Simply, he does not have that power. The united states, although being moved toward a socialist type economy, is still founded on Capitalist, or "Free market" economic principals. Traveling throughout the world, Ihave paid more than $9.00 USD per Liter of gasoline in other countries. Gasoline, or petrol, as it is called in most of the world is still cheap here. Because we do have a freer market than most. The President can, in times of national distress, issue executive orders which could temporarily divert these resource to military use. But this does not equate with price fixing, or freezing.

This scenario will never happen, because it is not in the interest of the US government to freeze the prices on fossil fuel products. In fact, the price of fossil fuels in the US is heavily subsidized by federal, state, and urban governments and is already artificially low. Freezing fossil fuel prices would force governments to spend more to support the existing system. Prices do not include the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. For example, the largest source of air pollutants is the power industry, by burning fossil fuels, particularly coal, to produce electricity. Ultimately, this damage will need to be corrected or, at least, halted. These costs will be paid by future generations through taxation. The price of fuel does not reflect the military costs incurred in the Middle East and elsewhere. The US was once the world's largest producer of fossil fuels, but has consumed most of its own resources. It is almost completely dependent on imports to meet its energy needs. Not only does this require high military expenditures, it also means that a great deal of money is exported. Exported dollars are not available, for example, to fund the development of alternate energy sources and the cleanup of the environment. Taxes on vehicles and fuel come nowhere close to covering the subsidies received by individuals and, in particular, industry. Road construction, maintenance, expansion of the road infrastructure, subsidies to vehicle manufacturers, and a host of other factors all cost money that existing, but inadequate, transportation taxes support. This shortfall is made up through income, sales, and property taxes. Tax revenues are also reduced, because of the large amount of land allocated to road systems in urban areas. This land generates no taxable income, but costs money to support. European countries discovered years ago that high fuel taxes were an incentive, encouraging people to waste less fuel. This has been accomplished through significantly improved fuel economy in automobiles, trucks, and trains, and support for effective and efficient mass transit (in comparison to North America). High taxes discourage unnecessary automobile use, in particular for short trips that use more fuel per kilometre. High taxes encourage consumer to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles and fewer of them. They have made a conscious decision not to develope an automobile-based culture. Japan has taken this further, by applying sales taxes based on the size of an automobile, its engine capacity, and its fuel economy. A substantial premium is paid by those who wish to purchase large, inefficient cars. They take several approaches to encourage fuel economy and to reduce vehicle emissions. Transportation remains subsidized under these systems, but these expenditures are directed so as to produce a different outcome than that found in the US. The US has experienced a reduction in automotive fuel economy over the past several years, requiring higher fossil fuel imports, and is increasing its dependence on coal-fired electrical generation. Vehicle manufacturers have contributed to the fossil fuel import problems by manufacturing and promoting vehicles that have relatively poor fuel ecomony, when compared to smaller vehicles in their product line. This is done simply for profit: the manufacturers make more profit selling one fully-loaded SUV than they do selling several small, fuel efficient cars. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) has been falling, rather than rising, to the detriment of everyone in the US. Not to point all of my fingers at the US, but Canada fails to do much better. For example, the largest supplier of natural gas in North America, the province of Alberta, is increasingly using coal to generate electricity. Selling cleaner-burning natural gas, particularly to the US, is more profitable than spending on the environment.

My, my, are our politics showing? Automobile-based socialist economy, the interests of an unwilling government, Free market CAFE society, capitalistic military adventureism, taxes, subsidies, paving paradise, masses of Europeans in transit, thrifty Japanese in Specks, Americans in petrol guzzling Juggernauts and even gas hoarding coal burning Canadians. No concern shown here for the ratings from retro-neo-libcons. I salute you all, " Sieg he... I mean, "Working men arise, you have nothing to loo... well " Whatever for ever!" One of the reasons that the Prez. don't freeze petro prices; under any of several authorities he has to do so, State of Emergency, Economic Stabilization Acts, War Power Acts, Favored Nation Treaties, etc, etc.; is that a price freeze is hard to administer, requiring an increase in bureaucracy, regulators, investigators, advisors (and who are the advisers? producers, consumers, scholastics, 'experts'?) All the bureaucrats argue and who's advice gets followed depends on who's got the most 'pull' with the govt. The MAIN reason the prez don't freeze prices is that price controls just don't work in the long run. In any economic system, capitalist, communistic, socialistic, even feudalistic and perhaps altruistic, 'greed' is the motivating factor. ( Hey, I put it in quotes, I di'n't mean in the deadly sin sense, OK 'enlightened self interest' is the motivating factor.) In a true emergency when every one sees the danger, folks will put up with price controls. In WW2 the oil companies knew that if Hitler won, he'd take the profits. ( In fact petro resources and infrastructure were one of the reasons he started the war and invaded who he invaded when he invaded.) But they did make a true effort to get the emergency over right quick so's they could raise the prices and make up for 'lost' profits. Tha's why Harry Truman kept price freezes in effect for a while after the war. Now, for most folks high gas prices in and of themselves are an 'emergency' , but the sense of danger is not universal, the oil companies and their stock holders ain't ascared of outlandish profits. Which brings us to the current administration. (Which might be what your question was about in the first place?) The Shrub's daddy made his profits in the oil binness (then he inherited a genuine family monetary and political fortune.) George II ventured into the oil bidness and show bizz, he never turned a profit. His daddy had made some friends and those good ol' boys covered his son's markers. "Once you own a man's markers you own the man," ( Raymond Chandler, op cit; The Lady in the Lake, The Big Sleep, The Long Goodbye, or one of the short stories which they are derivative of, I forget, coulda been Dashiell Hammet, or even William Powell) Then Bush the younger found himself chainyed by a heart beat to another man who had made his fortune in the oil binness in Texas, and who had to re-establish an address in Wyoming (Constitution sez the candidate for Prez and Veep have to be from diff states.) Now with all that carpet baggage do yall really expect the prez to go against his friends in the OIL Binez, I'm sorry, the Energy Resource and Exploration Risk Venture Industry, making a just profit considering all the risks they take? Rate me as you will, was this a politically motivated answer? I dunno, I'm just agin carpet baggers, politicians of any stripe, and especially the delays they cause redistricting when they oughta be funding research into the Inter Urban Rail Road or the Windwagon, which took more than one of them immigrants from St Joe to the Dalles. And don't even get me started on them oil suckin, gasoline guzzlin, coal burnin,gas breathin, peat packin immigrants. Oh, daddy won't you take me back to Mulenberg county We'll ride in our Hummer at 8 mpg, We'll fiddle with tha therm'stat, and leave all the lights on, Cause Mr. Peabody's coal train makes tha EElectrictee.

Because he doesn't want shortages like the ones that happened when Carter attempted to cap gas prices in 1979.

The president usually does not have the authority to set the prices on anything. The prices are determined by what the market will bear. If the prices are too high, the seller will lose buyers. This is how Wal-Mart got to be so successful. There are competing fuels, of which ethanol is the best known and is promising. Electric cars are available, but tend to have short range and slow, with the exception of the Tesla Roadster, which performs just like regular cars, but is very expensive. Steam-powered cars were tried in the 1890's through the 1910's with promising results.

why doesn't he freeze the prices of pharmeceutical, dr.s, hospitals, insurance co.s.....then maybe we can afford GAS.....he does not control OPEC prices ....so to do this, give us a break, would come from our gov. paying OPEC and giving us a break at the gov.'s expense, and THAT AIN"T HAPPENING.....they want you to keep BLAMING the OIL CO.S, not them ....:)cause most are 'ignorant' where the REAL BLAME lays and the gov. knows that....oil field and oil field workers have a very costly , dangerous , job. and it takes lots to recover oil, refine it, store it, ship it, etc... OPEC sets the prices and most of our oil is IMPORTED......

that is against free market economy