Bush Threatens Veto of Gas Gouging Bill

[TexasLawyer]

Source: Dow Jones

Bush Threatens Veto of Gas Gouging Bill
Published: May 23, 2007 1:11 PM

By William L. Watts

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) -- President Bush is likely to veto legislation that would create hefty fines and criminal penalties for gasoline price-gouging, the White House said Wednesday.

The threat came as the House prepared to vote on a Democratic plan aimed at battling rising gasoline prices by requiring the Federal Trade Commission to define "price gouging." The bill would create fines and criminal penalties, including jail time, for industry executives found guilty of gouging.

The White House, in a formal statement of administration policy, said the legislation amounted to price controls that would hinder oil companies and retailers from responding to market signals, potentially worsening fuel shortages.

"Gasoline price controls are an old -- and failed -- policy choice that will exacerbate shortages and increase fuel hoarding after natural disasters, denying fuel to people when they most need it," the White House said, adding that Bush's senior advisers would recommend a veto of the House bill or any similar legislation that makes it to his desk.

<snip>



Read more: http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20070523-000763-1310

[Avalux]

1. Par for the course; Buscho does nothing to benefit the people of this country.

Every single decision made is for corporations and those who make money off them. That's about as simple as it gets.

[INdemo]

15. *'s oil buddies cant be bothered with regulations or laws..They need more profits to

reward those that make those profits possible....Check the following links...Something the corporate media wouldn't dare report

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2004/04072004_gas_price_bill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/memos-show-oil-companies-_b_6980.html

[struggle4progress]

44. Role of mergers in gas price increases 'not trivial'

By BRIAN TUMULTY
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE

(Original publication: May 24, 2007)

WASHINGTON - Wholesale gasoline prices have increased between 1 and 7 cents per gallon as a result of oil industry mergers that occurred during the 1990s, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday.

"While these price increases seem small, they are not trivial," the GAO said in a report prepared for a congressional Joint Economic Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

With gasoline currently averaging $3.21 a gallon nationally the report did little to satisfy Democratic lawmakers. ~snip~

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/BUSINESS01/705240354/1066

[Socal31]

59. Jesus.

When will it stop. I wasnt a math major, but since when did "Protecting against price-gouging" = "Artificial price-caps?" !

[lostinacause]

66. What an event such as the ones that the bill becomes "effective"

happen, there is decrease in the (short run) supply. If prices do not increase a shortage will occur. It is standard microeconomic theory. What is worse is that once shortages occur in a local area people anticipate that it will spread and start buying more gasoline. The shortage will therefore tend to spread in a similar fashion to bank runs of the past. In my opinion shortages are much worse then high prices because in the end it leads to costly effort to acquire the resource and the resource not being available at any price for some period of time.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. !

:scared:

He's out of his little, little mind.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Let him veto.

Then, let's attempt an override and get the ones voting "NAY" on the record for that, too. They are just loading our clips for 08.

[OwnedByFerrets]

25. Or let him veto,

and the dems say, "Oh well, we tried". :rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

61. Bring it on, Command AOL & republicon oil cronies

Make it unmistakeable who you really are, so plain even the God-forsaken Freepers get it.

[depakid]

4. So let them!

and then MAKE THE CORPORATE MEDIA PAY ATTENTION!

Crikey, it's not that hard to do- and with gas prices potentially subject to a major spike this summer- there's no better time to be shouting this from the rooftops.

[2Design]

5. It is about the oil - mission accomplished - and others lives

[brentspeak]

6. Let's see the Repubs in the Senate try to vote 'nay' on this

Let them explain to their constituents why they would vote to allow the public to be fleeced at the pump.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Not only is Bush a war criminal, but he is an enemy of the American people

What other outrages must we endure before the Democratic leaders in Congress put impeachment back on the table?

[BushOut06]

10. Could he be considered an "enemy combatant"?

If so, maybe he could be "disappeared" down to Gitmo.

[KansDem]

16. Yeah, we could put him in a prison van and drive him all the way to GitMo

...except we couldn't afford the gas. x(

[Karenina]

18. Or better yet. one o' dem seaworthy

CHEVY 57s!!!! Who got photographic confirmation of the vehicle of which I speak? ;-)

[louis-t]

8. And dipshit knows what works and what doesn't..

Because he was SOOOOOOO successful as an oilman. :eyes:

[orleans]

9. hey, let the market decide.

if people don't want to pay for gas with these high prices, then they'll stop buying gas!







:sarcasm:

[depakid]

11. Ironically, this will hit the red states (or red areas) far harder

as most often they're suburban/rural with poor or non-existent public transit options.

[silverojo]

58. Good.

They deserve it for voting Repuke all the time. :mad:

[nolabels]

72. The rural part of the country is also much more vulnerable to high petroleum prices......

for all kinds of other reasons. Most of the modern farm technology depends heavily on petroleum and it's price being low. We in the cities will get it worse later but in the near term it looks worse for them.

[jonnyra]

12. Its simple

We are being held hostage by the Bush and his oil henchmen. No other way to view it. We need the gasoline to get to work, go to school, make deliveries...whatever. And we cant do that without gasoline. They can do whatever they want and all we can do is whimper and whine about it. Bush only cares about the corporation and does not give one shit about the people of America.

America has gotten the government it deserves.

[MLFerrell]

19. "America has gotten the government it deserves."

You can say that again... If this were any other country in the world, the people would have put a stop to this madness long ago.

[saigon68]

30. What else from a THUG and war criminal ?

Predictable

[bdamomma]

70. yes they would have.

[ckimmy57]

27. Amen to that

When Bush ran in the 2000 election he said he was "appalled by the high prices of gasoline" (then it was $1.48 a gallon)and was surprised that the american people would sit by and let Clinton and Gore get away with this "price gouging". Oh please....give me a damn break. Bush is lining the flippin pockets of his oil buddies who in turn kick some green back to that idiot they call a president and to hell with us poor working stiffs. :mad:

[Art_from_Ark]

57. He was also gonna "jawbone" with the "Ay-rabs" t' git them to

open their spigots, if prices got any higher.

I guess holding hands with and kissing the Saudi prince just wasn't enough...

[unpossibles]

13. as opposed to how stations in my neighborhood charged $6 a gallon

on 9/11?

[SKKY]

14. Here's a question I ask myself, almsot daily...

[raouldukelives]

17. Classic

:rofl:

[TexasLawyer]

20. Not much press coverage

of this threatened veto. It's mostly being reported in financial/trade press.

I guess BushCo's media buddies don't think this threatened veto will play well in the Homeland.

[Miss Chybil]

21. Bring it on! nt

[Sapere aude]

22. And still 30% of the fools out there will complain about gas prices and praise Bush.

[Toots]

23. Well that stops that one in it's tracks..the votes aren't there so..oh well

Maybe they can pass a bill Honoring Ronald Reagan or Nixon or something....:shrug: I don't think that mean ol' Bush* would veto that..

[gravity]

24. Price controls don't work

I don't know how price gouging is defined by the bill, but price controls will create shortages and hoarding.

[Amonester]

42. But "supply" control does (for the have's and have-more's, not us)

http://www.bushwatch.org/gas.htm
~snif~
Department of We Told You So.

in today's New York Times..."WAYNE, Mich., June 27 -- Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president , he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude. "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. "Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.""

http://www.bushwatch.org/gas.htm

(And tax-cuts for former business partners too...)

[donkeyotay]

77. Hahahahaha! The "sheer force of his personality" Another mission accomplished

by the CEO adult commander guy oil man from Texas. What a hoot.

[lostinacause]

52. I agree. Gouging is not well defined and that is problematic.

Trying to get a bunch of economists to define is even more problematic.

The politicians trying to implement something like shows just how out of touch North America is with this situation.

[gravity]

75. Gas is sold on markets

The price of gas is not set by the oil companies, it's set by the markets so it's near impossible to price gouge on the commodities markets because everyone agrees on the price it is being sold at.

The FTC has investigated oil companies many times, and the concluded many times that the variations in the price are caused by market forces so what can we do if this is the case?. Hell, we are still buying gas at this moment.

While price gouging could occur, if you ignore the effects of the markets in the bill, it will just create more problems. Price controls have been implemented all over the world for millennium, and they almost always create shortages and make the situation worst off. If we set a price ceiling on gas, it's just going to create a shortage and we will have to wait in lines for it just like we would in the Soviet Union.

[lostinacause]

85. I agree with every you said. In fact I was not trying to contradict you

in any way. I was just pointing out that I could foresee problems with getting economists to define gouging. Something like collusion is easy because it is easy to characterize in a legal way. The whole notion of gauging is subjective and depends on what is seen as “fair”. One can only expect bad things to happen with such a definition. The comment was also a crack at economists. Economists generally shy away from judging what is fair.

[tammywammy]

55. I agree

[camero]

63. And there isn't hoarding now?

The price rise is a big reason for the surge in demand as people try to buy extra fuel before the next price hike. Thus fueling even higher prices. Another thing to do would be for local gov't to declare an emergency and limit hours of operation to reduce demand.

[lostinacause]

81. No there isn't. When the price increases after a disaster most people cut back their consumption

unless there are fears that there will be a shortage. In the recent wave of high gasoline prices, for example, I was able to avoid paying the peak price because of changes in driving habits.

Limiting hours of operation is a stupid way to reduce demand because it would lead to lineups and people having to change their schedule to buy gasoline.

[camero]

82. At the station I was working at there was

People were lining up day and night with gas cans galore and coming in saying buy it now before it goes even higher. Stocks aren't the only thing where people like to buy low and sell high.

It's alot better than doing nothing. The invisible hand leads to too many greedy people.

[lostinacause]

84. From a rational behavior standpoint this would only work if the prices is below what the price

ought to be. If the price were at or above what it was expected to be in the near future then this behavior cannot be rationalized. Of course one might argue that people do not make rational decisions in this way however we generally the pricing patterns in the event of a supply shock that mimic rational behavior. The comparison to the stock market is a little strange given that there are the same costs associated with over guessing the price of a particular stock. In particular, even if many people expect the price to increase eventually someone is going to get burned.

I must disagree with you that it is a lot better then doing nothing. By placing the restrictions on consumption, the government is adding implicit costs to consuming the good. Since the restriction reduces consumption it must, for the average person, raise the opportunity costs by as much as the market cost would increase in the case of no market intervention. So what you are effectively doing is decreasing the cost in dollars but placing the same cost on consumers in the form of having to, among other things, adjust their schedule and wait in long line ups. While different consumers are affected differently, the implicit costs will have a value to the average consumer that is as great or greater then the explicit cost of an increased price. This means that consumers will not be made better off by the policy that you suggest.

What is worse is that oil companies will loose income given the implementation of the policy that you suggest. While your initial reaction is likely “who cares”, the problem is that the average consumer does not receive any benefit from this loss. You may not care that certain members of oil companies executive will receive a smaller bonus, but in many oil companies the salaries of the middle class workers are often dependent on company performance. The middle class also owns some shares in the company. Finally taxes are placed on salaries and business and investment income which benefit all portions of the population. Therefore even if you disregard any welfare gains of the wealthy this policy still makes an important segment of the population worse off. In fact it makes just about everybody worse off.

[Charlie Brown]

26. I think we have the votes to override this one

Consumers are mad as hell right now about gas prices, and the Administration must be incredibly daft if they think loyalty to big oil trumps the outrage of American motorists at the gas pumps, especially on the eve of Memorial Day.

[DemSoccerMom]

28. Act surprised, everyone.

:sarcasm:

[saigon68]

31. As my aunt said

At least he's against abortion.

"She voted for the asshat"

[deacon]

29. Commander Guy's alter ego Pro Gougererer

What kind of upside down world did he create where pro gouging is acceptable?

[salin]

32. Let's see that would be his third veto ever - all very unpopular

stem cell research
funding troops with timelines per ending the bushfiasco aka the Iraq war
fines against price gouging of US citizens by gas/oil interests

he really seems to want to destroy his party - by dragging all down with him.

[melody]

33. Mel rubs her hands together in glee, "Oooooh, goodie"

Tie that noisy can to his noisy can come November 2008.

[Marie26]

34. Oh do that

It's almost like they're trying to destroy his approval ratings.

[kurth]

35. Name ONE thing the asshole has done for the average working American

The abomination must stop.

[Amonester]

43. No. Let the idiot continue...

Because, IMHO, the way the Dems "behave" lately, the AWOL decider may be the only chance we've got to make sure the repug party will never win any elections for decades ahead...

[Triana]

36. What'dya expect from an administration in which 3/4 of them WORK for...

...the oil and gas industry? (or USED to).

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

37. And so the Dems say "Oh. Okay- never mind.

We'll be cowering over here in the corner in case you want us for anything."

[TexasLawyer]

38. People, people, it's all a misunderstanding...

The Republicans simply want to protect the moms and pops of America! They're looking out for the little guy, as always!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4830722.html

Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the No. 2 House Republican, said the bill would mean "undue hardship for ... people trying to make a living" including mom and pop grocery or gasoline station owners.

[babylonsister]

39. Not even worth hiding anymore, is it. nt

[Thor_MN]

40. That should be good for the approval ratings....

[w4rma]

41. Wow. (nt)

[farmboxer]

45. Good!!! Then Let Bush, Inc. Veto it! It shows his colors

Dems should have let Bush veto the Iraq bill! Let the crook show his colors.

[lakeguy]

46. hey, for the first time in 6 years i agree with bushitler!

this bill will do nothing to lower prices (except in rare, localized instances). you can't force someone to lower prices when they are maxing out production and paying top dollar for imported gas, especially when there is record demand. the only way to reduce gas prices is to reduce consumption. somthing most people can't seem to handle since demand keeps on goin up.

or, we can try to force big oil to make more refineries so we can burn gas even faster, great idea. not only will we bear the cost of the new plants via higher prices, the increase in pollution will add new cost...to us and the environment.

it'd be better to force car manufacturers to sell more efficient vehicles. two cars sold in the US that get over 40mpg. europe sells over 100.

but, bush will look bad by doing this...and that's okay in my book.

[Mika]

49. SUV sales are up over the last year.

We've ALWAYs been at war with Eurasia

[lostinacause]

53. In a way I would rather Bush look good. I am getting fed up with

politicians doing stupid things and getting rewarded for them. We can't keep giving them these signals and expect them to make good choices.

Instead of focusing on detrimental bills such as these, the focus should be on developing infrastructure that is appropriate for the coming era of high priced oil.

[silvermachine]

67. I've noticed...

...<<<In a way I would rather Bush look good.>>>

A recurring theme in your posts. Always on hand to deflect blame from this administration. Why? I'm curious...

[lostinacause]

74. Do you care to elaborate? I find your post quite strange given the post

condemning the choice of foreign policy under Bush and mocking people who think that a more aggressive policy would do any better. On the issue at hand I have also implicitly said that Bush and the formerly Republican controlled House and Senate should have done something to deal with the forthcoming age of expensive oil.

The sad thing is that the economic theory of price controls and hording are quite clear in the circumstances. In the absence of changing prices, just before and after major events like this we see either an increase in demand or a decrease in supply, hording and shortages. You would expect that your (I'm not an American) politicians would either know this themselves or have an economic advisor capable of understanding this. Because of this there are two possibilities; either the politicians voting for this lack the information or are doing it for political gain. In both cases this paints a bad picture on the ability for politicians to adequately represent the needs of Americans.

If it was indeed the case, as I believe it to be, that the decision was made for political gain then it sends a bad message to politicians. It essentially says that the American people are content with a quick “solution” that proves to do more harm then it does good. It says that Americans support based on initial preconceived notions rather then actual effect. It also says something about the ability for people to judge the effectiveness of a policy. This is the type of thing that Bush, likely largely through Rove, has done for his entire presidency. We certainly don’t need the people who voted for this bill to follow that example.

Also, because my criticisms depend on the validity of the policy in question they have greater meaning then those who provide blanket criticism.

[Forkboy]

47. Well,there's no reason why he should be scared of anything now.

He's free to do anything he wants,and he knows it.

[shanti]

51. exactly

and he will....

[Nihil]

48. C'mon guys, the Law of the Land applies to *everyone* ...

> The bill would create fines and criminal penalties, including jail time,
> for industry executives found guilty of gouging.

By refusing to sign something that would result in his own prosecution
he's simply "taking the Fifth".

Or is that only the way it looks to a foreigner? :shrug:

[tabasco]

50. They mentioned this bill on CNN this morning, but no mention that Bush threatened to veto it.

John Roberts said the "House of Representatives" is working on a bill to punish price gougers. No mention that it is Democrats doing this and no mention of the promised veto by oilman Bush.

That darned lib'rul media.

[lostinacause]

54. They mentioned it around noon.

[jazzjunkysue]

56. Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please,

Oh, please, let him veto a bill controlling oil price gouging.

Oh, please.

Mental imaging, people. Think 22% approval rating. SEE 22% approval rating.

[Vinca]

60. He must be bucking for single digit ratings. nt

[Doctor_J]

62. This George Bush?

"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. "Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot."

- June 27, 2000

Here's another hilarious quote from Chimp that day:

"The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' "

Gee, I wonder how that one turned out.

[lostinacause]

64. The sad thing is that there are a large number of conservatives who

still support hawkish philosophies for foreign intervention. Many blame the failing in Iraq on people who oppose the war. Others think there was too much focus put towards political correctness.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

65. We are being raped daily by a complicit White House. Fuck You Junior.

[bdamomma]

69. bush certainly is abusing us all isn't he??

yea, he wants to protect the American people, what a sick SOB he is.

[classysassy]

71. The Bush supporters

hang your heads in shame,your thug in the oval office(stolen office),don't care about you,just his crooked friends.Americans will rue the day we let Bush steal two elections.

[bamacrat]

73. What a total pile of shit.

Even if the government cant set the gas prices they should keep the oil companies in check. WHen we are paying record prices and they are making record profits something is wrong.

[donkeyotay]

78. Yep, the proof is in the profits. They certainly are "windfall"

profits, and they should be taxed.

[lostinacause]

87. Taxing "windfall" profits is a dangerous game, especially if a

country adopts such policies as a long term strategy. Depending on the nature of the industry in question the result could be anything from misplaced investment, to sending investment opportunities overseas, to higher prices. All of these have an adverse effect on all agents of the economy in one way or an other.

[lostinacause]

86. Economically nothing is wrong. It is entirely consistent with the economics of

non-renewable resources with lagged supply adjustment.

[Lorien]

76. This needs to be emailed to every repug you know

something they need to think about over the holiday weekend when we are gouged to the hilt!

[bamacrat]

79. WTF, If this regime is continued to do whatever they want..

I hope we are just setting the trap for them after they are out of office, if that happens.

[NashVegas]

80. Nationalize the Refineries

..

[OllieLotte]

83. I learned a lot about supply and demand during Katrina.

For one thing, I learned that service stations owners should be able to charge whatever they want. Why? Letting the consumer decide who should get the gas is much worse than any price gouging. After Katrina hit, the prices jumped up to $3 in some cases here in Georgia. I don't live very far from work and had a far amount of gas in my car. To me, it seemed the responsible thing to do to not run to the gas station and top off my car. I drove past a number of stations where the lines were huge. I even saw people filling up all their gas cans etc. I even saw one guy with a bunch of 5 gallon gas cans (they looked brand new) on a pickup truck filling them all up. Why were all these people doing this? Simple...in their mind the gas was worth far more then $3 per gallon and they wanted it. Not surprisingly, the next day all the stations were out of gas. Suppose that I really needed to get 5 gallons of gas and would be happy to pay $10 per gallon to get it? Well, I couldn't go to the gas stations, they were out. If gas would have been $5 or $6 instead of $3. My guess is that people would have thought twice about filling up unnecessarily and wouldn't have made a point of bringing in every gas can they could find.

Fortunately for me, I had plenty of gas, but I would much rather pay $6 for gas and be able to get it than $3 for gas and not have any.