I'd like to chime in here with the "windfall" taxes for oil companies.

Can anyone explain how this is going to help at the gas pump?  I find it impossible to believe that we are going to see any relief because government takes more money from oil companies.  If anything, the cost of gas will just increase.

Also, the tax would not generate enough revenue to fix a severely deficient mass transit system (if you even believe that Washington would use the money for such a thing).  The problem I have with windfall taxes is that they are almost completely useless.  You tax the oil companies, the price of gas goes up, and then you only generate enough money to give me a $500 check?  This to me seems like a very bad idea.  It is almost like people want to "punish" oil companies by taxing them, without realizing that the price of gas is just going to go up as a result.  This will increase the cost of EVERYTHING if it costs more to ship things and manufacture goods.

It also sets a bad precedent.  Once you start down this path of "windfall profits" tax, you basically tell companies that success in America is going to cost them big-time.  We're already having trouble keeping companies here in America, this is just one more reason for them to pack up and move jobs overseas.

I think there is an infinitely better solution.  It doesn't increase taxes, it decreases them, and it also tackles the very root of the problem - decreasing our demand for oil.  Think about something like this:

1)  Leave oil companies alone - don't raise taxes, don't cut taxes, just keep the status quo.
2)  Give the auto manufacturers an incentive tax break that goes something like this - for every 10 miles/gallon more efficient you make your cars, you'll receive a 10% tax break (good up to 50%).  To qualify, you'd have to produce x number of vehicles per year with that fuel efficiency.  Perhaps the numbers need to be adjusted, but you get the picture. 

You are essentially telling auto manufacturers to invest heavily on making fuel-efficient vehicles and letting them know that the government will effectively subsidize their transition.  I bet within 5 years, you'd see vehicles getting nearly 100 mpg.  Could you imagine the effect that would have?  We could decrease our consumption of gasoline (and hence oil) by a huge amount.  You even make a dent in the emmissions, so you can call that a bonus.

What about people that can't afford those new fuel-efficient vehicles.  Yes, they benefit too.  As demand plummets, so to does the price of the commodity.

And what about oil companies.  Surely, we don't need millions of Americans jobless when these companies take a massive hit to their profits.  They are companies, and they will adjust to outside pressure.  Most will probably start realizing that oil is no longer a money maker, and start investing in alternative energy as a matter of survival.  So, this also helps spur development of new technologies.

This sort of plan, in my opinion, has a chance of really fixing the problem or at the very least, making it much more managable.  I think it is a rosy outlook, for all things to go perfectly according to plan, but I can certainly see how such a plan could work.

To me, this makes more sense than a stinking $500 check and is much more powerful when it comes to fixing the problem in the long term.

Meanwhile, McCain is lying about how his proposal to allow offshore drilling will reduce the price of gasoline within the foreseeable future, and shills for a gas tax "holiday" which will:

• Not lower the price of gasoline, but
• Increase the profits of big oil, and
• Delay the day we begin to look at alternative fossil fuels seriously, while
• Starving funding for road and bridge maintenance.

ok so again if you think the government is good enough to redistribute 35% of the wealth why not 50 ot 100%

The other point, is what government with a policy of taxing between 50% - 100% would ever get voted in? I can't think of anyone besides the permanently unemployed, the insane and few raving communist supporters who would ever vote for such an extreme taxation implementation. To say it is not realistic would be a slight understatement 

 Link??  Proof??  Source??  Quote??
Or is this right out of your ass as usual Bonzo?