The Gas Tax Holiday Presidency

by: Chris Bowers

Sat May 03, 2008 at 14:00


What does Hillary Clinton's "gas tax holida€y" say about her prospective Presidency? Here are some thoughts:
  1. Clinton is framing the gas tax holiday as "taking on the oil companies." Exactly how is removing a tax on gas "taking on the oil companies?" Lowering the taxes on a product a company sells will inevitably boost that company's revenue.

  2. Clinton is threatening other Democrats on the gas tax holiday, claiming that opposing it means you are with the oil companies.


    Not only is that nonsensical, it is reminiscent of the many times that Bill Clinton favored legislation in the face of opposition from the left: NAFTA, welfare reform, the telecommunications act, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc. She isn't taking on the oil companies with this proposal, she is taking on the American left, just as her husband frequently did while he was President. Clearly, we can expect more of this if she were to become President.

  3. So, why is Clinton taking on the left and helping out oil companies? To score political points. Her campaign has said this in public:

    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.

    Given that one of the two or three main image problems the Democratic Party has faced over the past couple decades is the perception that we don't stand for anything and lack core values, publicly stating that a policy proposal is good because it is helping you in the polls is extremely damaging. Of course, it is also the sort of language that both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton use on a regular basis, and which we should obviously expect a lot more of should Hillary Clinton become President. This will have lasting, negative effects on the image of the Democratic Party.

  4. Where did this policy come from? This isn't a policy that Clinton has been campaigning on for a while--she just came up with in over the last two weeks. Given that she is willing to make some new gimmick the centerpiece of her public policy discussion on a whim in order to score political points, how can we ever believe that she won't just dump whatever current policy proposals she has if, in so doing, she believes she can score political points with some right-wing gimmick policy?

  5. While the Clinton campaign thinks that this is smart politics, I have to disagree. After Tuesday, there will be more uncommitted superdelegates than uncommitted pledged delegates. Given this, how exactly is threatening the 82 uncommitted superdelegates in Congress with gas tax holiday legislation smart? To undecided superdelegates, Mark Udall and Nancy Pelosi, have already blasted Clinton on this proposal. Threatening members of Congress to support oil companies or else doesn't strike me as very smart politics, especially since most of them are probably tired of similar threats from Bush over the past eight years.

The gas tax holiday episode collects all of my worst fears about a possible second Clinton presidency in a single, dark, place that I haven't entered since the 1990's. Are we to suffer through another Democratic President who will make impromptu, right-ward shifts toward bad policy, justified in nonsensical, Orwellian language, all the while claiming such a move must be done because it will score huge political points even though it is ultimately a bad political calculation, and then threaten the entire Democratic Party to fall in line behind such a move or else? This is basically all of my worst fears about Hillary Clinton becoming President rolled up into one giant ball of tin-foil and dropped on my front porch.

If this is how she will run the country, then she just ins't want the country needs. Not as bad as Bush or McCain of course. However, while there will be the occasional time when I actually like something she might do, if this is any indication, it will be pretty annoying and certainly mediocre. This is the sort of move that is damaging to the country, to the party, to progressivism, and indeed to logic itself. A "gas tax holiday" is not "taking on oil companies." It is bad, gimmicky, policy that moves us in the wrong direction on a whole number of fronts that I outlined above.

Now, unlike how I acted in the 1990's, I won't leave the Democratic Party over this potentially significant rightward shift it would face under a Clinton presidency. Also, I suspect that Barack Obama might end up being just as annoying. However, this incident reminds me that as much of a disaster as the Bush administration has been, the 1990's weren't exactly a time when things were honky-dory for progressives, either.  
Chris Bowers :: The Gas Tax Holiday Presidency

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Gas Tax Holiday Presidency | 45 comments
Choice (4.00 / 6)
Yep, this is our choice. A choice between a leading member of the DLC who will definitely govern through triangulation and a newer candidate with less of a track record that may or may not sometimes do the same.

I've said this before, but I primarily lean Obama because of the 50-state ground movement he's building and because (I'm guessing) his supporters are younger and more progressive than the Old Guard in the Democratic Party.

And he shows a new way of doing things (0.00 / 0)
If he succeeds while NOT taking $ from lobbyists and corporate interests, suddenly OTHER Democrats will realize that they can win the same way and can win by actually crafting policies for the benefit of ordinary people, not only those capable of bundling maximum campaign contributions. To me THAT is the most exciting prospect of an Obama victory and the one that promises the most for progressives long term.

His bent toward openness -- e.g., putting all the health care deliberations on C-Span -- is also a huge plus for progressives: policies crafted in the open instead of behind closed doors (cough, Hillarycare, cough) also tend to be far more progressive.

Howard Dean in 2016

[ Parent ]
One small point (4.00 / 1)
The gas tax is bad public policy and an obvious pander.  I also think her "with me or without me" stance pretty dumb given that she needs to convince the supers to actually support her at some point.  And whether she's really "taking on" big oil is pretty dubious.  But she is certainly not helping out the oil companies either, an idea I have seen repeated by many opponents of the gas tax in the last few days.  These companies would certainly rather preserve the status quo than substitute a sales tax with a windfall profits tax.  

Its just a dumb idea that won't have much of an effect.  Its not fundamentally pro-corporate or anti-progressive.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

Bad policy (4.00 / 5)
The government would lose revenue, the oil companies would likely raise the prices to stop shortages from happening (meaning all that extra profit goes to them instead), we'd lose jobs, and average people wouldn't save any significant money.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

It's a spectacularly bad idea.

[ Parent ]
Ok (4.00 / 1)
Look, these are all hypotheticals because the thing is stupid and isn't passing.  But if she actually did pass the windfall tax, the revenue and job implications would hypothetically be a wash.  The new revenue stream would just be diverted, either directly or indirectly through general revenue transfers, into the highway fund, which has a budget allocation that is not going to change.  Its not like they would just let the highways deteriorate and lay all those people off. But you are right that of course the companies would pass the buck onto the consumers, prices might go down a tiny bit but not substantially, and the whole enterprise would accomplish next to nothing.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Windfall tax is what makes Hillary's plan especially stupid (4.00 / 3)
Under McCain's plan, you can imagine a situation where it lowers the price at the pump.  You have to imagine that lower price doesn't increase demand, but since demand isn't perfectly elastic it might.  In addition, you have to imagine that the oil companies will not decide to grab that extra $0.18 for themselves.

Ok, wow.  That was a lot of imagining, but maybe...

Under Hillary's plan the Oil companies will be hit with a windfall tax that is roughly equivalent to ($0.18 * #gallons sold this summer).

Now in addition to all the McCain imagination, we have to imagine that the Oil companies won't pass the cost of this tax thru to consumers.

Not a chance.

Hillary's plan won't save consumers any money at all.  No plausible scenario.  Pure pander.

[ Parent ]
perhaps (0.00 / 0)
I don't know. While what you say is strictly speaking true, it seems to me that the rhetoric would easily lead to a reduction in the gas tax without the compensating windfall tax.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
None of it is going to pass (4.00 / 1)
which is part of the reason its so dumb.  But the Dem congress is certainly not going to pass the first part without the second, because that would just be the McCain plain. So there's no real risk of that happening.  There's just a real risk of all of us wasting out time debating this dumb proposal.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Responsibility (4.00 / 2)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding politicians responsible for the policies they propose, regardless of whether they are likely to pass and what other policies they have proposed.

As Chris explains, the fact that she made this proposal, and the specific statements she has made, tell us about how she would govern.

[ Parent ]
Did I ever say that we shouldn't hold her responsible? (0.00 / 0)
Voters should hold everybody responsible for all of their policies and take the entire batch into account when thinking about whom to support.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
It is though (4.00 / 2)
Gasoline is a near-perfect inelastic good, with a fixed supply.  The oil companies know with 95-99% confidence exactly how much gas will be available for retail during the months of the gas tax suspension.  They also know exactly how much they're going to be taxed on profit - around $9 billion in total.

Given the fact that demand is inelastic, and will probably even grow during the summer (especially with a suspended gas tax), the oil companies have a lot of pricing freedom.

Right now, the average gallon of gas in the U.S. costs $3.60.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas...

Over the course of 90 days, the U.S. as a whole will consume 35 billion gallons of gasoline, at a price to consumers of around $126 billion.  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/qu...

With the tax in place, somewhat more (due to diesel sales, which are taxed at a higher rate) than 5.1% of that total would go to the transportation fund.  Under the Clinton plan, all such taxes will be waived.  Gas prices will not go down at all, everyone agrees; the entirety of the $126 billion will flow to the coffers of the oil companies.  

However, she did propose the $9 billion windfall tax.  But even if the oil companies were to raise the price simply back to where it was without the tax, the additional revenues gained (let's say, conservatively, it was 6% of the $126 billion, given diesel sales) would mean the net payout of those oil companies to the government is only $1.5 billion (they make $7.5 billion extra from the suspension of the retail tax, subtracted from the $9 billion of the windfall tax).  

From that point, it is not unreasonable to presume that with an additional tax on their good, increased demand from the summer months that is compounded by the suspension of the gas tax, the general rate of inflation PLUS a fixed supply that cannot be increased - prices will rise, say, a total of five cents per gallon over the summer.

If indeed this was the case, and gas prices were to rise to a national average of $3.65 without the tax, the oil companies would actually come out AHEAD of where they were, as a five cent increase nets them additional revenues of $1.76 billion over that 90 day period, more than enough to cover their net payout on the windfall tax.

So if I'm right, and I suspect that I am on most counts (as most economists have predicted a similar outcome), the price of a gallon of gas goes up (which is a regressive tax, and thus anti-progressive), and the profits of oil companies go up (which is pro-corporate).  The Clinton plan is the biggest pander of the election year so far, and does no good for anyone but the oil companies, and eventually, the gas tax will have to be re-implemented, which would just add an additional 18 cents on to the retail price - once the oil companies have established a new, higher, sans-tax price, they're not going to keep it at the same level with the tax re-implemented.  So, mission accomplished - after 90 days, the average price of a gallon of gasoline will be north of $3.80.

[ Parent ]
Ok (0.00 / 0)
You clearly know a lot more about the specifics of this sector than I do. :)  I have no real basis on which to judge your modeling assumptions, but I take it that there is some reasonable possibility that the oil companies would come out ahead and consumers behind.  I agree that's problematic and another strike against the proposal.  I am very confident, however, that oil companies would still much prefer the status quo, simply because they want nothing to do with a windfall tax and the precedent that it would set.  In that sense, I really have a hard time seeing it as pro-corporate.  It just seems like everybody loses in some sense.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Good luck getting that windfall profits tax passed (4.00 / 6)
If the gas tax holiday were to do what it says, it would have to be in effect by Memorial Day.  No way a windfall profits tax makes it out in that tinme period.

This is also bad morally because it suggests we should all just go on driving as much as we want, completely divorced from the reality of global warming.  It is the opposite of Rooseveltian straight talk.  It not only does not educate on the subject of gasoline usage and global warming, it misinforms.

It has as its premise the notion that taxes are bad, even taxes that pay for highways and bridges.  Talk about right-wing frames!  There is a reason this idea originated with McCain.

Worst of all, it suggests Hillary does not understand global arming and the kinds of things that need to get done, or just doesn't care.  Or, as Steve Benen suggests, rather than admit she made a mistake, she is compounding and amplifying it, making things infinitely worse in an imitation of the current Decider,who also can;t admit a mistake, by having her spokesperson say we shouldn't listen to experts, just follow your gut.  We've had quite enough of that.

This confirms all my worst fears about Hillary, but they go way beyond strategy and the Left.  This is selfish,  counterproductive policy at its worst.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
windfall profits tax bait and switch (4.00 / 3)
Given the current composition of the senate and the need for 60 votes, it seems likely that the only thing that could possibly be viable would be the gas tax holiday. Clinton knows this. So she can propose a "revenue neutral" gas tax pander that she knows has no future, and either gets the pure pander legislation tax holiday while claiming to be fiscally prudent, or gets nothing legislatively but can claim to be fighting for the working family. Pure BS, either way.  
Any actual polling on this issue? (0.00 / 0)
Is anyone aware of any actual polling on this issue?

Conventional wisdom seems to be that the gas-tax holiday is popular with the voters, but that seems mostly based on assumptions about the electorate.

I think it's entirely possible that voters will this the same way that almost all the pundits do: as blatant pandering.

Indiana (4.00 / 1)
Geoff Garin had said their internal polling said they gained a few points thanks to it but Chuck Todd this morning posted something that said it seems that the pushback by Obama on the issue is actually taking pretty well in IN.
Which is why they are both campaigning there this weekend.
In the meantime NC's voting will probably be more racially based and therefore positions are a little more hardened with less leeway.
[ Parent ]
Clinton shooting at own bona fides (4.00 / 3)
Clinton is undermining one of her real favorables: she really can and has claimed to understand needed policies better than just about anyone in politics. Her readiness to pander with policy nonsense on this issue undercuts her own strength.

Of course the premise is that the US electorate is full of morons. I'm not so sure about that this year...

Can it happen here?

The biggest pander yet (0.00 / 0)
Clinton clearly has no problem disregarding notions of principle and propriety for the sake of political expedience.  Howard Wolfson admitted as much when he said that she was basically going to simply disregard the advice of experts on this matter.  So if she's not willing to stand on principle, stand with the best counsel of any ideological stripe the world has to offer, in order to get a few more votes (and it's yet to be seen if it truly is effective politically), where does that end? If she could sacrifice universal healthcare to be re-elected with 55% vs. a much closer 51%, would she do it? What would greenhouse gases? What about matters of war and peace?

When a politician, HRC or anyone else, openly makes a decision where better judgment is not just sacrificed, but openly defied, 190 degrees, in an attempt to gain votes, they will not stop there.  A principle is a principle, and all of them are important, otherwise they wouldn't be principles.  So while it is more unlikely that she would sacrifice better judgment on some of the bigger issues, what to stop her from doing it on the second tier progressive issues that may not be as critical, but still matter a lot? It's clear to me that she will do anything to get elected, no matter how progressive or how conservative, and I find it truly disappointing.

I remember .. (0.00 / 0)
her comment to Russ Feingold in the Senate(over McCain-Feingold I think) .. is it any wonder why Feingold is well liked in the blogostan .. and Hillary is not?  She will sell out anything she believes in for a few extra votes ... and sadly .. it gives Democrats a bad name
[ Parent ]
i think they're trying to flip the argument on superdelegates (and quite successfully) (0.00 / 0)
While the Clinton campaign thinks that this is smart politics, I have to disagree. After Tuesday, there will be more uncommitted superdelegates than uncommitted pledged delegates. Given this, how exactly is threatening the 82 uncommitted superdelegates in Congress with gas tax holiday legislation smart?

I think it might be possible that they'll be ahead or close enough in the popular vote by the end of the primaries and that they'll have a string of 'outperforming' and good national polls which will allow them to contend that they're actually the popular choice and it's obama that's trying to win by using superdelegates to overturn the election.

they're going to argue that they're winning recent elections, that they have won the popular vote (including florida and michigan, after all the votes have been counted).

And of course undergirding this will be random things like "we're more electable" on the basis of recent elections and the propensity to pander, the dirtiness of the politics they're willing to play vs. the republicans' dirtiness, that they're better able to draw a sharp contrast in messaging on economic issues with mccain, and that obama has fundamental weaknesses (a lot of which revolve around the facts that a) he's Black and b) he hasn't been able to sew up the nomination).

just random speculation.

A gas tax holiday... (0.00 / 0)
... is a short term fix that would probably lower gasoline prices for awhile if it were enacted. It is not a longterm solution to transportation costs. The major impact of a gas tax holiday is political but that is not necessarily bad. It lets low and middle income voters know that Hillary recognizes they are hurting and that she is willing to try and do something about it. And Hillary is not picking a fight with the left over this issue. To say so is just nonsense.

The fact that some self-identified progressives are so up in arms over this relatively minor issue leads me to wonder if there is a segment of the progressive population that is genetically coded to lose elections.

Except it won't lower gas prices (0.00 / 0)
for any length of time.  It's purely political, you're right, but you don't give voters nearly enough credit.  They're not idiots, and they'll realize that whatever fix they get will be quick and meaningless, and people are sick of that.  If Hillary truly cared, a far better way to accomplish the goal of relief from gas prices would be leave the gas tax as it is, implement the windfall tax, and cut a check to everyone (and put out some policy proposals that provide incentives for decreased demand - the only, and best, way to cut prices).

Instead, her proposal will lead to higher gas prices that benefit corporations (indeed they will profit off of her proposal, even with a windfall tax) is pro-corporate and will have a regressive economic impact.  So yes, she is picking a fight with the left (and, you know, everyone else, even conservatives, who agree that this is a bad idea), and the reason progressives are up in arms is because she doesn't give a damn about any principle - only of her own political fortune.  We want to win, and we want to win on principle.  Hillary's proposal ensures neither.

[ Parent ]
I do give the voters credit (0.00 / 0)
Voters recognize who will fight for them and who won't.

As to your idea of implementing the windfall tax and cutting a check to everyone, that would also benefit people who don't drive and thus dilute the relief given to people who have to buy gas. Policy proposals to reduce demand are a great idea and should be undertaken. Some are already underway such as the new requirements for increased mileage standards. However policy proposals tend to take a long time to develop and take effect. It doesn't help people who are hurting now.

You don't know that higher gas prices would result from her proposal and to call it pro-corporate is absurd. And I repeat, Hillary is not picking a fight with the left. That is delusional nonsense.

Finally I take offense at your claim that "progressives" are up in arms about Hillary. You don't speak for all progressives. I am a progressive and you don't speak for me. Be honest. You speak for yourself, just like I speak for myself. The views of some bloggers and pundits are not the voice of progressive politics.  

[ Parent ]
Her proposal will have absolutely no effect on prices. (0.00 / 0)
And is thus by its nature pro-corporate.  Here is a good summary of why it's nonsense:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/...

[ Parent ]
Gas Tax Holiday (0.00 / 0)
Presumptuous Bull.

NO ONE has anny idea what the oil companies' reactions and pricing tiers will be this summer, whether Hillary's Gas Tax holiday is implemented or not.

Any "models" which assume and presume Oil-company behavior, pricing, and strategy are completely vacuous, stupid, and self-serving.

In the real world, Hillary's proposal achieves two important political goals, which the Obamabots here will not want to admit:

1.  It puts McCain in the defensive, and takes away a win and a prospective populist theme from him in September, October, and November

2. It puts the oil companies on the defensive, which has not been the case since Bush took office.

The true genius of this move is that it has no downside:  Hillary can claim she tried her best to make things happen for the people, and she was denied a chance to make things better even if it was just by a little bit.

It's left Obama playing his worst cards:  Against Hope, against action, and for the status quo.  His ads have sounded professorial, out-of-touch, and disconnected.

Give the lady credit.  She scores big with this one.
 

[ Parent ]
You have lost your mind (4.00 / 1)
She scores big with a bad idea, that gives no real money back to the middle class?  How exactly does it put oil companies on the defensive?  They have us all by the balls and they know it.  They make the gas and we need the gas.  Until we start buying a lot less of it, the price will not go down.  What really bothers me with your post is you say give her credit for scoring big.  So it's ok for her to score political points, while the people she claims to be fighting for get no real benefit?  Why doesn't she come up with something that will actually put real money back in the pockets of those who need it the most, then we can give her credit.    
[ Parent ]
pricing tiers? (0.00 / 0)
are there pricing tiers in Hillary's plan?

I thought it was a tax swap - tax the corporation instead of at the pump. Which would naturally have no effect. The profit tax increase would transfer to the price of oil and thus the price at the pump would remain constant.

Jeeez, i guess I should really go read the exact proposal. Goes to show one can't be guaranteed a real clear picture of what the facts are without going to the source on your own...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
couldnt find it on HRC website (0.00 / 0)
ok, so first thing that is interesting is that Hillary is not confident enough in this proposal to feature it on her website - at least not that I could quickly find.

Also, for the record, according to the NYTimes, there would be no tiered pricing or price fixing, only a change in where the tax is being applied:

"Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton propose to suspend the tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the peak driving season, which would lower tax receipts by roughly $9 billion and potentially cost 300,000 highway construction jobs, according to state highway officials.

Mrs. Clinton would replace that money with the new tax on oil company profits, an idea that has been kicking around Congress for several years but has not been enacted into law. Mr. McCain would divert tax revenue from other sources to make the highway trust fund whole."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

People shouldn't post misleading assertions. There would be no net change on the cost pressure on gas.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
sry i read it wrong (0.00 / 0)
boy im doing a lot of talking to myself right now.  Ok, the post said we don't know what gas company pricing tiers will be. I don't even know what that means. The price is the price. anyway, i've successfully made more nonsense out of nonsense.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
pure pander (0.00 / 0)
I am a low and middle income voter. And it tells me that she doesn't give two shits about gas prices because what the hell does 18 cents a gallon do for me when gas is 3.60 a gallon?

And what's the guarantee that oil companies won't just eat up the gas tax holiday in profits? Perhaps they're smart enough to drop the price 18 cents in the first week but have it slowly rise up 18 cents over the next two weeks to make it look like supply and demand. Is that a possibility?

And what's the guarantee that the proposed windfall profts tax wouldn't be passed on to consumers? So we might end up with higher gas prices because of this.

If she really cared about some temporary relief, she call for another economic stimulus and give low income workers another $500 bucks  a piece. At least that'd be honest. This is just a political move to drive up Obama's negatives and to further racially polarize this race.

I am so sick of her. And I was close to supporting her at one point. Now I realize that she tacks whichever way gives her political advantage. It doesn't matter one bit whether it's good policy. It's all about her and winning. Her original slogan really did say it all.

[ Parent ]
The real point of this gimmick (4.00 / 7)
Is to force our Congressional candidates to vote for higher taxes in an election year.

Let's say this "holiday" gets implemented.  In September, all the Republican Senators stand up and say "The verdict is in - working families deserve lower taxes.  The gas tax repeal must be made permanent"  Harry Reid, for whatever reason, brings it up for a vote.  It passes the Senate easily.

Now, all of our House members are forced into a situation where they can vote for a retarded policy or vote to raise taxes in September of an election year.

This is the whole point of this idiocy.  And Hillary is enabling it, basically kicking our House incumbents in the nuts for no good reason.

She got the idea from John McCain (0.00 / 0)
Regarding question #4, the policy came from John McCain in his economic policy speech a few weeks back. Hillary's team probably polled it and decided it was a winner.

I don't know where McCain came up with this idea, although gas tax holidays have been proposed in the past. I remember a local news personality here in CA calling for the state to eliminate the gas tax back in 2001, when a gallon was a whopping $1.75/gallon.

It's the dumbest idea ever. If anything gas taxes should be higher to pay for renewable investments.

Although I like Obama's smart ads about this issue, I think he could hit Hillary even harder. Have an ad starring a construction worker who will lose his job without the tax, or maybe show the collapsed bridge in Minnesota and say that this tax will help to prevent future disasters. Anything to really bring home how great this tax is and how pointless a cut would be (since Exxon would just raise the price the next day).

See .. (4.00 / 1)
that is the thing about Obama .. he won't go there(meaning about the Minn. bridge) .. would Obama go there in the GE(especially if Pawlenty is McBush's VP choice)? ... I don't know .. but that is what was appealing about Edwards .. he most likely would have .. hopefully Obama can find some way to hammer that point home .. given his hope message
[ Parent ]
I thought she got the idea from Barack Obama (0.00 / 1)
The dumbest ideas from the dumbest candidates.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/...

[ Parent ]
Policy proposals as forcaster in NYTimes (0.00 / 0)
The NYTimes has a article that is similar in vein, if not condemnation, which attempts to use policy proposals by the candidates as a weather vane for how each might govern, including how they would get their policies through congress.

Its worth a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Pandering? The horror! (0.00 / 0)
Hillary Clinton is pulling the same lame pander that Barack Obama used in the state senate in 2000.  The economics were as clear in 2000 as they are today.

But this shows, according to Chris, that Hillary is an evil, right wing triangulator, and Barack is thoughtful and high prinicpled.

I think you guys should probably take up watching soap operas.  It would fill your need for constant melodrama and predictable moralizing storylines.  

Illinois's gas tax is based on a % of the price (0.00 / 0)
So when prices spike the amount of the tax also goes way up, hurting consumers. I'm not necessarily justifying Barack's stance but you have to acknowledge that this is very different from the Federal tax which is a fixed amouont and actually goes DOWN as a percent of the cost of gas when gas prices go up....

In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges here.

Howard Dean in 2016

[ Parent ]
A distinction without a significant difference (0.00 / 0)
The Illinois gas tax is 5%, so the increase due to the tax itself is minimal.

Economists dislike the gas tax holiday because it gives consumers no relief - the benefit goes to the producers, not consumers.  The fact that a small percentage of the tax increases with the price doesn't change this analysis.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

[ Parent ]
I agree exactly (4.00 / 1)
This gas tax bamboozelment, filled with Alice-in- Wonderland, white is black, black is white lies, is the last straw for me.
It becomes clear that Hillary Clinton would dismantle whatever gains we have made thus far with the 50 state strategy to reform the Democratic Party and make it more responsive to the populist mood in the country.
After this gas tax bamboozlement, I have taken the pledge:
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if hell freezes over.  I will not vote for her for dog catcher.
I think she demonstrates that she would make a terrible president, and I don't want the Democratic Party shaped in this image.
Then we will have lies, bamboozlement, corporatism and law breaking running the two major parties, without even a nod in the direction of real values.
If they want to bomb Iran and build their walls, and keep people imprisoned in "blockades", and keep lying to the American people, let the Republicans do it.  We will have a chance to build an opposition within the Democratic Party.
With Hillary we will have the Tim Russert-CNN mentality and the FOX news clique running the country through blackmail and name calling for the forseeable future.
Obama always said he would compromise, but so far he demonstrates some integrity.  Integrity is the first quality that the country so sorely needs.
Hillary Clinton is out there proving that she has none.
No thanks.  Not in my country.

 

She's a Democrat? (0.00 / 0)
That is a debatable issue for me. She seems to have more in common with McCain than Obama. After Bosnia, I have no confidence that anything she says is believable. That puts her into the company of people like GW Bush.

I would expect that any Administration she would lead would always be capitulating to the right, both domestically and in foreign policy.

I find it significant that she was a Republican in her college years. And I think it possible that her strategy is to destroy the Democratic party from within. She is in great position to do just that. The message that I get from her campaign is, you either get me, or the Democratic party goes down in flames.

[ Parent ]
No matter which Dem wins (0.00 / 0)
the United States Left is going to have to push her/him to do the right thing every day.  Winning the White House is literally the very beginning of a long, expensive and difficult task to reclaim some of the ground lost during the last thirty years.  The question is will the Left have the stomach to go after a Democrat, who will be under vicious attack from the Right.  And who will put up the millions of dollars that will be required to fund the work?
Obama: The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread (4.00 / 1)
Where did this policy come from? This isn't a policy that Clinton has been campaigning on for a while--she just came up with in over the last two weeks. Given that she is willing to make some new gimmick the centerpiece of her public policy discussion on a whim in order to score political points, how can we ever believe that she won't just dump whatever current policy proposals she has if, in so doing, she believes she can score political points with some right-wing gimmick policy?

Wow! The contortionist logic that you - and other "progressive" bloggers use - to fry Clinton over the gas tax holiday is both astonishing and very funny.

You would have some of us believe that this policy is some new "gimmick" or pander to appease voters, at the same time you point proudly to Sen. Obama's visionary policy goals and unwillingness to engage in such "gimmicks" or panders, ignoring a very big elephant in the living room: Barack Obama backed the very same "gimmick" in Illinois, not once, not twice, but THREE times and then voted against reinstating the gas tax when it was no longer necessary.

He thought then it was such a good thing he joked that perhaps Illinois gas stations should put signs on their pumps telling consumers that the "savings" at the pump were brought to them by Barack Obama.

Hmmm. It appears that the only thing different between then and now is a) he doesn't have the upper hand on opportunism on this issue; and b) he's being primed by the "insiders" of the very institution he seeks to change.

What about these tactics is honorable? The man has been endorsed by corporate newspapers like "Financial Times", is backed by some of the most consummate insiders in D.C.: Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Hamilton, Rockefeller, Joe Andrew, etc., is engaged in smearing both Clintons by tying them to Bush and Republicans, is busy using Republican talking points and policy on issues like Social Security, health care reform, and environmental regulation, and talks a great line about "unity" and crossing party lines and parties to get work done, as though it's the greatest things since sliced bread!

Hello! Hillary Clinton has an established record of change in the U.S. Senate, working with Dems and Republicans, and she's branded as everything from Republican-lite to a traitor.

What is wrong with you? Something is very wrong with this picture and is very wrong with "progressives" believing in the mirage that is Barack Obama.  

Established record of change? (4.00 / 1)
Really? Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I would like to know of one example where she advocated a progressive change from the status quo.

No, I don't believe in the mirage of Obama. I am however willing to take a chance on him. He doesn't talk to us like we are 8 year olds, and political expediency doesn't always dictate his message.

On the gas tax issue, the organization Friends of the Earth has now endorsed Obama, because he supports policies which are aimed at the cause of the problem, and are not palliatives which actually make the problem worse. I'm sure Hillary knows better, but, hey, she has made a political calculation. Damn, I hope she's wrong.

I don't see any problem with Obama's position on Social Security. His web site says quite clearly that he opposes privitization. As far as health care, I believe he has the better idea. Hillary's idea for mandates are a potential disaster. I am not a resident of Massachusetts, but I understand the law that requires people to purchase health insurance is not working out too well. One disaster for health care policy is quite enough, and Hillary had hers back in the 90's.

[ Parent ]
oh yay, the usual Rohrschach (4.00 / 1)
All this Obama kneejerking is getting pretty pathetic, folks.

The simple politics of it is that Clinton proves herself open to cutting some taxes.  It's a nice card to hold for the fall campaign against McCain- and some measure of serious adjustment or full repeal of the AMT is going to happen in the next year or two anyway.

As for Obama, he's standing there with a rationalization and not open to a tax cut.  And with a complicated "go see my webpage" domestic policy agenda whose themes are not really in touch.  What average voters see when they look at Obama is a lot of black people and yuppies and activists who will obviously demand and get payoffs, no matter Obama says.

Let me try to explain the last 30 years in simplified form to all you sophisticated policy analysts-

Elections  Agenda setting faction
1962/64- JFK/LBJ Democrats; Goldwater Republicans
1966/68- Dixiecrats
1970/72- Nixon Republicans
1974/76- post-Watergate Democrats
1978/80- Reagan Democrats/Reagan Republicans
1982/84- Left Democrats (org. labor)
1986/88- moderate Republicans
1990/92- conservative Democrats
1994/96- conservative (reactionary) Republicans
1998/00- moderate Democrats
2002/04- Right Republicans
2006/? - liberal Democrats

The Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties up to 1988 are messier than suggested here, but it's been rigid since 1988.  Usually the agenda setting faction also gets its Presidential nominee elected President.  Clinton outmanouvered Dole to win in 1996 via the 'triangulation' and slip off to the right that he reversed after the election.  Bush prevailed in 2000 in goodpart by likewise outmanouvering Gore by a similar 'triangulation' and brief, rapidly reversed, dodge to the left.

Both Parties have outliers; liberal Republicans exist but their politicans were squelched during the Seventies.  Right/conservative Democratic politicans got largely wiped out during the Nineties.

Each Party has three real ideological wings-both have partisan moderate factions, R's have the classical Right and the reactionaries, and D's have a fairly classical Left and the liberals.  It's followed a burnout logic- a faction gets elected to rule, and it expends itself in about 4 years.  In the 2006 elections the R's had no politically credible/unexpended faction left since last forming its coalition in the Nixon days.  (They need to purge their coalition before they can dominate again- I think of the 'social conservatives'.)  Democrats had the scorned liberals remaining as their one viable faction, so power defaults in their direction and enough vacuum exists in which to regenerate the other two wings.  

The 2008 story for Republicans is that no faction of it is particularly viable, and the resulting nominee is McCain- the chameleon Republican not identified with or firmly excluded from any of his Party's factions, the sheer opportunist.

By pattern the 2008 Democratic nominee ought to be the liberal Democrats' candidate and ought to win.  Liberals and Rightists being the most unpopular factions historically, the primary and general wins would be expected to be by narrow margins, and tend to be justified negatively by swing voters.

The Democratic 'netroots' are substantially more Left-identified/Leftist than moderate or liberal-identified.  The Presidential primary came down to three candidates- Edwards the most clearcut in identification with a faction, but the smallest one: the partisan moderates.  So he had to give up first.

Obama started on the liberal-Left intersection point and has become the candidate of the Leftists and most of the moderates and some liberals.  Clinton is the candidate of most liberals and some some moderates and almost zero Leftists.

Since the race narrowed to the two of them, it's been a three front war.  The Reverend Wright is the sort of difficulty that comes with the Left faction and thus an internal problem of the Obama side.  The moderates have been fairly set- Obama got most of them on their guilt and compensatory righteousness about Iraq, and pragmatism on social issues.  Clinton's problem so far has been that liberals in the Left-liberal fuzz zone have not consolidated for her.  But the uglier and more troubled and insecure the national situation gets, the more Obama's wonkish and not very shockproofed agenda and governance abilities lose in appeal.

whats liberal vs left? (0.00 / 0)
thats a real question, not sarcasm.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
The Gas Tax Holiday Presidency | 45 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox