Fox's Gibson: Democrats have, then don't have, then have, a plan to address high gas prices
SUMMARY: Fox News host John Gibson contradicted himself twice while discussing whether Democrats have a plan to combat high gasoline prices. He first referred to one part of their "plan," then said he "never heard an actual Democrat plan," and finally noted that President Bush was following the advice of Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) by ordering an investigation into possible price gouging.
On the April 26 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson contradicted himself twice while discussing whether Democrats have a plan to combat high gasoline prices. He first cited "a windfall-profits tax" as an example of their "plan," then said he "never heard an actual Democrat plan," and finally noted that President Bush was following the advice of Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) by "ordering an investigation to see if there's been any manipulation of the gasoline price out in the market."
Gibson began by reporting that the Democrats' "plan" to lower gas prices "includes a windfall-profits tax on oil companies," a proposal that President Bush and the congressional Republican leadership have resisted. Yet, a little more than two minutes later, in an interview with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Gibson declared: "[Y]esterday, I asked a Democrat, [U.S. Rep.] Nita Lowey [NY], what's the Democrats' plan, and I never heard an actual Democrat plan, all I heard was criticism of President Bush." He then asked Brownback: "Have you seen anything now that has been trotted out by the Democrats that amounts to an alternative plan for this oil problem that's different than what the president is suggesting?" Just moments after that, Gibson noted Schumer's call to investigate whether oil companies have engaged in price gouging.
Democrats have, in fact, offered proposals to address rising energy costs. On April 18, Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) both called for a federal investigation into possible price manipulation by oil companies and refiners. On April 25, Sen. Robert Menendez filed an amendment to a House emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would suspend the federal tax on gasoline for 60 days while simultaneously repealing federal subsidies to major oil companies. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announced she will introduce a bill that "would repeal $5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies and give an immediate $500 tax rebate to families to offset high energy costs." Additionally, on April 18, 15 Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Bush asking him to support anti-price-gouging legislation and to renew their call for a bipartisan energy summit to solve America's dependence on foreign oil.
From the April 26 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Yesterday, the president unveiled his plan to lower gas prices. Today, it was the Democrats' turn, and their plan includes a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. While that talk may help politically, it did nothing to bring down gas prices. The average price for a gallon of unleaded increased to $2.92. We begin our "Big Story" coverage with congressional correspondent Brian Wilson live in Washington. Hi, Brian.
[...]
GIBSON: All right. Congressional correspondent Brian Wilson in Washington. Brian, thanks very much. Yesterday, well, joining us now, just joining us now is Congressman [sic] Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas. Senator, yesterday, I asked a Democrat, Nita Lowey, what's the Democrats' plan, and I never heard an actual Democrat plan, all I heard was criticism of President Bush. Have you seen anything now that has been trotted out by the Democrats that amounts to an alternative plan for this oil problem that's different than what the president is suggesting?
BROWNBACK: Well, I haven't, but I don't think that's really the point at this point in time. What we've got to do is do something. We passed an energy bill last year, but it's going to be several years I think before it's going to have much implementation. We need to get more supply, and we need to have more conservation, less demand taking place.
[...]
GIBSON: Senator, the president's been criticized by some in his own party for pulling a Schumer, referring to Senator Chuck Schumer, for ordering an investigation to see if there's been any manipulation of the gasoline price out in the market. Was he pulling a Schumer, or was that a wise political thing to do?
Keep up the lies Gibson.
... against the Democrats.
The best example is the last election.
FIRST, John Kerry had "no ideas", and the entire Democrat party has "no ideas".
SECOND, John Kerry was the "MOST LIBERAL" member of Congress.
Now, how could they TELL? By his voting record, they claimed. Every liberal idea that came down the pike, Kerry was FOR, so they said.
But wait ... I thought you said Democrats HAVE no ideas?? It cannot be BOTH. You can't have it both ways. Can you?
Obviously, the Rightwing believe they CAN have it both ways, simultaneously directly contradict themselves, and their followers won't notice. And hell, Republicans WON, so this is their PROOF that people can have ALL LIBERAL ideas, and have no ideas at all, at the same time. Duh!
The PLAN is to do anything that gets rid of bushco. I mean, asking if dems have a plan and bitching that we're always complaining about bush is like asking me what route I'm going to take to work while we're trapped in a burning building and complaining that all I talk about is the burning building.
Bush is the biggest, most important global problem that needs to be solved. We can worry about any and all other problems after he and his influence are gone. Nothing matters except getting rid of him.
... the bit about 'no plan' is a lie. Of course Democrats have plan!! Lots of 'em... too bad this neocon-run gov't wouldn't think of even allowing a Democrat to relay any of these plans.
More of the "say it enough, and it must be true" crap FOX is great at.
Yep, no: [link to www.cnn.com]
despite: [link to money.cnn.com]
I think this is going to be the final nail for Bus Co and his republican congressional choir. It's unfortunate that it had to be this visceral before people said enough is enough. You know I've listened to one complex explanation after another about how the oil companies really can’t control "gas prices", but nothing that adequately explains why the profit margins for BIG OIL is in the stratosphere. But as Rhandi Rhodes said on her show they could if that wanted to lower the prices and have a big profit margin instead of a gargantuan one. They just don't care to. That's Ok the SOBs are going to be sorry when Americans kick the Big Oil ass kissers out of the congress this year.
From the figures that I have seen published, it appears profit margins are in the 8 -10% of sales range. Are there other figures out there? If so, I would like sources, please. Executive salaries/retirements seem unreasonable to me, but what are they as a % of sales? Maybe we should be looking at cutting tax breaks for big oil, rather than "windfall" profits, let them use their own (stockholders) $ for a lot of the things we as taxpayers currently subsidize. Have to be a little careful, because that could cut dividends and hurt some retirees that have oil in their portfolios. Not a simple solution, is there?
I was in fact speaking of profits and didn't mean to write profit margin. One of the hardest courses for me in college was in fact econ 101, nevertheless I did learn the difference between the two and I managed a hard earned B. The profit margin for big oil ranged around 10 -12% in 2005 I do believe. Now I suspect you may be arguing that margin isn't unreasonable compared to other industries. I know the profit margin in the financial industry is much higher and astronomical in the pharmaceutical industry. Yet, there is a huge difference in the products of the oil industry and that of say the credit card industry. If the usage fee for credit cards had gone up at the same rate and pace, most consumers would stop using their credit cards for anything other than emergencies which would force the credit card company to deal with a reduced profit margin. But oil is an essential commodity that we have to use. Like many Northeasterners we heat with oil. I've always been moderate with usage because I've never liked a hot house anyway, but we HAD to purchase heating oil or let our bodies and pipes freeze. And don't even let me get started on the pharmacy industry. Oscar all I know is a Republican presidency and Republican controlled congress allowed both the oil industry and the pharmaceutical industry among others to dictate government policy for their own industries and we the consumers are suffering greatly for it, and these industries are experiencing historic profits at the expense of people who HAVE to use their product.
local paper. In an article talking about gas prices, the author (Associated Press article) kindly pointed out that after all the Congress persons from each party made their statements about high energy costs, fuel efficiency standards, related that all but two (one from each party) got into a gas guzzler to drive a block or two to office or lunch. Great example, don't you think???? It's a tough call, because the oil industry around the world is driven by demand and the demand from India and China has grown rapidly in the past few years. They have to factor in the $70+ barrel cost into projections as well as continued reduced capacity from the Gulf (still working on returning to pre Katrina levels of production). Cutting profit margins in half would probably result maybe a $.20 reduction in pump price (probably less when factoring in refining, transportation, dealer markup, etc). And if the government (God forbid) would institute price controls, be prepared to wait in long lines (ala the late 70's), as the crude will go to countries willing to pay the price (India, China, etal). We need 1) to conserve & 2) find more or alternate sources. I realize heating costs will be outlandish in some parts of the country. I feel fortunate that when we built the house we live in currently, that we installed a ground source heat pump, along with some passive solar, etc. Not meaning to brag or to laud it over others, but our highest heating bill in 18 years has been about $70/month (in the Inland NW). There are alternatives out there that we could employ today that could make a difference.
I didnt know that the democrats ever had a plan. I know that their 1st plan on everthing is to blame Bush and the republicans, but after that i dont really know what their plan is
what problems do we have that are not the fault of bush and the republicans?
Please Leave
All three so-called plans cited by Media Matters are not plans but political grandstanding.
The Dems have been nothing but obstructionist on energy issues.
How does an investigation into price-fixing lower gas prices? It doesn't.
How does cutting the federal tax and dropping subsidies cut prices? It doesn't. The oil companies will just have raise the price to replace the lost subsidy money.
How are you going to send $500 per family? Good luck trying to implement that and figuring out what constitutes a family.
These are not plans, they are jokes.
there were plans recommended by democrats before the republicans even thought that oil would ever be an issue. The republicans downplayed a potential oil problem and smeared people like Carter and many after him.
Of course, "political grandstanding" is luckily not done by the republicans who call for 'investigation' into why prices are so high, while record profits after Katrina and Rita and now are left out of account. Good work!
"The Dems have been nothing but obstructionist on energy issues."
The dems have been saying that we're addicted to oil, that we need to develop alternative engery sources, etc. for THIRTY YEARS, and the neo-morons have been fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent it.
We've only been obstructionist when it comes to bush and cheney's stupid, self-serving policys on energy.
How does drilling in ANWR for 8 billion barrels lower prices? It doesn't.
How does giving everyone $100 lower prices? It doesn't.
I apologize for this, but I just had to rebut LeatherBoots' steaming pile of rancid garbage:
All three so-called plans cited by Media Matters are not plans but political grandstanding.
Impeaching a president for his sexual proclivities is grandstanding. Trying to FIX a problem isn't.
The Dems have been nothing but obstructionist on energy issues.
And refusing to reveal the contents of a closed-door energy policy meeting isn't obstructionist? Please.
Onto the next frivolous claim.
How does an investigation into price-fixing lower gas prices? It doesn't.
Sure it does. We find evidence of price fixing (not too hard, really; I live down the street from two gas stations which are across from one another; they charged the SAME price +- a few cents; yea, that's competition in action alright...save the rent arguments, that is invariable with the price of gas; they didn't close up when it was $1.25 a gallon; they still made $$), competition is restored, the price resets to reflect market supply/demand (see gas station example above).
Why do Republicans talk hardball about "open markets" and "competition" for the working class but have no problem with huge conglomerates corrupting and gaming the system they so adore? Oh look! A big bowl of crispy Hypocrisy Flakes! Eat up, LeatherSectional…
Next half-baked claim.
How does cutting the federal tax and dropping subsidies cut prices? It doesn't. The oil companies will just have raise the price to replace the lost subsidy money.
Fallacious assumptions. Cutting the federal tax would IMMEDIATE drop the price, since this is a federal tax, the oil companies don’t get to keep this (you know NADA about accounting, do you?). The federal tax loss can be made up by repealing tax breaks for the RICHEST AMERICANS such as that idiotic 15% handout for dividend and capital gains income, which has NO PHASE OUT; you pay 15% regardless of income level; millionaires don’t need more $$, they need to pay their fair share as a % of what they make.
As for repealing “subsidies” (call it what it is: corporate welfare), what you are implying is more collusion on the part of the oil companies, to recover the “lost profits”, which, as previously discussed, would be punishable by fines, imprisonment, death by firing squad…threw that in for fun (pauses for outrage from humorless Republican reactionary who cannot differentiate jokes from a genuine call for violence, which sounds like a good idea).
Next poorly thought out generalization…
How are you going to send $500 per family? Good luck trying to implement that and figuring out what constitutes a family.
Wrong again. We siphon (a little gas joke) those unwarranted tax breaks for rich people and oil subsidies to the needy “families” (i.e. people with dependents; not that hard to figure, look at their income taxes, it’s right there…you know even less about taxes, do you?).
These are not plans, they are jokes.
No, LeatherGloves, that would be the Republican Party. But I’m not laughing. ’Cause there is nothing funny about incompetence, unless it’s Laurel and Hardy delivering a player piano to a house on a steep hill.
The Dems have been nothing but obstructionist on energy issues.
Please provide specifics on how the minority party has obstructed energy issues.
How does an investigation into price-fixing lower gas prices?
Price-fixing is an anti-competitive practice that generally results in higher prices. If price-fixing is occuring, an investigation may find evidence of it, allowing action to be taken to stop the practice.
Of course, you may be of the opinion that price-fixing is absolutely not occuring. If so, do you consider Bush to be an idiot for ordering the investigation?
How does cutting the federal tax and dropping subsidies cut prices?...The oil companies will just have raise the price to replace the lost subsidy money.
Two issues...you only addressed the latter in your answer. Cutting federal taxes would result in an immediate drop in gas prices. (In the long run, the effect on prices would be a little more complicated.)
Just curious...have you changed your stance on taxes and subsidies? I was under the impression that you opposed them.
How are you going to send $500 per family? Good luck trying to implement that and figuring out what constitutes a family.
Congressional representatives frequently use the term "family," especially in reference to tax proposals. Funny how they manage to figure out what that means legally. After all, consider the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. I guess they're just lucky.
Perhaps it will work on the braindead or the ideologically blind but to those with any ability to actually THINK, its a laughfest, for instance how does THIS:
All three so-called plans cited by Media Matters are not plans but political grandstanding.
not conflict with THIS: How does cutting the federal tax and dropping subsidies cut prices?
I dont care if you AGREE or not how in the WORLD does this NOT constitute a PLAN? It is by defintion an plan of action.
or this: How are you going to send $500 per family?
Again I couldnt care less if you AGREE its still, as is obvious to ANYONE with the slightest ability for cognitive functioning a PLAN.
As to your disagreeing, Who cares you arent even smart enough to RECOGNIZE a plan, so what you actually think of that plan is pretty irrelevant.
The Republicans run everything. They refuse to listen to the Democratic contingent. Because of this the country is in peril. Gross negligence is what I would call it. Impeachable is another way I would put it.
Please, go away, you add nothing to the discourse we can't read from Karl Rove's talking points memos or hear repeated on Fox News.
"I know that their 1st plan on everthing (sic) is to blame Bush and the republicans"
-----
Then you don't know anything, because that is wrong.
don't get in the way. The Dems shouldn't even come out with new plans until closer to the election. Gives the Repugs less time to retaliate.
Which speaks only to your inability to understand the written word or do basic research and NOTHING about Dems ideas or lack thereof
And I thought it was Bush's plan to screw everything up and blame it on Democrats.
Not just for Security, the Economy, Health Care, Education, and Veterans. He had a plan about gasoline (Energy Independence) too. There used to be a link to these plans on his main campaign website and Kerry often talked about them at length in his speeches and debate. But somehow conservatives couldn't find any of them in their research for "news" reports. Here's a link to "Our Plan for America.
[link to www.independentsforkerry.org]
Meanwhile the Energy Bill that passed last year has contributed to pumping up gas prices. Cons were convinced that letting the oil companies write the legislation would result in lower gas prices. What dopes.
Kerry was (is) a saint compared to this dullard Bush and his cadre of criminals. Yet, if you ask any right-winger, they'll tell you they didn't like Kerry because he 'looked soft' or 'was seemed fickle' or some other such nonsense. Bush, on the other hand... continually lauded as this great 'cowboy' who can clean brush and wear a pilot's suit. That seems good enough for the American public... a Presidential doll that looks good during dress-up... Painful and pathetic. I hope people wise up before it's too late.
I read this prior to the election. I wonder how many people did? It was irresponsible if they didn't especially after having experienced 4 years of the incompetence of GW's administration in real time. Even going in to the election the Bush supporters said they wanted to see a “significant change in direction” with his second term. What in the world gave them any indication that would happen?
The obvious contradiction MMFA points out is hillarious by itself, but Gibson's idiocy is multilayered, like a rancid onion.
"Today, it was the Democrats' turn, and their plan includes a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. While that talk may help politically, it did nothing to bring down gas prices."
Did Gibson really think that the Dems plan should be judged by today's gas prices? Does he really think the minority party has any control over pump prices through its announcements?
"Senator, the president's been criticized by some in his own party for pulling a Schumer..."
Doesn't anything embarass a guy like Gibson? Is it possible to take a cheaper swipe at someone than this? And especially when he's not there to defend himself?
What a putz.
I see constantly, on the rightwing "financial" shows, the cry that things are as they SHOULD BE for energy companies, that to attempt to examine gas company profits would be "anti-capitalist", and would be terrible for the country.
This supposes that gas companies behave in line with the tenets of capitalism. They do NOT.
First, they have a functional monopoly. Four companies control most of America's gasoline supply, and those four companies make more money FOLLOWING each other than COMPETING with each other. Competition is essential for capitalism.
Second, Oil companies are provided incentives, subsidies, and outright payments from Government. This has nothing to do with capitalism; it is SOCIALISM.
Third, Oil markets are protected (and even SEIZED) by America's military, at great cost. Do the oil companies compensate for this expense? Nope. It's a GIFT from our government (i.e. taxpayers) to them. We conquer, then turn the profit-making over to the private companies. The treasury pays the bills with tax dollars (or places it on the credit card for our children to pay). Is this capitalism? Nope. Capitalism requires those who benefit to FIRST cover ALL COSTS of doing business.
Fourth, the government is responsible for stewardship of THE PEOPLE's land, public land. This Administration has "leased" unprecedented amounts of public lands to oil companies, so they can profit from exploitation. Do the leases bring in anywhere near a "fair" amount, compared to the profits taken at the public's expense? They do not.
So, saying protecting Oil Companies is to protect Capitalism is a huge LIE. Oil Companies have no use for capitalism, or any if its essential principles. Instead, the Oil Companies are into cronyism, collusion, price fixing, government support, and avoid true competition like the plague.
Democrat "IDEAS" would RESTORE Capitalism and its principles to these businesses, to the advantage of all. SEC investigations (with TEETH, not just for show), Anti-Trust rigors, objective reexamination of the fairness of leases, subsidies, and profit levels, and a hundred other ways government can protect the public interest, need to be implemented. The GOP will not do it. And they will claim, FALSELY, that they are protecting "capitalism" ... when this claim is clearly fraudulent.
for higher cafe standards for years. if we reduce usage, then we are ahead of the game, sending less money to hostile countries, making ourselves less vulnerable to supply cutoffs. this is a security issue and the republicans have put oil companies interests ahead of the country. it's not even an arguable point.