home
Pandering... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:05:00 PM EST
good for her

;-)

Yup (5.00 / 2) (#94)
by Trickster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:13:36 AM EST
And liable to net her the nomination.

Us latte-sippin' internet political geeks are always amazed by the impact of gas prices politically.  Hillary gets it.

The cool thing is that, while pretty much every economist will tell you that gas taxes need to be raised, not lowered, this is not in fact a terribly bad economic move and may in fact be a good one.

That's because demand for gas is very inelastic in the short term and only shows elasticity in the long run (when people have had time to adjust by, e.g., buying Priuses or moving to somewhere that won't require a long drive to work).  The opposite is just as true--people don't quickly start driving more just because is slightly less heinously expensive.

So a short-term reduction in the price of gas is not really going to stimulate fuel demand in any significant way.  And in fact, it's an excellent short-term economic stimulus because not only does 100% of the money goes straight into the type of consumption that stimulates further economic activity.

Decent policy, election-winning politics.

[ Parent ]

Just sleight of hand (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by rilkefan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:50 AM EST
- won't reduce the price of gas - isn't good policy.  The thing about Clinton I've liked is her wonkishness - if a transparent pander wins her the nomination, that'll be sad and a bad precedent.

[ Parent ]
She is not just pushing (none / 0) (#145)
by BernieO on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:16:58 AM EST
a reduction in the gas tax, she is also pushing to stop adding to the strategic oil reserves, and releasing some to add to supply so it may well reduce or at least stabilize the price. And it is good politics because McCain's proposal appeals to many who do not realize it cuts into highway funds, something the public strongly supports. Hillary's windfall tax also appeals, and it highlights the fiscal irresponsibility of McCain's position while dinging the hated oil companies.

By the way, she also said (I was at her rally in Charlotte on Monday) that there is evidence that there has been manipulation of the oil market similar to what Enron did to California's energy market and she is calling for an investigation. That would be a great idea as well as good political theatre.

If you need more evidence that Clinton's idea is a good one, Tom Friedman doesn't like it and you know what a good judge he is. Just joking, I think.

[ Parent ]

If she had only restricted funding it by (none / 0) (#168)
by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07:26 AM EST
just stopping the overload to the Strategic Reserve, I would be fine with it as a temporary measure, along with assuming she got in to the WH and could instigaste her longterm clean energy policy.

But.

She didn't.

She includes repealing the windfall profits tax to fund it. Now we know the Dems have all been trying to get that repeal passed all through 2007. At least 5 bills. Its not so easy.

As such, this was a horrible move, and really cuts into her credibility as the greenest candidate. And it weakens her to allow cutting taxes be any part of her plan.

[ Parent ]

yes, this is what I have been saying. (none / 0) (#169)
by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07:27 AM EST
Plus, the Democrats would be on the good side particularly if Bush does veto (which he most likely would because of the windfall tax proposal).

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft