Releasing the reserve is just a drop in the bucket and won't really effect anything but to the general public it will "look" like the Clinton/Gore regime is doing us all a huge favor. What we need is for them to remove gas taxes or reduce them. Here's a part of an article that talks about this: (Article by: Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com)
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>
"If the vice president truly wants to provide relief to hard-working
Americans who are suffering from high fuel prices, he should move to reduce
the onerous fuel taxes he voted to increase by 4.3 cents [per gallon] in
1993," NTU said. "The excuse for that tax increase was to eliminate the
deficit [but], oddly enough, here we are seven years later with a projected
budget surplus and the Gore fuel tax is still intact."
The NTU said excessive taxes are "the real culprit" behind the current high
fuel prices. The organization said from 1990 through 1999, the "pre-tax pump
price of gasoline barely changed -- from 88 cents per gallon in 1990 to 86
cents as of last November."
Yet, over the same period, NTU noted, "state and federal gasoline taxes rose
by more than half, from 27 cents per gallon to 43 cents" today.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the fiscal year 2001
"on-budget" surplus -- which does not include the so-called "Social Security
surplus," NTU said -- will total $102 billion. With an estimated $35 billion
in fuel taxes allocated to the Highway Trust Fund in 2001, the group said,
"slashing the 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax and the 24.3 cents per gallon
diesel [fuel] tax by 10 cents or more wouldn't imperil any current programs
and won't consume any funds set aside for Social Security reform."
"Apparently, Al Gore believes reducing the fuel taxes he voted to increase
would be too 'risky,'" the group said.
The watchdog group said a recent study by the Tax Foundation showed excise
taxes are five times more burdensome for lower-income households than they
are for wealthy households.
"Cutting fuel taxes should therefore not be politically controversial," the
ORC Land Use columnist
My August article on ORC