Yes. This is definitely a teachable moment. The part about 60% thinking Clinton is just pandering is especially educational when McCain, who actually proposed the tax holiday and without the big oil paying for it, scores as trustworthy on it as Obama. Clinton is pandering but Obama with his tag-along windfall profits tax and call for another stimulus rebate and McCain who originated this are not. Could it be that the pundits and economists calling it the unreal, ridiculous, utterly misguided worst idea ever (and I doubt they said this when Harry Reid pushed the tax holiday a couple of years ago) may have influenced voters as to their opinions on this?

I'm sure cynicism and media reports factored into the "pandering" poll. Personally, as I've stated in another post and in several comments: I'd prefer to think of it as a political proposal, but one definition probably isn't any more valid than the other.

As for the whole "economists" thing, I'm under the impression that there has never been an economist President and Wikipedia appears to bear me out. Offhand, the only economist that I can think of who has ran for the office in the modern era was Sen. Phil Gramm and I'm pretty sure most visitors to this website would've opposed his candidacy.

If any science could run our government without weighing the political result, we really wouldn't need people and I'm sure Google or Multivac could easily construct a computer that would efficiently rule the land.

It's a sure bet that most Americans as well as persons in other parts of the world feel the producers, refiners, and distributors of oil have made quite enough money. It is ridiculous to provide them an opportunity to make even more. The windfall profits tax that has supposedly been made part of the plan should have been done already without any consideration of this goofy idea. No industry or company is properly entitled to the stratospheric profits registered by oil companies in the last year or two. Every individual and every other industry has been harmed by these prices and at the very least this gross imbalance needs to be addressed via an appropriately levied tax. At a minimum it would at least marginally address the appearance if not the fact that the industry has actively sought to obtain this result in the interest of profits.

If it were my call I'd have probably frozen oil at $75 or something like that. There is a point at which it becomes obvious things are out of hand and somebody has to step in and correct it. If this president, as he has repeatedly proposed, has the authority to do the things he has done then he sure as hell has the authority to put a stop to something that is very clearly harming the nation. That assumes of course that he actually cares about this country. NOT!!

As far as I can tell, the real teaching moment in this whole fiasco is how utterly horrid the average American continues to be treated by the political machines operating behind the 3 presidental wannabes.

As near as I can tell, the basics are thus: from 2 of the candidates, we are being offered the overwhelming sum of saving about $50 +/- on average on our gas expenditures over the summer. The remaining candidate says it's a cheap political trick, and wise up, America.

And that is what has been the point of contention in this ever unfolding scenario. Should we see it for the cheap stunt it is, or should we get off our high horse & be grateful for even this modest gesture?

An attempt to crack that nut occupies many these past few days, the conversation unfolds, engaging everyone from the so-called pundits, or political commentators, and their expert guests we see on our TV every night, to John & Jane Q Citizen in attendence at many various assorted websites & water coolers across the land.

But...hold up, here--is this the debate we really want our presidental contenders to be having? I mean...am I the only one that's deeply insulted by this cheap scam? Good grief, people, we are relentlessly weighing the minutae of these few bucks, while just a few feet away from us sits an ginormus, obscenely obese, spirit crushing $40,000,000,000 elephant we called Exxon or British Petroleum or Mobil.

Why aren't our leaders having that debate instead of insulting our intelligence & cheapening our existence with this continuous barrage of empty distractions & nonsensical non-solutions to our very real problems?

I dunno..I realize I'm over-simplifying, and not being very realistic probably..there are nuances & sophisticated ideoligies being hammered out...but I think the real teaching moment in this is that our politicians would rather play us for chumps than grab the bull by the horns and do what it takes to represent us, the average citizen.

I think very little of the American public has been educated on this issue. In fact, the debate may well have framed things to make it worse.

The fact is that only about 20% of the world's reserves are under control of the oil companies, the rest of the reserves are under nationalized companies -- most in the Middle East, Russia and China. These are nations that are definitely not long-term allies of the US.

Ever wonder why Venezuela, despite Chavez's bluster, is still our 4th largest oil trading partner? It's because the US has the refineries to process their oil which is heavy and sour. I imagine that China is systematically building up their refineries to deal with this oil -- and then the US will be out of luck.

Finally, the public doesn't understand that the Saudis can no longer play the "swing producer" role and pump more oil to stabilize prices. Until 1973, the US was able to play that role -- and then the US went through peak oil. The Saudis took over that role, but over the past 2 years have not been able to pump out more oil -- despite their promises to do otherwise.

As a result, the speculators are now controlling the price of oil. It's really out of the US's hands. Moreover, more and more oil isn't even making it to market: it's already directly sold to other nations. What's worse, oil is beginning to be sold in Euros and Yen which will further destabilize the Dollar and give reason for oil exporters to sell in other currencies even more.

This chart from the US Goverment should scare people:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_20.pdf

Bottom line: the idea that it's the oil companies causing our woes is going to confuse the public. In very short order, the oil companies will lose most influence over the world markets -- and then if you want to lower the price, we are going to have to militarily try to take it. Not a particularly good solution since war uses a lot of oil.

To really educate the public, you will want the government to tell people to start preparing now for how they will heat their homes this winter. And to recognize that $4/gal gas is going to look cheap within the next 12 months.

They can't raise prices .184 cents, there would be no reason to do so, they don't pay the tax, the consumer does. The gasoline stations can't continue to charge the consumer .184 cents in sales tax that would be unlawful. The oil companies aren't saving any money, the gas stations aren't saving any money, the consumers are in effect getting an .184 cents per gallon break.

Sorry BevD, there's some mistaken assumptions in there.
1. The gas suppliers sure as hell CAN raise prices $.184 - that's one of the problems with the idea;
2. There certainly IS a reason to do so - consumers have already indicated they will pay the higher prices, AND they don't have a substitute for gas - they have to have it, and they will pay whatever is charged;
3. You are correct that they gas retailers cannot continue to charge the tax, but they also DON'T HAVE TO LOWER THE PRICE. Nor are the suppliers obligated to keep the price they charge retailers the same.

"Obama trusts common man"
was the newspaper's headline for my published Letter to Editor in the Berkshire Eagle. It was similar to all the discussions here, that his diverging from pandering pooh passing as policy was significant.
Obama showed that he respected the electorate's common sense, including blue collars.
My letter provoked thirty some responses. Many respondees certainly didn't like 'Barry Hussein' but when I asked them by blog name if they thought the 'gas tax rebate' idea was useful or gimmickry none of them argued its merits.
Although it's obvious there's some latte-black animosity toward Obama, the fact that he takes principled (correct) stands even in heated situations is being recognized and will turn some votes his way.