ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Pain At The Pump Retrospective: How Gas Prices Soared During The Bush Administration

By Sarah on Jun 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm

On Sunday, the national average price for a gallon of gas reached a new, previously unthinkable milestone of $4.00/gallon. Americans are struggling — and drivers in some parts of the US are spending up to 16% of their income on fuel.

But we didn’t just wake up one morning to find gas prices this high. Although the cost of a gasoline can be attributed to a variety of factors, we sometimes forget that in 2000 when George Bush took office, gas was only $1.51/gallon. It is also remarkable just how thoroughly out of touch Bush has been on this issue, and how little substance he has put forth to deal with it over the years.

In 2000, Bush assured Americans that he would “bring down gas prices through ‘sheer force of personality.’” Lo and behold, the initial jump in fuel costs occurred during Bush’s first term.

gasbush2004.JPG

Fast forward four years to 2004 when gas prices passed the $2.00 mark — sending shock waves through the economy. Former Treasury Secretary John Snow acknowledged the problem but had little to offer in the solutions department. “Higher gas prices are creating a financial hardship for millions and millions of Americans,” he says. “We know that. Those higher gas prices, in a way, are becoming a proxy for how they feel about the economy.”

Push ahead now to 2006 — two years ago and two years into Bush’s second term. According to the AAA Fuel Gauge Report, gas prices rose 97% between 2006 and Bush’s first inauguration. At that point, American consumers were paying on average $2.91/gallon, Bush’s approval rating dropped to 32 percent, and the vast majority of Americans agreed that the rising gasoline prices were causing severe or moderate hardships. In April of 2006, the president’s stance was still one of inaction. “I know gas prices are high. There’s no magic wand to wave. We’ll make sure the energy companies are pricing their products fairly.”

And here we are today — $4.00 gas with $5.00 on the horizon. George Bush was shockingly unaware of how high gas prices had climbed as recently as last February. In a White House press conference, Bush had an interesting conversation with CBS news Radio Correspondent Bill Maer:

MAER: What’s your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing …

BUSH: Wait, what did you just say? [...] You’re predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?

MAER: A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline.

BUSH: Oh, yeah? That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that. [...] You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon — or some expert told you that. That creates a lot of uncertainty.

It’s too bad, for his own sake, that President Bush that he didn’t pay more attention — he might have noticed that as the price of gas increased, his approval rating plummeted.

gas.gif

Politics

Max Boot: ‘Iran’s top terrorist is hoping’ U.S. ‘will elect Barack Obama this fall.’

By Ali Frick on Jun 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Today, conservative columnist Max Boot (who also advises Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]) echoed a favorite right-wing talking point to declare that “Iran’s top terrorist” is hoping for an Obama presidency. Boot repeated an assertion by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that “the Quds Force commander prefers to run out the clock on the Bush administration,” insisting he hoped Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will win the presidency:

There is, of course, no earthly reason why the Quds Force commander could expect that a John McCain…would be more favorable to his interests. So the implication is that Iran’s top terrorist is hoping that Americans will elect Barack Obama this fall. If this is in fact the case, perhaps the Democratic nominee should ask himself what it is about his candidacy that one of our most dangerous enemies finds so encouraging.

It’s unclear why Boot is so sure the Iranians prefer Obama to McCain. After all, the McCain-backed Iraq war and occupation have immeasurably strengthened the Iranians, as has McCain’s fervent support of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself an ally and friend to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Culture

So Much for Lakers in 5

By ThinkProgress on Jun 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I should have posted a thread on this earlier, but: NBA Finals, woo! I think last night’s game was an example of what a fallacy it is to think that only the fourth quarter matters (or whatever) in the NBA. Given the way LA outplayed Boston near the end, they clearly would have won the game if not for the fact that the Celtics managed to build up this huge lead earlier.

At any rate, I fully expect the Lakers to come on strong when the series shifts back to California. LA has, I think, a somewhat better team but Boston has home court advantage so I think we should continue to expect a very competitive series.

Politics

VA-11 and Transit

By ThinkProgress on Jun 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Dave Alpert reports that Gerry Connolly’s your man in tomorrow’s VA-11 Democratic Primary if you’re interested in transportation and smart growth questions. Unfortunately, I think his opponent is more progressive on other issues so there’s not necessarily a clear choice here.

Politics

Poll: 74 percent of GOP lawmakers don’t believe in manmade global warming.

By Amanda Terkel on Jun 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm

In its recent “congressional insiders poll,” the National Journal questioned 39 GOP senators and congressmen about whether they believe global warming is manmade. The results:

insiderspoll.gif

Some of their explanations concluded, “Human contribution is minimal,” and “It’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Democrats are OK with the idea of surrendering our spot atop the world economy.”

Yglesias

The Truman Analogy

By ThinkProgress on Jun 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Harry Truman was hugely unpopular when he left office, but people love him now. This seems to give a lot of comfort to George W. Bush and other members of his administration, but Spencer Ackerman makes the excellent point that Truman still isn’t admired for his handling of the Korean War. It’s that, in retrospect, other things Truman did came to look really smart and far-sighted.

But what the Bushites want to get out of their Trumania is vindication for what they did in Iraq. There’s just nothing comparable to Truman’s work on post-war institution-building in the non-Iraq portions of Bush’s legacy. I think he’s done an okay job in regards to some things like our relationship with China and so forth, but all the action’s been in Iraq and it’s been a disaster.

Health

Industry Influence Undermines OSHA’s Mission

By Igor Volsky on Jun 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm

During an appearance on CBS’s 60 Minutes last night, Ed Foulke, head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — the agency charged with overseeing workplace safety — snubbed the recommendations of the federal government’s Chemical Safety Board and conceded that the agency would not adopt a “combustible dust standard” to prevent dust fires at the nation’s “sugar, corn or metal” factories.

Despite the deaths of 133 workers since 1980, Foulke maintained that sporadic inspections of factories and voluntary enforcement of safety regulations could still protect employees from dust explosions:

Foulke has 1,029 inspectors, and told 60 Minutes about 50 of them have already had extensive dust training. He says OSHA sends inspectors to companies with the greatest risk of a dust explosion. And it turns out there are a lot of those. “You’ve identified 30,000 workplaces that are at risk. How many of those will you inspect over the next year?” Pelley asks.

“Well, approximately 300 or more,” Foulke says.

“If you do 300 a year, it’ll take you 100 years to inspect all those places that you’ve identified,” Pelley remarks.

“We’re not gonna get in every work site every year. It would be physically impossible from a monetary standpoint and on a personnel standpoint to get in every facility once a year. Or even every five years,” Foulke says.

Watch It:


The administration’s budget cuts and deregulatory approach to workplace-safety standards have indeed made it “physically impossible” to inspect at-risk factories. In fact, the Bush administration has issued the fewest standards in the agency’s history and has instead adopted a “voluntary compliance strategy,” gently nudging businesses to adopt stricter workplace safety rules.Since 2001, Bush administration has “eased regulations or weakened enforcement of rules“:

- OSHA’s budget has been cut each year President Bush has been in office.

- Since reaching an all-time high in FY 2001, OSHA’s overall budget has fallen more than five percent under Bush.

- Funds appropriated for enforcement activity fell almost 8 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2008.

- The budget for compliance assistance, programs which allow federal regulators to work with businesses to promote voluntary compliance has increased.

Smaller budgets have weakened the agency’s inspection capabilities. According to the 60 Minutes investigation, “of all the dust explosions in the last two years, OSHA missed the problem almost every time“:

60 Minutes went through OSHA’s own records and discovered that of 67 factories hit by dust explosions, only one was cited by OSHA inspectors for a dust hazard before the blast. In one case, a plant exploded only three days after a visit by an OSHA inspector, who found no problem with dust.

The agency’s hands-off attitude towards enforcement comes from the top down. As the New York Times reported last year, Ed Foulke “has a history of opposing regulations produced by the agency he now leads.” Before coming to Washington in 2006, Foulke worked “for a law firm that advises companies on how to avoid union organizing” and “led a successful effort to weaken the agency’s enforcement authority.”

As head of the agency, Foulke is doing just that, skirting the consensus of safety experts to ensure that industries are not pestered with regulatory standards.

Politics

Rohrabacher Jokes About ‘Buffalo Farts,’ Says Anyone Who Believed Him On ‘Dinosaur Flatulence’ Was A ‘Fool’

By Amanda Terkel on Jun 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm

In February 2007, Congress held its first hearing on the landmark IPCC report on climate change. That report concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is the main driver. During this hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) questioned the scientists about a period of dramatic climate change that occurred 55 million years ago:

We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows? We do know the CO2 in the past had its time when it was greater as well.

His comments were, not surprisingly, widely ridiculed. When questioned by The Hill for further details, Rohrabacher’s spokeswoman refused to comment at the time.

Now, however, Rohrabacher is claiming that it was all a joke. Last week on the House floor, Rohrabacher blasted anyone who believed he was serious was a “fool” or “intentionally portraying something they knew not to be true.” His statements came while he was allegedly joking that environmentalists treasured “buffalo farts.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/06/rohrdinflat554.320.240.flv]

It’s hard to tell when Rohrabacher is joking. Was he joking on all the following occasions too?

– Said Blackwater CEO Erik Prince was “on his way to being an American hero just like Ollie North was.” [Link]

– Said that critics of the Bush administration’s torture policies should “suffer” from a terrorist attack: “Well, I hope it’s your families, I hope it’s your families that suffer the consequences.” [Link]

– Called torture at Guantanamo Bay “more like pranks, hazing pranks from some fraternity.” [Link]

– Claimed that China’s President Hu Jintao was trying to kill President Bush, and warned him before a trip to China: “One bit of advice, Mr. President. I wouldn’t be so anxious to use the toothpaste in your hotel room.” [Link]

– Fueled a conspiracy theory that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of foreign terrorists. [Link]

More here on how today’s industrial animal production contributes to global warming.

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up