I'd also be concerned that it's not just gas, it's the cost of groceries. I might even realize that the price of everything is going to go up because everything is flown, shipped or driven from one point to another these days and sellers' and transporters' fuel costs are going up which will be passed on to consumers.

I'm confused by people criticizing Hillary for taking this position, since McCain's Gas Tax Holiday Amendment should pass the House and Senate easily in an election year. I want a President who can count noses and see where an issue is going and then steal that issue right out from under the Republicans' noses. She's working so hard to change the conversation, "Okay, that's a short term help--now how do we pay for it and what's the long term solution?" Standing on principle is great, but people listen to you more if they feel that you're trying to help them some.

To my liberal elitist mind, having gas cost a lot has its benefits. And economic theory dictates that the price of gasoline won't drop by very much. So my initial belief is that this is a bad idea.

However, Clinton's plan seems harmless to me. Since it's paid for, the worst it does is nothing. (Or it's "pointless", as Krugman says.) And who knows? Maybe it will have an effect on prices.

if they lower the tax, demand will increase, but without an actual increase in supply, the prices will only go back up, causing more profits for the oil companies, and a budget short fall for the government, meaning that the taxpayers will foot the bill to pay for funds to the highway funds that were taken.

so we don't decrease prices, give oil companies MORE profits, and taxpayers get a $10 billion shortfall to pay for.

Here's Krugman

Otherwise we would have to endure more boring debates where absolutely nothing happens and we learn absolutely nothing about the candidates.

To urban folks like myself, who are fortunate to be able to drive less or afford paying more, higher gas prices are annoying but not much else. We may even think that they're good, as they reduce pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. We probably use less gasoline than average.

On the other hand, for those who have to watch their budgets more or live/work in places where using a lot of gasoline is almost required (rural areas where everything is far apart and there's no real public transportation, farms where machinery consumes a lot of gas), it's a different story. For the rural folks, gasoline is a real necessity. You simply have to have it, and not only that, you need a lot more of it than the average urban resident.

My guess is that you'd read columns like today's piece by Thomas Friedman in the NYT, where he derides the idea of a gas tax reprieve, and disdainfully implies that the only benefit will be to make it cheaper to drive to the beach, in disbelief. I can't help but think that the column is amazingly condescending to people who (1) don't live anywhere near a beach, (2) can't afford a vacation, and (3) pay a heck of a lot for gas at it is.

As someone pointed out, the gas tax is very regressive. Ordinarily, replacing a regressive tax with a tax on oil companies would be a no-brainer for Democrats, even if the overall effect is diminished by a subsequent change in gas prices. The gas tax's only real benefit is the negative incentive on driving that it produces. At some point, given the hard economic times, it's worth considering where the balance lies.

The key premise, though, is "windfall profits." What is that?

Economists, armed with their 19th-century science, and progressive Obama supporters no doubt, will come out of the woodwork to suggest that profits are what they are because the market demands/bears it. Or, to tell us all that taxation of capital sinks the ship that carries us all to wealth and prosperity. There are no "windfall profits!"

W/E.

This hurts my common sense, and frankly, it hurts my economic situation too since I, like thousands of others, rely on that money for a job.

Want to go after windfall profits to force reinvestment into alternative sources for energy that will create new jobs and give the economy a "real" lift, now there is an idea.  Robbing from Peter to pay Paul only  makes Peter ask for more "donations" from his flock to cover his losses.  If we are going to pay for windfall profits we may as try and force some new jobs out of it.

1. Oil companies will not reap the benefits, they will be taxed instead.  No net loss of income to infrastructure repair.
   
2. I believe that Clinton is looking at other funding mechanisms for infrastructure to replace this regressive tax in conjunction with the windfall profits tax.
   
3. There will be some help to those that depend on their vehicles (truckers, farmers,etc.) and at a minimum, people will feel that the government is helping them.  This is important.
   
4. I don't think that people will drive more, I don't think that it is enough to cut the cost to allow that.
   
5. There will be other methods and modes both fuel and type of travel to replace internal combustion vehicles.  This is a step to move on other fronts for funding those.
   
6. Clinton has a comprehensive energy plan and this is just part of her short term proposal.
   
7. The Dems will look good, and Bush and Repubs will look bad if he vetoes and they uphold his veto.  Otherwise, how bipartisan is this if it does pass in its entirety.