Hillary , Obama and the Price of Gasoline

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:51:20 PM EST
Tags: Indiana '08, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama disagree about how to help consumers with the rising cost of gas.

I'm paying attention to this because I was not happy when I filled up my tank Saturday and it came to $65.00. I also realize that the increased cost of gas is going to mean higher prices on everything since at some point, all goods have to be shipped from point A to point B, and whether it's by truck or plane, gas is involved.

Hillary supports a temporary reprieve for consumers on the gas tax. John McCain first proposed it. Obama criticized the plan.

Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama on Monday for opposing proposals to suspend federal gas taxes this summer, a plan she and Republican John McCain have endorsed. .... "My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break," Clinton said at a firehouse. "I understand the American people need some relief," she added, implying that Obama doesn't get it.

Obama's comments:[More...]

He has said motorists would not benefit significantly from suspending the gas tax. "This is his solution to the problems of the energy crisis and your tax bills," Obama told several thousand at a noisy rally in Wilmington. "Keep in mind that the federal gas tax is about 5 percent of your gas bill. If it lasts for three months, you're going to save about $25 or $30, or a half a tank of gas."

Here's Hillary's full plan on dealing with the gas crisis and her long term plan on reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

In related news, Hillary is about to get some help from a 527 group that will air a $700,000 ad in Indiana criticizing Obama's economic plan.

The Indiana ad campaign would be the biggest single expenditure in a state for the mostly union financed group, called the American Leadership Project. The group spent more than $1 million running ads in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

....The ad quotes commentators who describe Obama's economic plan as deficient. The ad campaign could come at a crucial time for Clinton. The Democratic presidential race in Indiana is a dead heat, according to public opinion polls. Obama, the better-financed candidate, has been spending more than Clinton in the state.

< NC Governor To Endorse Hillary Clinton | Rezko Witness: Rezko Said Fitzgerald Would Be Replaced >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary , Obama and the Price of Gasoline | 135 comments (135 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama's right on this (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by rilkefan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:55:11 PM EST

We need higher gas taxes, not lower (along with measures to make up for the regressive nature of the tax).

Trying to figure out (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST

How that makes sense.

How do you make up for the regressive nature of a regressive tax and raise it at the same time?

[ Parent ]

: Tax credits. . . (none / 0) (#11)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:01:23 PM EST

or some similar mechanism (tax stamps, anyone).
Personally I think gas consumption is something we're all going to have to bite the bullet on notwithstanding that it's regressive -- not only the tax but simply the cost.

[ Parent ]

Higher taxes will not fix the problem (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by dianem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM EST

Neither will trying to make the tax less regressive. This solution assumes that gas prices only cost us when we fill up our tanks. You might be able to somehow figure out a way to give poor people a break at the pump, but that won't fix the fact that those people will pay more for food and other consumer goods as a result of higher gas prices. If we want people to use less gasoline we have to require the automotive companies provide cars that use less fuel, and that they provide this option in cars that are affordable to poorer people. We also have to make sure that cars are affordable enough that people don't have to drive 20 year old clunkers that get 15 miles to the gallon.

Actually, cutting the gas tax for a few weeks is not a bad idea. It won't have a huge effect on individuals, but it's a way of feeding a lot of money into the economy quickly. Unlike the recent tax credits, which will probably go mostly to pay off bills or savings, this will give everybody a few more dollars to spend every week, which, cumulatively, will help the economy a bit. It won't solve the economic crisis, but it will help a tiny bit. We're paying $4/gallon for gas right now, and it scares people.

Regardless, it's bad politics to choose this issue on which to take a principled stand. People want to see some action taken on gas prices, and until we get somebody in Congress to stop the fuel companies from profiteering, we won't get any kind of realistic fix.

[ Parent ]

I haven't done the math (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:16:52 PM EST

but seems to me it will save average consumers a heck of a lot more than 25 bucks over the course of three months, particularly if they have any ideas about taking a vacation this summer.

And it would mean a major savings for people who use heavy vehicles for their livelihood, like, say, family farmers.

Raising the gas tax, OTOH, will kill off the last family farms in this country unless there's some kind of exemption for farmers, but then what's the cost of determining and qualifying and administering that exemption? Just a mess, IMHO, and not worth it.

[ Parent ]

: Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by PWT on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST

The Federal Tax on gasoline is about $.18/gallon. Using about 20 gallons/week during the twelve months of summer amounts to $44. However, the savings would also show up in the price of goods and services.

[ Parent ]
: family farmers don't pay (none / 0) (#132)
by cpinva on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:00:34 AM EST

excise taxes on fuel used for off-road vehicles, so any abatement of it will have no effect on them. think "dyed diesel"
as it is, the fed. excise tax on gas is around 20 cents per gallon. it's not going to make that huge a dent in your gas bill.

[ Parent ]

We need to put a floor on the price of oil (none / 0) (#78)
by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:37:10 PM EST

at $60 dollars or so and promise that we will not let the price fall below that. That will allow massive private money investment into alternative energy technology to get us on the road to independence. We also need to pass a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Jawboning the car companies is long overdue as well. Taxing the big gas guzzlers at the point of sale. Oh there is lots to be done. And we need a massive education project on conservation. We can start with 55 m/hr. Show Americans just how Iraq and oil policy have driven us into this ditch and ask for SACRIFICE.

[ Parent ]

Ask Soros about that (none / 0) (#97)
by PWT on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:16:36 PM EST

The only mechanism for commodity pricing should be the market. England tried to set the price of the pound back in the '80s, Mr. Soros made over $1B because of the Bank of England's defense of the price of the pound. Any kind of cap or floor, (seems silly to talk about a floor on the price of oil that is about 1/2 the current market price) would provide traders with an opportunity to make money at somebody else's expense.

Only the climbing price of oil will lead to real alternative energy sources. Until it makes financial sense, there is no incentive. At $120/barrel of oil, apparently there is not enough incentive. Perhaps at $160......

[ Parent ]

: On the other hand (none / 0) (#131)
by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST

Investors in alternate energy need to have a sustained floor price for oil. I believe that a guarantee that any difference between a sustained price of $120 per imported barrel would be taxed away by our government would meet that need. Thus is the delivered price of crude were to fall to $110 a barrel at any USA port of entry, the receiver would be charged a $10 surtax to bring the effective delivered price at the port up to $120.

[ Parent ]

We need higher taxes on the oil companies. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:19 PM EST

Profits of $40 billion a YEAR is obscene. And they should be made to charge what the gas delivered cost to refine, not up the price every time the price of oil goes up. The gas you are using now was bought as oil last year, at last year's price. The price at the pump is what the oil they bought this week will cost when it's refined. And it's not like they have a slim profit margin they have to factor into the price. The oil companies are gouging and we are paying them for it.

Personally, I think all oil companies should be nationalized and run on a cost basis. No profit, just a tax at the pump. Private companies should not control the country's energy. And the first thing I want Hillary to do when she gets in the White House is find a copy of the minutes of Cheney's energy conference and release it to the public.

Ok, I rant a bit about this, but it really pisses me off to see people worrying about gas to get to work when the CEO of Exxon makes $100,000,000+ as a retirement package. Who needs that kind of money?? I mean, come on!!!

[ Parent ]

Goldman Sach also (none / 0) (#80)
by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:12 PM EST

Actually, the traders are the ones causing this problem. They are selling the oil to other countries before it even hits our soil. Goldman Sach is one of those traders and they had record profits. Exxon and other are reaping the benefit from this. They are not building refineries which would lower the price. They got a lot of tax reliefs. Hillary mentioned in her one speech that pull back that tax relief and look into how traders are manipulating the price. Note also, Heating oil was somehow left out of the Enron Bill. So last Dec, under the Farm Bill, they put in a Enron Loophole bill that would put a ceiling on the heating oil, a energy commodity. No one is implementing it yet. So heating oil remains around $3.80 a gal. 4 years ago before the Enron bill it was 98 cents. After the Enron bill, traders needed a new commodity and saw heating oil was not included in the original bill. In other words, there is a lot of things happening behind the scenes and the greedy are getting greedier. But, look at Ken Lay. Karma took it all away. This is the traders. The Opec even said that they could flood the market and bring the price down quickly. You would think GW would call his cousin.

[ Parent ]

: In all fairness (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST

Hillary has 3 specific things she would do immediately. Lower tax, lift oil companies tax relief, look into trader manipulation. Bet the oil industry loves her too.

[ Parent ]

How About A Hostile Takeover of the Oil Co's. (none / 0) (#83)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:09 PM EST

They are out of control and indulging in legalized robbery.

[ Parent ]

: What do you think nationalization is?? (none / 0) (#101)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:26:26 PM EST

Nationalization is when the government takes over the business and runs it for the benefit of the country. Can't think of a more hostile takeover, can you??

[ Parent ]

Well, there you go again (none / 0) (#7)
by jerry on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:00:30 PM EST

I don't want to have to go all JFK on you rilkefan, especially since I know squat about squat, but in a recession/depression the government should go keynesian and increase public debt by cutting the tax for sometime, not go all taxing and collapse the economy further.

That said, we should be implementing carbon taxes, and encouraging companies to increase telecommuting and trip reduction.

There's a lot that could be done for America by adopting a 4 day work week for many workers. Imagine the free time people could have once again.

[ Parent ]

: Jimmy Carter -- Secy of Energy, Housing, and Peace (none / 0) (#13)
by jerry on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST

He's tanned, rested, and ready.

[ Parent ]

Gas tax is not progressive and hits poor... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM EST

...the hardest. Of course you should suspend it when prices are this high. Perhaps not that big of a deal overall, but a good issue to demonstrate Obama is out of touch.

Gas tax is regressive (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST

Just as any point of sale tax is, especially more so because it's not like people have a choice to buy gas or not.

18 cents a gallon. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM EST

The price swings more than that every week. The oil speculators will eat it up in a second.

Gotta go with Obama on this one. No pander please.

Well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST

There are good ideas in Hillary's plan, the tax holiday just isn't one of them. You can't artifically force prices to go lower if there's not going to be any additional supply.

Hillary needs to be making the case for why McCain's pander to the oil companies is a destructive idea.

People need the tough love (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:26:31 PM EST

Americans cannot be deluded into thinking gas prices will go down. They will not. One good thing about the price, demand is high but people are using less.

My idea of how to solve the gas issue and the war, is add a tax on gasoline that reflects the cost of the war for oil. Then it will teach people what oil really costs us and the world.

I know Hillary's policy is more than the tax holiday, but the tax holiday is what people here. I hate that kind of selfish public policy. It's a lie. In political sense she took McCains wind on this one, but still, I don't like reducing fees, taxes etc, people then don't understand the cost of everything.

I think we're missing the point (5.00 / 4) (#61)
by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST

Of course it's pandering - she's a politician. But she's a politician that is trying to get elected in the next couple of months. And frankly, while it might be bad long-term policy, it seems like good short-term politics.

I luuuuuuuuv my Saturn (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:35:46 PM EST

Bought it for the price, reliability and fuel efficiency and still luv it. A fill up is about $40 now and can net me 400 highway miles. I feel...a little sorry for everyone who bought their car for the frills and thrills instead of economy.

We did try to tell y'all way back when, but irrational exuberance is too often the norm instead of the exception.

Already good things are happening. There are signs that the sprawlburbs are less popular, less pricy, less populated. Some of us will learn by the carrot and others by the stick.

I have a Saturn too.. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:37:54 PM EST

got it for the gas mileage, bought it used. Does about 36-38 mpg..a little less when the back is filled with horse feed..LOL But still hugely better than the trucks all my farmer neighbors have. I have the SC2 and the back seats fold down so I can use it as sort of a mini pickup..can fit several hundred pounds of feed in there. I insisted on two features, a CD player and cruise control. Got both and a sunroof to boot for about $1500 less than the asking price. Horses aren't the only thing I am good at trading. Heh.

[ Parent ]

: I got a Prius... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM EST

which I now use as a Rural Carrier vehicle. This is much better than most - but now I am noticing the price more since I have to use more because of my job. I can understand how others in my position who couldn't afford a vehicle like mine, or truckers, etc. are being squeezed out by these prices. The Dems must show that they feel their pain and do the whole package. But the onus on the Bush admin to either sign or veto.

[ Parent ]

Prices to rise 50-60 cents in the next (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:35:47 PM EST

couple weeks?! Oy.

Just heard this on ABC Nightly News.

Gasoline prices are directly tied to presidential (none / 0) (#90)
by Mark Woods on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:53:28 PM EST

Popularity ratings, aren't they, or did I imagine that?

So why doesn't the same model work for candidates?

Americans have had 8 years of torture under W and the last thing they want to hear is talk of 'tough love'.

My Republican relatives call me when Hillary mentions gasoline, so I think she's smarter than most folks disagreeing with her over this.

The point is, a brief break will spur the economy and relieve poor folks' pain -- we can drag in Gore and get serious once she's elected.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#100)
by Josmt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:20:42 PM EST

While I was looking into the market today, I saw the graphs hit $120.00 a barrel for oil today... I'm going to fill up my tank after work, it's going to hurt tomorrow if I wait.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#109)
by chrisvee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST

I saw reports today of analysts claiming we'd be at $7-$10 in the next 2-3 years when crude reaches $200/barrel although there was also some discussion of a drop to $70/barrel if there's a global economic slowdown.

[ Parent ]

: I've never driven. Always have been (none / 0) (#126)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST

a public transportation gal. But in 2 yrs I may have to drive some. That's gone hurt if something doesn't get worked out! I'll have to train my dogs to pull a cart for shopping and other errands ;)

[ Parent ]

This is a troubling issue (5.00 / 7) (#94)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:13:01 PM EST

Perhaps we should just apply normal supply and demand thinking to food, head and water too when the time comes.

People don't know the value of anything.

The crux of this crisis is far more complex than is being discussed here.

For every person that decides not to take a vacation trip because of gas prices, I'm sorry, but there is someone out there who is starting to be confronted with a very different decision. Public transportation is not available to me, and the price of gas is starting to make employment itself a losing proposition for me.

Barney Frank was trying to point this out to Bill Maher last year, how people think about gas, how infrastructure exists in America, and how it's different in Europe where large cities exist closer together, and public transportation exists for suburbs as well as inner cities.

And I genuinely think the centrist position here is dismissed with much the same look of bemusement as Bill Maher had when Barney was trying to explain this to him.

Listen. Gas isn't food.

Gas isn't a flat screen TV either.

It exists somewhere in between. And I think gas is factored, at least until the entire infrastructure of American can be overhauled and turned into a puedo-Eropean exurban whatever you want to call it, gas qualifies as part of the cost of living.

While it's great that the high price of gas might make some curtail their overconsumption, it might make less folks buy stupid cars, there are still people who are getting hurt by high gas prices in a way I know people don't intend.

I like to think a progressive community is better than this.

Speaking only for myself, the cost of living made going on a vacation for us prohibitive a long time ago.

At this point, 4 dollar gas isn't keeping me from going on vacation, it's keeping me from buy our 2 year old a bathing suit so we can take her in a wading pool.

But that's fine. We'll get by. We don't really NEED that either.

I guess.

Definitely troubling (5.00 / 3) (#103)
by chrisvee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST

What are people to do when they live in areas with poor, inefficient, or expensive public transportation? Or non-existent public transportation? It's not always a matter of eliminating wasteful trips or buying a more efficient vehicle. Without a proper transportation infrastructure, how does one make it to work each day? Must we all live within walking distance of our places of employment?

[ Parent ]

Ed, I'm with you on this (5.00 / 3) (#110)
by MMW on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:50:42 PM EST

I'd love to take a political, or environmental stand on this, but I can't.

I've been joking at work the last couple weeks that I'm going to have to quit, use my vacation time or take a sabatical if gas prices go any higher.

The f--ed up thing is, it's really hurting right now.

[ Parent ]

Wow! Great post Edgar. And I agree, for a lot (5.00 / 3) (#112)
by leis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM EST

of people it takes gas to get to work to earn money to pay the bills. When the money they earn isn't covering the rise in gas prices, what is a working family to do? Like you said there are people who have given up all the frills, this is a necessity.

[ Parent ]

When you use supply and demand (5.00 / 4) (#115)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM EST

To curtail consumption at one end of the market you have to concede you are pricing some people totally out of the market altogether.

And nobody here has been willing to admit America doesn't have the public transportation infrastructure to handle that.

[ Parent ]

: Shift workers, weekend workers, rural poor (5.00 / 3) (#119)
by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST

The five "big" cities in my state, all 90K pop or less, have horrible bus systems that shut down at 6:00 p.m.; the small towns have nothing. And many rural people have to drive 45 minutes just to get to a place with a gas station and a supermarket. High gas prices leave those people stranded and helpless to do anything about it.

[ Parent ]

Then come up with sensible policies in response (none / 0) (#108)
by rilkefan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST

instead of this pander which won't help the problem, as has been repeatedly explained here.

[ Parent ]

It's a short term solution (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST

If it was a long term solution, fine.

And you can criticize a policy without resorting to that pejorative (pander).

That's if you want me to take anything but a defensive posture towards your criticism.

[ Parent ]

: Since you're ignoring the substance (none / 0) (#125)
by rilkefan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:51:04 PM EST

of the argument - that it's not even a short-term solution - you're not in a defensive posture, but an ostrich posture.

[ Parent ]

You can't be serious. (none / 0) (#117)
by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:06:26 PM EST

Uh...yes. Of course we should. We don't really have any choice.

The government isn't magic. It can't produce food, heat and water out of thin air. It can implement policies that affect supply and demand, but it cannot break the pricing relationship between them, no matter how hard it tries. When you have a situation in which demand outpaces supply, the only possible remedy is higher prices...no matter how much pain that produces.

Unfortunately, we are entering a period where the demand for energy is rapidly outstripping the supply. China and India have 3 billion people between them, and they all want to live like we do. There is no possible way for supply to keep up with that kind of growth, so higher prices are the only way forward.

And yeah, a lot of things are going to have to change to accommodate these new prices. And there's going to be a lot of pain. On the plus side, you'll have some great stories to tell your grandchildren.

[ Parent ]

You can't start pricing individuals (5.00 / 2) (#118)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09:23 PM EST

Out of the food and heat market.

You're not talking about pain. You're talking about a Malthusian breakdown of society.

Interesting stories indeed.

I think we can do better.

[ Parent ]

When I was a kid, in the 70's, (none / 0) (#120)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST

I remember the highest priced gas anywhere in town was, wait for it, 35 cents gallon.

Previous to that "shortage" gas was in the teens. iow, the price doubled w/in what seemed like months, iirc. And kept going up from there.

Note the Malthusian breakdown of society that occurred then, and since then, because of similarly rising gas prices.

My kindergartener just brought home Henny Penney last week. It seems appropriate.

[ Parent ]

Have you even considered (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by hookfan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST

how retirees on fixed incomes will begin to survive continued energy price hikes? Look at what's happening happening at food banks right now. They're strapped and middle income people are showing up now in greater proportions.
I live in a small town working class environment. People are already turning to barter to offset price hikes in food they can't afford. Forget about vacations. And you can forget about levies needed for schools too.
My wife works for a local newspaper. The current year's income from realestate advertisements is down, carlots adds are down 20% and falling, small local shops are stopping advertising. It's not pretty. The hospital is suffering budget shortfalls because people can't pay the medical costs.
Pain isn't starting- it's here and worsening. If something isn't done about costs (anything) people will be contemplating the alternatives to starvation and death by freezing, or neglect. The anger is growing and something needs to be done NOW to avert the real potential for social disaster.

[ Parent ]

: Have you even considered (none / 0) (#133)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20:17 AM EST

that there were retirees living on fixed incomes during the energy price hikes of the 70's and 80's as well?
No one said it would not be difficult, it is and always will be.

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, we can. (none / 0) (#121)
by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:21:16 PM EST

And even more unfortunately, we'll probably have no choice, at least on a global scale.

It won't be so bad for people here. I seriously doubt we'll see people starving in the US. We're still a very wealthy country. But we will have to make some serious changes to how we live. This whole notion of a commuter society will probably have to go. It's just too energy inefficient. That doesn't have to be a bad thing in the long run, but there's no escaping a lot of transitional pain.

But India? Wow. I have no idea how they'll keep that ship afloat. 2 billion people, and 30% of them in poverty. That's a situation that'll make Thomas proud.

The only way to 'do better' is to either have fewer people or more energy. The former is pretty much out of the question, at least for the moment. Scientists are working on the latter just as hard as they can, and hopefully they'll come up with something, but until then, all we can do is raise the price.

[ Parent ]

McCain is ALREADY introducing this. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST

He's got the amendment written and out there.

"U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today called on Senate colleagues to join him in supporting the Kyl-McCain amendment to H.R. 1195, the Highway Technical Corrections Bill. The Gas Tax Holiday Amendment would suspend the 18.4 cents per gallon Federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day 2008.
The attached letters were delivered to Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) earlier today."

Hillary is trying to get some backing to tie it to a windfall profits tax or at least cutting out the tax relief the Repubs gave the oil companies. Does anyone seriously think this amendment WON'T pass? In an election year?

I really don't agree with Hillary (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST

There's no great solution for this though, and it's probably a useful pander.

Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST

Hillary's plan is ludicrous, and she's smart enough to know it. This is pander, pure and simple.

There's only one answer to this problem, and it's one nobody wants to hear.

[ Parent ]

Which is what? (none / 0) (#8)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST

People stop driving?

[ Parent ]

Ever been to europe? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST

people drive smaller cars. That's the long term solution.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#29)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM EST

I know that.

I have been to Europe.

[ Parent ]

Didn't mean to sound condescending (none / 0) (#33)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST

I think the situation was similar here in the early 1980s.

Smaller cars are better now, though.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#36)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM EST

And looked what happened to the last Dem President who asked America to conserve.

[ Parent ]

Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:16:39 PM EST

I don't have much nice to say about him, but he was right on conservation.

[ Parent ]

He was right on the issue (none / 0) (#44)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:14 PM EST

But he only lasted one term because of it.

Being right and giving up control to Republicans for the next 12 years adds up to being wrong.

[ Parent ]

You think he lost because of this single issue? (none / 0) (#47)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST

I sure don't.

[ Parent ]

: He lost because of the hostages (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:23:13 PM EST

in Iran.

[ Parent ]
: I think it was a big part of it (none / 0) (#56)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST

Gas lines was not a minor issue.

[ Parent ]

If there aren't roads or bridges to drive on... (none / 0) (#15)
by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:19 PM EST

...because they've crumbled away, yes. They'll have to stop driving.

The main reason to scapegoat the gas tax is that you view it as a socialistic state-sponsored use-based road building tax. Interestingly enough, that's also the main reason to like it.

[ Parent ]

Transferring that cost (none / 0) (#19)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:44 PM EST

Onto the Oil Companies sounds good to me.

[ Parent ]

That won't be happening before this summer. (none / 0) (#21)
by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:35 PM EST

Nevermind.

Leftist blogs do not understand this issue.

Jimmy Carter tried conservation, you folks want a one term president, fine.

[ Parent ]

the shift to nowhere. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST

Well, you shifted from being against Big Oil to mocking the ignorance of "leftist blogs," but there's still no explanation of the realistic way to make up the tax revenue and keep federal transportation projects from crumbling.

A gas tax cut is bad policy. It's among the worse taxes to cut, both because of the revenue and the social/economic consequences. Nowhere on this thread have you engaged with an actual, realistic argument. You should start doing that.

[ Parent ]

I'm looking for someone else (none / 0) (#59)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:23:47 PM EST

To explain how it's bad policy.

Nobody has done that either.

[ Parent ]

I don't know if I qualify as 'someone else'... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:32:01 PM EST

But it's clearly bad policy.

Here's the problem: Gas prices are too high.

Why are they too high? Because lots of people want gas, and there's a limited supply of it.

So how can you lower the price? Either get people to want less of it, or make more of it.

Hillary's gas holiday accomplishes neither. Thus, it is bad policy. Which, I'm sad to say, doesn't mean it's bad politics. As a vote getter, it might actually work. But it won't do a thing about gas prices.

[ Parent ]

Well now I finally see why people are (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST

Supporting Obama.

He can get people to want less by making a speech.

It's not something people want.

It's something people need. This is what folks don't get.

Do you understand the difference between a need and a want.

Do you understand the difference between heating a house and buying flat screet TV?

[ Parent ]

: It doesn't matter. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:42:16 PM EST

The laws of supply and demand don't change just because something is perceived as a need. Gas prices cannot come down until either demand lowers or supply increases. They simply can't.
You're saying that the demand cannot go down, because gas is a need. Fair enough. In which case supply must go up. If Hillary is really serious about bringing prices down, she'll present a plan that includes more refineries, and more drilling. Not silly tax holidays.

[ Parent ]

Bingo. (none / 0) (#74)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:35:31 PM EST

Reasons throughout the thread (none / 0) (#62)
by rilkefan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:27:11 PM EST

Starting with comment #1.

[ Parent ]

That isn't true. (none / 0) (#63)
by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:29:01 PM EST

BTD has done so, multiple times. I have done so. Many people have done so. You just find it impossible to engage in that discussion because you have no reasonable, implementable solution of your own.

And besides, your main gripe -- with your non-sequiter carping about Carter's "conservation" -- appears to be that it's bad politics, not bad policy.

[ Parent ]

: Bad Politics is bad policy in this case (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:31:02 PM EST

If Democrats are branded as the party that impacts Quality of Life. The party of limitted choices.

[ Parent ]

One Termer? (none / 0) (#95)
by CoralGables on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM EST

I will always take a one termer that is right rather than a two termer like Bush that is repeatedly wrong.

[ Parent ]

Close. (none / 0) (#18)
by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST

Global demand must be kept in alignment with global supply. And given that demand is going gangbusters while supply remains relatively static, that means higher prices. Much higher prices.

[ Parent ]

I find 'pander' a bit too cynical. (none / 0) (#81)
by Mark Woods on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST

Instead, I think 'savvy' and 'sophisticated' are the qualities I see in Hillary here, since she seized the opportunity to give people only a wise politician can convey, which is a sense that she 'cares'.

Obama responded to the issue, not to the gut need of Americans to have someone take a genuine interest in their injuries (real or imagined).

Obama needs to not be less intellectual, as some have said: smart is good, if balanced with compassion, a balance Hillary and Bill often exude.

The public reminds me of a hurting and bewildered child at times. But in the same way we patiently forgive and overlook and sometimes indulge children, Americans are looking for a little surrogate parent-kindness now and then in our leaders, not a sterile, 'grin & take your medicine' approach.

[ Parent ]

Hillary doesn't agree with Hillary either (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:58 PM EST

Campaigning in the Hudson Valley, Lazio continued a two-day assault on Clinton's support of maintaining the 18-cent federal gas tax and then used tough rhetoric to declare that "trust" and "character" were campaign issues during an evening fundraiser in Manhattan that raised more that $1 million.
Clinton, meanwhile, lashed out at Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax, calling it "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies."
During a visit to a shopping mall in the Buffalo suburbs, Clinton said that "the gas tax is one of the few exceptions where we actually get more money back than we send to Washington."

that was in 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST

don't play those games here.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:19 PM EST

I'm curious, did you even take a look at where gas prices were in 2000? Or is it too much fun playing Tim Russert by springing little gotchas with no context?

[ Parent ]

To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#22)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:34 PM EST

her position then is consistent with her position now -- she was running for New York State Senator and if New York benefited from the gas tax her supporting it then is different than opposing it now, when she's running for President of the whole country.

Nor are the conditions the same now as they were in 2000 -- the gas situation is cutting much more deeply into the many peoples' pockets now.

[ Parent ]

: IIRC, Obama voted for one when (none / 0) (#93)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:10:48 PM EST

he was in the state senate . . .

[ Parent ]

Hillary's pander is harmful (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST

policy. Obama is right.

As politics, I do not know.

[ Parent ]

Hillary's plan contains far more (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST

things than the gas tax. Did you read it?

She also has a plan for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

[ Parent ]

The reason that isn't coming up is that... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST

...Hillary's plan makes up the shortfall with a windfall tax on Big Oil.

However, her total plan cannot be enacted this year because she's not president yet.

But she still wants the gas tax to be rescinded this summer, absent the rest of her plan, which provided the extra cash for federal project.

So, her plan is irrelevant to this discussion because she's trying to institute piecemeal, for political gain, what she CLEARLY knows (proved by the wording of the plan, in fact) is a whole package deal.

[ Parent ]

: The gas tax holiday (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST

is already going to happen. Clinton is trying get the idea in the public mind that Dems support this, we are not tax-and-spend, but that it has to be paid for somehow. She is not instituting it, McCain and the Republicans are; she's responding to the political reality that it's going to pass and be very very popular.

[ Parent ]

Bad link (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST

Hillary's energy plan.

[ Parent ]

The controversy is on the gas tax holiday (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:13:41 PM EST

You quote Clinton criticizing Obama for not supporting a gas tax holiday.

Clinton is pandering on this. With bad policy.

[ Parent ]

that's only one part of her plan (none / 0) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST

You don't call a whole plan bad policy if you are only referring to a portion of it. My post included a link to her entire plan.

[ Parent ]

I was calling the gas tax holiday bad policy (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST

I am still calling it bad policy.

[ Parent ]

But you don't explain why (none / 0) (#49)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST

It's a problem, it's that blogging thing where repeating something over and over again just makes it so.

I'd like to know in detail what horrible things are going to happen to America if this policy was enacted?

[ Parent ]

People have given you a number of reasons (none / 0) (#54)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM EST

Here's one I haven't seen yet: long term, lowering the price of gas temporarily (or ever) is a bad idea. Burning more gas accelerates global warming.

[ Parent ]

I know that (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST

So support Obama then. Cause he's the magical guy who can get Americans to drive less by making a speech about it.

[ Parent ]

This is candidate cultism at its finest (none / 0) (#72)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:34:53 PM EST

I can support a candidate and say she's wrong in a particular issue.

[ Parent ]

: It's not a freakin' long term solution (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:36:25 PM EST

Wrong in a way that makes criticizing it sound pernicious.
Yeah, if she was saying this will solve all our problems, great.
Have at it.

[ Parent ]

It is a bad idea because (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:22:39 PM EST

it will increase demand, lose necessary revenue for roads and set a bad example and precedent for dealing with knotty problems.

I also do not necessarily think it is good politics.

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:29:39 PM EST

Gas isn't a luxury, people buy just as much as they think they need.

Not as much as they think they want.

Commercial supply/demand paradigm doesn't work here. It just doesn't. It's not like a flat screen TV or a trip to Tahiti or something. That's what I mean when I say leftist blogs don't get it. Gas is perceived to be bread and butter, not diamonds and pearls here in America. Yes. In Europe, it's different.

Revenue for roads can be obtained by taxing the oil companies.

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST

Why is it that every time SUSA asks people about their summer plans, people say that gas prices have caused them to cancel their summer trips?

People need to use a certain amount of gas, but as you reduce the price, people take more unnecessary trips and drive bigger cars.

[ Parent ]

Tell you what (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:40:30 PM EST

Take this seriously, OK.

Jeralyn writes this above:

I'm paying attention to this because I was not happy when I filled up my tank Saturday and it came to $65.00.

Now. Tell her she didn't have to do that if she didn't want to.

Take that seriously.

Go tell Jeralyn that she only did that because she wanted to. Not because she needed to.

[ Parent ]

: I'm in total agreement with Ed (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by MMW on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM EST

I have to buy gas. I work an hour from home in an area where the minimal public transportation that's available, is more expensive and less reliable if I have an emergency, than driving to and from work. Not to mention the site visits I have to drive to.
Gas is not a luxury. If I knew the prices were going to be lower for three months. I'd put the extra cash towards paying off bills. I'd definitely not be hitting the road. I'd love to change my driving habits (drive less) but I don't even visit friends and family.

[ Parent ]

If gas is too high for trips now (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM EST

the gas tax holiday won't change that, but will offer relief to people who have to drive. If the gas is going up another 50 cents and people have already changed their plans, do you think they will reconsider when gas will only be 32 cents a gallon more?

[ Parent ]

Whether we pay directly at the pump (none / 0) (#70)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:34:27 PM EST

or indirectly by the oil co's, we still pay.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#73)
by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:35:07 PM EST

In what way do "leftist blogs" not get that gas is a necessity for most of us, in what way does very temporarily (gas has proven to sell @ $3.55, so it will) reducing the price of gas 18 cents fix the problem, and in what way are we going to start taxing Big Oil's profits before this summer?

[ Parent ]

ok, it's clear now (none / 0) (#86)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST

you are referring to the gas tax cut part of her plan, not the whole plan.

Personally, I'd like a gas tax cut. I think a lot of folks are like me, thinking about it from the standpoint of our wallets right now, not larger issues involving long term solutions.

[ Parent ]

: Personally I'd like an income tax cut (none / 0) (#91)
by rilkefan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:54:54 PM EST

But as a citizen I don't support that because, well, that kind of policy preference would make me a Republican.

[ Parent ]

The part she points to in her ads (none / 0) (#39)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:14:26 PM EST

regards the gas tax. I think that's bad policy.

[ Parent ]

Exactly....Read It...It Won't Hurt You....Step (none / 0) (#46)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST

into the light...

[ Parent ]

Hillary is probably not helping herself (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM EST

with Al Gore.

[ Parent ]

She should not be helping herself with any of us (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:56 PM EST

This is weak stuff.

[ Parent ]

: It's stupid (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:44 PM EST

And I know you won't be consoled by the fact that it will never ever happen.

[ Parent ]

Right about what? (none / 0) (#28)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:09:31 PM EST

n/t.

[ Parent ]

The gas tax holiday is bad policy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST

It's short term (none / 0) (#32)
by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:12:11 PM EST

What horrible thing will happen to America if it's enacted?

[ Parent ]

Obama can't win even if he's right. (none / 0) (#89)
by Mark Woods on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:44:44 PM EST

because to deny a tax break for Moms and truck drivers while watching the Bush cronies ride into the sunset with multi-million $$ tax breaks makes Obama look like a mean person, not a nice, kind person -- in other words if he responds he can't win, either way. Very good politics for Hillary, whether it ever happens or not.

[ Parent ]

: Who are the cronies? (none / 0) (