Obama attacks McCain for being "in the pocket of big oil"

"BTW, the Michigan Republicans plan to go to Obama's Lansing event and hand out tire gauges engraved with 'Obama's Energy Plan.'"

i heard that they tried to distribute them to the dozen or so who turned out to the last mccain event but the gauges didn't come with instructions. in the end, they had to scrap the idea because all the old farts were sticking the things in their ears trying make mccain sound better.

as for the windfall profit tax, i doubt that you understand the tax, based on your "canned" republican, anti-carter, anti-tax, pro big-oil verbiage on the subject.

for example, the wpt of the 80s was not carter's idea, it was congress's and was a compromise with congress and carter who wanted to decontrol oil prices (government control that was imposed by nixon). fyi, the first windfall profit tax was actually proposed by president ford in 1974. however, carter supported the idea because he (and many others) feared that removing price controls would provide huge unearned profits to the oil companies - which has proven to be true.

REDUCED DOMESTIC PRODUCTION & INCREASED FOREIGN DEPENDENCE
you only tell half of the story. during enforcement of the wpt, domestic production dropped, which caused an increase in foreign oil dependence. however, that was offset by price decontrol on domestic oil (which is what carter wanted anyway). as reported by the congressional research service:

While a WPT made the U.S. more dependent on imported oil, decontrol and a WPT made the U.S. less dependent than controls without WPT.

in addition, our dependence on foreign oil was growing anyway. in 1986, the percentage of imports was 38%. in 1990, 2 years after it's repeal, that still rose to over 50%. today, after 20 years without wpt it's 60% and despite bush's increased tax breaks that started in 2005.

REVENUE
the wpt wasn't a true tax on windfall profits. it was an excise tax (the tax rate was never based on actual profits) which is partly why it had a negative effect on industry.

you're attributing declining tax revenues to wpt, when the wpt immediately underwent several amendments that reduced its own tax revenues. nice scapegoating tho. the decline in demand for oil and the increase in overseas production caused prices to drop, base prices were adjusted for inflation, and domestic production decreased - these three forces essentially eliminated any revenue to the government. still, the reality is that the wpt brought in $80 billion in revenues and not a decline in tax revenues. this is why reagan didn't move right away to repeal it - it kept the deficit down.

so, what do you propose for domestic oil companies that are riding the wave created by opec, raking in record profits for several years now, more interested in buying back their stock or in mergers (like exxon and mobile, bp and amoco) than in producing more (more production increases supply and reduces prices and profits)? they've really got us bent over the barrel and they want still more tax breaks, more taxpayer funded public lands to drill on.

a few answers:
1. develop alternate energies to compete with oil
2. promote conservation efforts
3. a true windfall profit tax (not excise tax) - the difference is crucial in how it might affect the industry
4. eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies

"The real difference is the Democrats want to move to renewable energy. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, would all create good jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

what you're saying is that we can vote for change, or we can give our change to the oil companies? ;)

so far, i'm voting a full democratic ticket. i haven't seen a republican (that'll be on my ballot) who's on the right side of the energy issue yet.