Give credit where credit is due: President Bush is the first politician to act, and not simply posture, on the energy crisis. On Tuesday, the president temporarily suspended environmental regulations on refineries and temporarily suspended the federal government's practice of hoarding oil. Refineries will not have to add ethanol to gasoline to satisfy environmentalists (and corn farmers). The federal government will cease to artificially inflate the oil demand, and artificially decrease its supply, by purchasing vast quantities of oil to reserve, not to use. Will these measures send gasoline back below $2.50 a gallon? No, but they will send (and already have sent) the price of oil in the right direction--down--and do so without infringing on the freedom of the marketplace, which would likely backfire anyhow (anyone remember price controls?). Senator Bob Martinez, a Democrat from New Jersey, also forwarded an excellent idea: temporarily eliminating the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax. Sure, this is temporary, but as we know from other crises, what's advertised as temporary often becomes permanent. And how many tax cuts do you remember liberal Democrats proposing? One has to jump on such opportunities when they arise. Amidst a gaggle of stupid ideas, some smart ones are reaching the politicians.

Do we really want low gas prices? Hopefully if they stay high, more environmentally friendly alternatives will become practical. Given that I have a 45 minute commute to work, and I'm taking interstate trips for the next 3 weekends, I'm glad that the prices are going down, but I'm not sure if its necessary great for the country or the planet.

What is the point of having ethynal in gasoline? I honestly don't know, so I'm not about to mouth off on the issue, but if it is harmful for the environment, I don't see what good is done by not regulating that, as unless air is privatized, there are no market incentive to reduce air pollution.

There is so much profit to be made by everybody but the consumer that fossil fuels are here to stay for quite a while. So, let's look to keep the prices as low as possible. Unfortunately, until other energy sources become as profitable, there will be not enough incentive to develop a large scale alternative. That being the case and the fact that there is still plenty of petroleum down there, I'd like to see us here in the U.S. take control of our reserves and develop our own product.

Marcus touches on an important issue; and before someone reminds us that in Europe they are paying over six dollars for a gallon of petrol, mostly taxes. Now, there are not too many things that Europe has done better than us in the name of free enterprise and capitalism but the high taxes on things you wish to discourage the use of may be one. Also, Old World Europe laid tracks everywhere to help with transportation whereas New World America laid roads everywhere to do the same thing. This will not change but we may wish we could do it over.

asdf, Some countries have a 100 year supply of oil and would like to keep the price low so that they can sell it all. Other countries with a 10 year supply want the highest price. We also have environmental problems with oil burning with four times the polutants of natural gas. Capitalism would suggest that the price will go up when there is a shortage or as you run out. If we want to get to an alternative sooner than just letting the price dictate, this actually becomes a good role for big government, or, in this case a chance for them to drop the ball, again.

So much money will be wasted on this so called "probe" into gas price gouging. Absolutely nothing will come out of it. Prices will continue to soar.

Marcus,

I don't know that I can agree immediately with the idea of government using taxation as a means of encouraging behavior the guvmint has decided they favor. That seems theoretically problematic as an abuse of power as opposed to simply writing legislation to the effect.

I can't say that I see a correlation between high gas taxes and the development of alternative energy sources and changing people's behavior as regards public transportation. First of all, why would making life tougher for the average American spur new technology? Joe Schmo isn't going to go into his toolshed and invent cold fission or some other sci-fi alternative energy source. Second, it is easy for the urban, the rich, and the childless to think that a reliance on public transportation is a good thing but for middle class suburban families it is a practical impossibility in most every part of the country. Again, how would these people (the portion of the population hardest hit by gas taxes) be able to change their behavior to fit the goals of our ruling class? I don't see the options.