In November of 2006, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi issued a press release touting the Democrats' "common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices."

She accused the oil companies of "price gouging." The price of gasoline when the Democrats took control of Congress was around $2.25 per gallon.

The average price of regular gas crept over the $4-per-gallon barrier over the weekend, as measured by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

That represents a more than 75% increase in the retail price of a gallon of gasoline on Pelosi's watch. Call it the "Pelosi premium" we're all now paying.

CCF Editor's Note: Why are the Democrats determined to raise gas prices?

Democrats wanted a 25% tax on "unreasonable" profits, but Republicans said it would do nothing to help consumers.

Senate Republicans Tuesday blocked a proposal to tax the windfall profits of the nation's biggest oil companies and eliminate some of the firms' tax breaks, rejecting Democratic claims that the measure would help assuage consumer anger over $4-a-gallon gasoline.

The vote was largely partisan, yet Minnesota's senators, Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Amy Klobuchar, voted in favor of the bill.

Gasoline prices rose another 2 cents Tuesday to a nationwide average of $4.04 a gallon for regular, but there appeared to be little prospect of imminent action by Congress or the Bush administration.

On Friday morning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) forced a cloture vote to end debate on the Lieberman-Warner “climate tax” bill. He needed to stop the political bleeding among his caucus caused by their enthusiastic promotion of the measure at the time when public attention to gasoline prices is intense and angry.  Gasoline prices have increased at least $1.66 since the Democrats won the majority.

Reid won by losing the vote because that ensured his team would not get stuck voting on the substance of a bill designed to cause energy prices to rise considerably in order to penalize Americans into using substantially less of it. Yet the toll was mounting from simply promoting the biggest tax increase in history and largest expansion of intrusive government power since the New Deal.

Greenwire reports of the defeat of the Lieberman-Warner climate tax bill this morning:

"They fell short of the 60 needed for cutting off debate, but the bill's sponsors nonetheless claimed a victory by citing support from lawmakers who missed the roll call and otherwise would have cast a vote in favor."

That's precious, and I'm now willing to roll over on the issue if simply having the appropriate sympathies is what the energy rationers will accept as victory. I also think it reveals the exercise of the past week as not just humiliating for the Democrats but unnecessary. Unless of course it was intended to be what it has become — the most recent performance of an occasional ritual to show how much a handful of people really, really care, and how mean some other people are for disagreeing with them.

After all, in 2005, during the Senate's last go-round on this bill and its "no, we won't" vote, Congress simultaneously (and humorously) approved a non-binding "Bingaman resolution" saying in effect, "but Congress — some Congress, if not this one — really should approve this."

Isn't that the same thing? We win if we say that we really would have liked to do something, but didn't?

Can we all just declare victory and leave the economy alone, or at least not saddle it with this particular excuse for wealth transfers?

So, gang, you win. Now go away please.  Source

As the congressional curtains open on the Lieberman-Warner “Climate Security Act,” the subjects of higher taxes, job expansion and economic growth are taking center stage in many people’s minds.

The act, which deals with controlling levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by the United States in order to protect the government will be open for Senate discussion for the few following weeks.

And while many agree measures must be taken to protect the environment from carbon dioxide levels and such, some people are seeing a flaw in the act that they say could potentially cause more problems than GHGs ever could.