Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Fair stuff
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
Chicago finishes first in one survey.
Gas prices hit a record high over the past three weeks, with Chicago leading the way.According to the Lundberg Survey released Sunday, the national average price for self-service regular rose just over one cent to nearly $3.03 a gallon — while the Chicago average was $3.29 a gallon, the highest average in the country.
But don’t blame the oil companies for singling out Chicago, says Dave Sykuta, of the Illinois Petroleum Council.
The real culprit is taxes.
While only nine states and the District of Columbia allow sales taxes on gasoline at all, “Illinois not only has a sales tax but it has the biggest one — 5 percent,” Sykuta said.
But AAA-Chicago Motor Club says Chicago is Number Three.
Aurora-based AAA-Chicago Motor Club uses a different methodology to calculate area gasoline prices and puts the average at $3.26 a gallon of regular unleaded. In its survey, Chicago is behind Hawaii and New York City.
Also from the same story:
State and local governments are the real winners when prices rise. Chicago’s charges amount to 9 percent of each purchase. If the purchase price goes up, so does the amount paid in taxes.This year, the state of Illinois and local taxing bodies are ahead of last year’s gasoline tax revenue by $200 million to $300 million, Fleischi said.
Meanwhile, Topinka unvelied some energy plans at the State Fair.
“I want to make Illinois the clean energy capital of the nation,” said Topinka, a Republican from Riverside who is in her third term as treasurer.Topinka claims the Blagojevich administration has lacked a commitment to agriculture.
She said Blagojevich has not been aggressive in backing an increase in the amount of ethanol produced in Illinois. And, she said, Blagojevich earlier attempted to raise taxes on certain agricultural products, such as seed and fertilizer.
If such a proposal were to reach her desk, she said, “I would veto it faster than you can say ‘Blagojevich.”‘
Blagojevich campaign spokeswoman Sheila Nix said many of Topinka’s ideas aren’t new and that the governor has been a strong supporter of clean energy and farming.
UPDATE: From the Blagojevich campaign’s Topinka Watch site:
As Illinois celebrated Agriculture Day at the Illinois state fair, Governor Blagojevich’s campaign called on Judy Baar Topinka to explain a consistent record of voting against Illinois agriculture interests and against assisting ethanol production in our state as a State Senator.On four separate occasions when she served as a State Senator in 1991, Topinka voted against legislation that would have encouraged ethanol production and helped Illinois farmers working to produce alternative fuels.
Topinka voted against legislation that would have required motor fuels sold in Illinois to contain a specified percentage of ethanol, cut taxes for ethanol and prohibited motor vehicle warranties from misrepresenting the effect of the use of ethanol on cars.
Topinka’s opposition to legislation that would have encouraged the production of ethanol and helped Illinois farmers is a stark contrast to Governor Blagojevich’s leadership in this area. Today he announced a series of grants totaling $20 million from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to aid ethanol production by building five new ethanol plants.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 9:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Fair stuff
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
And what is Topinka’s past record of supporting clean energy initiatives? I am unfamiliar with them so I would welcome the information, but I don’t recall hearing anything before from the Treasurer’s office in regards to clean energy.
Also, I wasn’t around CFB when the survey was released calling Chicago the dirtiest city in the United States. Please tell me that no one here took that survey seriously. I’ve been fortunate enough to travel to San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., Hartford, and St. Louis in the past two years and I can tell you that those cities were all dirtier than Chicago.
As for the gas prices, that doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s getting absurd out there.
Tweed
Comment by Tweed Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 9:39 am
I hear Europeans pay like $7 a gallon for gas.
Comment by Mikey Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 9:40 am
I’m getting a little tired of these “and where was Topinka’s position when Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492″ questions.
Using the same logic, where was the Governor’s position 5-10-15-20 years ago? Or even when Columbus saild the ocean blue in 1492?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 9:47 am
Louis G. Atsaves,
She has been in politics for a long time and it is valid to ask where she has stood on the issues and if she really believes what she is saying or she is saying what she thinks will get her elected. People should ask that about all politicians.
Comment by Big Mike Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 9:56 am
I hear Iraqi’s pay $.25 for gas
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 10:07 am
Not any more, Wumpus.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 10:12 am
It really doesn’t matter how much gas prices are - you’ll still have to pay them until there is a black market for this product. what are you going to do - not fill up tour tank and drive. Are you going to walk to work or ride your bike when the temps drop in the fall and winter. Are you going to call your boss and say that I won’t be at work or be able to attend the meeting because I refuse to pay these gas prices. If cars could run on water, water would be $3 a gallon.
Comment by Econ 101 Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 11:05 am
Can two candidate hold similar opinions? Sure. Even during extreme partisan campaigns there are similarities between the candidates.
So, can Topinka hold similar views on Energy as Blagojevich? Yes, she can. Should she? Yes, if that is what she believes in. Isn’t it foolish for the Blagojevich campaigners to claim that Topinka’s ideas aren’t new since they hold the same ones? Yes, it is.
You see, we can elect Topinka, and still get similar energy policies as held by Blagojevich. The difference is that Topinka isn’t under fraud investigation, and doesn’t have a long record of unfulfilled promises.
Bottom line - if you really want progressive energy policies, you elect the candidate that demonstrates the ability to fulfill campaign promises, and doesn’t have to spend the majority of her time fighting FBI investigations for fraud, and the ensuing legal entanglements.
As a matter of fact - the question isn’t whether or not Blagojevich can propose something more attractive than Topinka. The issue at this point is how would he be able to do anything with all the legal problems he faces? We do not need a governor unable to do anything except meet with his lawyers. Re-electing Blagojevich is not only a poor choice considering his failures in office, but it makes absolutely no sense for any voter interested in addressing the problems Illinois faces today. Rod couldn’t do the job even while he was free from the FBI, he sure couldn’t do it now that he has to deal with them.
Start thinking people, Rod can no longer do his job.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 11:31 am
VanillaMan: What a stump speech!! May I just suggest that attacking those who don’t support Topinka is probably not going to be the way to win this election. Attack him all you want but telling people who either support him or have not decided that they are bascially stupid if they disagree with you or Topinka, well you arent going to win much support that way.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 11:47 am
Neither candidate will be able to avoid pressure to suggest solutions to the hike in gas prices and neither, as governor, would have much control over an issue which is primarily affected by global supply and demand. A tax reduction might help a little, but not much.
And ethanol is expensive too.
What is clear, however, is that for middle income families especially (those who are not the beneficiaries of a multitude of free and almost free welfare subsidies) the overall tax burden needs to be lowered significantly so that they can successfully negotiate the high-cost child-raising years, 20 years or so for most families. Less costly government, more money for us to use for housing, education, and medical care and for gas too. Neither candidate has shown much interest in lowering our taxes so that we can pay for the things we need to raise our families successfully. Blago’s random Santa Claus handouts (Allkids, college tuition, cheap housing for Hispanics) may help a few people, but tax reductions help the entire group. And Topinka appears to be back in the 20th century still talking about maybe raising income taxes–already a retro approach.
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 12:46 pm
Cassandra: I have never heard anyone before you say that college tax breaks are “Santa Claus handouts.” That is a pretty extreme thing to say.
Also, saying that just lowering the tax rate would help the entire group is a simple and wrong way to look at tax policy.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 1:12 pm
Louis G. Atsaves
I think it’s perfectly fair to ask what a candidate has done in the past. I’m highly skeptical of any candidate who promises to do something that they did nothing about in the past. As for Topinka and Clean Energy, I even opened it up and offered anyone the chance to establish her record. I’m certainly no expert on her clean energy/healthy environment record. All I’m saying is that I haven’t heard anything before this. By replying that you are getting tired of people saying what Topinka’s record has been in the past suggests to me that there isn’t much of a record to being with. However, I’m still waiting for people to defend Topinka’s record.
Tweed
Comment by Tweed Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 1:53 pm
I’m still waiting for someone to explain in detail what the Governor has done in the past on this topic. What did he vote for in Congress and in the IL. House when this topic came up? Both of them have been in politics for a long time.
Again, the campaign taunts are old and borderline childish.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 2:38 pm
Blago is not interested in lowering the cost of university education, he is interested in buying votes with Santa programs.
I imagine most families with college-age kids would much rather see a reduction in the state income tax than Blago’s $500 handout. We in the middle class are not idiots. We don’t need a Blago (who really is not very bright) telling us how to spend our money. But we need to pay lower costs for government.
20 other states managed to lower personal income tax this past year as a result of increases in revenues. This will never happen in Illinois under Blago because such reductions would reduce his ability to play Santa to selected voter groups.
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 3:51 pm
“Blago is not interested in lowering the cost of university education, he is interested in buying votes with Santa programs.”
You cant have it both ways. You cant want lower higher education costs, good roads, strong public education, first responder support, ect while wanting not to pay taxes. We need a more progressive tax code but you cant just cut taxes and still complain about how much money is needed to fix other things.
This is not in support ot defense of the guv but the fact is those states have been in much better financial situations for years and years. They never had the debt we had. But if you think those states arent, in your words, “playing Santa.” you are dead wrong. For example, Arizona, which has had a surplus for years now, increased early education funding (santa program I guess) and transfered tax rates away from some income brackets. That state, as do many others, relies heavy on sales taxes, its not uncommon in Arizona for sales taxes from state and city to be up to 11%.
Its not as simple as you make it seem.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 4:44 pm
Am I the only one who is sick AND tired of hearing either candidate ask “What was he/she thinking.” That was catchy the first time I heard it but now I want to puke every time I hear either one of them say it. Get a new line folks, start campaigning on issues that will make me want to vote for you, and enough with the negative. I know, it ain’t gonna happen though until after the first Tuesday in November.
Comment by Little Egypt Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 4:52 pm
Blagojevich earlier attempted to raise taxes on certain agricultural products, such as seed and fertilizer.
If such a proposal were to reach her desk, she said, “I would veto it faster than you can say ‘Blagojevich.’”
You left off the rest of the quote.
“…But I would vote to cut emergency farm supports for those suckers, like my pal Denny did after the worst drought in 100 years,” she said, slapping fundraising pal Dennis Hastert on the back. “What we REALLY need is more tax cuts for agribusiness. Merry Christmas everybody!”
Comment by red Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 6:01 pm
Judy wants to temporarily cut the state sales tax on gasoline, while Rod opposes that move. Could be a hot issue as gas prices continue rising and the state gets a windfall from rising sales tax revenues.
Comment by respectful Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 7:48 pm
Neither side really wants to cap taxes on gas, because the extra revenue is so desperately needed to plug budget holes and offset debt. But while that’s a good goal, I think it neglects some other opportunities that are also good for a better Illinois future.
They DO pay way more for “petrol” in Europe. They have added taxes, VAT (Value-Added tax), they also are paying more of the true costs of gas-powered vehicles because some of those higher fees and taxes cover pollution, cleanup, productivity losses and health costs due to asthma and emphysema, upkeep of roads and safety systems, plus a little bit that goes into the kitty on a regular basis to fund mass transportation, light rail, and other alternatives. Instead of just chasing their tails with gas powered cars, European countries are steadily moving into the alternative means and will someday get out from under the car culture altogether. They are weaning themselves ever-so-slowly off gas and looking ahead, while our American system seems to be more like a junkie that refuses to get off his addiction, but instead just looks for more cost-effective means to keep getting high, instead of cured.
The gas lobby says part of the reason Illinois prices are high, is not because of Middle Eastern happenings ( we get more oil from Mexico and Canada than Saudi) but because there’s a bottleneck in distribution at the point of the refineries that make the oil into useable fuels. Those refineries are HERE. Certainly the post-Katrina Gulf Coast refineries were messed-up as were many drilling platforms, and the nation felt the pinch.
Illinois has some refineries, I imagine they are the ones used by the oil companies to make the special cleaner-burning formulations we need and specify by law in Chicago and the Metro East to cut smog. If you’ve ever driven within twenty miles of Wood River, you can feel your eyes burn from the fumes coming off the plants there. They are old, inefficient, dirty plants, no question. But vital, nevertheless. The companies swear they really WANT to upgrade them and improve productivity, but that they are hemmed in by regulations and restrictions. Of course, scarcity and maintaining the status quo means they make even more profit without having to spend any of it on modernization and improvements… so I have to feel a little suspicious about their excuses.
I think one good step to fixing the Illinois fuel problem and thus prices is to see officially and scientifically, how much of that claim of the refineries is b.s. and how much is real, and what can be done to improve production out of the refineries without adding more pollution or danger. Can they be allowed to expand responsibly on their own, if we just deregulate them? Recent North Slope happenings with B.P.’s rotted pipelines suggest they may need some friendly government oversight to keep them honest.
(Hey, didn’t Blago say he worked on those pipelines in his youth?)
Anyway… With a more stable supply in higher quantities, overall prices should stabilize a bit. Meanwhile, I would feel better about paying extra for gasoline if I knew that some portion of that money was going towards alternative source development, pollution control, and mass transportation subsidies. Instead of record profits or porkbarrel projects. We should spend the excess riches on things we should have been funding more realistically all along, instead of surrendering everything to highway builders and trucking conglomerates. That doesn’t solve anybody’s problems in time for an election, but it may solve part of the trouble while we’re still living. And while our children live.
Comment by Bubbling Crude Tuesday, Aug 15, 06 @ 10:32 pm
I was in Chicago last week and about fainted when I saw gas for $3.49 and then two blocks later $3.64. How sad that I was happy to come home to pay $3.07 for it. I don’t expect it to get better anytime soon, but there’s got to be something that can be done. I juts know that I alone can’t make the changes.
Comment by Tessa Wednesday, Aug 16, 06 @ 7:42 am
The price of gas is outrageous but I can’t sympathize with many of those complaining of the high prices. I have a very short commute to work on a busy highway. I set my cruise control on 65 and stay in the right lane. I drive a small SUV which gets about 29 mpg. I am passed by 99% of the cars on the highway and left in their dust every day. Not one of them is slowing down and if they happen to be in the right lane behind me, they suck on my bumper to try and get me to increase my speed, before giving up and getting in the center lane and roaring past me. Apparently there are a lot of people making a lot more money than I am who can afford not to conserve the gas they are paying such high prices for.
Conservation is one of the ways to bring prices down because complaining about it surely won’t. It’s too big a windfall for the State’s coffers.
Comment by Disgusted Wednesday, Aug 16, 06 @ 4:57 pm
Japan recently raised its gas taxes significantly to reduce their dependancy on foreign oil and become an even more efficient economy. Of course, Japan only has one major political party so they don’t have to pander to a whining and addicted public.
I drive an SUV and appreciate rising gas prices to discourage me from speeding and taking extra trips. Computers and phones are a far better and cheaper alternative.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 17, 06 @ 10:07 am