The brightest idea yet for getting gasoline prices down to more reasonable levels never had a chance in Congress.

In the summer of 2009 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sponsored the “Stop Tax-breaks for Oil Profiteering and Commodity Speculation Act.”

No other senator would co-sponsor the bill, which was clearly not in the best interest of Wall Street, and it died in committee.

This week neither Sen. Wyden nor his staff would return a phone call asking about the matter.

His bill would have repealed tax exemptions for organizations like pension funds and university endowments when they trade commodities.

And why not, the influx of these institutions into commodities — especially oil and gasoline futures contracts — has driven prices up to levels that don’t reflect what is happening in the real world’s economic slowdown.

Worse, there really is no reason for these groups to be speculating in the actual commodities, except for the fact that Wall Street has sold them on the idea.

These conservative institutions could just as easily, and without damaging the US economy and everyone in it, invest in corporate stocks like ExxonMobil, if they felt the need to have a stake in the energy markets, or Archer Daniels Midland, for agricultural products.

As I detailed in my last column, the amount of oil and gasoline being used worldwide has little affect on the price of oil.

As long as Wall Street treats commodities as just another market in which to gamble — and keeps the flow of speculative money going into these vital resources — prices will never go down.

Gasoline at $3 a gallon — already here. How about $4, or $5, or $6? It’ll happen unless someone takes control.

The illogic of the whole situation is striking.

American taxpayers are essentially forgiving the taxes owed by endowments and retirement funds on commodity trading, even though it’s the taxpayers who are being harmed by the higher prices caused by this trading. Talk about kicking taxpayers in the ass while you’ve got a hand in their back pocket!

This week Congress started taking another approach — discussing limiting the amount of commodity speculation that Wall Street could engage in.

Naturally the big investment houses are opposed, but the House Agriculture Committee took up the issue because it’s one of the provisions in the so-called Dodd-Frank financial overhaul.

As I said last time, experts estimate that speculation is adding $1 to $1.25 a gallon to the price of gasoline.

That alone is bleeding about $180 billion annually out of the US economy, or roughly the additional amount that Congress is now trying to put into people’s pockets through the new, deficit-bloating, tax cuts.

But the experts also estimate that if you add up the extra cost of all fuels — airplane fuel, diesel, etc. — energy speculation could be draining $300 billion a year from the US economy.

Many of the extraordinary — and extraordinarily stupid — moves taken over the past few years by Congress and the Federal Reserve have been necessitated by financial recklessness which we are now seeing in commodities.

When will we learn? When will our elected officials learn?

*

Wall Street economists are excited about the new tax breaks being considered this week in Washington.

So excited, in fact, that they’ve raised estimates for 2011 economic growth by a full percentage point — from a dismal (considering all the stimulus that’s been thrown at the economy) 2.5 percent improvement in the gross domestic product to a more acceptable 3.5 percent.

I’m glad Wall Street is so upbeat — it is, after all, the job of those trying to sell you stocks to make things look great.

And I hope they are finally right about the stimulus taking hold. But this could be another instance of economists missing the point.

The tax cuts and extensions aren’t even yet through Congress. But the damage — yes, damage and not benefits — has already begun.

The interest rate on the 10-year US Treasury security rose to a six-month high this week. And it won’t only be Washington paying more to borrow money.

Companies and consumers — including people who want to buy homes — will also be paying more.

What effect will this have in slowing the US economy? Will the detrimental effects of higher interest rates be greater than the benefits of tax cuts?

Should Wall Street economists actually be lowering their fore casts for eco nomic growth in the year ahead, and not raising them?

Incredibly, the recent ac tion in the markets is pre dicting that the Fed will have to raise rates in 2012 even if the economy continues to struggle. jcrudele@nypost.com

