Part of the problem is 1) the assumption of a static gas price and 2) that the oil companies will pass along the "savings" from the tax holiday to the consumers.

And I love this statement: "if Sen. Clinton replaces lost revenue with a windfall profit tax on oil companies"

Exactly, how is "she" going to do that? How will "she" get this passed in Congress? Do you have any idea about how the legislative process works?

The supporters of this tax holiday have no concrete way to make up the loss in tax revenue and what we will do about the billions and billions in lost tax revenue for the infrastructure.

I think Hillary just wanted to finally make an inspiring speech. I think she just wanted to give people empty hopes that they could save some money. Problem is, what she is proposing, she is completely incapable of acomplishing, and she knows it.

Like her health care debacle previously, and the one she is trying to sell now. She can't get things done because she pisses too many people off to ever get the kind of cooperation she would need.

Obama's speeches inspire me because I think he can do what he says, and there isn't evidence to refute that, as there is against Hillary being able to deliver.

I am no expert on this issue but I have heard from several and they all say it is a bone-headed idea. I'm sure all those driving HUMMERS would be delighted to save so much money, but do they need to? One expert suggested a holiday from the Social Security tax (the most regressive in our system) to give relief to the people who need it most.

But this is not a short-term problem, and Obama is the only one to acknowledge that. One example: the US went from a 25% share in the solar industry to 8%. Why? Our priorities are displaced. If we would use our ingenuity to tackle the big picture and become the world leader in alternative fuel R&D and production instead of saving $.18 a gallon at the last point on the continuum, we could revive our economy and do some good in the world.

Refineries work at maximum capacity in summer months. So if gas companies raise prices in order to stem the increased demand given the tax cut the net effect will be gas that would cost the same, consumers paying the same and thus driving the same WITH ONE LITTLE DIFFERENCE in that oil companies will be pocketing the other 18% rather than the government who reinvests that money in roads and infrastructure.

Now Sen. Clinton's plan is the windfall profits tax, which would recoup the money the Government lost in with the consumer tax cut, however in that case everybody is back where they starter. Instead of the consumer paying 18 cents a gallon tax to the government, they'd pay 18 cents more a gallon to the oil company who would in turn turn around and give it to the government.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Under McCain's plan Big Oil makes more money, and under Sen. Clinton's plan, there is only superficial change - instead of the consumer paying to the government, they pay that money to Big Oil and then Big Oil pays the Government.

And, the Clinton proposal is nothing but naked pandering.

To think that legislation suspending the gas tax and imposing a 'wind fall profits tax" can wend it's way through Congress by Summertime is ridiculous, and to tell voters so is dishonest. No surprise there.

None-the-less, the Clinton gambit will likely garner her a few uniformed votes.

Hillary Clinton panders to voters by proposing gas tax holiday.

Senator Obama and Congress reply:

Well Woop-De-Doo!!!

Let's first recall that Clinton and McCain are sitting senators. If they really believe in this tax holiday, which they want to start in 30 days or so, they should be back in Washington drafting up the legislation and lining up support. McCain, especially, hypothetically doesn't have much else to do until he knows his opponent. If he's busy playing Senator he can save untold dollars on campaign spending, funds for which he is supposed to be in short supply for him.

Hillary could also play senator, save some much-needed campaign bucks, and run great commercials on how she is working hard for hard-pressed Americans, or at least those in Indiana and North Carolina. She has the additional benefit of a certain ex-president who can campaign on her behalf while she is doing hard work.

On the other hand, just talking about an idea in speeches sounds a lot like what she accuses Obama of doing all the time.

Not every idea deserves backing and in particular dumb proposals should not be supported. Telling people that a POSSIBLE $16-$35 over the course of a summer is worthy of taking up Congressional time is idiotic. Senator Clinton can choose to ignore what most major economists are saying about this proposal but that doesn't mean everyone else in Congress should, as well.

Silly analysis, dude. 1. I have yet to hear from a single economist who thinks that is a good response to the issue.

2. On a 15 gallon tank, you save less than $3. So a fillup will be $51 not $54. Big whoop!

3. The odds of getting a new windfall oil profits tax passed through the House and Senate in an election year? Less than zero. Which Dem is going to sponser the "new taxes" that come with this deal? And if it is such a great idea, then why doesn't Hillary go back to Washington and sponsor the new tax bill? Because I can see the ads from McCain: "she tried to start raising new taxes before she even got into office. So what will she do as president?"

Not only is the plan a gimmick, but even PROPOSING something that will NEVER be adopted is an effort to bamboozle and hoodwink the Indiana voters!

George -

I am not going to talk about supply and demand a lot of folks here have done that quite well. Let's just discuss getting the policy through Congress and then signed. In order for this happen it has to happen in 25 days, which means Hillary or John McCain need to get this legislation written now. Then they have to get Bush to sign it, do you really think that is going to happen? Now, take away the fact that in the long run it won't save consumers much, if anything and take away the fact when this very issue came up in Hillary's NY Senate race she thought is was a terrible idea and was against it. When a politician propose a policy that has absolutely no chance of happening and they know it, I think it's safe to say they are pandering and doing something for their benefit and not the voters.