home

Obama Backed Tempory Suspension of Gas Tax in Ill. Senate

Barack Obama has been blasting the temporary lifting of gas taxes as political gamesmanship and bad economic sense. He didn't always. While in the Illinois Senate, he woted for it.

Available on Lexis.com: Chicago Defender July 1, 2000,

While Gov. George H. Ryan signed legislation suspending Illinois' five percent sales tax on gasoline for six months and issued an executive order creating state monitoring teams, Mayor Richard M. Daley Thursday vowed to keep an eagle eye on gas prices in Chicago.

Some people opposed it. Among their arguments:

Dr. Quentin Young, chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, who said those funds are earmarked for health, education, and human services.

He called the passage of the state's six-month gas tax reduction nothing more than a "pre-November election states-manship" saying this will only force the legislature to compensate in other ways while "compromising the health of Illinois residents with future raids of the tobacco settlement funds and other state-funded programs."

Where was Obama on the issue?

Senators Kimberly A. Lightford (D-4th) and Barack Obama (D-13th) said the bill gives customers needed temporary relief from high gas prices. "Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas," said Obama.

What happened: [more...]

The bill passed the Democrat-controlled House by a 106-5 vote and in the Republican-controlled Senate, by a vote of 55-1. Ryan signed Senate Bill 1310 hours later just a few weeks after Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon signed his emergency order that suspending his five percent gas sales tax for 60-days.

How did Obama vote? Copley News Service March 8, 2000,

Senate Bill 1310, sponsored by Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, would eliminate the state sales tax on gasoline beginning Oct. 1. The Illinois Senate passed the legislation Wednesday. It now goes to the House.

Yes - 50 No - 0
Present - 6
Excused/Not Voting - 3

The votes are listed individually, Obama voted yes.

In November, 2000, a bill came up to eliminate the gas tax. AP, November 15, 2000

The Illinois Senate voted 46-12 Wednesday for SB1867, a measure to eliminate the state sales tax on gasoline. Voting "yes" were 31 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Voting "no" were 1 Republican and 11 Democrats.

Obama was one of the 11 voting no. But that was a bill to permanently eliminate the state's sales tax on gas, not suspend it. Even then Gov. George Ryan opposed the permanent elimination of the tax. (AP, Nov. 29, 2000.)

CBS News says Obama voted for the temporary lifting of the tax three times in the State Senate.

Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”

Update: Comments now closed.

< Hillary and Obama Speak at NC Jefferson Jackson Dinner | Politics Has Always Been Stupid >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Brava Jeralyn!!! (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    I bet he wishes he voted present!

    I was just thinking the same thing. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:58:39 PM EST
    Where's a former non-position when you need it?

    [ Parent ]
    Is Issuing An Additional $100 Rebate And Paying (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    it out of the transportation fund your idea or Obama's? Because Obama is say that reducing the revenue of the transportation fund would cost 6,000 jobs and would prevent needed road work to be done. Of course even that is a false premise, since Hillary's plan would not reduce the revenues to the transportation fund. She would replace the revenue with a tax on the oil companies.

    [ Parent ]
    Defending Obama (none / 0) (#79)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    is fine but if you are going to do it get your facts straight about the candidate you are attacking. Part of HRC's proposal was to make up the lost revenue by taxing the oil companies. We all know that that isn't going to fly with the Bush/Cheney cabal or with the do nothing Democratic "leadership" in congress which has already said that it is a non-starter. So here we are with no solution to a problem and what is Sen. Obama's solution? I don't think I have heard one.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    But he did leave the door open ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    ... and thus let all those chirping crickets inside.

    [ Parent ]
    How about some links (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:34:13 AM EST
    to back up your math. However, one other fact that both you and I had wrong was HRC's final vote on the bankruptcy bill. As Mo Blue has so graciously pointed out, Sen. Clinton was in NYC that day due to Pres. Clinton's illness but she did put up a good fight to protect us. As to your last paragraph, "imploring" me "to rethink the anger and sniping" is condescending and insulting. If, by pointing out your errors, you get your "feelings" hurt, you need a thicker skin (excuse the cliche). And I hope you have enjoyed your evening here and possibly learned something. Have a good night. ;-)
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    She proposes even more than that (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by BernieO on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:05:12 AM EST
    In addition to a windfall profits tax, she also proposed releasing some of our oil reserves to reduce the inflationary pressure from lack of supply, pressuring OPEC, and - my favorite - investigating charges that there is Enron-style manipulation of the market. Just the threat of these kinds of actions could be enough to cause the oil companies to ease up on prices. The last thing they want is an investigation or a tax. And heavens knows they are making enough profit to afford to lower prices.

    Because the price of oil is behind a lot of the inflation in food and other goods, it is not a bad idea to take steps to temporarily reduce it. This could help take some air out of the the inflationary bubble, which is an immediate, serious threat to our economy. Just the psychological effect from a slowing of inflation would help stabilize things. This is not intended to be a long term solution, but Hillary offers plenty of those, too.

    [ Parent ]

    I Posted This Article In One Of My Comments (none / 0) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:36 PM EST
    on HuffPost...still waiting to see if anyone responds with anything besides a shreik.  Now I know why obama and john kerry are so tight; they give each other flip-flopping lessons!

    [ Parent ]
    Barack doesn't flip-flop (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    He waffles.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you Jeralyn! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Josey on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM EST
    I'd read it somewhere, but couldn't remember.
    But what I read - he voted 3 times for gas tax holiday.
    Maybe it was all related to the same bill.


    TPM 's Obamatons are doing spread sheets (none / 0) (#62)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    trying to show how little it puts into the economy, yada yada. I put that little item about him voting for gas tax holiday. 300 comments later, it might be the last.

    Hillary has some vicious people out there. YIKES !
    I've had it with his people.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:00:33 PM EST
    The talking point is that he thought it would work in Illinois, but he found out it didn't and now he's learned from his mistake.

    It actually kind of bothers me that my fellow progressives can be so credulous.

    Then why hasn't he been saying that (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nycstray on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:53 PM EST
    instead of calling it a gimmick and saying it will cost 6,0000 jobs?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama made a mistake? (none / 0) (#9)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST
    Did he admit to that?
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    Maybe He Would Admit That Mistake When (none / 0) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    there is a cold day in hell.  obama doesn't hold himself accountable for anything!

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#222)
    by BlueMainer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:45:36 AM EST
    Obama's experience with the gas tax holiday puts him in the position of making a better judgment call than Clinton or McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama the flip flopper (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST
    Has he proposed any solution to reducing the pain at the pump? And come this Winter heating oil prices are going to be a major issue. What are his proposals to help people who won't be able to heat their homes never mind drive their cars? At least HRC offered up some controls on the oil companies. Does Obama oppose that as well?
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    I think his proposal... (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    ... had something to do with eating cake.

    [ Parent ]
    He supported (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM EST
     the Cheney energy bill. So the Marie Antoinette position would be appropriate.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    Give it up, will you? (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:11 PM EST
    Or go to a more receptive site, where your myriad excuses for Sen. Obama are welcomed with open arms. Most people who post here are highly intelligent, and I daresay that few of them appreciate your lectures, myself included.

    And in case you haven't noticed, Obama voted for Dick Cheney's pork-barrel energy bill. So there.

    [ Parent ]

    PushPol (none / 0) (#221)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:37:56 AM EST
    Why doesn't your "best case scenario" include the 24.4 diesel tax that shippers/truckers pay?

    Reduce diesel by 24.4 cents and you have a reduced ripple effect for everything that is shipped by trucks.

    [ Parent ]

    About Clinton's Support Of The Bankruptcy (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:44:50 AM EST
    bill.

    In the days before S.256 was finally brought to the floor Senator Clinton voted for every amendment which would have added consumer protections to the bankruptcy bill. Amendments which were repeatedly rejected by both the Republican majority and far too many Democrats. She even voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
    ...
    Senator Clinton was not there--the day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it.

    From Senator Clinton's official statement on the bill:

    This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.Link



    [ Parent ]
    FWIW -- I'm am a bk attorney (5.00 / 7) (#191)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:12:41 AM EST
    and Hillary's statement about BAPCPA is spot on -- almost everyone who could file ch. 7 pre-10/05 still can, BAPCPA just makes it more complicated & expensive --  which is a travesty, as the law is supposed to  help "the honest but unfortunate debtor" (and for the record, all of my clients are just that, despite the stereotype obviously held by those who voted for BAPCPA that filers are "irresponsible bums"-- btw no. 1 reason for filing is overwhelming medical bills -- UHC could help that doncha think?). Hillary's well reasoned opposition to BAPCPA is one of the many reasons I support her (and my opinion of Obama wasn't helped by his refusal to vote for a cap on credit card interest rates especially given his bs excuse that he didn't vote for it because the rate was "still too high" wtf? better that the sky be the limit?)

    [ Parent ]
    Do you understand how silly (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:49:30 AM EST
    that little lesson in history is in the context of the discussion? The fact that Marie Antoinette didn't actually say "let them eat cake" is irrelevant to the discussion -- the expression itself has become iconic & everyone recognizes what it means -- because even though she didn't actually say those words, her lifestyle exemplified their meaning.  

    [ Parent ]
    Again! (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:59:04 AM EST
    Another Obama supporter who doesn't understand the difference between elite and elitism.

    I agree that Senators get drilled in the GE because over time they leave behind a record subject to easy misinterpretation and attack. That's why Obama decided to run when he first entered the US Senate.  Didn't want anything messy like an actual record lying about. He knew he could probably skate by with empty, meaningless rhetoric; a candidacy about nothing.

    And that's why PushPol should understand that there is a trail even in Obama's spotty record that is fair game. If Obama and his supporters want to take shots at the gas tax suspension they should reasonably expect to take incoming for their candidate's hypocrisy.

    PushPol should have been more forthright in admitting that Obama's three votes in the Illinois legislature on a related issue did in fact occur.  

    PushPol should also recognize that Clinton's recomendation that taxing the oil companies to make up the lost revenue cancels Obama's disingenuous claim that 6,000 jobs would be lost nor would this tax close the door on future review of Oil company taxation.

    On the whole energy matter PushPol should come clean and admit the fact that Obama supported a Cheney energy bill.  Was Obama's support a payback to one of his major supporters; the nuclear power industry?

    If PushPol is any kind of progressive he/she should recognize that usage taxes like the federal gas tax are regressive in nature and disproportionally fall on middle and low income people.  Replacing regressive taxes with an addition to progressive taxes on oil companies may be a step in the right direction.

    PushPol's comments are further evidence that criticism of the Precious based on evidence is out of line, a significant article of the Obama rules.

    So PushPol, have we discussed the Roberts confirmation lately?

    [ Parent ]

    I recall the fuss (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    when Clinton dipped into the SPR and caught hell for it. But it appeared to panic the oil companies into reducing prices for petrol.

    Obama doesn't even care enough to appear to care.
    He's "happy enough" to have people suffer from high prices.  That much is obvious.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't ever use the term flip flopper (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    1.  It gives credibility to the language the right uses (think partial-birth abortion...no such thing).  I for one am not a proponent of that.

    2. Since when did changing one's mind a sign of weakness?  We can see when 'resolve' or stubborn-headedness has done to the USA since 2001.

    If BHO did change his mind well he would have to defend his reasons why.  But I don't begrudge someone who changes their mind on a subject.

    Are we going to call BHO supporters who change and support HRC flip-floppers?  

    [ Parent ]

    when they asked Hillary to give up her (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:08:07 PM EST
    campaign, they stopped being Democrats for me.
    They became Republican lite.

    That means they understand the term  flip flop.

    If they were civil not calling Hillary evil, or a bunch of nasty names, I would feel out of line calling them anything, but they asked for it.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:31:22 PM EST
    about asking her to step down from her campaign.  Man the D's are acting like R's when those type of stmts are made.

    I think that a lot of the party big whigs saw that too.  Those kind of calls can piss off a lot of solid dem voters:  WOMEN

    [ Parent ]

    Can?? (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:22:46 AM EST
    I think that a lot of the party big whigs saw that too.  Those kind of calls can piss off a lot of solid dem voters:  WOMEN

    Too late, they already have...   I know I am not pleased and my girlfriends are not either!!

    The DNC and SD's are really making me feel frustrated!!

    When Andrew did his thing this week, I can not put into words what I thought of him...  he is just an example of why the party is hurting.  His reasoning may reap the rewards of his support for Obama... female defection.  

    When you consider the merits of the support, ugh.  Too many SD's have nothing substantial or personal in their choice.  They either say  "this prolonged primary is hurting the party"  or "Hillary is a divisive person and is too negative"

    What a crock! These are sock puppet statements.  Even Bill Richardson reduced himself to say that the Clinton's were trying to be monarch like...  I need to find that interview...  I could not believe my ears!

    This is just insane and disappointing.  I see Hillary out there stumping and talking about what her plans are and I see Onbama saying we need to get over these distractions, Hillary is attacking me...

    I hope I am not too off topic...  This just grabbed me.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:07:30 AM EST
    that you don't think I was diminishing the effects of this kind of thinking by saying 'can'.

    I am a HUGE supporter of HRC and women or ANY human being running for office for the betterment of others, not just a select few.

    Trust me, between my Mom, sisters and my coworkers, who are ALL female (coworkers) they get so upset with all the sexism.

    Sorry to be O/T, but I just wanted to clarify/solidify my solidarity with women in this election.

    [ Parent ]

    I accept (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:35:40 AM EST
    your explanation.  I did really feel the need to convey the seriousness of the level of frustration I feel.  

    My support for Hillary has nothing to do with sexism, race, the reverend Wright or other "distractions" that Obama would like to claim.  

    I support Hillary because I am convinced that she has what our country needs.  Experience, connections, knowledge, intelligence, passion, energy and fortitude.  Her attention to detail and well rounded intelligence on the issues alone make her incredible.

    I have felt that Obama and his surrogates continually pander to her negatives and have exploited what the "vast right wing conspiracy" did to her when Bill was the President.  Obama and his surrogates have called her character into question every chance they get... yuck!  To top it off, the idea of dynasties and entitlement get thrown in for delicious contempt for those that feed on hate.  

    The irony is that in severing his ties with his only living father figure, Obama called Wright's comments divisive and pandering to hate...  Well, if that is the case, I guess Obama was a good pupil, because I think that he is pretty good at doing that himself, especially since he has convinced many that he is above all that.

    Again, I accept your words of support for HRC.  I hope you understand where I was coming from.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:05:29 AM EST
    understand your frustration.  Being a Chicano/Latino, it also seems that the DNC is more concerned with one group over ALL others.

    There's no explanation needed for THAT comment.  And I don't have to defend that statement.  Thankfully Hillary hasn't forgotten us.

    [ Parent ]

    And, and (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:10:09 AM EST
    being gay.  Chelsea (Clinton campaign) openly courts the GLBT vote while Barack is on stage with anti-gay religious figures like McClurkin.

    That sickens me to my core being.  That's the NUMBER one reason why I would never, ever vote for BHO.

    [ Parent ]

    This is what's wrong (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:22:22 AM EST
    Calling for her to withdraw by YOU or anyone else is a desperate measure that cuts off the voices of millions of voters who properly believe they have a right to be heard.

    Allowing the process to continue to a proper conclusion removes a possible Republican charge that Democrats deliberately cut out millions of voters.  Those who claim that the process damages the party have yet to advance any real proof or reason. The idea that McCain isn't being attacked is ludicrous. He is being attacked and if the party wants an assault on McCain 527s can certainly take up any perceived shortfall.  There will be plenty of time to attack McCain after the process is complete.

    In the meantime the GOP can't really zero in on a specific Democrat. Remember that the Swift Boat liars were formed when it was obvious that Kerry would be the nominee, well before the convention.

    One thing an Obama supporter should avoid at all costs is giving the GOP extra time to demolish Obama. They'll do a thorough disembowelling as it is, no need to allow time for them to raise it to an art form.

    proudliberalpatriot should recognize that beyond Leahy's foolish overt statement have been other elected officials like Richardson who have gleefully given the GOP ads by using terms like monarchy, entitlement, etc.  There have been numerous calls for Clinton to withdraw by the usual suspects in the blogosphere, in the world of print and broadcast "journalism" as well as continuous grousing from Obama supporters and I believe surrogates to that effect.  

    These damaging acts have come from the 'Obama Camp.'  

    [ Parent ]

    flip-flopping... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    comes from wind surfing lessons and/or hanging with John Kerry...it's the natural order of things.

    [ Parent ]
    Why he changed his mind... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM EST
    If BHO did change his mind well he would have to defend his reasons why.  But I don't begrudge someone who changes their mind on a subject.

    as far as I can tell, the main reason he changed his mind was to tie Clinton to McCain.  Obama consistently misrepresents Clinton's proposal, and makes it sound like McCains.  I don't think that is an inadvertent error on his part.

    Then again, it took him 20 years of knowing Jeremiah Wright to figure him out, so many being told "that is not Clinton's plan" will take a decade or two to sink in....

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    I also wonder if this tidbit doesn't somehow makes its way into the back and forth ad war now being waged. So, which judgment should we trust -- when he liked the gas tax suspension or when he didn't?

    Ad wars.... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    If the Clinton camp doesn't go after Obama big time on this, they're nuts.

    I mean, the ad writes itself...

    [ Parent ]

    against the tax before I was for the tax? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM EST
    Let them eat Gasoline!

    Factually correct and it also reminds everyone that he'll lose like Kerry.

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    He's the gift that keeps on giving.

    [ Parent ]
    It's psychology (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:01:00 PM EST
    as Anne posted below, it makes HRC look likes she cares about the working person who is being hit the hardest at the pump. Just like the bankruptcy bill, the bottom line is she voted against it, just like she voted against the Bush Co. energy bill that Sen. Obama voted for. It all goes to perception. And I'll ask you, as I have asked others here who are defending Sen. Obama, what is his proposal on the issue of rising gas prices?
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    You have been all over this blog (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:46:13 AM EST
    tonight, and now we have the evidence (above) to remind us of Clinton's actual stance on the bankruptcy bill, that she did not vote for it, etc.

    So you have lost all credibility here for everything else you have repeated and repeated and repeated.  Maybe best to come back another time under another name!

    [ Parent ]

    Did not vote for the bankruptcy (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    bill on final passage.  Of course, Bill was having open heart surgery during the vote so she didn't vote against it either.


    [ Parent ]
    Pandering... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    What takes the cake is that the legislature required gas stations to give them credit. Now that's world-class pandering.

    He renounces and rejects (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    his former support of the gas tax holiday.

    But I love the line about putting his name on the gas pumps. Clinton has to find a way to use that.

    he pressed the wrong button (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:16:48 PM EST
    redo!

    [ Parent ]
    "Hoosiers Loved Themselves" a Holiday (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM EST
    from the gas tax in 2000, we are reminded by Tapper.  Obama backing it for himself and Illinois before but not for the rest of us now may not be going over well.

    Me! Me! Me! (none / 0) (#225)
    by Josey on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:10:40 AM EST
    Good point!
    >>>>Obama backing it for himself and Illinois before but not for the rest of us now may not be going over well.

    Wanting his name on gas pumps in Illinois.

    [ Parent ]

    But but but.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    there are all those reasons not to have not voted for it back then...minus one.

    oops... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    too many "nots"

    [ Parent ]
    You're getting (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:44:59 PM EST
    yourself all twisted into "nots".
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    It's the student papers... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    They've got me confused coming and going...

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! I know -- every May (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:31 PM EST
    I find myself, at some point, having to take a break from papers before I start confusing "effect" and "affect," too.  And misusing apostrophes to the max.

    As soon as I'm done grading papers, I read a book by some really great writer, and it gets my spelling and punctuating mojo back. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I fixed myself a frozen margarita (none / 0) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:56:39 PM EST
    w/ salt as soon as I got home.

    But I'm suffering from SV agreement and verb tense issues.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, it gets to the point that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    it's good to see both a subject and a verb in a sentence.  So, y'know, it is a sentence. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    And I thought I (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    had issues after having a Cosmo and trying to diagram Obama's last "uh uh uh uh..WHAT Hillary said!"

    [ Parent ]
    um um er ah... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:44:30 PM EST
    I answered your questions...

    [ Parent ]
    huh? (none / 0) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    what question?

    [ Parent ]
    I tell you, Obama is really starting to bore me. (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Anne on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    He's like a book that starts out well, bogs down in plot lines that don't make sense, but you stick with it thinking it'll work itself out, and then one day when you pick it up to read, you realize you just don't give a cr@p how it ends, and decide not to waste another minute on it.

    That's how I feel about Obama.  I wanted to like him, but I realized early on that there's no "there" there.  He thinks he can be all things to all people, doesn't realize we can see and hear his contradictory positions, runs away from the color of his skin, but uses it to demonize others.

    I'm over it.

    This gas tax thing is just one more example of Obama wanting one set of rules to apply to him, and another to everyone else.  Obama "learns" from mistakes he didn't think were mistakes when he did this or that, but he's the only one who can do that.  

    He just bores me to tears.

    4 max (none / 0) (#197)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:40:41 AM EST
    and that's the worst case scenario.

    [ Parent ]
    That's right, I'm not a Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:12:14 AM EST
    just like Hillary isn't a Democrat.

    And for the record in case you ever get the insane idea that you are allowed to try to insult me like this again-- no one, and especially not you, owns my vote but me.

    [ Parent ]

    I imagine the advisors who are telling him (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    that this is a bad idea are the same who believe in privatizing SS and that expensive Health Care is good.

    no one has done more to (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by english teacher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:36:38 AM EST
    oppose and support the gas tax holiday than barack obama.

    Thanks English- (none / 0) (#226)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:14:52 AM EST
    you started my day with a laugh.

    [ Parent ]
    For someone who runs on "change" (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:41:42 AM EST
    he is a bit too slow for me:  8 years for the gastax, 20 for the pastor ... at this speed change will come in my next life, so I may as well take the gastax now.


    17 Years For Rezko (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:58:03 AM EST
    but he is still Obama's friend even if Rezko's tenants went without heat in his district.

    [ Parent ]
    and check this out about Ayers (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:08:27 AM EST
    From WSJ article just out yesterday:

    "Apparently, back when he was running for state senate, Barack Obama had fund-raising events at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and there's been some press about the senator's friendship with this controversial Weathercouple. Many reporters are well aware, even though Mr. Obama has described his connection to Ayers and Dohrn as "flimsy," that the senator's relationship with his radical Hyde Park neighbors is actually quite warm, even close."

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. More dissembling by Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:17:54 AM EST
    He doesn't want you to know who he's friendly with.
    He might as well have had Bin Laden host a fund raiser... this is electoral poison for Obama.
    Good vetting by Daschle, Durbin, Kerry and Kennedy!

    [ Parent ]
    Link to that article (none / 0) (#189)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:09:57 AM EST
    I just scrolled past your comment (none / 0) (#217)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:18:24 AM EST
    didn't read it.  But I replied.  I will be doing the same to anything else you ever post.

    Have a nice day.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't find your analogy valid (none / 0) (#219)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:08:05 AM EST
    Sen. Obama's relationship with Mr. Ayers was far more complex that just a casual association. Most of what is in that article refers to WJC and has been debunked as just that...bunk. But I do not recall that Pres. Clinton or Sen. Clinton were ever employed by anyone who proudly acknowledged blowing up buildings and killing people. They may have accepted contributions from Marc Rich's wife but they didn't get either WJC or HRC their start in politics. And I never heard any revelations about the Richs threatening to or actually, blowing up buildings. This is all old and even the Republicans will find it difficult to use any of this against HRC. And then there is Rhezco and I hardly need to detail that fiasco here. Obama has already admitted it was a lapse in judgment. Just how bad a lapse we don't need to find out after he has the nomination. And how many skeletons are going to turn up in his charming wife's closet after a Republican 527 decides to really investigate her? Sorry, too many unknowns here. I'll take the devil I know. If you want to sling mud, you'll have to find something better that a link to Politico and references to Joe McCarthy. I'm just saying.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    My opinion (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:56:48 AM EST
    I'm lukewarm on the idea of a gas tax holiday. I tend to agree with Obama that the extra pennies will still get sucked up by the oil companies(and it still won't solve the long term problem of this being a finite resource). That said, I think that people want to know that government is on their side and will do something for them when they are hurting economically. They want to know that government exists fo more than protecting Telcomms from lawsuits or providing bailouts for airlines or banks that were foolish. Criticizing without offering up an alternate idea is a mistake that hopefully Obama will correct.

    KEEP DONATING AND CALLING INDIANA AND NC VOTERS (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by snucky on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:06:20 AM EST
    FOR HILLARY. SHE CAN STILL TAKE THIS NOMINATION NO MATTER WHAT BIG MEDIA OR OBAMABOTS SAY.

    Obama fiddles while Rome burns (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:20:43 AM EST
    Perfect is the enemy of good.

    You can always accuse the opposition of pandering because their plan is not "perfect". In the meantime nothing gets done because perfection is never achieved. Long-term and short-term are often at odds. But people live in the here-and-now, not the utopian future.

    Will a President Obama be paralyzed into non-action while crisis after crisis form and deepen around him because the short-term relief runs counter to his utopian solutions?

    Remember Hoover in 1929 (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:09:33 AM EST
    It's fun to play "which president does Obama remind you of today"?  

    I saw a bit of Millard Fillmore in him a while ago. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's a good counter to McCain (none / 0) (#233)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:25:17 AM EST
    Clinton defused his initial pander by agreeing with him and then sticking it to the oil companies. These tax holiday panders bear political fruit and she knows it.

    Regardless (and this is coming from an arch energy miser), with gas prices hitting us everywhere in this economy, not just our own drive time, maybe we deserve a break. Whose fault is it that we're in the shape we're in energy-wise, anyway? The Powers That Be in both parties (that means you, John Dingell) have known we've been on a self-destructive path for decades and done nothing to stop the bleed. Retaining one's seat and the status quo have been the only goals of our blighted, corrupted Congress.

    People are losing their jobs because they can't afford the gas, for Chrissakes! What does that say for the "market-driven economy"?

    [ Parent ]

    It makes me nervous (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:01:33 AM EST
    to post on a subject when I have not read every single one already on.  But someone wrote that what would make sense is handling the oil reserve better.  Hillary's entire plan addressed that subject, you know.  The gas tax thing was a short-term quickie only.  And at least in this dark corner of SC, motorists are smart enough to check on whether they are getting their tax break or not.  We also have a 'back to school' sales tax break, and both stores and customers like it.  

    Yes, the tax relief might mean some poople would use more gas. Maybe they'd even get to take a vacation somewhere this summer; if they don't get to, they might be a little grouchy by November.

    A longer-term solution: get those huge cars off the road!  I have a nice little Scion xA, not bad gas mileage and easy handling.  And I pull up to an intersection without a light (lots of them here), and some SUV or Hummer pulls up beside me and I become blind to traffic on its other side.  

                     Hillary's plan

        * Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

        * Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

        * Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

        * Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

        * Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.


    would anyone here care if there was a good reason? (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by progrocks on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    or do you just want to hate?

    the Illinois one was a percent where the federal tax is a fixed amount. with prices increasing, the federal stays the same amount where the state increases along with it. At some point, with prices increasing, wouldnt it make sense for the state to say "we made enough money this year"?

    then why not (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:38:00 PM EST
    reduce the percentage instead of dropping it all together?. Obama's argument is that by making gas cheaper we encourage people to drive more, how does that not apply to what he did in Illinois?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama evidently demagogued (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    the issue.

    McCain should run with this ad.

    Obama doesn't care enough to appear to care, and he's crossed back from an old policy that he's now decrying as demamgoguery.

    Mccain will eat his spleen.

    [ Parent ]

    gruesome imagery (none / 0) (#42)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    but sadly true

    [ Parent ]
    State governments are (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:13 PM EST
    already feeling the pinch. I don't think telling the states they should eat it is feasible especially when you consider the federal government has cut their funding for health care costs or for first responders or for any other number of things.  

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    "I'll take $30 bucks of extra gas this summer.
    The roads are all falling apart anyway. Most of the road funding disappears up the Alaska chute besides."

    That's how a Dem should thinnk btw.  

    [ Parent ]

    Roadbuilders is a dirty word (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:15 PM EST
    in my state, Wisconsin -- behind a lot of funding for a lot of Republican corruption, a lot of roads to nowhere.  Well, where the longtime governor lived, anyway, so he and his gang got eight-lane highways with no traffic to speak of on them, while the Democratic areas just got more potholes by the day.

    Personally, despite all the potholes here after a record-bad winter, I think people could use the money more wisely than the roadbuilders.  By the time they got done with their take, there wouldn't be enough left to fix one pothole.

    [ Parent ]

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    It's almost like people are not connecting all these horror stories about Pols and developers colluding to build roads to nowhere that magically turn into golf courses and housing estates after the shiny new road is built.

    Real Estate Lawyers like Obama, know that a new road project multiplies the value of fallow land that real estate speculators are ahem "speculating" about.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama said it was a gimmick. (none / 0) (#223)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:45:52 AM EST
    Is he lying now or was he employing gimmicks then?

    [ Parent ]
    Y'all are missing part of the picture: (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by 1jpb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:45:10 PM EST
    This is from one of you HRC folks in another post, they were using the link against BO, but it's exculpatory:

    The impact of the tax holiday was never clear.

    A government study could not determine how much of the savings was actually passed along to motorists. Many lawmakers said their constituents didn't seem to have benefited. They also worried the tax break was pushing the state budget out of balance.

    At the end of Illinois' tax holiday, there was a failed push to eliminate the sales tax permanently. Obama was among those voting against eliminating the tax.

    Obama's presidential campaign says the lessons of that Illinois tax holiday influenced his decision to oppose a national tax holiday. The lack of clear results then make him dubious about suspending the national tax now.

    In addition, the Illinois tax was paid directly by consumers and increased as gas prices increased. Obama's campaign points out the national tax is a flat 18.4 cents (24.4 cents a gallon for diesel) and, therefore, isn't climbing as gas prices climb. It's also paid by producers, raising more questions about whether they'd pass the full savings along to customers.

    His IL experience (especially since he opposed the permanent tax removal) shows that he is using knowledge and history to guide him as he makes sensible public policy.  That guy's the kind of president we need, I'm sure y'all will agree.

    When Clinton dipped into the SPR (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    prices tumbled.

    Ideologically very few Dems are inclined to pressure the oil companies on prices.  two reasons:

    1)Many will have a stock portfolio containing  oil shares. And that's capitalism baby.

    2) "Greens" want higher prices and would like to tax energy at even higher levels anyway.

    Obama's interests fall into category one.  
    Personally I think a Dem should be calling for a release of the SPR.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever, I have no (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by 1jpb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    energy for debating the details of the McCain/Clinton flimflam gas plan that makes no financial sense and isn't going anywhere, as both McCain and Clinton know, even if their gullible followers don't.

    But, your SPR comment is interesting.  We could stop adding the sweet stuff (as we are now doing) and start adding some sour oil instead, I don't think we should totally stop adding (or start removing) if we can avoid that--this is an emergency supply, it won't solve our long term problems, and using this now could make an emergency worse in the future.  There's a lot of sour around because it's not good for refining, but in a future emergency we could pull it out of the SPR, although there would be an environmental trade off because sour is dirty (sulfur.)  But, to help now we would need to accept this possibility, and most of the SPR is already sour, so it's not that radical to add more.

    [ Parent ]

    And as always...when your argument falls (none / 0) (#127)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:52:02 PM EST
    flat...resort to name-calling. Typical.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    I thought we needed someone who was "right on day one."

    [ Parent ]
    So he has flipped (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:08:52 PM EST
    on his flop. So what exactly is he proposing to ease the pain at the pump? My other question is what is he going to propose to ease the cost of heating fuel besides support anymore Bush/Cheney energy bills? Convince me to agree with you.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    So you'll be applying that reasoning to the (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    IWR right away, I assume.

    [ Parent ]
    you need to read the posts above (none / 0) (#44)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And he learned his lesson (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:45:16 PM EST
    As he admits

    "At best, this is a plan that would save you pennies a day for the summer months; that is, unless gas prices are raised to fill in the gap, which is just what happened in Illinois, when we tried this a few years ago," he said.

    Meanwhile, unless you can magically impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies overnight to pay for the holiday, it could imperil federal highway funding, and cost Indiana more than 6,000 jobs.


    Well we do know (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:22 PM EST
    That when Clinton proposes something and Republicans vote against it, then it's Clinton's fault for proposing something.

    And it's a good thing Obama will only ever be proposing things he knows Republicans will agree to.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, if the point is helping Americans... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    ...a show-vote on a nonstarter is just political preening. So either way it's just a game played for its own sake.

    [ Parent ]
    Now wait a second, am I hearing this right? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    It's Obama's and/or an Obama supporter's position that a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is a non-starter?

    I mean I know Obama's "change the tone" chorus went out the window on day 1 of the campaign (with the Lincoln Bedroom right wing talking point, no less!), but has "yes we can" now been kicked to the side of the road like everything else??

    [ Parent ]

    Well it took him less than 20 years to kick (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:16:36 PM EST
    this one under the bus,  I guess that's an improvement.  But remember he has done more for consumers than any-other politician.(Double snark)

    [ Parent ]
    That's interesting rhetoric... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:13:50 PM EST
    ...employing the "yes we can" slogan willy-nilly as you've done, but obviously the windfall tax idea is a non-starter with Bush in the White House.

    [ Parent ]
    But with a Dem in the White House (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    And assuming a Dem majority?

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously it becomes far more likely... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM EST
    ...and potentially a good idea, assuming the right details.

    [ Parent ]
    I see (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:22:38 PM EST
    "Yes we can*"

    ___________
    *When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST
    Framing those qualifications as a negative is bizarre.

    [ Parent ]
    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    If I was really trying to frame those things as a negative, but given the obvious positive value of those things, I think it's time to start working them into the stump speeches, obviously.

    "Can we end this war?  Yes we can... When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details.

    Can we turn this economy around?  
    Yes we can... When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details."

    I should apologize.

    This really isn't fair.

    Anyway, I think a Windfall Profits Tax on the Oil Companies is a great idea right now.  I would propose it right now just to get Republicans on record opposing it.  Be a great issue for the upcoming election.


    [