? I know this is how burns, baucus, and rehberg say they are "giving jobs to montana" but really is it worth the money we are spending if we are just going to tear up a streach of road so we can say that we have jobs?

2) Place all highway funds into a general fund

also one other thing we have to consiter is "what impact does a sales tax have on the economy of MT." gas prices will fall at least 75 cents on the gallon if we get rid of gas tax

I will agree that the D.O.T., just like ALL goverment agencies, wastes far too much of our money.

2 specific local examples come to mind:

1) The "new" 5-lane entrance to Kalispell is nice, but it was significantly OVERDONE. I'm sorry, but we don't need 12' buffer/sidewalk/"beautification" zones on BOTH sides of the highway (which were left undone for the nearest landowner to care for, btw), and we certainly didn't need 10' bike paths on BOTH sides of the highway.

2) Anyone been through Polson lately? The project currently underway at the junction of Hwy 93 and Hwy 35 is likely to become the #1 case of WASTE & OVERKILL in the history of the D.O.T., and that's saying something. The MILLIONS of dollars being spent there are mind-boggling when you consider how little TRAFFIC will ultimately be impacted. If the D.O.T. thinks the taxpayers have so much money that we can waste MILLIONS simply to "pretty up" highways and entrances to communities, we should fire them all immediately and start over...

El_Gato wrote:I will agree that the D.O.T., just like ALL goverment agencies, wastes far too much of our money.

2 specific local examples come to mind:

1) The "new" 5-lane entrance to Kalispell is nice, but it was significantly OVERDONE. I'm sorry, but we don't need 12' buffer/sidewalk/"beautification" zones on BOTH sides of the highway (which were left undone for the nearest landowner to care for, btw), and we certainly didn't need 10' bike paths on BOTH sides of the highway.

2) Anyone been through Polson lately? The project currently underway at the junction of Hwy 93 and Hwy 35 is likely to become the #1 case of WASTE & OVERKILL in the history of the D.O.T., and that's saying something. The MILLIONS of dollars being spent there are mind-boggling when you consider how little TRAFFIC will ultimately be impacted. If the D.O.T. thinks the taxpayers have so much money that we can waste MILLIONS simply to "pretty up" highways and entrances to communities, we should fire them all immediately and start over...

It sounds like MT is wasting a lot of the federal dollars that are being sent there for road work per the above posts (even if the projects are being paid for with state money, that would only be possible because the feds are paying for other projects within the state), so I would be more than happy to have MT give up some of those funds for roadwork that is actually needed in other parts of the country. I can personally attest that CA has quite a few projects that REALLY, REALLY need to get done ... and there are millions of people who would benefit from the improved infrastructure.

So get on the horn to Burns and Baucus and have them direct those funds to projects that need to get done in other states! Maybe if the states only got to spend the tax money that was paid by the people using the roads in that particular state (instead of tax money flowing from urban states to rural states for highway projects), there would be more accountability in the use of those funds.

On a serious note, though, I'm glad the current system is in place. I think it's great that Montana is on the receiving end of pork trough, because I think the state gets a little better every time I return, and a lot of that progress simply wouldn't be possible without a little help from a strong Senate crew bringing that money into the state. People around here might not think it is fair, but my loyalties lie first with Montana, and second with the suspension on my own car on the way to work.

Hell's Bells wrote:well yes i do

1) Stop all this needless road repairs...how many times have you driven a mt highway to see a couple of workers and associated equipment ripping up a perfectly good streach of highway? I know this is how burns, baucus, and rehberg say they are "giving jobs to montana" but really is it worth the money we are spending if we are just going to tear up a streach of road so we can say that we have jobs?

2) Place all highway funds into a general fund

1) As I noted in my response to HC93, to the extent that spending cuts are possible, you have to assume that the cuts would be possible regardless of whether or not we repeal the gas tax. I agree that government spending should be reduced to the greatest extent possible, but that does not answer the question of whether a gas tax is a better or worse means of raising revenues for road maintenance.

2) Why would maintaining roads with dollars from the general fund be superior to maintaining roads from a special fund? It's strictly a philosophical question, but those who support a gas tax are of the belief that road maintenance should be paid for by users of roads, not by the public at large. Do you disagree with that philosophy, and if so, why?

3) (In response to your next post) -- first, unless the gas tax has been drastically increased in the four years I've been away from Montana, it is only around 46 cents per gallon, not 75. Regardless though, as I said in an earlier post, the economic calculus is much more complicated than that. The question is not as simple as whether lower gas prices would be good for the economy; we also have to consider the economic consequences of any additional taxes that become necessary because of repeal of the gas tax.

--GL