OJ:
One thing confuses me about your plan to use gas taxes to encourage rail travel. What about the poor people? Right now in this country the rail system is in a state of disrepair, to put it mildly. Even if we make gas taxes 10 dollars a gallon, there will still be a lag time of many years between the enactment of the taxes and the rebirth of a viable American rail industry. So what do the poor do during that time? Even carpooling still burns gas so they'll have to pay that and bus tickets will have to go up accordingly.
It sounds to me like you're doing the same thing that Robert Moses did when he raised the price of a subway ticket in order to get the subway funds and encourage people to drive, just in reverse. But the effect of enacting a crushing burden on the people least capable of supporting it just to further someone's (yours) agenda is still the same.

OJ:

And I encourage you to do the right thing and donate to low income housing a significant portion of your gain when you sell your home.

Oil companies paying out extra dividends to their stockholders, among which many pension funds, sounds just right, both socially and economically.
On the other hand, an advertising campaign that the democrats are getting ready to raid the pension funds to fund their irresponsible social policies would also work well.

I never thought I'd see Republicans adopting the rhetoric of Jimmy Carter's malaise speech advocating (among other things) the windfall profits tax.

The Third Way is one thing. Conservatives really must draw the line at The Jimmy Way.

Don't they ever remember the past and how price controls lead to economic disaster.

The only law that works the first time and every time is the law of supply and demand. The other nice thing about that law is it requires no congressional, judicial or executive action and doesn't respond to threats of filibuster.

It merely asks to be left alone to do its work.

Let's humor it, shall we?

What windfall profits? Exxon Mobil's net operating margin for the 3d quarter was 8.2%, down about half a point from the 2d quarter and about even with last year's 3d quarter. That income comes after Exxon Mobil paid about 25% of gross sales in taxes, or about $26 billion.

Perhaps we should ask Sen. Grassley if Archer Daniels Midland should give 25% of its corporate welfare (for ethanol and other stuff) to the poor to help with their heating bills. And then ask Denny Hastert if United and Boeing should give to help people travel for the holidays. And so on.

Given all the reports about a lack of refining capacity in the United States being one of the main problems in terms of higher gasoline prices, the GOP would be smart to get together with the big oil companies and come up with an arrangement in which the companies will dedicate their increased profits towards construction of new refining plants -- if the environmentalists and NIMBYs will stop filing lawsuit to block construction of those refineries.

Doing that would direct the money towards projects everyone post-Katrina says is needed, while at the same time putting the onus on the eco groups and Democratic pols to either go along with the idea or take the blame for ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and the others pocketing even more profits.

yes, the profit is so huge that just a small % of it would make a big difference.

Exxon profits hit fresh US record

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4383296.stm

US oil giant Exxon Mobil has posted a quarterly profit of $9.9bn (£5.55bn), the largest in US corporate history, on the back of record oil and gas prices.

Profit was up 75% and revenue rose 32% to more than $100bn.

How about Microsoft? Microsoft's profit margin is significantly higher than the oil companies. Maybe they should buy a computer for everyone in the US?

Bob, please don't give him any ideas.

OJ: The mating call of the leftist: "Here's a big pot of money that belongs to someone else. Just imagine all the good the state could do with it, if we just took it."

Is there still anyone around here who doubts that OJ is a leftist?

Bob:

MicroSoft is a criminal enterprise and should be broken up.

Geez, a number of years ago you were saying that Microsoft shouldn't be broken up by the government because the free market was going to do it anyway.

Kevin:

What tax?

While there may be a time for society as a whole to help the needy keep themselves warm against the winter, there is an injustice in transferring wealth from one set of individuals to another set of individuals. Here the spoilation is visited upon the paying consumers of energy, not because they have a greater duty to succor the poor, but because they are an easy target. Why does the mugger target the weak, if not simply because he can.

If there is a market disfunction underlying this matter, it could only grow out of some sort of collusion among the sellers. We are paying a lot of people already working for the government to look into things like that for us--the solution then is to demand that they perform their function, and, if present laws and regulations are inadequate, to demand that they are changed.

The whole scheme for despoiling one segment of society to benefit another is not third way, it is old-fashioned second way.

David:

Did you read the article? The state isn't taking it. Our leaders are applying moral pressure for them to do the right thing.

OJ:

Do you trust the state? Today Grassley, tomorrow Shelby and Specter and one or two other Committee chairs, and then you've got a bill on your hands. And the President will be backed in a corner by his own party, with Pelosi and Kennedy screeching off to the side, begging the nation to vote Democratic for the sake of the cold, huddled masses.

And poor Orrin will be wondering "just where did the GOP go off track?".

I own ExxonMobil - if they are paying their taxes, then they should be left alone to invest their profit to find more oil or to improve the company's current operations. If the shareholders want to give, then introduce a motion at the annual meeting, or do it privately. Most companies already donate to such things as energy-relief funds already.

By the time Congress gets aroud to doing something, gas will be back under $2/gal., and all the hysteria will have dissipated.

jim:

And not encouraging the companies rhetorically and morally will stop statist approaches how?

Bryan:

Criminality should be punished. The market doesn't enforce the laws it requires.

So if the oil companies were stuck by a downturn in the oil price and experienced a "windfall loss", would you encourage consumers to donate their savings on their gas bills to the oil companies?

No, I'd encourage them to crank their prices.

Congress already thinks all the money in the country is theirs; why encourage them any further?

jim:

Mr. Grassley is saying the money isn't Congresses. Taking it is a politically popular alternative though.