Three candidates, three arguments on the ‘gas-tax holiday’

May 1, 2008

At least it’s about policy. That’s what I keep telling myself — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain are still going at it over a proposed “gas-tax holiday.” Given that they could be arguing about far more ridiculous subjects, I guess this is as good a controversy as any.

First up, CNN’s John Roberts asked McCain to respond to the NYT’s Thomas Friedman, who eviscerated this foolish proposal in his column yesterday. McCain responded:

“Well, first of all, obviously they would have to. But second of all, I respect Tom Friedman. He’s one of the brightest and most intelligent individuals in America. But, Tom, let’s give low-income Americans just a little break this summer. That’s all this is about…

“And I understand in New York City that you don’t really drive a long way most of the time. But — and then maybe you’re chauffeured.”

Yes, John McCain, who has been flying around in his millionaire wife’s private jet, believes Friedman is too pampered to appreciate the merit of his stupid idea. What sheer idiocy.

Next up is the Clinton campaign, which no doubt knows it’s pandering with an idea aides know is dumb, but which is apparently pleased with the results of the demagoguery.

Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called “gas tax holiday”? On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin claimed that the campaign’s internal polling shows that it is.

“We’re seeing in our polling that working people appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton understands the incredible economic strain they are facing,” Garin said.

Presumably, the fact that this proposal is actually a “giveaway to oil companies” — whose profits are already jaw-dropping — eludes the Clinton and McCain campaigns. Or it doesn’t, and they don’t care, because the polls look good.

And then there’s the Obama campaign, which seems quite pleased with the fact that Clinton and McCain are on the same page, and are both wrong.

MSNBC reported this morning:

Obama once again stated his opposition to such a holiday while also campaigning in Indiana. “This isn’t a real solution. This is a gimmick,” he said. “And this is what Washington does whenever there’s a big problem. They pretend that they’re solving it to try to get though a political season but they don’t really solve it. And unfortunately, after John McCain made the proposal, I guess Sen. Clinton thought it was gonna poll well, so she said, ‘Me too, I’ll do the same thing.’ and so now it’s the McCain-Clinton proposal to suspend the gas tax.

He then said, “You know people are more concerned about looking good for the cameras and for politics than they are at actually solving problems. You remember when George Bush five years ago put up a big sign in front of an aircraft carrier saying ‘Mission accomplished’ in Iraq. I’m sure they thought that was good politics. Except five years later we’re still in this war in Iraq.”

I’d just add one thing. I was on Air America yesterday talking about this with Rachel Maddow and she raised a good point I hadn’t thought about. Under the McCain-Clinton proposal, the gas tax would be temporarily suspend starting on Memorial Day — which is just a few weeks from now. Moreover, under Clinton’s policy, the lost revenue would be replaced with a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, implemented at the same time.

Except, neither McCain nor Clinton are actually making efforts to make this policy happen. Congress usually moves at a glacial pace. If the gas tax is going to disappear at the end of May, presumably legislation would be working its way through the Hill right now. It’s not. Similarly, if Clinton’s idea for a windfall-profits tax is going to be implemented in a few weeks, it, too, would be going to committee, be the subject of hearings, etc.

But no one is actually doing any of the legislative legwork on this, and there’s no practical way the McCain-Clinton proposal will be implemented before the end of the month. With that in mind, the debate is entirely academic.

We’re left with a bad idea that all three candidates know is a bad idea, and which all three candidates know will not actually pass in time to matter.

Something to keep in mind.

the fact that this proposal is actually a “giveaway to oil companies”… eludes the Clinton and McCain campaigns. Or it doesn’t, and they don’t care, because the polls look good.

Oooo! Ooo ooo! Pick me! Ooo! Ooo ooo!

  • I was on Air America yesterday talking about this with Rachel Maddow. . .

    I like the way you just snuck that in there, Mr. Modest. 🙂

  • The thing to remember about the McCain/Clinton panderfest is that it would only save the average driver about 30 cents a day for a total of $28 (assuming the oil companies let us have it) and would leave a funding gap of about $10 billion in the fund used to pay for federal highway construction.

    “Time we stop using gimmicks in Washington to make it look like we’re doing something,” Obama concluded.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-rivals-su.html

  • I have an idea, let’s take Clinton and McCain’s hot air and use it to save us all $432.

    If you do the math to calculate the extra fuel cars consume due to under-inflated tires, consider the Environmental Protection Agency standard that a 1% loss of fuel efficiency occurs for every 2 PSI of air under the maximum level. Add to that the 2003 Department of Energy report that states that vehicles average 22.3 miles per gallon and 12,242 miles per year, and you find that each of the 81 cars burned 144 extra gallons of gas due to under-inflated tires. At $3 per gallon, each car owner is spending $432 for gas each year that they really don’t need.

    http://www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra/050921_tire.html

  • Of the three candidates, Senator Smirky is definitely the worst on this issue because, as Steve notes, he’s actually taking happiness in McCain’s and Hillary’s error. A more decent man would be saddened that his opponents are choosing the wrong solution to a problem facing Americans, instead of gleefully using this against them. This is just more evidence of Mr. Opportunist’s innate viciousness and lack of ethics.

  • It’s not even a matter of oil companies “letting us have” the reduction. The price really isn’t set unilaterally by the oil companies. The price of gasoline will drift to whatever it is. The oil companies will pocket most of the reduction through no design of their own.

    I do worry though, that Obama isn’t responding with anything more than (the correct statement) “this is stupid.” I think he needs to come up with some small (legitimate) measure of his own. Just saying “no” doesn’t help his cause.

  • Our choices:

    1. A economically ignorant ass.
    2. A pandering political power grabber.
    3. Honesty.

    I’ll go with option 3, thanks.

  • Obama keeps talking about old style politics. Assuming Hillary’s internal polls are correct, it suggests too few people can recognize these tactics. And this time even the media is pointing them out. Really sad.

  • Me thinks you are being unfair to McCain.

    “all three candidates know is a bad idea”

    Don’t forget that McCain graduated about 884 out of 889 in college and economics is not his strong suit.

    What if McCain doesn’t KNOW it is a bad idea?

    CB: Maybe you owe John McCain and apology????????

  • Why don’t we just attach an extra thirty bucks to those tax rebates and get this ridiculous thing off the table? That would work even better, wouldn’t it? Fit in with that the–people-know-how-to-spend-their-thirty-bucks-better-than-Washington-politicians-do mantra. Maybe these poor people don’t want to drive around an extra 5% of the time. It’s bad enough sitting in traffic jams 95% of the time.

    If this sounds really stupid, then I’ve made my point.

  • Neil Wilson has a point. It is definitely possible that John McCain has no idea that it is a bad idea. When Republicans talk about tax cuts there is so much delusion going in, including a certain degree of self-delusion, that it is really difficult to tell if they actually believe the nonsense they are saying.

  • I think he needs to come up with some small (legitimate) measure of his own. -ResumeMan

    What on earth could that be? The solution to fuel problems can’t be solved overnight with a band aid solution, and that’s Obama’s whole point. He does have a legitimate solution, but it will take more than fluffing the American citizenry to communicate it.

    Good policy is hard to reduce to sound bites, which is why I applaud him for being right, and not trying to boil down a complicated problem into a ‘summertime’ tax break which will only make matters worse.

  • My vote is for Senator Obama.

    48, White, Male, Married, Professional, Business Owner.

  • “Something to keep in mind.”

    I think you’re preaching to the choir when it comes to readers of this site…

    The problem is, how does Obama get this clear and obvious truth out to those who might believe McClinton that this is a good idea?

    And while Clinton’s at it, why not propose we immediately repeal Bush’s tax cuts to pay for the gas tax cut – that and her idea of a windfall-profits tax have an about equal shot of making it through the Senate, which is to say zero. So her approach would just result in lost jobs and falling further behind in repairing our aging transportation infrastructure. Why can’t we we get even marginally intelligent problem solvers in public office in this country? If we ran any corporation in a manner similar to how we run our government, that company would be bankrupt in months.

    Mike

  • “And I understand in New York City that you don’t really drive a long way most of the time. But — and then maybe you’re chauffeured.”

    The straight talk is sounding a lot like Rush Limbaugh talk. Does McCain want to try governing with a 51% majority (of voters)?

  • Has anyone checked to see what Rev. Wright thinks of the idea? I mean, we’re running all our decisions through that prism now, right?

  • Except, neither McCain nor Clinton are actually making efforts to make this policy happen….

    [Insert the sound of someone passing gas here.]

  • “And I understand in New York City that you don’t really drive a long way most of the time. But — and then maybe you’re chauffeured.”

    Oh, yeah, when the price of gas or energy rises, commuters never feel a pinch. Except when they do. Which is often. Subway/bus fare just went up in NYC. A onthly rail pass on NJTransit went up a few months ago. If fuel prices continue to rise, only an idiot or a Republican would think mass transit fares WOULDN’T go up again. Sure, it’ll probably be cheaper than the money us commuters would spend than if we drove (or were chauffeured, last I checked the price of gas was included in the price of a rented limo, so whether you notice it or not, you ARE paying for it. And of course, if you own the limo and hire your own damn chauffeur, you’re definitely paying for your own gas). But many of us are commuting because we couldn[t really afford the price of gas and/or parking in NYC BEFORE Bush took office. Now it’s increasingly becoming as expensive to commute now as it was to drive in in 2000

  • This is such ridiculous election year hooey from two candidates who, by proposing and supporting it, prove they are unfit for office. I just did the math. There are 10 weeks between the Memorial nad Labor Day holidays. That’s 700 days. Assuming an average gas consuption of 20 gal per week (acutally it’s much lower for the average American), you’d save $36 overall. That’s 3.60 per week or just 51 cents per day. Woo Hoo! Just enough for a cheap cup of coffee at a 7-11. However, this tax holdiday will cost the U.S. government hundreds-of-millions of dollars and they’d have to suspend highway and bridge construction and repairs, jeopardizing public safety and putting approximately 28,000 construction workers out of work. Yeah, it’s a stupid gimmick. One can understand that John McCain is desperate to show American workers he’s their go-to man. But hillary Clinton supporting this joke? At least Barack Obama has the stones to tell us what an absurd and useless proposal this is.

  • TR – that was a rhetorical question. Your solutions are targeted at the same choir as this blog – you have to be web-savvy, and know to go look for them.Most people so inclined already know all the reasons this is a terrible idea.

    How does one reach the blue-collar white seniors in Indiana that don’t know this but should? They’re less likely than average to have any of the characteristics of this “choir”…

    What sickens and depresses me about current politics is that it is all a bunch of people who know better preying on the ignorance of those less well informed and easily misled – spoon feeding lies via sound-bites which are not easily refuted, one because that takes more time, and two, because there’s no venue to make that case for sanity. I don’t have an answer. Obama’s the best answer I’ve seen in my lifetime that even comes close to creating a discussion where such reasoned argument is even possible with the masses. That’s why I believe this country really needs him right now, more than ever.

    Mike

  • I think Obama, in his ads, should, at least, give credit where credit is due: that both Clinton and McCain *know* that the idea is stupid every way you look at it, which is why they are not pushing for it in Congress.

  • Obama’s best ad for the blue-collar folk in Indiana would be to show Hillary Clinton circa 2000 Senatorial Campaign arguing against a tax freeze with Rep opponent Rick Lazlio. She was on the right side of the issue then, She is not now. Back in 2000 she was winning the race and could afford to be honest to her future constituents. In 2007 she is losing the race and can only afford to pander. Is it because she thinks the people of Indiana are less savvy than the folks of NYState, or because she realizes that the people of Indiana are her last best hope of staying in the race. And she has to hope that they aren’t attune and aware enough to know she’s pandering.

    And didn’t Illinois and Indiana already do this gas tax holiday thing and realize it was a failure, while Obama was in the IL state Leg?

  • As I suspected, Krugman does not factor in the disincentive that a windfall profit tax would be on the oil companies to raising prices to offset the price with tax. He suggests that the only point to Clinton’s windfall profit tax would be to offset revenues lost to the government, not to restrain oil company greed. This is a crucial difference between Clinton’s plan and McCain’s and it is the reason why this is not a sop to the oil companies.

    Obama needs to be careful about calling temporary financial relief to struggling consumers a “gimmick”. That is the kind of thing that gets him called an elitist.

    I calculated the impact of the temporary gas holiday on my own commute and it would save me $6 per week. Not a lot, but it is the price of a movie ticket or a lunch out. However, you are forgetting the long haul truckers who are losing their trucks due to the increased gas prices, which they are being asked to swallow alone. I suspect this would make a much bigger difference to them. If it makes a difference to them, then it may also make a difference to the companies that have their own fleets, perhaps delaying more price increases on food and everything else, so that the impact on actual consumers winds up being a few cents on nearly everything they buy. That can make a bigger difference. If inflation is slowed, then there may be an increase in consumer confidence and a change in buying habits and perhaps a slowing of recessionary forces. That would be a good thing. The key here is that the small relief is spread evenly across the entire population and across many segments of the economy. When you are talking about such a pervasive influence, albeit small for any one person, it can have larger impacts.

    I believe Obama’s response is short-sighted. He has chosen to appear cautious and principled, instead of empathetic and concerned about the impact of economic troubles on the average citizen. A good illustration of the differences in the appeal of the two candidates. Being cautious when we have problems requiring bold action may be a misstep.

    No one is actually doing anything about this because none of the candidates is president yet. Proposals are about what they would do IF and WHEN they are elected, not what they are going to do this month. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, even when Rachel Maddow does it (she is, after all, a closet Obama supporter).

  • Lawrence: Not to nit-pick but I assume you mean 70 days.

    Other than that I think a lot of the comments here are spot on. The McCain/Clinton proposal will never actually occur, they are merely blowing rainbows up the collective rear ends of Americans; not something I want in a President by any measure. Marginal savings will be minimal to folks of all sorts while the continued degradation of our nation’s infrasturcture will continue apace. Pork barrel spending doesn’t wreck bridges, horrible public policy does.

  • Can someone just figure out a way to kneecap the speculators that are actually pushing up the price? Oil stocks are up & consumption is falling in the U.S. Current prices are defying the law of suppy & demand.
    Yeah, the crappy performance of the dollar is some of it, but there has been a 30-fold increase in the amount of money in petrolium speculation from 5 years ago.
    This is Enron in CA Redux. This is trying to buy a home at the peak of the housing bubble, and being outbid by the speculators.
    Damn it, address the real problem & implement some real solutions!

  • I believe Obama’s response is short-sighted. He has chosen to appear cautious and principled, instead of empathetic and concerned about the impact of economic troubles on the average citizen. A good illustration of the differences in the appeal of the two candidates. Being cautious when we have problems requiring bold action may be a misstep.

    That’s one way to look at it. A fucking crazy way. And I agree that IFP should just give up the ghost; you’re your own worst parody. I give you credit for finally being honest enough to openly mock principle and praise meaningless theatrics.

    You see, Mary, vulgar pandering with a “solution” that isn’t a solution (nowhere do you account for the oil companies raising their prices, which won’t go back down when the “vacation’s” over–are you really too dumb or just too corrupt to take this in?) isn’t a “bold action.” It’s a cowardly, sniveling, skeevy way to run a campaign, it shows a profound disregard for the voters, and it’s the latest example of why the vast majority of Americans correctly call Hillary dishonest and untrustworthy. She certainly comes off looking like Peter Pettigrew here.

    Telling voters that hard problems require more than smoke and mirrors that make the situation worse in the long run–that’s bold action, Mare. Ah, could you still recognize it when you saw it, as willing as you are to prostitute rational thought and critical analysis in your driving desperation to have a woman–any woman, no matter how ill-suited and ill-deserving–in the White House.

    XX chromosomes have become your only objective measurement of virtue. A more morally and intellectually developed woman than you would be profoundly ashamed.

  • Whoopsie, that was I at #27. I was addressing “Mary” and typed her name in by mistake.

  • Or it doesn’t, and they don’t care, because the polls look good.

    Come May 7th, assuming Mrs. Billy-J wins, she’ll say “gas tax holiday? What gas tax holiday? Was I talking about a gas tax holiday? I must have misspoken.”

  • Mary #24 – “Krugman does not factor in the disincentive that a windfall profit tax would be on the oil companies to raising prices to offset the price with tax”
    If oil companies are taxed more, that does not provide an incentive to lower prices. Quite the contrary.

    “I calculated the impact of the temporary gas holiday on my own commute and it would save me $6 per week.”

    Did you calculate with 18c off per gallon? If so, that is a false calculation – the washingtonpost fact check reports that actual savings will be closer to 9c per gallon.
    Essentially the Clinton plan will take money from highway maintenance and give it to the oil companies (and maybe some crumbs to consumers), then take from oil companies and give it to the treasury.
    It’s slashing highway maintenance and moving the funds to oil companies, the treasury and a few nickels for us.

    “He has chosen to appear cautious and principled”

    I rest my case – Obama is not about appearances at all, while Hillary is merely about appearances. I agree that Obama has to sell this point better though (eg: he needs to link the McCain-Hillary plan to the Minneapolis bridge collapse.)

  • A guest from the Urban Institute on the News Hour last night made some great points about the stupidity of the gas tax holiday idea. If you have a initial price drop, the demand for gasoline will increase. But since refineries are running close to 100% capacity, there is no more supply to keep up with the demand, so prices will rise and most likely go past where they are now, even with the “holiday” in place. So the end result will be higher gas prices. Some holiday!

    This is also a case where the candidates could demonstrate actual leadership in the Senate by taking charge of getting the stupid gas tax holiday passed. But instead, we’ll just hear talk about leadership.

  • Indeed, Clinton has not been able to produce a single expert who supports her little holiday fling idea. Howard Wolfson didn’t even answer the call to name one. When you can’t get even one economist who’s in the tank (heh) for you–Krugman would have been ideal, as he can’t stand Obama–to back you up, you’re selling a dumb, dumb, dumb idea.

  • The tax proposed by Clinton is a windfall profits tax, not a tax on their earnings. It penalizes them for charging too much. Unless you believe that penalizing people financially for charging too much will cause them to charge too much (which doesn’t make sense), the effect should be to encourage them to keep prices lower, since they will not get to keep the difference anyway. If they keep prices lower they can at least encourage greater volume when supply increases after the summer. But the point of this is not to penalize the oil companies but to give relief to consumers and to reduce inflation.

    According to you guys, gas prices are just going to keep going up no matter what anyone does. I don’t think you can have any kind of economic discussion with that kind of an assumption, since both market forces and taxes are irrelevant and the only thing that would work is govt price controls, something no one has the guts to propose.

    And yes, Obama is just as much about appearances as any politician. That’s why he is so slow to take a stand sometimes and has to go back and make repeated clarifications of what he really meant, in the light of public reaction. He’s no different than anyone else running for office, just a bit less experienced. Otherwise, he might have practiced bowling enough to avoid throwing gutter balls.

  • As I suspected, Krugman does not factor in the disincentive that a windfall profit tax would be on the oil companies to raising prices to offset the price with tax. -Mary

    What disincentive? There is nothing that will lower the price on a limited supply item save a sharp decrease in demand. Which won’t happen.

    No one is actually doing anything about this because none of the candidates is president yet. -Mary

    Oh, wow, just….wow. You. Really. Are. That. Dumb.

    No, it’s all three of their jobs right now. Do you know what a Senator does? And just how in the fuck is your vaunted short-term band-aid fiasco of fiscal policy supposed to help with gas prices now if they aren’t going to enact it until they are elected President.

    Seriously, no one can pretend to be this absolutely fucking stupid.

  • According to you guys, gas prices are just going to keep going up no matter what anyone does. I don’t think you can have any kind of economic discussion with that kind of an assumption… -Mary

    I don’t think you can have any kind of economic discussion with someone who doesn’t assume that the price of a limited commodity with rapidly increasing demand (China, India, US), would ever trend down.

    In fact, I think if you don’t accept that the price of gasoline will consistently trend upwards at an ever increasing rate, that you don’t know squat about basic economics, let alone anything requiring critical analysis.

    You’re are absolutely wrong. McCainian in your lack of economic knowledge.

  • …someone who doesn’t assume that the… -doubtful

    Sorry for the triple post, but this wording was obnoxious. The easiest fix is:

    …someone who assumes that the…

    I can’t help it, ignorance and stupidity raise my hackles and decrease my typing ability.

  • Doubtful, the things you are saying about gas were all said about housing prices. How can prices go down when there is an increasing population and thus increasing demand? What you don’t factor in is the effect of speculation and artificial manipulation of supply by OPEC. What people didn’t factor into the housing market was speculation and flipping, creating an artificially high demand. If this were only about market forces then you would be correct, but it isn’t. It is a long way from the price of a barrel of oil out of the ground to the price at the pump.

    Calling me stupid doesn’t make you right.

    Senators are individual people who do not command the votes of anyone beyond themselves. For McCain, raising this proposal was merely a slap at those doing nothing (e.g., Bush, Democrats who control the Congress). Clinton must answer it or the Dems appear callous. Obama DOES appear callous but now he gets to compare himself to Clinton and suggest that he is being more principled or intelligent about it. Clinton took the hit to keep McCain from looking like the good guy in the eyes of the financially struggling people. Obama is making hay off that. It makes him look wonkish and cold. It doesn’t help him with anyone except a handful of economists and you guys (for whom he can do no wrong anyway). If you think this suggestion about a tax holiday wasn’t already circulating in the grassroots, you don’t get out much. People don’t understand why the govt doesn’t do something to help them.

    You should be able to grasp that something can be wrong economically speaking but right politically speaking. Hoover did a lot of things during the Great Depression that were right according to economic theory but very wrong in terms of reassuring people and helping the nation cope with hard times. Obama could take a lesson from that. If his instinct is to ignore public opinion in favor of narrow defined expert opinion, without communicating to people effectively about his reasons, he will not be a good president. I don’t believe he has done that on this gas issue, despite the consensus among economists (who have different concerns than politicians).

  • Prices can go down when they were artificially high to begin with. The value of my house has fallen more than $200,000. I used $.18 because I am in CA where that is the appropriate figure. I have a ridiculous commute, as do many Californians. You don’t have to live in NY to minimize the impact of this proposal, just any place where 20 miles seems like a long distance and you have rapid transit. We don’t.

  • Note to Barack campaign officials:

    This is a winning issue for team Obama.
    Barack needs to glom on to it like Clinton dead-ender on Jeremiah Wright.
    He needs to get this gas holiday BS in his jaws and not let go.
    For days!
    Push it.
    Exploit it.
    Advertise it.
    Beat it until it is a dead horse.
    It is twofer: You get to simultaneously flog both Clinton and McCain.
    Which means you don’t have to over worry about losing her base for the general.
    What can be better than that?

    Go man go.
    Chomp on this like a pitbull…

  • I happen to agree with those that feel that a “gas tax Holiday” is a stunt. Rather than show me that Mrs Clinton wants to give “relief to the consumers,” it shows me that Hillary is the skillful, opportunistic, professional Politician that Americans have always suspected her to be.

    Did anyone else see Hillary’s preposterous “Mrs Toad’s Wild Ride” yesterday where she hitched a ride with a “common working man” in his boss’s half ton? They went to a gas station where Mrs Clinton “generously” paid for a HALF tank of gas (wow is her campaign really in that much financial trouble?), and then had to admit that she herself hadn’t pumped gas in YEARS. Enough of the stunts Billary, you make yourself look extremely foolish, and even I, an Obama supporter, admit that you are better than that….

  • Doubtful, the things you are saying about gas were all said about housing prices. How can prices go down when there is an increasing population and thus increasing demand? -Mary

    You can build more houses. Gas is finite. Supply and demand 101.

    Houses are subject to credit. Gasoline, at least for now, isn’t. House prices that are inflated due to low interest rates will come down. House prices that are inflated due to lax lending guidelines will come down.

    Whoever you’re reading that said house prices would never come down is also an idiot.

    But, the caveat being that you have to look at the trend. Not the month to month price. In that respect, it is unlikely that house prices will trend down in the long term.

    Gas prices will never trend down in the long or short term.

    Look, analogy for anything beyond humor is the recourse of the arrogant. You obviously don’t understand the housing market or the oil market. They are not related, and your comparison is tenuous at best.

    Calling me stupid doesn’t make you right. -Mary

    But I am right, and you being stupid. Typing the contrary does not make you right.

    Senators are individual people who do not command the votes of anyone beyond themselves. -Mary

    You really don’t get what their job entails, right? If they truly wanted to address this issue, they’d write a bill.

    Prices can go down when they were artificially high to begin with. The value of my house has fallen more than $200,000. -Mary

    That you can afford a house that cost that much is a testament to what is wrong with America: it rewards stupidity, quite well it would seem.

    You should be able to grasp that something can be wrong economically speaking but right politically speaking. -Mary

    I get that. We all fucking get it. That’s why were so mad. Good gravy, I shouldn’t have to explain this to a ‘professor.’Pushing a horrible policy that is politically advantageous is the very definition of pandering, and should be something that Democrats do.

  • …and should be something that Democrats do. -doubtful

    Democrats DON’T do.

    Geez…see how horrible I type when I’m fuming at the ignorant? Sigh.

    It’s a day.

  • Mary said: Unless you believe that penalizing people financially for charging too much will cause them to charge too much (which doesn’t make sense), the effect should be to encourage them to keep prices lower, since they will not get to keep the difference anyway.

    Mary, if the windfall profits tax is 50%, as Clinton is apparently proposing, they will get to keep 50% of the difference from “charging too much.” Since 50% of billions of dollars is a nice thing to have, OF COURSE they will “charge too much.” In fact, if they want to make as much profit as they did before the tax was instituted and thus keep their stock prices and executive compensation up, their incentive is to charge twice as “too much” – if the market allows it.

    But the real problem is that Clinton had told us that she would dedicate proceeds from a windfall profits tax to developing alternate energy sources and now she’s saying she’d use it to replace the lost highway construction money instead. We seem to be moving backwards.

  • Hey, when is this windfall profit tax going to happen? There is nothing going on in Congress legislation wise on this Even if such a windfall profit tax became a bill, Bush would veto it. So we’d have to wait a year for the tax to kick in if it ever reached the President’s desk at which time gas will be $5.00 a gallon. This is truly a harebrained idea. And the billions that would be lost to the highway trust fund means more crumbling bridges and roads. Ridiculous.

  • You should be able to grasp that something can be wrong economically speaking but right politically speaking.

    I’m with doubtful. That’s what we call pandering, and is something that is generally frowned upon. Especially as Carpetbagger already pointed out that neither Hillary or McCain seem to be doing anything to actually make this a reality, which makes the pandering even more egregious. Hillary’s just pretending that she’s going to give us this relatively insignificant savings, which wasn’t a good idea to begin with.

    And Mary, believe it or not, but most of the folks here will stick with Krugman and the other economists on this one, rather than your back-of-the-envelope inventions, thank you very much. I know you Hillary people have had to go deep into the GOP playbook to try to beat Obama, but any policy that requires you to second-guess the experts really doesn’t put you in a good spot.

  • You keep unreasonably asking that politicians not campaign. If Clinton rides to work with someone in their truck it is a stunt. If Obama goes bowling it is a stunt. These things they do while campaigning are obviously stunts. That doesn’t mean you don’t do them. It is part of campaigning. Suggesting that your guy’s stunts are OK but Clinton should stop hers is ridiculous — effectively it is asking her to stop campaigning while your guy continues. Labeling these things as stunts is misleading — these are ways of interacting with voters.

    I assume you know how much it costs to fill up a truck these days.

    Doctor Biobrain — I am surprised to hear you, a doctor, accept arguments from authority. Again, labeling anything you disagree with as Republican is cheap. I repeat, there are economic reasons for doing things and political reasons for doing things. Krugman is an economist but I doubt he would ever be elected to any office. Those of you asking why Clinton hasn’t enacted this — Pelosi has stated her opposition to it. Big surprise, since she is an Obama supporter. Without support of leadership in the House, the proposal isn’t going anywhere.

    If gas prices keep going up we are all in big trouble, so those of you doomsaying this in order to support Obama’s ideas should think about what you are saying. The number of people 30 days behind in paying their credit card bills increased 19% last month. When the average person goes under, the entire economy goes under. Someone better do something about this — I hear Obama rejecting Clinton’s idea but what is he proposing for relief? What is he doing for relief? Without something to offer, he may be right and very wrong at the same time.

    This is your chance to post something beyond just calling me a Stoopid Republican.

  • Did anyone else see Hillary’s preposterous “Mrs Toad’s Wild Ride” yesterday where she hitched a ride with a “common working man” in his boss’s half ton? They went to a gas station where Mrs Clinton “generously” paid for a HALF tank of gas (wow is her campaign really in that much financial trouble?), and then had to admit that she herself hadn’t pumped gas in YEARS.

    I didn’t mind that; it was a photo op, as awkwardly executed as all her photo ops are. What did crack us up here was that this “brilliant, in tune with average people” woman didn’t grasp that spending the entire time in her host’s car on her cell phone made her look like she thought this guy was her personal chauffeur instead of a citizen with feelings who had kindly agreed to go along with her little “in touch with the working man” moment. The video of this was just hugely damning.

    Those vaunted campaigning skills of the Clintons seem to have fallen completely by the wayside somewhere in the last few years. It’s like watching an attempted comeback concert from a has-been who’s completely lost her voice. Embarrassing.

    If his instinct is to ignore public opinion in favor of narrow defined expert opinion

    Uh, we had a guy once who ignored all expert opinion in favor of pandering to his base, just as Hillary’s doing now. Things kind of went to hell on his watch. Do you remember George W. Bush?

    Do you have any objective measurements of presidential qualification at all beyond the president wearing a dress rather than a dinner jacket to a state dinner? Really, just show us one. Just one.

  • Doubtful — my house cost $344,000 new. That it appreciated then lost more than half of its value should be troubling to you. That purchase price was below the median for CA when we bought it nearly 5 years ago. Our long commute is because people need to go further afield to find housing they can afford to buy in CA.

    We are not suffering financially because we have low overhead and a reasonable loan, largely due to refinancing our interest-only adjustable-rate loan (without taking money back) before the bubble burst. However, many people in other circumstances are living hand-to-mouth. If you have forgotten what that is like and prefer to blame people for their misfortunes, you are as elitist as your candidate. One way to live in denial about the approaching hard times is to pretend that it will only affect those who are foolish or greedy. An economy is a collective phenomenon. I suppose you can go live in a shack in the hills, but the rest of us rise and fall together and are affected by what happens to others.

    Standing by and explaining why classic economics suggests that market forces can or cannot resolve the current crisis, while people are in desperate trouble, is very Hooverish. Hoover was a smart man with good intentions, much admired before the full brunt of the depression hit. Obama needs to learn from him, not emulate him. Hoover stood by his guns and insisted that taking action was the wrong thing to do, buttressed by current economic theory. That is exactly what Obama is doing in this situation. He may be right but he will look wrong. Clinton is making a gesture of sympathy (empty or not) to the people who are struggling. That will be regarded as a signal that she will do things to help, not stand around explaining why things can’t or shouldn’t be done based on experts like Krugman.

    Then people wonder why Obama cannot attract support from working class people, and call them all racists to boot.

  • One way to live in denial about the approaching hard times is to pretend that it will only affect those who are foolish or greedy.

    Another way is to threaten to vote for John McCain if your candidate doesn’t get the nomination.

    An economy is a collective phenomenon. I suppose you can go live in a shack in the hills, but the rest of us rise and fall together and are affected by what happens to others.

    Damn straight. But you don’t give a damn about what happens to others, as demonstrated by your willingness to help John McCain get elected as a way of protesting Clinton’s failure to secure the nomination. Fuck the poor, fuck the middle class, fuck the soldiers, fuck the uninsured, fuck minorities, fuck gays and lesbians, fuck everyone whose civil rights are in danger, huh? Mary’s ego and self-absorption are more important than any of them.

    Are you starting to see why we think you’re pure trash?

  • Maria — here is one. Obama has been in the Senate half as long as Clinton, thus he has objectively half the national experience she has. He has been the sponsor or co-sponsor of far fewer bills, even adjusting for their respective number of years in office. He held the first hearing of his subcommittee only just last month, to approve routine appointments to foreign state dept positions while Clinton has been active and visible on both the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations committees. Here is another. While Senator, Clinton dealt with the ramifications for the State of NY arising from the 9/11 attack on the Trade Towers which were in her state, 20 miles from her home. She coordinated (with Shumer) aid from the govt and was actively involved in relief efforts. I saw that first hand, while living in Westchester County myself, but she is given high marks for her work by all others who were on the scene. Obama has not had the opportunity to deal with a similar large-scale emergency of that sort, in any capacity. Here is another. Clinton, while First Lady, was delegated to put together a task force on reforming health care. Whether you approve of her efforts or not, she had the experience of trying to gain support for and organize such a plan. While it was unsuccessful, and without debating the reasons why, she has shown the capacity to learn from her mistakes and that first effort can be built upon in putting together a new health care plan. Obama has not had such a similar experience. He has not spearheaded a major reform plan for any government activity, has not interacted with the majors players who would support or oppose such a plan (except perhaps lobbyists) and would be starting from scratch. Clinton was involved with the SCHIP plan, which has been a success, so arguing that she can only fail has no basis in fact. Obama has not been similarly involved in any health care plan.

  • Maria — I have never threatened to vote for McCain. I stated that I would NEVER under any circumstances vote for Obama. I stated that I was undecided about who to vote for besides him, and was leaning toward either Nader or our local Peace and Freedom or Green candidate. YOU prefer to believe that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is voting for McCain. I disagree.

    You all think that the Clinton supporters will forgive and forget, no matter how many times they are called Stupid Republicans or “vile trash” here. I have a vote and I will never use it to support a person like Obama, who pretends to be above the fray while lettings stooges like you attack Clinton in underhanded ways. I am sick to the eyeballs of being called crazy (IFP), being equated with anyone else who wanders into this group, and being dismissed as a Republican shill. I am a Democrat who holds a different opinion about who should be our nominee. Half of the voters agree with me. YOU are causing McCain to be elected every time you call me, and people like me, a name. Maria, you are about as histrionic a person as I’ve encountered in a long time.

  • Mary – First off, I’m not a doctor. That’s just my name. I’m a CPA.

    Beyond that, I wasn’t arguing from authority because neither of us is knowledgable enough to have any arguments of our own outside of what economists say. I wouldn’t have a debate with you on brain surgery either. These people study their field for years, yet you’re just going to come in with your invented numbers and tell us they’re all wrong, using bogus analogies and guesses that we can’t possibly refute because they have no numerical basis. You just invented them. Sorry, but that’s not how this works. And if you don’t want to be told that you’re acting like a Republican, you shouldn’t act like one. This is no different than Hillary’s buddy Bill O’Reilly insisting that there is no Global Warming, based entirely on wishful thinking he pulled out of his butt. Sorry, but there is such a thing in this world as expertise, and in this case, you don’t have it. You’re just inventing rationalizations as an attempt to defend Hillary against her egregious pandering.

    And just so you understand, even when gas prices continue to go up, Hillary’s plan doesn’t get better. It’s still the same meager savings it was even if gas prices went down. As someone else suggested, why not just give $30 extra with the rebates coming out? Or $60? That’s all we’re talking about. It doesn’t matter if this savings happens at the gas pump or not, or whether prices continue to go up. This is just a tiny savings that economists don’t even think will be a savings at all.

    But of course, this was never going to go anywhere anyway, even if Pelosi liked the idea; particularly not the windfall-profits tax. So Hillary’s just bashing Obama for a plan that won’t ever happen and that she’s not even trying to get started. Sorry, but that’s the lowest form of pandering.

  • Mary, you (big surprise) miss my point. In post after post, you constantly shift the goalposts of narrowly defined presidential qualifications to fit what you believe can be sold as Clinton’s strengths. You’re doing it again here. When Clinton behaves unacceptably, there is no position you won’t contort yourself into to justify her behavior. This results in some pretty hilarious spectacles: a self-described academic mocking and discounting expertise and knowledge, excusing flat-out lying as the “memory failure” of an older woman, insisting that a Democrat may acceptably endorse her Republican opponent over her Democratic rival, blaming thoughtful and balanced criticisms of Clinton on sexism, making demonstrably racist statements about Obama, and on and on.

    In short, you have no observable attachment to or belief in progressive principles, nor are there any basic standards of behavior to which you hold Clinton or yourself. Not one. I can’t stand Randi Rhodes and I think she should have been fired for what she said at a public event at which she represented Air America, but the substance of her criticism was correct, and I’m not representing anyone but myself when I emphasize: People who base their behavior wholly on ends and ignore all means are quite appropriately characterized as whores.

  • You all think that the Clinton supporters will forgive and forget, no matter how many times they are called Stupid Republicans or “vile trash”

    Get it through your thick, irrational, phenomenally dishonest head, Mary: I don’t call anyone vile trash for supporting Clinton. I observe that YOU are utter, despicable, worthless garbage not for whom you support, but for what you DO here and elsewhere in your ends-justify-the-means arguments…and for your revolting lack of care for what happens to other denizens of the U.S. and the entire world if McCain gets elected.

    There are words in the mental health profession for your total inability to be accountable for your own actions and your attempts to mischaracterize and blame others for their reactions to those actions. I’m betting you’ve heard those words before, Mary, most likely from a series of healthcare professionals.

  • Mary, you make a much batter troll than IFP. He gets all yelly, while you have mastered that pitch perfect willingness to say absolutely anything to justify your position while blinking at everyone around you wondering why they are all so upset. Really, much funnier stuff. Bravo.

  • Mary, you make a much batter troll than IFP. He gets all yelly, while you have mastered that pitch perfect willingness to say absolutely anything to justify your position while blinking at everyone around you wondering why they are all so upset. Really, much funnier stuff. Bravo.

    I am a woman and very proud to be one. Typical: Someone assuming that anyone who yells is a man. Women can yell just as loudly and obnoxiously as men, not that we get any credit for it. Instead, men are too busy criticizing an assertive woman for being “shrill” or “bitchy” to give us credit for effective yelling. Wait, I’ve confused myself.

  • More abuse — I don’t know what else I expected.

    An argument from authority is an argument that says you cannot hold an opinion of your own without having appropriate credentials — which is exactly what you said above DrBioBrain. It should be an empirical question whether a tax on business profits tends to reduce business profits or increase them (as businesses try to earn more profits to make up for the tax). Please cite a source to support the latter idea. All I read are people saying that taxing business works the opposite way, so if you are going to claim otherwise, please support that claim.

    I listened to Obama’s speech in Indianapolis today on POTUS’08. He has no plan whatsoever for dealing with high gas prices. Someone asked him directly and he criticized Clinton’s plan then said he had none. Instead, he offers a $1000 tax rebate to middle class workers to offset all of the various economic troubles. I also heard Michelle Obama lie about Bill Clinton’s term, saying that things were not better economically during any prior administration, regardless of party. I lived during Clinton’s term so I know that is not true. I heard her equate the difficulties of paying student loans, finding a nanny and a good private school offered as evidence that they are close to the problems of working class people — I wonder why blue collar folks don’t buy that argument? I heard Obama arrogantly claim that he could not put off running for President until another term because the country cannot wait for change. He apparently believes that, despite the similarity of his and Clinton’s programs, only he can save the country. That’s pure arrogance and no answer to why he couldn’t have saved everyone this turmoil by waiting his turn and gaining more experience. I think he obviously misjudged Clinton’s tenacity.

  • Obama could say something like this:

    “Your know, yesterday there was a story in the paper about how the airlines are slowing down, just about two minutes per flight, to save money. Southwest is gonna save $44M this year by adding one to three minutes to each flight. Maybe we could use a few pointers on how to drive that would save us even more than the 30 cents per day. Each of us could voluntarily drive a little slower. We could start doing this today, without legislation. If enough of us did this, consumption would fall and so would prices. But even if prices don’t fall, we will each be spending less on gas. Government can’t do everything.”

  • Obama voted 3 times in Illinois to repeal the gas tax. If it’s a gimmick now, it was a gimmick then.

    Not saying it would work (and lord knows it will never pass) but not everyone has a 10 minute commute. My husband has a service business and all he does is drive from one small town to another. Easily pumps 60+ gallons a week. That’s $11 or $48. a month. Not much for the starbucks crowd but that pays my phone bill.

    But what do I know, I’m from a small town clinging to god (don’t own a gun) and from Michigan anyway so my vote doesn’t count.

  • Yep this is a boon to those poor people driving those huge SUV’s, Hummers and such. No wait those are rich people the poor people take the bus.

  • Read what Sue said…#61

    Obama’s campaign now says that’s how he learned how ineffective the gas tax repeal is. That’s what he says now. I’d like to see where he said that in Illinois back then.
    Any Illinois residents out there who remember this gas tax repeal in their state?
    My goodness, you’d think he was a politician or something.

    • Comments are closed.