The Gas Tax Opening

by: Matt Stoller

Mon May 05, 2008 at 15:02


If you have a moment, go and Digg the gas tax scam email David Alpert put up earlier.  Yglesias noted that the public is well-aware that the gas tax is a bad idea, even as Clinton runs more ads on the issue hitting Obama (h/t Ben Smith).

This is a great organizing opportunity to build awareness around our failed transportation policies oriented around cheap gasoline.  It's a Presidential contest where fake promises around cheap oil have come to the fore.  Next year, the internet-enabled smart planners are going to mount their first real attack on our cheap oil-centric policies through lobbying on the transportation bill.

Fighting on the gas tax is the an organizing step to rally a base on behalf of that fight.  So if you can, Digg the GasTaxScam Petition.

Matt Stoller :: The Gas Tax Opening

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Gas Tax Opening | 34 comments
Organizing the progressive base (4.00 / 3)
to fight  Clinton's one-time stupid gas tax holiday that everyone knows isn't ever gonna happen is just a brilliant idea...NOT.  I think I'm going back to being a liberal. I'm not sure this "progressive" thingy is working out so well.
I know.... (0.00 / 0)
This sure is stupid.  Why should we care that people in Indiana are actually choosing their candidate based on something that won't happen.  The media won't talk about how this is a non-starter what are we supposed to do?  We are powerless to keep the media from acting like this is an issue that matters, even when WE know it doesn't.
[ Parent ]
I'm not gonna presume to know (0.00 / 0)
why Indianans are gonna choose one candidate over another. I'd just as soon give them enough credit  to suspect they recognise pandering when they see it.

My point, is if you really want to organize a movement around failed transportation policies, don't pick such a dopey starting point  - Pelosi says it ain't gonna happen.  

[ Parent ]
Soak and Choke! (4.00 / 2)
Our current phantom energy plan, "soak and choke," has been brought to you, for the most part, by politicians, industry, and economists (the energy-aristocracy).  To be sure, we consumers, at the bottom of the energy chain, have contributed to our situation.  The primary difference between us and the energy-aristocracy, is that our buck passing is not a metaphor -- we pay at the pump.

Almost two years ago, shortly after taking impeachment off the table, Nancy Pelosi also promised and has failed to deliver a comprehensive energy plan.

Oil companies have stolen billions of dollars by taking exorbitant windfall profits, by avoiding taxes, by acquiring reductions in or ignoring penalties for foul ups, ..., by holding back fees and royalties.

Hillary Clinton has proposed all of energy, tax, ..., and health plans/policies.  Barack Obama presented his weaker versions of the same, only after her plans were made public.

I am sure everyone agrees that any comprehensive policy should eventually include every element in the chain -- explorations, ..., well heads, ..., refineries, ..., distribution, ..., industrial and individual consumers, ... engines, appliances, and manufactured goods, ..., alternative sources.  Further, time will be required to fully implement any plan(s).  Usage habits must change.  Equipment of all sorts, across the full spectrum of the chain, must be phased out and replaced.

Now, Hillary Clinton has proposed an additional short term plan directed at only a few elements of the chain.  She intends to relieve the individual consumers and take the money from the suppliers who are reaping huge unearned profits and are already in arrears on old debts.  I am not alone in believing that it has the potential for short term relief of the strangulation that is already affecting the bottom of the energy chain.  Further, it is not difficult to see that the relief will extend beyond the individual energy consumers.  

Critics (her opponents and the energy-aristocrats who have failed us) say this temporary plan rewards bad behavior and will wreak long term havoc.  That might be true, if it were to become permanent, and we fail to deliver and implement long term, comprehensive policies and plans.

Who would be relieved?  Individuals who must commute to work and school, who deliver goods and services, who must look for work or go for groceries, who planned for vacations, etc.  The relief would extend (trickle down) to a great variety of the other 'small people' who support these activities, and even to the the price of food on the table.

As expected, Obama and the Obamaniacs jumped on this to deflect attention from his shortcomings, failings, and fear of debating.  

what a bunch of ballony (4.00 / 2)
not a single smart person in world believes this will bring gas prices down. it doesn't matter who they support.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
We're not your audience (0.00 / 0)
Your arguments, as valuable as they may be for deceiving the public, are designed for individuals who are working too hard or have not had the privileges to afford a college degree and get a white-collar job. They may not know enough about what's going on to see this scam for what it is, but you won't find too many of those people on this blog.
[ Parent ]
Please, so-called tax holiday (0.00 / 0)
doesn't negatively affect the profitability of the gas barons, not least of which the oil barons!  The simple fact is it is a propose gas TAX holiday.  So, Clinton wants us to NOT pay the taxes that are 6sed to fund bridge and road maintenance.  I suppose the deteriorating bridges and roads will have to wait just a bit longer--just because Clinton wants me/you to believe an extra $30 for the summer will make me feel RICH.  This is no less than a flim flam--where the victim is made to feel like s/he has been saved from some impending crises, only to discover later that the feel-good scam was indeed criminal.

Shame on Clinton.  Shame on McCain.  Shame on the media.  Shame on all the people who should know better than to perpetuate this lie.

[ Parent ]
This blog is (4.00 / 2)
changing from a progressive blog to a support Obama blog (as seen from redefining the movement post by Chris this morning) to now damage Hillary blog.

The one thing that we can learn from the right-wing is that they do not compromise on their core beliefs depending on the candidate (as can be seen from McCain pandering to the base). On the left, we have seen the blogs split into support Hillary/Barack blogs. Blogs that support hillary try to justify her dumbest policies as the Obama blogs support his dumbest and right-leaning policies. Most of the blogs have given way to the candidate over the principles. Now neither Obama, nor Clinton would care much about the left-wing base as the left has already made the choice. May be it's time to go back to sticking to principles, instead of candidates, rather than try to re-define principles as Kos has done (before obama, after obama) and as Open left seems to ready for. Try to make the candidate work for us rather than the other way round.

I'm confused as to what you're arguing for! (4.00 / 2)
This diary is actually a good example of what you're proposing... to attack a right-wing scam such as the gas tax holiday, regardless of whether it's coming from a Democrat or a Republican. So what's the problem?
[ Parent ]
Gas tax holiday (0.00 / 0)
is a "right-wing scam".  Um, Ok?
[ Parent ]
Yes, exactly (0.00 / 0)
It's pandering to the public by saying you will cut some of their taxes so they can keep more money in their pockets... She says she will save families $8 billion. It is of course a lie because it won't even save people the $30 she says it will, and all that comes at the expense of the environment.

Remember that it was McCain's plan before it was Hillary's.

[ Parent ]
The gas tax (0.00 / 0)
holiday policies by mccain and clinton are different. One pays with windfall profits tax and the other with highway funds. Equating them just to score some points against a fellow democrat is not acceptable to me. This is like pandering to the Obama supporters.

If you say windfall profits tax cannot be implemented, then you have already capitulated to the oil companies and gave up on the fight. Why is it not possible, and why are you not ready to fight for such a tax on the oil companies. That is where the left seems to be compromising.

[ Parent ]
We had a "windfall tax" before (0.00 / 0)
from '80 to '88.  And it ended up being an excise tax on barrels of oil.  And the cost was passed on to the consumer.  Brilliant!
[ Parent ]
Gas prices (0.00 / 0)
I said nothing about the windfall profits tax. Aside from how meaningless this tax cut is, I am fundamentally against it. If anything, gas should be more expensive and not cheaper.

If you're sincere about helping people you'll find other ways which don't involve sacrificing the environment. Anyone with half a brain knows that this is pure pandering and not sound policy.

[ Parent ]
But still it (0.00 / 0)
is not the same as McCain's plan.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

Calling both plans as same, is nothing but being disingenuous, and is equivalent to the original pander.

My point is that we should not use such tactics for short-term gain just because it makes it easier to attack Clinton. As you said the issue here is to help people, then the debate should be about an immediate relief plan, not if Clinton is pandering or not. That is the what I was talking about in my original post - not candidate but principles - the idea here is to find a way to help people, not attack a candidate.

The blog post talks about an "Opening" to attack Clinton, not the idea of helping people, it is more about the candidate not an attempt at a policy position.

[ Parent ]
Some would argue (0.00 / 0)
And some in this case would be partisans, like myself and proud of it, that the best way to help people is through a Democratic administration.

A Democratic victory that was all but inevitable a few months ago has decreased in probability every day since February 5th. An Obama victory following following another month of bloody battle will leave us with less chances to win in November and an Obama victory at the convention would be even worse. Barring a catastrophic result that would persuade Obama supporters that superdelegates are right to back Clinton, a Clinton nomination would leave our party in disarray for a good decade to come and eliminate any chances of winning the White House this fall.

It's all about helping people but the tactical steps we need to take to help people may not be obvious to everyone.

[ Parent ]
The war on intelligence is what's really disturbing (4.00 / 4)
The panders I can live with, but HRC's dismissal of economists is the old establishment tactic of framing science and being smart as bad. Its really offensive because its exactly how we got to where we are with global warming and Iraq.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
The sky is falling!!!! (0.00 / 0)
It's hard to take these arguments seriously when one reads claims like this that a dopey pander like HRC's gas tax holiday, that has no chance of ever even happening, somehow could result in a situation horribly equivalent to global warming and Iraq. There's not a molehill these people can't turn into a mountain.  
[ Parent ]
you cant believe an argument (4.00 / 1)
that finds attacking intellectualism offensive. good luck with that.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Oh wait! My bad! (0.00 / 0)
It's not the pandering, it's the "dismissal of economists."

Dismissing the experts or science a la Bush, is not something that Clinton has made a habit of doing in her career or this campaign. In this case, it looks to me like she got caught with her pants down, and she's trying to cover her butt. It ain't a pretty picture, I'll grant you that, but again, we're talking about something that's never gonna happen, this gas holiday or CAP or whatever. So I'm still on firm ground I believe, in asserting that you're turning a molehill into a mountain.

[ Parent ]
in campaign season (0.00 / 0)
every molehill is a mountain.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe here. (0.00 / 0)
And that does strike me as problematic.
[ Parent ]
a mountain would be (4.00 / 1)
if I wrote three front page posts about it on a site trafficed by 500,000 people a day, and launched three petition websites, and coordinated with other such big websites to issue righteous condemnation.

Right now its just a comment on a blog post, and the comment basically tries to point out how the poster is missing the only thing that truly merits as much criticism.

As for Hillary does have a bit of a pattern of this kind of garbage, "I don't think American's are bitter", "I would obliterate Iran, I wouldn't talk to them", "I'm not elitist (even tho I'm worth $100M, am the hand picked candidate of my party, my husband was president of the US, etc)", "Fancy speeches don't matter", "The intelligence was faulty on Iraq (even thought it wasnt)", "I'd didn't see it, but I'm glad Obama gave the speech on race, it's an important topic".  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
The public may be aware (4.00 / 1)
it's a bad idea (and it is). But it sure as hell works. Note that Hillary (a poll driven pol if ever there was one) hammering away in her final arguments today, while Barack stays a million miles clear.
That speaks to the sad state of affairs (4.00 / 1)
That our electorate is in... however, we can only hope and fight to make it right. I would prefer to lose elections than win them the way Republicans do.
[ Parent ]
Maybe you should have started (0.00 / 0)
your movement to attack cheap oil-centric policies when oil was actually cheap and when it wasn't just another way to bolster Obama/criticize Clinton.

Us "Liberals" have been saying all of this for years.  

so we SHOULD support Clinton (0.00 / 0)
now that energy prices have gone up?
[ Parent ]
Playing dumb (4.00 / 1)
is very unbecoming.
[ Parent ]
maybe I'm dumb (0.00 / 0)
but I honestly have no idea what eric is trying to say
[ Parent ]
yes (4.00 / 1)
Right, Eric.  Good point.  It's not as if the netroots got its start in ... 2002, when oil was much cheaper than it is today.  This is all about Obama-bashing.
[ Parent ]
Wow, you guys (0.00 / 0)
really don't understand what I was saying.  What does this have to do with 2002?

If I am understanding your misunderstanding, it is that you think that I was suggesting that this has something to do with the "netroots" in 2002...?

What I was saying is this:  If you are going to take up this anti-cheap-oil cause, which is a good one, why didn't you do it before?  Because, in my estimation this really isn't about the anti-cheap-oil policies cause at all, it is about attacking Clinton.  I suspect the confusion resulted from my use of the word "movement" which was meant to refer to the anti-cheap oil "cause", not some greater movement like netroots or whatever.

[ Parent ]
This movement here (4.00 / 1)
is less about attacking oil-centric policies, and more about attacking the opposing candidate. If Matt was really against policies, then he would have come up with a policy idea and then used it attack the existing idea. But no, first bring down the evil Clinton first and then think about policy ideas.
[ Parent ]
I have a feeling (0.00 / 0)
the next couple weeks are going to be very hard for you, because this race is already over and everything on left political sites is going to become about getting the Clintons to read the writing on the wall. Its going to be very natural for publishers to be focused on that until the Clintons concede reality. It doesn't mean their not interested in policy; its just emotionally overwhelming for everyone.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Having an opponent (0.00 / 0)
to Obama need not be emotionally overwhelming, but it can be a used to stop Obama from steering right. "The left" is helplessly looking on the sidelines while Obama is pandering to the right.
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I think lost in all this nonsense is just how weakened we have become in all this.

"The left" could have leveraged Clinton's presence to put pressure on Obama to be more progressive. While Clinton is not the choice of left, as paul krugman points out

Mrs. Clinton, we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

By making a choice early, the left lost it's leverage early on in this primary. If they stuck to the policies and not the candidates, then (as you can see McCain) they candidates would show more interest in what the left thinks.

[ Parent ]
The Gas Tax Opening | 34 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox