Maurice Hinchey, our 22nd District Congressman, surely understands that price controls are a failed policy. He remembers the long gas lines and fuel rationing of the 1970s, and has seen the disastrous artificial shortages price controls created. Many gas stations were forced to restrict gasoline purchases to a few gallons per customer or only to commercial vehicles. Others closed down entirely, unable to find gasoline for their customers. Despite this, Hinchey has announced his intention to draft price control legislation that would cap gasoline prices at $2.49 per gallon, at their 2006 levels. With prices now hovering around $4.00, it’s worth noting that 2006 is when Hinchey’s party took control of Congress, promising to reduce gas prices. One would hope that the 1973 Oil Crisis was not the model they had in mind.

Price controls did not work in the 1970’s and will not work today because supply and demand is a natural law of the land. Things cost what they cost for a reason. As developing nations increase their use of this resource, it becomes more difficult to fill the demand, and prices increase. As prices have increased, many Americans have changed their driving habits accordingly. The sad reality, however, is that all too many among us cannot simply “drive less” to help ease demand, and their numbers include working families (who may be sacrificing other personal needs to compensate) as well as small business owners (who keep our local economy thriving).

Hinchey’s plan will force the government to subsidize oil companies. Oil companies make, on average, less then ten cents profit per gallon of gas sold. The federal government takes an 18-cent tax for each gallon and state taxes vary. Hinchey’s plan makes no mention of cuts to any gas tax, so if the price of gas is reduced by $1.50, how will the industry compensate for the $1.40 or so being lost for every gallon sold? The plan would effectively shut down oil companies that could lose far less money by simply not selling gasoline. The public could never tolerate severe shortages, so the federal government would need to devote hundreds of billions of dollars annually to keeping gasoline providers up and running. Where would these funds come from? Since Hinchey never met a tax hike he didn’t like, it’s not difficult to speculate who he would have foot the bill. We would end up paying the real price of gasoline one way or another.

While alternative energy sources are vital to our future, fossil fuels are necessary to our daily lives and will remain so for some time. This nation has not seen a new refinery built in over 30 years. Current refineries are working at full capacity, and this, coupled with their advanced age, leaves our fuel supply vulnerable to breakdowns (and therefore more price spikes). We need to build new refineries and we need to start building now. We should also be paving the way for oil shale and coal liquefaction technologies.

We also need to explore more of our oil resources here at home, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Maurice Hinchey, beholden to the environmentalist lobby - as opposed to his constituents, many of whom will not see a vacation this summer due to the extreme costs of transportation - has opposed domestic drilling left and right, preferring to leave our fate with supplies in the Middle East, where we are subject to interests that can be quite hostile to the United States.

Congressman Hinchey and others of his ilk will often argue that such solutions are inadequate because it takes years for the authorization of new refineries or drilling to affect prices at the pump. I’m sure this was a legitimate viewpoint when Hinchey voted to oppose drilling in ANWR - eight years ago.