I understand your position that these are empty campaign promises and Clinton has no intention of pushing for it, but I don’t think you can make that case at this point. You may be right that the chance of bringing back windfall tax now is implausible though I wouldn’t say absolute zero. It certainly doesn’t stand a chance if it’s pronounced dead in the water by those who make these judgments. My view is that Clinton has been the only one who has bothered to thoroughly think through her proposals and not just adopt wholesale and tweak the plans of others.

The question of windfall taxes pops up periodically (I remember talking about this after the post-Katrina price gouging and first Exxon $10 billion profit quarters). Some of Carter's reforms are looking good again. Gasoline tax is a purely regressive tax and people are hurting. $4/gallon at the pump during a recession seems a good time to push it and who knows (it is a Democratic Congress, isn’t it?). Universal health care is going to be an impossible battle, too, with the giant lumbering lobby rolling over its lumpy mass to smother it, but that is no reason not to fight for it or to surrender your weapons to the other side before the battle has begun (as with the demonizing of mandates).

Of course, McCain demagogues every issue, but that has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama except that they must make that clear to the public. Then too, think about how Clinton’ fuel-relief proposal will look in late summer in direct comparison to McClain’s (which would rebate to the oil companies) and McCain’s compared to Obama’s proposal, which is adverse to any relief.

That a boilermaker, Workerbee?

TomWright, that's a fine idea as the true working poor -- who may in large numbers have to begin choosing between food and gas relatively soon -- will obviously need some relief. But as for those of us who are average working class and can get by if we curb excesses, it's irresponsible for our candidates to subsidize bad habits. Still, you do have to know that Joe Lunchbox probably wouldn't like this idea if it left him out. Might leave him...well, bitter.

Agreed, in fact their movement to the 'First World' is the only way to manage trade and other economic issues in the long run. Our dollar decline is also however a contributor to oil price hikes, but that is due to excessive borrowing. Think on this, while the price of gas has doubled in the US in the last 2 years, it has only gone up about 15% in Europe.

Still, this is all chickens coming home. Real economic development, healthcare, and investment in future technologies is the only way forward. Spending trillions protecting a diminishing supply of oil is not, although sadly I expect we will be doing it again before my life is over; we just won't have switched to alternatives fast enough.

I think working class people have a good idea about what is in their best interests. Even if they are wrong, it is their choice. While there may be a link between education and wealth and social conscience, the bigger factor is what one can afford to do. Oil is polluting and isn’t replenishable. It will eventually run out of course, but the crisis atmosphere including our overseas adventures only profit big oil. The middle class in America was created through low-cost transportation. I understand the arguments about higher gas prices forcing less consumption but there are many people who are slowly sinking as gas prices (then food, goods, etc.) rise and they need some help.

Working folks did downgrade in the ‘70s and ‘80s to better MPG vehicles (mini-) but were gradually sold again on bigger is better. I think upper income people will be the last to conserve because they don’t have to. Tax incentives to buy $50,000 SUVs and refusing to push CAFÉ standards (incentives to Detroit to build SUVs) are more responsible for guzzling than the guy trying to get by and support his or her family. Reversing oil dependence shouldn’t be placed on the backs of those who can least afford it, though I’m sure it will.