Tom Udall’s July 11 “community roundtable on gas prices.” (Photo by M.G. Bralley)
Tom Udall says he feels your pain
By David Alire Garcia
07/14/2008
| 4 Comments
ALBUQUERQUE -- At a downtown Albuquerque gas station on Friday, Tom Udall was determined to showcase the anger and frustration many are feeling over escalating gas prices.
And on that score, he succeeded.
The Udall for Senate campaign staged a small group of motorists around two folding tables in the middle of the parking lot of the Ever-Ready Oil Company at the corner of First Street and Mountain Road.
“Every time the gas price goes up one penny it costs the post office $8 million,” explained Susie Romero, an Albuquerque letter carrier. “This, in turn, affects hiring. They're not hiring carriers so we're taking on more and more. For me, I'll go in and carry my route and carry part of another route and everybody’s angry. They see us getting there late. They get mad at you more!”
Udall nodded sympathetically.
Jennifer Gonzales, a part-time real estate appraiser and mother of two, stayed closer to home for her pain at the pump story: "We just went on a short camping trip to Las Cruces a few weeks ago,” she told Udall as he scribbled down notes. “Gas, one way, was over $100. And so now we're really evaluating. Is it really worth having a camping trailer, going on family camping trips? And that's just a basic thing. I mean, that's not going to Disney Land but it's so expensive and you can't justify it anymore."
In an exasperated voice, she added, “I'm just amazed that it just goes up and there's nobody protesting! Nobody saying anything!"
Nobody saying anything? Nobody except for everybody, including the five-term congressman turned Senate hopeful who faces GOP U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce in the November election.
"Basic supply and demand is at work here,” Udall remarked, “but there are a lot of other things going on."
In a question and answer session with reporters following the event, Udall expressed his solidarity with the pain at the pump crowd with a strong populist edge.
“This is really hitting middle class families. I think they're getting hammered, I think they're getting crunched,” he said. “And I think the anger is focused on big oil. I really believe that. I think these people see these record profits and they see record prices and they think it's wrong and I think it's wrong.”
The Santa Fe Democrat ticked off his preferred solutions: cracking down on hedge fund speculators and price gauging, building more “new, clean refineries,” and adopting stronger fuel efficiency standards.
Udall grudgingly added one more item to the list. “I want to be clear: We need to have responsible drilling.”
But another idea often touted as a solution to upwardly mobile gas prices, particularly by Udall’s environmentalist allies, is a higher gas tax. Proponents have long argued that such a tax spike would provide the clearest market signal for consumers to consume less.
Asked about a higher gas tax, Udall sped away fast.
“I don't see that now as part of the mix,” he said quickly. “This is not the period to be raising taxes on people.”
Asked if he has ever supported an increase in the federal 17-cent per gallon gas tax, Udall appeared a bit unsure about his own record: “Not that I’m aware of,” he half-answered.
The Independent later asked Udall spokeswoman Marissa Padilla for a more definitive answer.
“I would just let his answer stand as it is,” she said. “There are so many votes,” she added. “I don’t want to give you the wrong answer.”
Touchy subject
Yet, some people believe now is precisely the right time to raise the gas tax. And not just self-described environmentalists. Last month, conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer offered what he called “the cure” to today’s gas woes: “a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home.” In the column entitled, “At $4, Everybody Gets Rational,” Krauthammer proposed a phased $2 per gallon increase to the gas tax over two years.
That column was chosen by Albuquerque Journal columnist and KNME TV host Gene Grant as the starting point for a discussion of a higher gas tax during this past weekend’s episode of New Mexico In Focus.
Early on, Grant framed the debate this way: “Can someone actually sell the republic the idea of a bigger tax on gas to keep it high and make it a benefit to the country?”
“I think it’s wonderful that Krauthammer has had an attack of sanity,” responded NMI’s quick-witted columnist Arthur Albert, one of the show’s panelists. “A tax makes perfect sense as part of a larger attempt to get us off oil and off imported oil. Yes that can happen. But it won’t happen with McCain.”
Quick cutaway to an irritated looking Scott Darnell, fellow panelist and the acting executive director of the state Republican Party.
“What he’s (Krauthammer) talking about is putting the energy economy on American terms,” Darnell later elaborated, “and not allowing our energy prices to be driven by leaders from foreign countries and activity overseas.”
Interestingly enough, Darnell didn’t dismiss the idea outright.
In response, Jim Scarantino, a Weekly Alibi columnist, conceded that a new energy policy is a must.
"You have to make this change," he began. "Question is, how we make it. Whether we make it in a way that brings our economy to its knees, that ships our wealth to countries that hate us. Or, whether we do many of the reasonable things that Pete Domenici has advocated for years. Which is, you utilize all the forms of energy available to us, through efficiency, through new technology -- and that includes solar and wind – whether you use our great nuclear capacity that we don’t touch. And whether you fully utilize the incredible – we still have incredible oil resource in this country."
Oddly enough, Scarantino’s mostly conservative prescription is awfully close to Udall’s.
As he listened and took notes last Friday, Sen. Domenici’s would-be successor calmly explained that he supports renewable energy, nuclear power and “responsible” drilling.
But he opposes higher gas prices.
“I just as mad as they are," Udall said pointing to the participants of the campaign "roundtable," which was actually square, just as it was breaking up.
Editor's note: To view M.G.Bralley's blog and photos, go here.
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
© 2008 The New Mexico Independent
Comments:
Posted 07/14/2008 15:24 with
Nice article, David. But it would have been nice for Tom Udall to hold his town hall with more than a few handpicked people, say at a UNM conference hall where the public in general was invited with advance notice. Also, if he can hold a staged meeting like this, why can’t he debate Steve Pearce on energy policy? We need to hear the both of them on this most important issue of the day. That said, Tom needs to elaborate on the “I favor responsible drilling” line and state where exactly he will allow drilling. He’s reiterated his opposition to allowing development of the estimate 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Will he vote to ever lift the moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf? He says he’s not against drilling “everywhere” off the coasts, but until the moratorium is lifted, we can’t begin to tap any of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas believed to be there. I wish a journalist would ask Tom Udall point blank: yes or no, will you vote to lift the offshore drilling moratorium?
Posted 07/14/2008 18:52 with
Jim, Jim, what you keep forgetting is that there are tons of leases already out there that the oil companies are ignoring to keep the price up. According to a release by The Wilderness Society that uses Interior Department data:
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20080529.cfm
Quote:
“More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold. [View the detailed analysis]”
Once the oil companies “responsibly” drill those, we can start talking about ruining our last best places drilling a poison that will ruin the planet for hundreds if not thousands of years. And in the meantime zero subsidies should go to oil. They should all be going to research and development of renewables. End of story. The oil age is over and eventually the deregulated, multi-national speculators will be brought into line, one way or another.
Pete Domenici had decades to get it right, often with a Repub prez and Congress, and he didn’t. Now that he sees what has been wrought and he’s ending his career, he suddenly discovers CAFE standards.
By the way, it was George and Jeb Bush who pushed through the offshore drilling ban off Florida, not Dems.
Posted 07/15/2008 08:23 with
Barb, Barb: What you forget is that a mineral lessee loses the lease after ten years if they don’t work it. That means they lose the millions they paid to get the lease. Why would they sit on reserves that could potentially be worth more than they paid for the lease? It doesn’t make sense. That’s why I challenge you to identify one mineral lease, on land or off shore, that has economically feasible oil deposits that are sitting idle as the lease runs out. That means, in the case of a deep sea well, deposits that exceed the $100 million it costs to explore and build a platform. To make it easier, just identify one lease on land that has economically feasible oil or gas deposits that is being let to run out without development. As for the Wilderness Society release, it does not back out any acres where “dry holes’” were drilled, where the formations were found to be nonproducing, or acres held up by litigation.
Also, what is the rationale of keeping anything off the table? We need more and more oil now, and to do that you have to start development now. The oil futures markets will see these indefinite delays as a continuation of our unilateral oil and natural gas disarmament. If the futures markets knew we were finally going to go after our own resources, they would react. Just the way they react when new discoveries are announced…even though those discoveries won’t produce for years to come.
Udall did answer my question: In today’s Journal he restated his opposition to lifting the moratorium on developing an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Posted 07/16/2008 03:01 with
Jim, Jim, you’re doing what you usually do. Raising a straw man argument. This “show me one lease” stuff doesn’t cut it. You show me some citations and sources for what you’re saying and then I might take what you are saying somewhat seriously.
We don’t need more and more oil now unless we want to turn the planet into a hell hole. You know that. At least I think you do. And besides, we get the majority of our oil from Canada now and their supply is pretty unending at this point. It’s the speculation and weak dollar that are driving the price up this rapidly and hugely, not any sudden shortage of oil. The price of oil was rising gradually until the dollar tanked. Then it shot up. Get it?
Our supplies in the Arctic and offshore are minuscule in the bigger picture. Speculators are speculating with huge amounts of capital in oil for reasons similar to why they are investing hugely in gold and other precious metals, etc. The dollar is tanking. Real estate is tanking. Stocks are tanking Commodities are about the only thing left.