Couric & Co.
May 12, 2008 8:50 PM

Bush Won't Make Gas Prices Forecast

Peter Maer is a CBS News White House correspondent.
The former oil man in the Oval Office refuses to predict the future course of gasoline prices. In a radio interview with CBS News in the White House Roosevelt Room, President Bush declined to offer his own price at the pump forecast. He recalled the hit he took earlier this year when, at a news conference, he told me that he had not heard about analysts' predictions of four buck a gallon gas. At the time he described the forecast as "interesting."

Fast forward to our latest conversation:

Maer: "Where do you think it (the price of gasoline) is going to level off?"

The President: "You know, that's—I am not a very good prognosticator. You're trying to get me to guess. I fouled up your last question you asked me, so I'm not going to foul this one up. It's just high. It's very high. And, you know, it's just too darn bad because this economy was doing fine, and then we had the housing issue, and then this gasoline issue is making it harder for the economy to recover. It's growing—don't get me wrong, it's positive, but it could be a lot better with lower gasoline prices."

Mr. Bush insisted that he's not surprised that prices are hovering near the four-dollar mark now. He pointed to "the demand for oil relative to supply." But the president won't deal with the demand side with any sweeping call for Americans to curtail their driving.

He believes that "the market has a way of convincing people to drive less, depending on their ability to afford."

He will also continue to resist any efforts to increase taxes on oil companies. The president told my broadcast partner Mark Knoller, "What I'd like to see is those—the cash being generated as a result of higher energy prices put back in the ground so that we can have more supply, which will benefit the consumers a lot more than the government taking that money and growing the size of government."

Later this week, the president will make another pitch for the Saudis to increase fuel output. The oil rich kingdom resisted a similar request during a presidential visit earlier this year. In our interview, he almost shouted "THE PRICE IS EVEN HIGHER" (than it was when during his January visit to Saudi Arabia.) But he indicated he'll probably come up dry with his forthcoming request.

"I think the reality, Peter, is this: that when you analyze the capacity for countries to put oil in the market, it's just not like it used to be. The demand for oil is so high relative to supply these days that there's just not a lot of excess capacity."

That brings the conversation back to supply and demand and the stark fact that fuel prices will keep increasing for the foreseeable future.

A decline in sales of some gas-guzzling SUVs shows some consumers are getting the message. Recent reports also point a slight decline in overall national demand for fuel. To paraphrase the president, those who can afford it will drive as much as they want. But skyrocketing oil costs are forcing many Americans, to pinch pennies and make some tough financial choices.
Tags:
bush ,
gas prices ,
peter maer
Topics:
Politics
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 11 Comments
by kenteck-2009 May 14, 2008 4:30 PM EDT
lets try this again, this post says it all:
worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62393
Reply to this comment
by kenteck-2009 May 14, 2008 4:21 PM EDT
This will says it all:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62393
Reply to this comment
by tiffanyp15 May 14, 2008 12:36 AM EDT
I think Gas prices are outragious,, they need to do something about it,, how are we going to go anywere this summer with the prices of gas the way they are and keep increasing. I want to be able to go places this summer
Tiffany
Reply to this comment
by NBCMichael May 13, 2008 2:22 PM EDT
The Green Phantom
Global warming''s curious absence as a campaign issue.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/133652

In the summer of 2006 I went to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who was running the Democrats'' successful effort to regain control of the House of Representatives. I had been reading a great deal about global warming in the mainstream press ("Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" warned Time). So I asked Emanuel, how are the environment and global warming playing out there in the heartland? Is it stirring voters? No, he replied. In the 2006 congressional elections global warming was virtually a nonissue, he said, a low-priority item way behind the war and the economy and old staples like education and health care. Global warming is an issue for the elites, he said, not for the average voter.

SO Who Benefits from the Global Warming Advertisement Campaigns that discourage exploration for oil in Alaska & the Gulf of Mexico and new coal fired power plants?
By Michael Lewis

%u2022 3rd world countries who are the beneficiaries of a transfer of wealth and technology from America.

%u2022 The bottom lines of International Oil Companies that use foreign tax credits to avoid paying taxes in the US and show loyalty to no nation state.

Or

%u2022 American taxpayers
Reply to this comment
by NBCMichael May 13, 2008 2:16 PM EDT
REFINERIES IN AMERICA OPERATING AT 85% CAPACITY
Excerpts from Senator *** Durbin of Illinois floor statement http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=296989 below:

That is fact. The oil companies say: Well, the problem is we do not have enough refineries. If we had more, then we would have more product and we might have a smaller spread and we would not be. Let me tell you what: Today, the refineries in America are operating at 85 percent of capacity. Do not buy this argument that it is about refineries. They have more capacity. They are holding back so they can keep their product dear and limited and short, and so the consumers will ultimately pay more.

This morning, British Petroleum, BP, announced they made $7.6 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2008. Royal Dutch Shell announced $9.08 billion in the first quarter. We are still waiting for ExxonMobil.

Understand, these are not the biggest profits in the history of the oil industry, these are the largest profits in the history of American business, some say in the history of all business throughout mankind; the largest profit taking ever. At whose expense? At the expense of consumers and families, small businesses, truckers, airlines, and our economy.
Reply to this comment
by NBCMichael May 13, 2008 2:11 PM EDT
The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
Algiers Declaration
Algiers, Algeria, 4-6 March 1975

In this context, they emphasize the necessity for the full implementation of the Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its VI Special Session, and accordingly they emphasize the following requirements [excerpt from full declaration]

"With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC%u2019s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries"

A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [Excerpt from declaration Read sections 10 and 11]
Reply to this comment
by NBCMichael May 13, 2008 2:09 PM EDT
FOREIGN TAX CREDITS
In 1977 Representative Benjamin Rosenthal of New York produced secret Internal Revenue Service documents going back to 1950. They showed that the tax laws of Saudi Arabia were drafted with the help of Aramco to call the added price of oil not a "royalty" or "cost of doing business," as was proper, but an income tax." The Saudis did this knowing that income tax paid to a foreign country is deductible from the income taxes an oil company pays the United States on all income received in the United States by the parent firm. From Pgs. 61-64 The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian 5th edition paperback color emphasis added

"This practice, perfected in Saudi Arabia, was quickly adopted elsewhere. Eventually, every oil-producing nation where American companies had a concession enacted an income tax law to increase its oil revenue by tapping the foreign tax credit provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code." From pgs. 183-190 America: Who Really Pays The Taxes by Donald L.Barlett & James B. Steele paperback

"Since that time the major multinational U.S. oil companies have paid hardly a penny of U.S. income tax on their foreign income." page130 BANKS. BORROWERS, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
Reply to this comment
by NBCMichael May 13, 2008 1:57 PM EDT
Demand $2 a Gallon Gas

Oil was $120 a barrel on May 5, 2008.

The cost of a barrel of synthetic fuel from coal is estimated to be $55, including the infrastructure and labor force necessary to operate plants.

Germany fueled WWII with synfuel from coal. It is proven technology.

America has 1/3rd of the coal on Earth and can eliminate dependence on foreign oil.

Reducing America%u2019s trade imbalance keeps money and jobs here in America.

Every billion in trade deficit costs 13,000 American jobs. $400 billion for oil last year: you do the math.

And we can stop sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.

Synfuels are cleaner burning than gasoline and carbon sequestration can remove CO2.
Visit http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Harness your anger at the pump. Call you''re US Senators and demand they break ground on America''s energy independence by encouraging an American synfuel industry in this decade.

If you don%u2019t raise your voice the oil companies, lobbyist and politicians will assume you are fat, dumb and happy and ready to pay even more.
Reply to this comment
by thy1138 May 13, 2008 12:18 PM EDT
Once upon a time a big fight broke out over a Pittston proposal (Brinks is one of their divisions) to build a refinery in Eastport, Maine across the way from Campobello Island, NB, Canada, in some of the highest tides in the world, at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy. They were defeated, however, it seems odd, in retrospect, that there has been a shortage of refineries built in the US since. A spoiled industry holding its breath until there''s only too few crew on its tankers and a fourth mate is at the helm, like the Exxon Valdez heading for the Bligh Reef in Alaska? What are we now run by "little" bullies?
The Congressman from the area of Pennsylvania where oil was orginally struck (though an "Oil Springs" has been known in New York State since the early 17th century) has the best idea, and there''s much natural gas waiting to be discovered just off our eastern US shore. Might stop a methane eruption and tsunami even.
Reply to this comment
by truthyness May 13, 2008 7:46 AM EDT
I also come from a long line of Democrats but I have to face the fact that the Democratic Party isn''t what it used to be.

Two things have become evident to me even though they don''t
make any sense at all.

The first one is that the Democratic Party Leadership
knows damm well that if Obama where to actually make
it past the Republicans and get in the White House, the results will be disastrous.

The second one is that the Democratic leadership
is throwing this election.

I know it''s hard to believe. I know it doesnt make any sense. But it''s happening everyday right in front of us, and I can''t go on telling myself that it isn''t.
Reply to this comment
by shanev137 May 13, 2008 1:19 AM EDT
BUSH - "What I''d like to see is the cash being generated as a result of higher energy prices put back in the ground so that we can have more supply, which will benefit the consumers a lot more than the government taking that money and growing the size of government."

-------


Too bad your buddies down at Big Oil ain''t using their tens of billions in profits to increase supply...is it Mr. Moron.

Big oil knows that increasing supply would drive their profits down....SO WHY WOULD THEY DO IT?

THE ANSWER IS...THEY WOULDN''T DO IT...BECAUSE THEY ARE GREEDY BASTURDS.



Reply to this comment
See all 11 Comments

About Couric & Co.

Go for a look behind the scenes at The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric for stuff we like and for surprises. It's also a place for you to post comments and join our conversation about the news.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR