Minimum Markup Law Adds 8 Cents Per Gallon

It’s not cheap.

Madison - A Depression-era state law adds about 8 cents for every gallon of gasoline purchased in Wisconsin, costing the state’s drivers as much as $278 million more a year, according to a report to be released today.

[...]

The law requires a 9.18% markup, which would be 30.2 cents a gallon when the wholesale price of gas is $3.29. Without the law, retailers would mark up gas about 22 cents a gallon as their share of the sale, according to the report. So the law means gas here costs 8 cents higher than it otherwise would.

“The fact that minimum markup climbs at the same rate that wholesale gas climbs is a double whammy for consumers,” said Christian Schneider, senior fellow at the institute.

Can Wisconsin repeal this ridiculous law now?

1. Have you told your state senator how you feel?  I mean, isn’t he the guy that torpedoed this bill in committee in the 05-06 session?

   Perhaps once Mike Huebsch and AssGOP stop blocking attempts to repeal minimum markup, something will get done.  No guarantee, of course, but it’s certainly not going to happen on Huebsch’s watch - not with Kwik Trip HQ in his backyard.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 23, 2008 at 2332 hrs




2. What a stupid law.  Here in Vegas, we can pay between $3.99 and $4.31.  It depends if you want to pay more for boutique gas or not, If you want to pay more, fine, great, if not, then pay pay less.

   Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 0257 hrs




3. Sadly, neither the Republican leadership in the Assembly or the Democratic leadership in the Senate supports repeal.  In the session just ended, the bill to repeal the minimum mark up law never even got a public hearing.  If the bill had the support of the majority of the Assembly Republican caucus it would have been on the calendar for a vote the next day!

   Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 0724 hrs




4. Wally - I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but…

   If the bill had the support of the majority of the Assembly Republican caucus it would have been on the calendar for a vote the next day!

   Like the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims bill did?

   Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 0850 hrs




5. While I find the law terrible in principle, on what planet is $.08 per gallon no cheap?

   Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on July 24, 2008 at 1219 hrs




6. There are problems with the report, mostly due to the fact that the author uses 1988 costs and figures. 

   Certainly, the cost to do business has increased over the last 20 years, and credit card purchases are probably the greatest cost increase for retailers.  Think about how many gas purchases there were in 1988 made with a credit card, and how many there are today.  It’s probably 10-fold. 

   Thus, I think the .08 per gallon estimate is a bit high.  Probably more like .03, maybe .04.  Anyone want to storm the castle over 3 cents?

   Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 1643 hrs




7. Anyone want to storm the castle over 3 cents?

   Yes. 

   I buy about 850 gallons of gas a year.  I think I would very much enjoy another $25.5 in my pocket.  And there’s the whole principle thing…

   Posted by Owen on July 24, 2008 at 1655 hrs




8. Can I assume the state and federal governments won’t be storming my gates should I choose to kick a few percent off my taxes?

   Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 1658 hrs




9. Well, as Miracle Max said to his wife:

   Max: “Have fun storming the castle!”

   Wife: “Think it’ll work?”

   Max: “It would take a miracle.”

   Both: “Buh-byeee!”

   Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 1731 hrs




10. If the margins are so slim, why do we need the law then?

    Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 1755 hrs




11. Exactly, supporters of the status quo argue that the law doesn’t impact consumers. Yet it somehow helps retailers stave off competition from the ‘big guns.’

    How?

    If it doesn’t add any cost to a gallon of gasoline, it shouldn’t be missed then, right?

    Posted by Fraley on July 24, 2008 at 1851 hrs




12. Talk to Dale Schultz and the others that blocked it two years ago in the senate caucus.  Look to see who got money from the oil lobby and ignore Steve Kreiser and company.  They think Reynolds, the guy that pushed repeal is a nerd.  Must be terribly embarassing to be fired by him for a poor job.

    Posted by on July 24, 2008 at 2119 hrs




13. Bob, Bob, Bob . . .

    Now, I don’t doubt that there was some connection between campaign donations and the decision to keep this bill from the calendar in the two houses a few years back.  That’s not to say that the leadership of those houses was on the take, though.  Frankly, one of the things you have to do as Senate majority leader or Assembly Speaker is to decide whether or not you can actually PASS the thing you intend to take to the floor before you go there—the first rule of political leadership is never to pick a fight you know you’re going to lose.

    So, if you’re Dale Schultz, you find yourself with a caucus full of folks like Glenn Grothman, and Mary Lazich, and others—the “conservatives” in your group—who are telling you that they can’t vote for repeal, and they don’t want the issue to come to the floor, because it makes them pick sides between their small gas station guys—the guys you seem to think do not exist—and the Bob Dohnals of Owen Robinsons of the world.  And the more moderate folks in the group—those would be the RINO’s to you, Bob—definitely won’t vote for it.  And then you have Tom Reynolds, who doesn’t understand this dynamic at all, and who figures that the caucus needs to take votes on anything he thinks is a good idea, whether it’s a losing fight or not, and no matter how much damage it does to the interests of other members of the caucus (and trust me, that’s what he thinks—I would know).  So if you’re Dale Schultz, what the heck do you do?  You try to forge a compromise of some sort, and when Tom Reynolds threatens to blow it up, you decide to pull the issue from the calendar entirely.

    You know, oftentimes, politics is a game of incremental victories.  Glenn figured that out as he matured as a lawmaker, which is why he has been successful all of these years.  It took 40 years for us to get to where we are today, in terms of taxation and government regulation and general policy direction.  It’s going to take some time to get back, and frankly, minimum markup is not abortion—it’s not a moral, all-or-nothing, no-compromises issue.  So you make your deals, and you chip away at it, and you eventually weaken it and make it irrelevant, if that’s what you need to do to get the job done.  Instead, what did we get - huh Bob?  A whole lot of nothin’.  Well done!

    But you don’t see any of that, Bob—because you weren’t there.  You know what Tom Reynolds told you, and that was was likely a rather limited perspective.  You do a disservice to both the Legislature and to your fellow citizens when you come here and toss around scurrulous allegations about folks being on the payroll of Big Oil, and whatever other conspiracy theories rattle around in your head as you worship at that little altar in your house with the picture of Tom Reynolds’ face on Joseph’s body.

    Honestly, being let go from there was no fun at the moment.  But stuff like that happens in politics.  And I think most of the folks in the Puzzle Palace (and regular folks who have asked me about since then, by the way) understood it for what it was—an exceptionally difficult boss securing for himself staff who would only tell him things he wanted to hear.  That was his perogative, and I’m perfectly happy having moved on—believe me—but you see how well that served him.

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 0747 hrs




14. Actually, the author used 1999 numbers, not 1988.  During that time, the per gallon minimum markup has increased from 6 cents per gallon to 30 cents.  Has the cost of doing business increased five fold during that time?

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 0855 hrs




15. Steve K.

    That small minded “we can only fix maybe a small thing here or there”, is what is wrong with the Republican party.  I’m a life long conservative, and years ago toyed with becoming a Republican, but as long as they continue to run a conservative campaign, and then govern from the left, they really aren’t anything but Democrat light.  There are some exceptions, and you do need to compromise at times, but not as SOP.  You aren’t going to lose the small gas station owners by voting against minimum markup, if you are also working at lowering property taxes, income taxes, government creep, and all of the other conservative agenda items.  I’m really tired of voting for the lessor of two evils.  On the national front, I’m stuck between voting Liberal, or Socialist.  Republicans came back to power with a contract with America, and lost it when they didn’t keep their half of the bargain.

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1033 hrs




16. Lots of talk Steve, but we’re still paying.

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1036 hrs




17. Kreiser really is embarassed by getting fired by Tom Reynolds!!!  I’d hate to have to carry that around all of my life.
    Facts are that the GOP Republicans led by Dale Schultz, Scott Fitzgerald and others haven’t any guts, any leadership ability, much knowledge and little worth to themselves, their districts the GOP or the state of Wisconsin.
    Most of them are little more than ward heelers led around by a few speical interests.
    Occasionally we get good leaders and I have admired them all but the future for the GOP is small cause most of them are little nebbishes like Steve Krieser and others.
    The culture in Madison is such that anyone that is different, shows some spunk, wants to stand up to special interestes is beaten down.
    As one state senator told me late at night in the old Park motel.  “I always vote for the special interests cause they give us the money to run.  they never forget while the voters forget a few months down the road.  the reason that we have medicore leaders and mediocr programs is best exemplified by steve Krieser in htis last disseration.
    Now you all know why congress and the legislature is mostly worthless on the GOP side.  There are a few in Wisconsin and a few in Washington, but damn few.  Leaders like Reagan come along once a century.
    we are l.ucky to have two really good congressman in wisconsin, Ryan and Sensenbrenner.
    I hope that you all will come to our corn roast for him at my house in Tosa on August 10th.  1:00 PM.
    Calll 414-258-1719

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1406 hrs




18. Let me hit a few points here:

    1) My “dissertation” was an examination of the politics surrounding minimum markup that existed at the time of the last major consideration of the issue.  It may be that, with gas at $4 a gallon, the voters are much less likely to tolerate their legislators dithering on some ancient old law that forces them to pay more for gas so that their local gas station owner can have his profits propped up.  If the politics have changed, let’s have the vote.  As I have mentioned in other posts, I’m in favor of repeal. 

    2) When it comes to actually governing—you know, getting 33 or 99 people together in a room and producing some work product that the majority can agree upon AND that the Governor will sign—there is often a pretty broad chasm between what is achievable and what is ideal.  I’m a conservative—about as conservative as they come.  But as a legislative staffer, I also had to be a realist.  The job is (usually) not about lobbing bombs, but about actually accomplishing something.  Imagine if every member of the Republican caucus showed up for session and just decided they weren’t going to vote for anything they couldn’t agree with 100%, one hundred percent of the time?  How effectively do you suppose they would govern? 

    The distance between the ideal and the possible is often filled with all sorts of baggage—campaign donations, campaign promises, the personal experiences of the lawmakers, their personal and political idiosynchrasies, the strategic direction of the chamber’s leadership team, and a million other factors—all of that stuff.  The effective lawmaker learns to use every tool in the legislative toolbox.  Sometimes, the hammer is the most effective.  But those who resort to it in every circumstance—like Tom Reynolds tended to do—find themselves alienated from their colleagues and cast as excessively dogmatic nutcases by voters. 

    3) Honestly, Bob, the embarassment that I experience in connection with my Reynolds service has less to do with how I left than with the fact that I worked there at all.  You can’t imagine how many people will ask me which leggies I worked for, and when I get to Tom’s name, they draw a breath and go, “oh, boy!” I stand by this, though—we had a great staff that worked hard for Tom.  Perfect?  No.  But we did our best to give him stuff that could get him re-elected.

    4) I don’t make policy.  Never did.  I was not an elected official.  And I don’t work there anymore.  So I wouldn’t say that I represent the future of legislative Republicans, in any event.  Maybe you can accuse Keith Gilkes of that—I know he loves it when you take his name in vain.

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 1816 hrs




19. Steve, getting fired by Tom Reynolds is a badge of honor that you should wear with pride.  People around the capitol know what happened—how the Senate leadership struggled to get good staff for Tom.  People who could listen to his dingbat ideas and help him survive his first reelection bid.  You folks should get hazardous duty pay!

    Don’t pay any attention to Dohnal.  At his best, he makes Reynolds look positively lucid!

    Posted by on July 25, 2008 at 2222 hrs