News of the Day: Late Edition
President Bush rejected the idea of a windfall tax on oil company profits today, suggesting instead that companies voluntarily use increased cash flows to build more natural gas pipelines, expand refineries, and invest in renewable energy. OPEC has recently accused oil companies of failing to invest adequately in new facilities, thus driving up the price of oil worldwide.
Bush’s statement from the White House Rose Garden today came during a hastily called press conference to taut economic growth. The commerce department reported earlier that the gross domestic product of the United States grew at a rate of 4.8 percent in the first quarter. The growth was driven largely by consumer spending. Some economists said the growth reflected a catch-up from the end of last year, when the economy was suffering from the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is refusing to provide routine media services to the Arkansas Times. The newspaper, which has written critically about Huckabee, was stricken from e-mail lists for news releases, public scheduling and other information lists that are widely disseminated to members of the public and the media. The governor’s spokeswoman, Alice Stewart, said “(we) don’t consider the Arkansas Times a news organization.” The Times is portraying the action as a First Amendment issue: "The governor has decided to punish us for our opinions by withholding a publicly-financed service. We don't think this practice can stand legal scrutiny and we intend to review our options in that regard."
The cost of the war in Iraq will reach $320 billion next month after the expected passage of an emergency spending bill before the Senate, says the Congressional Research Service. The analysis – distributed to members of congress on Tuesday night – provides “the most official cost estimate yet” of the war, said the Washington Post. This year, the war will consume nearly as much money as the departments of Education, Justice and Homeland Security combined, a total that is more than a quarter of this year's projected budget deficit. Amy Belasco, a defense specialist and the author of the CRS study, emphasized that the price tag can only be an estimate since the Defense Department has declined to separate the cost of the Iraqi war from the larger $435 billion cost of what the administration labels the global war on terrorism.
House Republican leaders struck a last-minute deal with GOP appropriators yesterday to avoid what could have been an embarrassing revolt against their lobbying reform bill. The House voted 216-207 to advance debate on the bill, after Republicans spent hours urging their members not to abandon the legislation. Twelve Republicans voted against the bill and Democrats were unanimously against it. “We’re losing our moral authority to lead this place,” said Christopher Shays, one of the dissenting Republicans. Earlier this month GOP leaders were unable to deliver on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint because of a similar struggle between conservatives and the Appropriations Committee over budget reforms.















Why not enact a windfall profits tax on oil company profits and dedicate the revenues to funding some of the costs of the war in Iraq?
I realize that fiscal responsibility is an anathema to this Administration, but since the war in Iraq has decreased oil supplies, (rather than increasing them, as was promised) thereby putting pressure on prices, which in turn have helped produce the windfall profits at issue, I believe that fundamental fairness argues in favor of such a dedicated tax.
April 28, 2006 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why be fiscally responsible when you can just let the Fed buy US debt, run the printing presses, and inflate away the trillions in deficits with increasingly worthless US dollars-thanks to Mr. Bush.
April 28, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume this is a reference to the fact that Iraqi oil production is not yet at prewar levels. While this is true, it is a very minor part of the story why prices have risen in the last year or so. After all, if it was Iraqi production that was the most significant factor, wouldn't we have seen the biggest price rise in 2003, when exports were much lower than they are now?
Oil prices are a function of demand these days, not supply. And it is the increased demand from China and India that is the primary driver. That's what we should be focused on.
April 30, 2006 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink