The other candidate who’s screwed up gas-tax policy

May 6, 2008

David Kurtz noted an email this morning from a reader who said, “[P]lease note that no one on television seems to be mentioning that the gas tax plan is also favored by a little known individual by the name of John McCain. You’d think, watching the teevee, that Hillary is the only person favoring this notion.”

I haven’t seen any TV news, but this seems generally true throughout the media. Clinton’s surprising emphasis on her awful “gas-tax holiday” proposal has generated some real push-back from many corners, but McCain’s been pushing the same idea. In fact, not only did McCain embrace this idea first, he’s even more reckless than Clinton about how he’d pay for it.

And yet, Clinton’s humiliating policy confusion seems to matter a whole lot more than McCain’s identical policy confusion. Take David Brooks’ column today.

Hillary Clinton went on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” incarnating her role as the first Democratic Rambo…. For the first 30 minutes, she did not utter a single candid word, including, as Mary McCarthy would say, “and” and “the.”

She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday…. Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”

When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Paul Krugman, a Times columnist, has raised doubts about the plan, Clinton lumped Krugman in with the Bush administration and said she wasn’t going to listen to the people responsible for the last seven years.

This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground.

Now, I’ll concede that Brooks’ criticism of Clinton’s remarks is well-grounded. But if Clinton is “shameless” for “peddling her sham” policy that “ignores the evidence,” what’s McCain?

Steve M. noted that Brooks has been far more complimentary towards the guy who initiated this exact same idea. There was this in January…

He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.

…and this in November.

… Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don’t do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths….

There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired. More often, he is driven by an ancient sense of honor, which is different from fame and consists of the desire to be worthy of the esteem of posterity.

… character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men…

If Clinton deserves to get slammed for the gas-tax nonsense — and she does — where’s the equal treatment for the “straight-talking” Republican who’s peddling the same foolishness?

My hunch is that Clinton is hearing more criticism in large part because everyone knows she’s smart enough to see through her own dumb idea. I’m yet to see or hear anyone sincerely argue that Clinton genuinely believes a “gas-tax holiday” is a good idea, because those who know her well realize she’s far too knowledgeable to accept such a transparently dumb idea.

McCain, on the other hand, isn’t the sharpest crayon in the box, and he usually seems confused about policy details. In other words, Clinton is hurt more because she’s facing higher expectations, while McCain is getting something of a pass (again) because no one thinks he cares about energy policy anyway. As this argument goes, Clinton’s efforts are dishonest, while McCain is just clueless.

That, and Clinton has effectively campaigned on little else for over a week, while McCain doesn’t much seem to care.

If Clinton deserves to get slammed for the gas-tax nonsense — and she does — where’s the equal treatment for the “straight-talking” Republican who’s peddling the same foolishness?

This presumes that Brooks is a “straight-talking” columnist. He clearly isn’t.

  • The simple answer is that because there is no race on the R side, it is largely ignored, while there remains a contest on the D side, so everything is amplified.

    Or it could be the BBQ.

    I (kind of) understand Clinton’s no-turning-back strategy, but throwing Krugman – who has been one of the most high profile columnists to show favor to her over Obama and whose continued help she could really use – under the bus probably was not a good long term move.

  • One might contemplate the thought that She-Unworthy-of-Naming is intentionally running interference for McPhony….

  • CB, You may not be giving McCain adequate benefit of the doubt here.

    He’s pandering to the masses but may be well aware that slashing the gas tax will likely increase oil company profits.

    Clinton is well aware of this possibility and promises to apply these extra profits towards alternative energy after she implements a superfluous collection mechanism to add to that which collects the gas tax now. The cost of this collection service will be paid for by…. the funds that would otherwise have been collected from the gas tax?

    Wait a minute…

    Is Hilary’s idea even dumber than John “I’m no economist” McCain’s?

    For the love of Pete, Indiana! Save us!!!!!!!

  • If Clinton deserves to get slammed for the gas-tax nonsense — and she does — where’s the equal treatment for the “straight-talking” Republican who’s peddling the same foolishness?

    The bigotry of high expectations?

  • John McCain first floated the idea and then Hillary Clinton ate it up like a zombie stuffing viscera down its throat. The concept bombed pretty quickly and it appears as though John McCain hasn’t mentioned it too much. Clinton made an ass of herself with it and now she’s stuck. She has to twist and shout her way through. Its not pretty and its not making her look good. Meanwhile McCain seems to have silently side-stepped away from it.

    I can only guess we haven’t seen the end to her shameless pandering before this is over. I fully expect to hear her saying. “Marriage is one MAN and one WOMAN…” before she’s finally sent out to pasture.

  • It was originally McCain’s idea. Brooks has lost all credibility when it comes to McCain, he can do no wrong, he wouldn’t be any good at it and it would backfire, All dishonesty from McCain is just a misguided innocent mistake like campaign finance reform he ignores, which he accepted public finance only to borrow against and then decide not to use public finance. According to Brooks, McCain can never be wrong only confused, never lie but only mis speak, and the sailors that died because of him showing off wet starting his plane were just “accidents”

    Brooks could write his future coverage of McCain now because no matter what happens or what McCain says or does, Brooks could never be persuaded to change his mind on McCain. Like I said, Brooks has no credibility…could he apply the same motivations and language to McCain as he does Clinton. Could he just put McCain’s name in place of Clinton’s in his above mentioned article? No…he can’t…ever

  • It would be nice to see McCain dragged out into the light on this issue alongside Clinton, if only to show the superdelegates how little difference there is between the two. Yes, there’s a large difference, but really, how craven does she have to get before the supers finally say “OK, enough of this shit”???

  • Actually, there is one argument in favor of repeal of the gas tax. Like a sales tax – well, it is a sales tax – it’s regressive, and it hurts those most who are least able to afford it. So, from a larger perspective, maybe it’s not a bad idea in concept. That’s not to say I support the gas tax holiday itself, which is nothing but shameless pandering.

    One has to wonder why Hillary didn’t crawl out from the mound she buried herself under by talking about how sales taxes in general are hurting the working class that she purports to champion. Then again, that might lead to asking why billionaires pay only 15% tax on their realized investment gains, and blue collar workers 25% on the money they earn by the sweat off their backs, and oh Lord, Hillary is a commie, so nix that.

  • Remember when Hillary got hell for not turning over documents quicker than required by Bush Executive Order meant to keep Bush I’s documents on Cheney/Rumsfeld under seal. One journalist said that his fellow reporters were literally gleeful at the prospect of getting ahold of these damning documents. Were they salivating to get ahold of those records the order was meant to keep from the public? No. Republican scandals always put them in an awkward position, but Hillary/Obama scandals get you on Drudge. So this law only we bloggers complained about only became a scandal when Hillary showed herself to be more transparent than required to be by Bush’s law.

    This is what we can look forward to with a Hillary nomination. Unlike with Obama, where everything short of unilateral disarmament will be seen as “hypocrisy”, and not fighting back an example of his femininity, because Hillary would play the game, everything the media has been mum about for years suddenly becomes fair game. Everyone wins: leftists who want journalism get truth spoken to power, Republicans get to be hypocrites and have a hissy fit over a Dem playing their game, and so, yet again,and as with the sudden concern with the obstructionism and partisanship of the Democrats, the victims will be punished for GOP sins.

    Even-handedness and objectivity is not the Media’s problem; it’s the double standard.

  • And yet, Clinton’s humiliating policy confusion seems to matter a whole lot more than McCain’s identical policy confusion.

    I think the fundamental reason for that is because Hillary Clinton is in the middle of a contentious primary battle and McCain, well, isn’t.

    The general election is still 6 months away. Pundits are wondering whether Clinton’s pander will win over a critical number of voters, today.

  • And yet, Clinton’s humiliating policy confusion seems to matter a whole lot more than McCain’s identical policy confusion.

    There’s a reason for this. Can you guess what it is? It starts with an S, ends with an M, and has four letters in between. If Senator Clinton were a man running against Mr. Too Blinged Out to Notice $30, everyone would be praising her plan to the skies and oohing and aahing over her bold leadership. Also, calling Senator Clinton’s proposal “Republican” because it followed and mostly matches McCain’s and because everyone in the foolish Democratic caucus lacks her courage — that’s nothing but a horrific smear designed to focus attention away from Senator Going Down Tonight as he circles the drain.

  • hark, I think the gas tax and the question of regressiveness is more complicated than for a run-of-the-mill general sales tax. the gas tax also favors smaller, usually less-expensive cars that get better gas mileage (i.e. it will hit a Hummer or Ferrari driver a lot harder than the driver of a Honda Fit or a Hyundai Elantra). in that sense, it is somewhat progressive. admittedly the best way to minimize the bite while still driving a car is to have a hybrid, which tend to be costly; still, favoring a Prius over a Hummer strikes me as a “progressive” tax, albeit not in the traditional economic sense.

  • Over at TPM Josh Marshall posted a reader’s complaint that Obama should be just telling people flat out that gas prices will go up by the same amount as the tax. That is simple for people to understand so why isn’t Obama saying it?

    The problem is that gas prices do go down. They have been trending up, but they fluctuate and they go down when market forces dictate it. Gas is 2 cents cheaper today than it was last Friday. Why? I don’t know, but I do have personal experience that prices don’t only go up. When Obama (or the people here) shout that a tax holiday just means gas companies will raise their prices to compensate, each of us has first-hand experience showing that to be false. If it were true, there is no reason why gas prices would ever go below their peaks. Each peak would just be a waypoint on an ever higher climb, instead of going back down after the periodic crises.

    Obama isn’t saying that gas prices would just increase to offset the tax holiday because he knows that may not be what happens. He doesn’t want to be caught in such a falsifiable prediction. This is about the future and no one knows for sure that gas prices would go up, or by how much. Obama isn’t willing to be caught in the lie that his supporters are telling. The frustration of the Obamabots who have been telling this lie is interesting, because they clearly believe their own prediction when their own experience should show them otherwise. Gas prices go up and they go down. Down. I don’t know which will happen if there is a tax holiday, and neither does Obama. And neither do you.

    Clinton isn’t saying that economists are not experts or that she doesn’t believe in experts. She has been consistently saying that this is a policy decision and economists don’t dictate national policy. Policy depends on many considerations besides just what economists think is important. People need relief. It isn’t shameless pandering to offer it. It is smart. The less money you have, the more difference a small amount makes in your life. That’s what it means to call the sales tax regressive, another small amount that adds up to more for some people than for others.

  • Mary, I know there’s no point involving facts with you, but whether or not gas prices fall in response to a tax reduction is not a matter of national policy, it is a matter of economics, and yes, economists understand economics.

    Gas is a supply-bound commodity. That may change in the future, but it will not change before this summer. Removing the tax will temporarily reduce the price — for a few days. As more people rush out to buy “cheap” gas, it will drive the price right back up. Whether gas in your area fluctuates by 2 cents in normal conditions has nothing to do with that.

    The tax holiday is a transparent election-year ploy, and if Hillary wasn’t running for office, she would be among the very first to point that out. You may be confused about economics, but Hillary is not. She knows better and is sacrificing good policy on the altar of populism.

  • Say what you will, but Hilary is showing us how to fight McCain in the fall. Picture the scene: gas prices higher than ever — The Republican nominee says he will give a you tax break that seems to promise that a price reduction for you. The Democratic nominee says that there is nothing that can be done about high gas prices and that they are probably good for the country. Oh yeah, he has a lot of economists who drone on about how lowering your taxes is going to screw things up.
    Hillary mugged McCain, stole the first domestic policy initiative his feeble campaign put forward. None of it was ever going to be enacted anyway, but McCain’s opportunity to run against Pelosi and Reid who are stopping him from giving you money is gone.
    I hope that the Democratic nominee runs against McCain with the same ruthlessness and aggressiveness that Clinton has run against Obama. Puts him on the defensive, makes him pay for every misstatement, zeroes in on every weakness in his proposals (like a healthcare plan that leaves some people out).
    And by the way, if we come down to a single state with a disputed outcome deciding the race, like Florida in 2000, I hope that the Democratic nominee is willing to fight for those votes the way that HIllary appears willing to fight to count Michigan and Florida delegates. The media will be calling for the Democrat to not be divisive and polarizing and to concede for the unity of the country. I don’t think Hillary will give a shit; I am afraid Obama will.

  • It’s a very simple choice, really—put the 18.5 cents’ worth of gas-tax funds into a federal fund for highway improvement, or put it in the pockets of the oil companies when they see an opening for an “affordable” 18.5-cent price increase at the pump.

    But by saying this, am I placing myself in jeopardy of being “obliterated” by She-Unworthy-of-Naming? Will she threaten “massive retaliation” against my keyboard?

    One can only wonder….

    • Comments are closed.