High Gas Prices in CA: Maybe Sen Feinstein Needs to Look at Her Own Voting Record

Tweet

Written By:
LegitSlater

Oct 8, 2012
2:02pm

Higher gasoline prices are hitting the nation’s consumers especially hard as of late, which provides for a new round of belt-tightening and water cooler belly aching for anyone who uses this commodity during their daily life. Suffice to say, no one enjoys paying more than they have previously at the pumps. But, what never seems to be discussed is, quite simply, what is the correct price for a gallon of gasoline? Put another way, how much is gas supposed to cost, versus what price do we prefer to pay based on our own internally-held beliefs and values?

The right answer, ultimately, will always be that a consumer will pay not more than that amount which they deem is still worth parting with their hard-earned money in order to enjoy the benefits of a tankful of gas. That amount will always be different for each consumer, prompting them to make some changes if the amount becomes too great. Those changes could be things like carpooling, walking or biking to and from where you need to be, perhaps opting for a vehicle that runs more economically, or simply cutting back in other areas to help make ends meet. Regardless of what that decision ends up being, the power to make it rests with each consumer and their individual levels of willingness to participate in free market exchange.

People, left to their own devices; will ultimately improvise, adapt, or otherwise find a way to overcome adversities in life like rising gas prices. They won’t necessarily enjoy paying more, but those that realize it is ultimately up to them will ask themselves what they can do to make the cost increases more manageable, and how can they empower themselves to adjust to changes in the market. Too many others will resort to blaming others, and expecting others to step for them to make their lives easier.

That creates a whole new and destructive “supply and demand” market — one of politicians exchanging the perception of the government taking care of issues people should ultimately be responsible for addressing themselves; for those same people giving them power and keeping them there. This market unfortunately has been fed with money our country does not have, and has contributed to a nanny-state with liberties shrinking proportionally with the expansion of government and debt. But, I digress…

A case in point is Senator Dianne Feinstein, who today has called for an investigation of higher gas prices in her home state of California.

Californians are paying an average of $4.668 a gallon, the highest price in the nation. Many motorists are paying over $5.

Feinstein says that paying hundreds of dollars every time you fill your tank is unthinkable. For the second time in the last few months, the California Democrat has sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking for an immediate probe.

Unfortunately Senator Feinstein, despite her years in public office, has failed to remember that if you seek to blame others versus seek real solutions, one best ensure that there won’t be several fingers pointing back at you. Based on her voting record (examples below), Senator Feinstein has herself been equally culpable for high gas prices in her own state through her actions (or lack of) in the US Senate:

• *Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases (Apr 6, 2011)
• *Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India and China (May 15, 2008)
• *Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (Nov 5th, 2005)
• *Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%) (Jun 16, 2005)
• *Voted YES on banning drilling in ANWR (Mar 16, 2005)

Sen Feinstein’s own voting record, along with her uber-left cohorts in the Senate, is just as responsible (if not more so) for rising gas prices in her home state and our nation as anything else any investigation will uncover. She needs to take personal responsibility for her participation in throwing the laws of supply and demand out of kilter through much of the legislation she has supported, and making her constituents pay more.