By on February 16, 2022

us-capitol, public domain

President Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers have suggested ending the federal gas tax until 2023 as a way to offset fuel prices that are nearing record levels and possibly appease some on-the-fence voters ahead of midterm elections. Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) recently pitched the bill in Congress. While the White House has not made any official endorsements, it’s offered tacit support by saying it didn’t want to limit itself in terms of finding new ways of easing the financial burdens Americans are facing during a period of high inflation.

“Every tool is on the table to reduce prices,” White House assistant press secretary Emilie Simons said in regard to a possible gas tax holiday. “The president already announced an historic release of 50 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and all options are on the table looking ahead.”

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the average price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States is presently $3.48. The Labor Department estimated $3.50 per gallon, citing an annual increase of 40 percent. No matter how you slice it, fuel is roughly a dollar more than it was just a year earlier and spiking at a time when other goods and services have grown similarly expensive. The proposed legislation would temporarily eliminate the 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 cents for diesel) added to gasoline prices until January 1, 2023.

The bill is co-sponsored by Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Jackie Rosen (D-NV).

“Arizonans are paying some of the highest prices for gas we have seen in years and it’s putting a strain on families who need to fill up the tank to get to work and school,”  said Senator Kelly. ”This bill will lower gas prices by suspending the federal gas tax through the end of the year to help Arizona families struggling with high costs for everything from gas to groceries.”

The opposition has framed the proposal as a way for Democratic legislators to win brownie points ahead of the midterms, with the theory getting a surprising level of support from mainstream media outlets. But the real concern is what’s going to happen to the Highway Trust Fund, as the bill effectively nullifies a year’s worth of cash that’s supposed to be reserved for transportation infrastructure. While state-based taxes would remain in effect, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that at least $20 billion in tax revenue would ultimately be lost if the bill were to pass.

Ed. note: At least one prominent Republican, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, appears in favor of a gas-tax holiday, but other conservatives echo the same critiques that some liberals, and liberal pundits, have made. Politics, strange bedfellows, etc.

The Highway Trust Fund already has its share of problems. The federal fuel tax hasn’t been changed since 1993 and the Biden administration is pressuring the automotive sector to sell more battery electric vehicles that won’t be subject to it. This bill risks reducing the trust’s already dwindling annual budget by almost 50 percent, creating a deficit that will need to be accounted for at the end of the year and further worsen inflation.

Additional concerns have been voiced by environmentalists who believe lowering fuel prices will discourage EV adoption. Criticisms have also been made about how this will impact energy concerns that are effectively getting the federal government to incentivize fuel.

Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard and the chairman of Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers (2013-2017), told Forbes the proposed gas tax holiday would “raise profits for oil companies.” He estimated consumers would technically pay 12 cents less at the pump while the oil industry pocketed the other 6 cents. However, the current draft is supposed to require the Treasury Department to take the necessary steps to ensure oil and gas companies pass their savings back to consumers and redirect federal money back into the Highway Trust, even if it’s not all that clear on how it should be done.

Larry Summers, a former treasury secretary, told The Washington Post that he saw the policy as short-sighted and “goofy.”

“It’s terrible policy at a moment we’ve labeled climate change as an existential threat,” he told the outlet.

People definitely want to pay less at the pump. But it’s hard not to see this fix coming back to bite us later. Spending money America didn’t have is how we got into this financial mess in the first place and there’s going to be a problem when 2023 rolls around and fuel prices surge upwards overnight.

[Image: Architect of the Capitol/AOC.gov]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

125 Comments on “Suspending Federal Fuel Tax Pitched By Senate, White House...”


  • avatar
    EBFlex

    I was told the president can’t do anything about gas prices.

    I was told it’s all Trumps fault.

    I was told this pesky inflation slick was temporary.

    I was told the economy is roaring and wages are way up.

    I was told gas prices are actually way cheaper than they were many years ago due to inflation.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      BBB is working. Just enjoy it

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        BBB has not been made into law yet, thanks to Manchin and Sinema. Nice try smearing the current administation though.

        • 0 avatar
          285exp

          Manchin and Senima are the only sane Democrats in the Senate, they saved the Democrats from screwing things up any more than they have. Maybe now they can bring each of the boondoggle programs up for debate instead of ramming the whole thing down the country’s throat.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            If you want to know why any of the congresspeople vote the way they do, just look at who their donors are. Manchin and Sinema are no different.

            That’s who they represent in deed.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Manchin is a Democrat in a very red state, he’s voting how his constituents want him to. The Democrats want to destroy the coal mining industry in his state, if he votes to let them, all the money in the world won’t get him re-elected.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          You know, I always hear that “Presidents have no control over gas prices bit”, but I am certainly noticing a pattern with respect to prices and the party in the White House.

          It is true, they don’t directly set prices, but they have huge sway over energy policy which in turn has huge sway over energy cost, to include gas prices. It’s not the only factor, but it is a big one.

          The Biden administration is doing pretty much exactly what he said they would during the campaign.

          If people are upset about this, then perhaps they should have demanded the debates cover topics other than Covid-19. Perhaps questions on Afghanistan, Russia and economic and energy policy are also relevant things we should desire to know about our potential leaders.

          Or be happy he doesn’t say mean things (well, at least on Twitter), shut up and pay for your gas. This policy is EXACTLY what 81 millionish of you voted for so no, you don’t get to now welch on paying the taxes and transfer more of the burden of funding things like roads and bridges to the productive payers.

          Maybe think a little next election versus treating it like electing a High School Homecoming Court.

          or don’t and enjoy your busride.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Art,

            Biden’s most important promise, the one he made to his wealthy donors, is the one he kept.

            Say it with me: Nothing will fundamentally change*.

            *For his donors.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      Thinking is also good –

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “I was told gas prices are actually way cheaper than they were many years ago due to inflation”

      Not way cheaper, but average.

      https://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

      Prices are NOT nearing record levels. The record was in 2008 and 2010-2011.

      And wages are way up. A friend and his Walmart colleagues all just got a 25% bump in pay. That will also push prices up, and their standard of living will fall back again… but I digress.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Everything is on the table except the obvious: promote the production of more oil. Politicians love to create expensive government focused solutions, when free options are available that require nothing of them.

    • 0 avatar
      kosmo

      Yeppers! Let them produce, and let the free-ish market work!

      Like it was doing so well during the time that other guy was in office, not that he had anything to do with it……

  • avatar
    Garrett

    Suspending it isn’t smart – now or in the wake of major disasters.

    Frankly, they should temporarily raise it when there are supply disruptions to discourage consumption until supplies can stabilize.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Not sure if they should raise it, but I agree they shouldn’t lower it. If they lower it, the prices will just fill the gap. The result is more money for Opec.

      Allow domestic production to have a future again and prices will fall in line.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    According to statista.com, the price of regular gas peaked at $3.62 in 2012. We’re getting close to that level at $3.48. Before becoming hysterical about today’s price, we should remember that gas was unusually cheap a year ago because everyone stayed home due to the COVID pandemic.

    This is just the Democrats trying to buy votes. Dropping the pump price from $3.48 to $3.30 isn’t much relief. It will remain far above the price a year ago. We need the gas tax money to repair our transportation infrastructure. And I don’t mean dumping more cash into public transportation that no one rides.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Ken Dahl… I was thinking exactly the same thing. Besides, gasoline was well over $4.00 a gallon back around 2008. That would be more than $5.22 today. So it’s not like this is our worst experience with fuel prices.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      Lots of people use public transport in my city. But gas taxes, pathetic as they are, don’t go towards that.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      If a candidate promised a doller/gallon gas tax that was ironclad destined for road construction and repair, they would have my vote. I am far from the typical US citizen however. EV’s need to pay a per mile tax some how.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        @ttacgreg–Agree but the tax should continue to pay for the repair and replacement of bridges. The Brent Spence bridge is a major bridge going over the Ohio River on I 71/75.The bridge connecting Covington, Kentucky with Cincinnati, Ohio opened in 1963. It was designed to carry 80,000 vehicles per day; currently, the bridge carries more than 150,000 vehicles daily and is projected to carry 200,000 each day by 2030. According to the U.S. Energy Information
        Administration, here’s what that average per-gallon cost covered.

        Distribution and marketing: $0.36
        Refining costs and profits: $0.36
        Federal and state taxes: $0.47
        Crude oil: $1.53

        The Highway Trust Fund funds federal and state infrastructure projects for roads, bridges and public transportation systems. State gas taxes go into state-managed funds, and each state decides how to use them.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        “EV’s need to pay a per mile tax some how.”

        Illinois jacked up the registration fees on EVs to a couple of hundred dollars a year to address this concern.

        As a green car enthusiast, I don’t love my thing being taxed. But I’m glad the issue is settled, and that we can move on.

        Plus, I like roads and realize that “collective action” (pronounced “paying taxes”) is required to maintain them.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ If a candidate promised a doller/gallon gas tax that was ironclad destined for road construction and repair, they would have my vote. I am far from the typical US citizen however. EV’s need to pay a per mile tax some how.”

        Most reasonable people would agree with this. It’s an absolutely crazy concept though. Putting a gasoline tax right back into roads and bridges versus building commuter trains and installing speed cameras.

  • avatar
    orobertscab

    When every move this administration and most Democrats made in 2021 was anti-fossil fuels, it rings hollow to now be fretting about the high cost of gasoline. I’m 100% in favor of EV’s and renewables but the mad dash to dispense with fossil fuels ASAP by this administration is unwise, and unsustainable.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Knee jerk reactions instead of a solid policy. Great!

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Second time in a week I find myself agreeing with Larry Summers:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/larry-summers-has-a-new-inflation-warning-11644871518

    I must need help.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      From the Washington Post link in the writeup:

      Lawrence H. Summers, a treasury secretary and top White House economist under previous Democratic administrations, called the idea of a gas tax holiday “shortsighted, ineffective, goofy and gimmicky.”

  • avatar

    What gas prices? Everybody is working from home. No one drives cars. They will not fool me no more. Let’s go Joe, let’s go to Ukraine.

  • avatar
    islander800

    The minute prices creep up a bit, there’re calls for suspending a fuel tax – to make prices lower for those poor commuters. Say what? I thought we were supposed to be driving down the use of fossil fuels if we’re to have any chance of slowing down the temperature rise in the atmosphere – and any chance of avoiding a not-too-distant-future Hell, climate-wise. That potential future if we don’t act is now beyond debate. And all economists agree the way to do this is with higher fuel prices, not lower.

    Here in B.C. Canada, current prices are, converted to U.S. dollars, about $5.25 a gallon. In Europe, it’s likely closer to $7.00. We don’t have rioting in the streets (no trucker pun intended) and most Canadians recognize it’s necessary to cut fossil fuel use. We also have rising carbon taxes on fuel, likely pushing our gas prices up to around $7.00/gallon U.S. within the next five years – BUT the tax is essentially neutral, rebated to consumers, so the intent is to convince people to burn less fossil fuel while leaving choices on how to get there. Economists are in agreement that’s the way to go: let market pricing push behavior in the direction needed. That’s not “communism”, as I can hear now from some quarters, it’s the exact opposite: it’s letting the market pricing mechanism work its magic. Vehicles here, for the most part, are smaller than in America so cost of driving at higher gas prices ends up being similar to the States with its higher average vehicle size. And hey, if you still want that F250 for commuting, you’ve made a free choice so don’t complain.

    So just what is Biden trying to achieve here, beyond saving the mid-terms? Oh yea, forgot – politics.

    • 0 avatar
      MitchConner

      People in Vancouver pay 54 cents a liter in taxes on their fuel. In Europe it’s worse. What a bunch of saps.

      If Canadians are as concerned aboot (sic) fossil fuel use and the environment as you say — then why are the tar sands still in production? It’s one of the worst ways to produce crude as the energy expended to heat the sand to separate it from the surrounding oil releases a crapload of greenhouse gasses.

      The bottom line? Stop sniffing your farts trying to justify getting stuffed by your government at the pump. You’re just kidding yourself.

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        anyone that doesnt remember 2008 is going to repeat it

      • 0 avatar
        islander800

        See, that’s why it’s almost impossible to have a civilized conversation on-line today. One makes an argument waiting for a thoughtful response and what do you get? Personal attacks.

        Did I say I support the Tar Sands? I don’t, and most Canadians east and west of Alberta don’t either. But we don’t call the shots, as Canada is still a free country for capital to invest in what it wants, contrary to what some protesters insist. (Fox News called Trudeau a “communist” yesterday and today Elon Musk compared him to “Hitler”. He can’t be both, and he certainly isn’t either.)

        So I take it you do not believe human-caused climate change is something worth doing anything about. As I said before, the scientific debate about its reality is settled, regardless of what random bloggers say. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention. I believe the climatologists and innumerable studies that prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Reading the studies themselves rather than listening to the “filtered” coverage of non-believers has a lot of merit. Encouraging people to change their behavior is one of the many ways to address the issue and carbon taxes are the best way thought of yet to do it. It doesn’t tell people what they can or can’t do, it simply relies on them doing what is in their best economic interest. Do you have a better way? Or do you believe “freedoms” trump grandkids’ futures?

        As for other ways to deal with atmospheric warming, I believe that a shift to new-generation nuclear reactors will be essential. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who first warned of human-caused climate change in the late 1980s also believes this. As he has pointed out, breeder reactors that use existing spent fuel from convention reactors as fuel (addressing the long-standing disposal problem) can’t “melt down” like current reactors. “Environmentalists” on the left are adamantly against nuclear but it’s hard to see how solar and wind can replace fossil fuels alone without it. So you see, I’m not a lefty, just someone who firmly believes we have to act, and soon, with all options rationally considered.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “…and any chance of avoiding a not-too-distant-future Hell, climate-wise…”

      You’ve been brainwashed into a media-induced panic. News flash: You wouldn’t be able to survive in Canada without man-made tools for modifying climate.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ and any chance of avoiding a not-too-distant-future Hell, climate-wise. ”

      Been hearing this since the 70s. It was lies then and it’s a lie now.

    • 0 avatar
      CaddyDaddy

      …. because w/o Alberta and her Tar Sands and mostly conservative freedom loving oil workers; Canada’s economy, open borders for all but Europeans and socialist healthcare scheme would be tits up.

      Covid scam is fading, about face to the war on Climate Change Emergency.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Ah, yes, the “scam” that has claimed the lives of 930,000 Americans at the two year mark. Just like the flu /s…If you think education is expensive, try ignorance…

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Biden is trying to mitigate the upcoming slaughter the Democrats face in the midterms. After pursuing policies that had the intent and effect of driving up fossil fuel prices, he’s begging the Saudis to pump more oil, which they have declined to do, raided the strategic oil reserve, and now wants to suspend the federal gas tax, that’s supposed to help finance the maintenance of the highway infrastructure.

      We are truly in the best of hands.

  • avatar
    numike

    when does the tax get re-instated?

  • avatar
    watersketch

    How about the government borrows billions of dollars from Americans so that they can temporarily reduce gas prices and get reelected this fall?

    After they get elected and for 20 years after that they can pay back the money they borrowed.

  • avatar
    wjtinfwb

    What an idiotic, simplistic and moronic proposal by the incompetents that run the government. Biden knew exactly what he was doing when he canceled NA drilling and oil exploration as well as the Keystone pipeline. Any 8th grader with one Economics class under his/her belt would know that when you reduce supply but do nothing to curtail demand, prices will rise. The administration knew that and somehow though overnight everyone would trade their Suburban for a Tesla and the fuel price issue would evaporate. Suspending the federal gasoline tax of 18.3 cents per gallon would amount to about a 5% reduction in pump prices and further reduce the ability to maintain the already deteriorating roads and bridges across the US. Kicking the can down the road for 10 more months just to get through he midterm elections is foolish and perilous for the transportation system and is a perfect example of how far in over their heads this administration really is. There’s two options here. Level with the American people and tell them this is part of the plan to wean the public off gasoline by making it so expensive you have to look at alternatives, or; open US oil production back up which will encourage producers to restart exploration and drilling and slowly bring prices back down. But I doubt Biden and his sophomoric administration has either the guts or integrity to level with the public so they continue to blame others and try to demonstrate doing something by passing a meaningless suspension of the gas tax. It’s absolutely amazing this country elected these fools.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Ironic, ain’t it? They pass an infrastructure bill, then make an election year ploy to decrease funding available for said same.

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      WJ tin

      Sir – it was all worth it to get rid of mean tweets. I mean we JUST CANNOT HAVE THEM. He once tweeted, “Dr faux chi throws a baseball like a girl.” ( at a MLB game 1st pitch ceremony ).
      Thank G** we ll have none of that any more.

  • avatar
    houttbe

    We’re paying the equivalent of $ 7.75/gallon in Europe. The new car I’m picking up next week is electric. Fine with me.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “We’re paying the equivalent of $ 7.75/gallon in Europe. The new car I’m picking up next week is electric. Fine with me.”

      Enjoy it while you can. Trust me, you won’t be able to avoid the tax man for very long.

    • 0 avatar
      ThomasSchiffer

      In my city, Munich, public charging costs just rose by about 30% courtesy of a lack of electricity in Germany and thanks to those wonderful ‘renewable green energy sources’ which are unreliable and are still heavily taxed in this idiotic nation.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ We’re paying the equivalent of $ 7.75/gallon in Europe. The new car I’m picking up next week is electric. Fine with me.”

      Weird. Insane and unethical market manipulation by the government has artificially pushed gas prices so high that people are buying awful EVs.

      It’s almost like that’s exactly what they wanted to happen.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Exactly, the low income people who are most affected by the increase in fuel prices can just buy $50k EV, and voila! They don’t have to worry about gas prices any more!

  • avatar
    dal20402

    This is stupid. Within the boundaries of the oil companies’ margin, the price is set by supply and demand, not by the level of taxation. Suspending the gas tax would reduce prices far less than the amount of the gas tax and would just be a transfer of funds from our highway trust fund into the oil companies’ pockets.

    If low-income people are struggling, give the money to them, not to the oil companies.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      If you are struggling to pay for gas, you can just take the bus. Sure it is inconvienent and uncomfortable but you voted for it and frankly, your inability to afford to operate a personal vehicle is none of my care or concern. Why should I be compelled to buy gas for others?

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Since we are bound and determined to relive the 70’s (while moving to a managed economy)…

    Dear ‘Democrats,’ if your intent is to soften the blow in the upcoming midterm elections, I suggest the following plan of action [tout de suite]:

    A) Stop pussyfooting around with trifling ‘tax cuts’ and move immediately to Price Controls. You know you love them; you know they work. Do it. It’s in your nature. Do it. [I see the Senior Senator from California nodding in approval (and how are your approval ratings, young lady? answer: going down more quickly than your net worth is going up – and that’s saying something)]

    B) Develop a good solid Five Year Plan for the U.S. economy – immediately. Should take about two weeks to develop with the right team in place. [The right team might include Ocasio-Cortez or Pelosi – but not both (don’t want to encourage homicide). Maybe Schumer, almost certainly Sanders (it’s the Future, not the Past – but you don’t need me to tell me your business)]

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    As I have said before, this president caused this mess. Stopping Keystone pipeline, executive order after executive order to take areas around New Mexico, Alaska, offshore unavailable for drilling, generally anti fracking on public lands, claim fossil fuels in general classification as weapons of mass destruction.

    You can’t make these things up. Then begging Saudi Arabia and OPEC to increase production while they just laugh and enjoy their pack with Russia to keep production limited.

    This president wants to give tax credits to electric car owners, while not doing a thing to help frackers and drillers.

    Well you get what you get my friends. It will get worse, until this president who is now trying to select an anti fossil fuel candidate to Fed gets thrown out of office.

    Enjoy 100 dollars a barrel oil (or more) and $4 for regular unleaded soon. Branden is doing a good job at screwing the economy.

    Funny how he does not parrot something about transitory inflation any longer.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      There you go again…

      1) Keystone XL was never completed. Approving it never increased production. Cancelling it never decreased production.

      2) Domestic oil production was up for 2021:
      (thousands of barrels)
      January 2021: 11056
      November 2021: 11753

      https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m

      The real problem? Worldwide demand for oil is exceeding supply. It’s that simple.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        Nice CNN talking points. Let’s dissect these:

        “1) Keystone XL was never completed. Approving it never increased production. Cancelling it never decreased production.”

        The price of a commodity like oil is determined primarily by expectations about the future price. When Brandon and his ilk cancel pipelines and make lands off limits for fracking, the expectation is that the price of oil will increase in the future, which causes the price to increase today.

        “2) Domestic oil production was up for 2021:
        (thousands of barrels)
        January 2021: 11056
        November 2021: 11753”

        This conveys no information without knowing how much demand increased, or how much domestic supply would have increased in the absence of the Brandon regime’s policies.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “…or how much domestic supply would have increased in the absence of the Brandon regime’s policies.”

          It’s Harry Turtledove Alternative History Time!

          Fact: Keystone XL never came on line. It never pumped a drop of oil. It wasn’t going to pump said drop for YEARS. The only way it affected prices one way or another was in some alternative history that never existed.

          The reason why oil prices are high is because global supply isn’t keeping up with global demand. Plain and simple.

          Get some new material.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        The critique against the Biden administration is that they are hostile to the domestic energy sector.

        At the end of the day, he is not doing anything that he didn’t say he was going to do in the campaign. You voted for this so if you can’t afford gas now, well, too bad. Not my problem. Learn to code or something.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          “Nothing will fundamentally change.”

          He kept that promise to the wealthy donors he was speaking with. Too bad about that public health option he ran on. I guess it depends on which promise he made and to whom he made it to, eh?

          I believed him when he was talking with his check writers. Status quo, baby!

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ As I have said before, this president caused this mess. Stopping Keystone pipeline, executive order after executive order to take areas around New Mexico, Alaska, offshore unavailable for drilling, generally anti fracking on public lands, claim fossil fuels in general classification as weapons of mass destruction.”

      Yep. 100%. Absolutely destroy domestic energy production and future infrastructure and then wonder why prices drastically increase…all while buying an insane amount of oil from Russia fueling their Ukraine agenda.

      These people hate America so much they want to make us a slave to the world. It’s astounding.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Well, unfortunately, that last part of the last sentence started back in the 1990s under BOTH parties, but keeping that going and accelerating it after someone tried to reverse it for four years is as bad if not worse!

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      High gas prices? Bring it! Maybe there will br less school bus sized pickup trucks in the future.

    • 0 avatar
      Bobby

      But it’s all worth it since we got rid of the bad Orange Man and his mean tweets/sarc

  • avatar
    numike

    EV charging stations need repairs—but who’s going to foot the bill? https://www.popsci.com/cars/ev-charging-station-repair-cost/

  • avatar
    BSttac

    Everything Biden touches turns to garbage. How about you open up the pipeline you closed and stop buying from Russia? You know, the whole thing that created this issue. Crazy, I know. Idiot. The worst president of all time

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Agree stop buying from Russia.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      If you stop buying from Russia, you start buying from Venezuela. What do you think happened? Trump closed Venezuela to 0 barrels. And now they had to buy more of a specific Russian oil. Because refineries need that particular oil or Venezuelan. Even if you open K-XL, you still need to import Russian oil. US already processes Canadian oil, only method of delivery would be different. But also, K-XL was supposed to end on the shores of Texas, where ships would be loaded to deliver it elsewhere bypassing Panama canal.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        You don’t buy from Venezuela as well. High sulfur crude oil is harder to refine that is why it is in less demand and less expensive than North Sea and West Texas Intermediate crude. Most of the Canadian tar sand crude is refined and the product is exported. Low sulfur crude can be refined in any refinery but high sulfur crude is limited to just a few refineries because it will literally gunk up a traditional refinery. More product is produced from low sulfur crude and as for gasoline, diesel, and lubricants you can get those from any crude that is refined. The content of sulfur is important as to how much refined product you get from a barrel of oil and where it can be refined. There is nothing special about Russian and Venezuela oil with the exception it has high sulfur content, harder to refine, produces less refined product, and thus less expensive.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Refineries are built for this type of oil. And this is a bottom line

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            You have to build a special refinery for high sulfur crude and that is why the price of high sulfur or heavy crude is less expensive. Those same refineries can refine sweet or low sulfur crude but a regular refinery cannot refine high sulfur crude. The cost to build these special refineries is much higher and the only way to make them profitable is to buy lots of high sulfur crude to recoup the cost and also those refineries are usually much larger in order to recoup the cost sooner. The low sulfur oil yields more product. I worked in the oil and gas industry for years so I know something about crude oil and the refinery process.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I am sure you have. I just read “oil price magazine”

  • avatar
    Matt Foley

    If the ultimate goal is to force as many people as possible out of ICE vehicles and into short-range EVs and public transit, then bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund is a feature, not a bug.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    I must say I’m amused at all these self-described conservatives whining about what amounts to a tax cut.

    Having said that, though, cutting the federal fuel tax is a crap idea and a cheap political ploy that reminds me of the various “payroll tax holidays” – i.e., suspending W2 withholding – that happened over the years. Yeah, your paycheck got fatter…because you’re not paying any taxes. Great news for a while, as long as you can cough up what you owe for the year on April 14th.

    The upshot here is that oil prices are out of our political control. They’re out of EVERYONE’S political control. Look at what’s happening in Ukraine – not a single shot has been fired, not a single drop of oil has been withheld, and yet the “market” for oil has gone up? Yeah, OK, guys…if you say so.

    The people who can game the market have gamed it, and they’re making money. A lot of what we’re seeing now is these folks profit-taking after the shellacking they took two years ago.

    I suppose the solution is to switch to energy sources that are harder to speculate on – i.e., stuff that has an infinite supply. But we all know who’s going to buy every politician on Earth to stop that, don’t we?

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @FreedMike–Agree this is more of a cheap political ploy and will not save the consumer that much when you consider state fuel taxes are much higher and the price of fuel is driven more by market forces. Many independents were hit badly by the crash in the oil market and as a result many went bankrupt. Less competition higher prices. Most of the price of crude is determined by the futures market and the degree of confidence traders have in supply and any interruptions to that supply.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “Most of the price of crude is determined by the futures market and the degree of confidence traders have in supply and any interruptions to that supply.”

        Exactly, and that’s the reason why as long as we’re beholden to energy types that can be commoditized, we’re beholden to the commoditizers. If they want to make more, they will. And there isn’t much we can do about it.

        But you can’t commoditize the sun, or wind, or the hydrogen you’d use to power fusion reactors – commoditization depends on scarcity, and none of those things are scarce at all. And not coincidentally, those energy sources are the ones we’d switch to deal with carbon emissions. Is it any wonder that the commoditizers are so dead set on denying climate change? It has nothing to do with science – they see a threat to their business models.

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “But you can’t commoditize the sun, or wind…”

          Dude, just stop. The evidence of your ignorance grows deeper each time you touch the keyboard.

          What do you think solar panels and wind turbines are constructed from? Answer: Commodities.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Ah, so…if the raw materials needed to construct the equipment needed to produce energy are “commoditized,” then…what? The energy source is no good? An oil rig is built from steel that is…you guessed it…commoditized too. So, oil’s no good?

            You only have to buy the raw materials for the equipment once. And once the materials are used, the people who sold them can’t go back and jack the price around.

            But you knew that…

            Meanwhile, you can’t put a price on air, sunlight or hydrogen because they’re virtually limitless.

            But you knew that too…

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ I must say I’m amused at all these self-described conservatives whining about what amounts to a tax cut.”

      Not that you actually have any clue as to how people view themselves politically, but conservatives are for common sense legislation. That includes taxes that make sense as well as being against tax cuts that do not make sense.

      I know it’s a confusing concept for you to understand, but it’s what free and independent thinkers do.

      People like you, that strictly engage in group think, are for whatever your party wants. If Trump proposed a cure for cancer you would be fully against it. If Brandon demanded forced sterilization for people who are against the Covid cold experimental vaccines or the mandates you would be first in line supporting it.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “…but conservatives are for common sense legislation…”

        …like making it illegal to give water out to people waiting in line to vote…

        LOL

        “People like you, that strictly engage in group think, are for whatever your party wants.”

        I said in my post this tax cut makes no sense, despite “my party” being for it. So you’re full of crap, or the reading comprehension class at Trump University was full. Take your pick.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          It’s not illegal. Poll workers can hand out water and snacks.

          Further, you’re standing in line to vote, you don’t need water or snacks. Further if you do, bring your own.

          Keep reaching kiddo.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          FreedMike – why bother? His continual run of statements that are just false shows that he simply drinks from the toxic well that feeds him what he wants to hear. There is zero in the way of critical thinking skills. This has nothing to do with his political position – there are plenty of conservative commenters here that make well rounded cases for their beliefs. This guy is not one of them that’s for sure. The ignorance is entertaining though…

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Bwhahahahahahaha. Someone is very obviously projecting.

            Love it when simple facts are portrayed as ignorance. Thinking for oneself is considered “zero critical thinking skills”

            And assuming someone’s political position. Tsk tsk.

  • avatar
    ThomasSchiffer

    Diesel here (Munich) currently costs 1.63 Euros – PER LITER. And the price fluctuates numerous times a day. At Autobahn gas stations the price can be as high as 1.80/1.90 for Diesel, and Gasoline is well over 2.00 Euros at these highway stations (the highest I have seen this year at a filling station was 2.30 Euros for premium Gasoline).

    3/4 of the German fuel price is simply government tax, including a new carbon tax (we have FOUR taxes on a liter of fuel here plus 19% VAT tax on those taxes!). In the past I could stomach our fuel prices (which were never cheap) because the money would go into road maintenance and other automotive-related projects. Ok, I gladly paid that. But these days the government uses the revenue gained from fuel taxes for their silly and utterly useless left-wing projects like supporting illegal migrants and subsidizing EVs for people who can easily afford them in the first place.

    I depend on my car and I have no desire to use trains or public transportation (even in the city). The car is the best form of transportation in my eyes. I can drive where I want, when I want and leave when I want. No waiting for a slow and unreliable German train with malfunctioning A/C or heater, no hassle of multiple changeovers (and more waiting), no need to sit on dirty seats with spit, blood, chewing gum, urine and other disgusting materials on them and above all no risk of getting stabbed, robbed or assaulted by people who have no right being in my country.

    These hysterical car-hating eco wackos and their vision of a future utopia in which we all ride bicycles or take trains, use the correct gender language and accept that sexes are a social construct and share clothing with our neighbors in the interest of sustainability can kiss my…

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    “Every tool is on the table to reduce prices…”

    Yeah, except incentivizing increased production. Pushing the conversion to “clean energy” and forcing gas prices up has been their priority, and now they’re getting backlash for it. High gas prices hurts lower income folks the worst, since they’re the least able to absorb the impact.

    Releasing oil from the strategic reserve had almost zero impact (a short-term two-cent per gallon drop in gas prices). Also, Democrats had previously blocked an attempt to buy oil when prices were low, to add to the strategic reserve.

    Electrification is coming, but trying to artificially rush it isn’t a good plan.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      In fact, domestic oil production was up through November 2021:

      (thousands of barrels)
      January 2021: 11056
      November 2021: 11753

      https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m

      The issue here is that the global price of oil is increasing. And in fact, EXPORTS of domestically produced oil also increased during 2021. What’s the government supposed to do – tell oil producers they can’t export?

      I’d say the problem isn’t production – it’s speculation. Oil producers took a beating in 2020, and now they’re cashing in. Governments would have one hell of a tough time controlling that, and even if they try, the speculators have paid politicians to make sure that control never materializes.

      The solution isn’t more production – it’s to switch to a different type of energy that isn’t as subject to commoditization and speculation. Hence, renewables. Hence, electric cars.

    • 0 avatar
      xtoyota

      Reducing reserves to help lower prices did not work…..now we can replace that oil with a higher price per barrow.
      Guess who pays for that higher price ……. WE DO
      What a stupid country :=(

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Make no mistake, the long term plan here is to make fossil fuels as expensive as possible. Democrats just want a short term break right before the elections and then they can get back to that. The goal is what Europeans have now, about $150 to fill up your tank.

    Someone will have to explain to me why OPEC countries having more control of oil production is better for the environment and global politics.

    We have to be the only country that has trillions in natural resources that we don’t use, but somehow think using it elsewhere (and sending trillions to places like Saudi Arabia and Russia instead) is somehow a net win.

    Even very liberal(some would even say socialist) countries like Norway use offshore drilling to pay for a very generous safety net.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @Crosley–A major reason why the US doesn’t produce more oil and gas is environmental regulations and the major oil companies are global. Major oil companies are less interested in where they produce oil and more interested in cost and less regulation. As for environmental issues it does not affect the US directly when oil and gas is imported especially refined products–there still is environmental impact but not in our backyard. There has not been a major oil refinery built in the USA since the mid 70s. The offshore drilling in Norway is encouraged by their government as is exporting the oil and gas for the revenue and yes it pays for a large portion of their government programs.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        Not sure if it is complete but they started building a refinery outside of Pittsburgh PA near Beaver PA on the Ohio River several years ago.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          The facility in Beaver, PA is a plastics plant, not a refinery.

          https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-steel-hope-fear-new-plastics-factory-rises-appalachia-n1283830

          There’s a reason why people don’t want refineries in their backyards – it sucks to live near one. They smell, they give off Lord knows what pollutants, and they blow up from time to time. They’re a tough sell. I get the NIMBYism.

          • 0 avatar
            kcflyer

            Thanks Freed, we left Beaver a few years before they started construction of this plant. Very interesting article. Hopefully the 1.6 billion dollar giveaway of Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars will not be a waste long term. Probably a better return than the multi millions handed out to the Steelers and Pirate franchise owners for their new stadiums.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            Yes people don’t want refineries in their backyard and as it result the time and cost of permitting and building are too much for most companies. It is less expensive and easier to buy an existing refinery and modify it to increase capacity.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Some smaller refineries have been built and there have been a few that have added capacity. Somewhere around 600,000 barrels a day and more capacity is considered a major refinery.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “We have to be the only country that has trillions in natural resources that we don’t use, but somehow think using it elsewhere…is somehow a net win.”

      Exactly. Like sending our coal to China so they can have cheap energy while sending the emissions into the same global atmosphere as if we had burned it here. Brilliant.

  • avatar
    Luke42

    I’d prefer to reduce the income tax, and replace it with fuel/carbon taxes.

    It’s real simple: tax things society needs less of, and don’t tax things society needs more of.

    Discouraging oil use while encouraging income seems like a big win to me. The main thing is to make the change gradual so that nobody’s lifestyle is upended — like a gradual change over 10 years or so.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      “It’s real simple: tax things society needs less of, and don’t tax things society needs more of.”

      Right on. If I were king of the world I would implement a gradual and ever increasing tax on carbon energy sources and funnel that tax money directly into incentives and development of renewable energy sources. We must wean ourselves off of carbon energy. Make it gradual to allow the markets to adjust and new products and energy infrastructure to be built. This is what government is, this is what government should do. Governments need to look after the prosperity, the future viability, and well being of a nation and its citizens. Currently here in the US we have a corrupt government that looks after the profitability of corporations and the billionaire class.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Luke, why do you hate poor people? Lowering income taxes and raising energy cost will make them even poorer. They don’t pay taxes now, all they’d get was higher energy prices. Rich people’s energy costs don’t bother them, Obama’s got plenty of money to pay for the energy costs for his two seaside mansions, he doesn’t need a tax break.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Those making their livelihoods from oil, gas, and coal are going to defend their industry and will be against anything that threatens their industry. We need to diversify our energy sources. These sources will still be taxed but that is true of most things. As for EVs they will need to come further in battery development, infrastructure, and price. There will need to be a change in the taxing and funding of roads and bridges where EVs will need to pay for their fair share of these.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Agreed, EV owners need to foot something equivalent to the gas tax.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I would add a disposal fee like when you buy a set of tires until the battery recycling gets figured out

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Here in Washington, both EVs and hybrids pay a registration surcharge that is more than the gas tax for anyone who drives less than around 15k miles/year. I’m subsidizing the gas car drivers.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Wouldn’t it depend on the MPG of the gas powered car? In my case, I average 25 mpg, and I drive about 15,000 miles a year, so assuming $.494 for Washington’s state gas tax per gallon, that works out to about $300 a year. As I understand it the EV surcharge is $255 (correct me if I’m wrong, though).

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @FreedMike-For the State of Ohio there is a regular annual registration fee that is assessed every vehicle and there is currently an additional fuel fee of $200 for electric vehicles (EVs, any vehicle with a plug that runs entirely or partially on electricity) and $100 for nonelectric, 100% fossil fuel hybrids.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Those numbers are correct, although I was calculating using the total gas tax ($0.678).

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Anyone wants to defend the source of their livelyhood, be it fossil fuel, weapons, food, or calling people racist.

  • avatar
    SnarkIsMyDefault

    I’m just wondering how many switch positions depending on whether it’s the Dems or the ‘Pubs pushing this.

    Might need some popcorn before reading through…

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    If you really care about the price of gas you wouldn’t be driving a gas hog. You don’t have a right to cheap gas.

  • avatar
    DAC17

    Sadly, this country thinks we are entitled to everything; huge SUV’s, no taxes and cheap gas. Please read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and tell me we’re not headed there. God bless my grandkids. Can we finally decide that we need to pay for our infrastructure?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • THX1136: Had a good friend, Brian, in high school whose dad had been a Pontiac dealer in their very small town....
  • DenverMike: The Beatles are way overrated. I’m 53 and not a hater by any means, but they sort between Steely Dan and...
  • bullnuke: I well remember the big Edsel reveal. Those were the days when the next year’s models were wrapped up...
  • bunkie: I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember that Thunderbirds didn’t carry any Ford badging at all, just...
  • theonlydt: I have two children still in booster seats, a medium sized dog, a relatively small garage (height and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber