Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Gas Tax, Before the Wind Took It
On April 15th, John McCain proposed several planks toward reducing taxes; Among them, he advocated a simpler tax system with only two rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum, cutting the Corporate Income Tax rate from 35% to 25%, a higher tax deduction for children and a summertime "holiday" from the federal gas tax.
In the ABC Pennsylvania debate, Hillary Clinton offered the following in her response to a question posed by Charlie Gibson;
SENATOR CLINTON: -- And thirdly, if there is any kind of gas tax moratorium, as some people are now proposing --
MR. GIBSON: Like John McCain.
SENATOR CLINTON: -- like John McCain, and some Democrats, frankly -- I think Senator Menendez and others have said that we may have to do something, because when you get to $4-a-gallon gas, people are not going to be able to afford to drive to work. And what I would like to see us do is to say if we have that, then we should have a windfall profits tax on these outrageous profits of the oil companies, and put that money back into the highway trust fund, so that we don't lose out on repair and construction and rebuilding.
In his response to the same question, Barack Obama agreed with Sen. Clinton's earlier point about investigating price gouging and market manipulation, plus he voiced support for the concept of a windfall profits tax, then he went into his standard stump about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars. He did not mention a "gas tax holiday", neither pro, nor con because quite frankly, he probably hadn't thought about it and had nothing prepared on the subject.
After the debate, the "gas tax holiday" concept seemed to take on a life of its own and because it is a distinction between Hillary and Sen. Obama, she ran with the idea. Though, throughout and at every mention which I can find, she always ties it to an offsetting "profits tax" to keep money flowing into highway fund. It also appears that if it's at all possible, she'd like to make the "profits tax" permanent, while the "gas tax holiday" would sunset after a few months.
Now, we can all debate the merits or environmental costs of a temporary halt in the gas tax and this is not to say that I support the idea or that one could even pass through Congress, but throughout the debate, she's always tied the "tax holiday" to the offsetting "profits tax" and this all started because she said, if Sen. McCain introduces legislation, she'd attach "pay-as-you-go" language to the bill. Things like this are done all the time in Congress, often someone will attach something that may not win approval on its own to a bill that has to pass or that the President would not be able to veto.
Right now, because so many are still focused on the Democratic primaries, a considerable amount of the discussion has been about the comparisons between the two candidates. I guess that's natural, but like the "tax holiday" or not, it can be argued that Obama dropped the ball because he wouldn't give the idea conditional or non-committal support. I don't say this only because the issue has been hurting him in some of the primary polling data, but if he's the nominee, he's walked right into a Republicans web and we're all going to have to work overtime this fall to help keep his campaign above water.
I've mentioned in several comments about the "tax holiday", John Kerry was hammered with two ads and in several speeches during the '04 cycle because of the false impression, he had favored a fifty-cent increase in the gas tax and that he had "supported" raising it eleven times. Nine of those "times" were all about a single 4.3 cent increase, there was the time that he had misremember about a fifty-cents, a decade before running for President and a vote against a "tax holiday" in 2000.
I've also mentioned on a couple of occasions, the Republicans have already started floating the tagline "Obama-Spend-O-Rama" and now, if you add rolling back the Bush tax cuts, a reinstatement and an increase in the Capital Gains, along with his steadfast refusal to consider a "gas tax holiday", it appears that it may have become easier for them to label him "tax & spend". This could actually be the reason that McCain proposed the "holiday" in the first place. It's easy to understand and all but the most urban residents would be affected.
Once again, as I always say, it's not that I'm saying one Democratic candidate should get the nomination over the other, nor am I saying that there is any wisdom in the concept of a "gas tax holiday", but by remembering the past and by sticking to her conditional approval: I have to say that Sen. Clinton may have won this round and Sen. Obama might have painted himself into a corner. If he is to be the nominee, the most likely scenario, we're all going to need to be prepared to devote large chunks of the next several months defending his spending programs and explaining why his ideas about tax policy are better, all without calling those who disagree, a bunch of hay-sucking morons.
After all, being right may be one thing, but winning election can often be something else.
Comments (65)
Thanks for bringing this context into the forum.
I think the promise of the Obama campaign is that he'll be able to able to tie these two together by presenting his position in a way that's politically viable. I don't know how that will play out, but, at least for me, that potential was a large factor in supporting Obama.
May 6, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think that he may need to work on some of his packaging because he and his more vocal supporters have spent weeks explaining his position on the gas tax and based on past elections, I'm sure that this is just among the first in a long line of difficult-to-explain issues.
I also have to say that on this particular question, I have to give some credit to the presence of Hillary in the race for bringing the discussion to the forefront, now. It appears that Sen. Obama may not have been prepared to say anything on the topic, but by having Hillary in the race and by her giving a conditioned approval, McCain can't really hit hard on the subject at this moment and by the time we're in the general election, I'm sure Obama's reasoning will have filtered down to virtually all members of the electorate.
May 6, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
HOW DUMB DO WE HAVE TO BE?
If these politicians think voters can be fooled by attempts at economic relief then they better start trying.
(insert loopy Barry head scratch here)
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITE GUILTY CONSCIENCE
May 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you will begin to make sense eventually.
May 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And maybe not.
May 6, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, true. Which speaks to a very dumb electorate who can be swindled by fake promises...over and over again.
Obama dropped nothing.
The real issue is that no candidate has a thought out policy for energy security for the country. So we now have another "non-issue" in the campaign.
May 6, 2008 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that "Peak Oil" is a topic that's important to you and because I live down the street from a college which produces a lot of Petroleum Engineers and others who end-up working in the oil industry, I've actually gotten quite the education at local bull sessions and from an occasional event on campus.
I believe Ron Paul or somebody of that degree did actually say something on the subject, but yeah, you're right in that it's doubtful none of the major candidates would dare speak its name and all we're getting is mostly tinkering around the edges.
Of course, I'd also advise neither Democrat from delving too deep into the subject on the stump because I'd like for one to get elected, but they probably should be prepared in case there's any three-way debates in the fall and if Ralph Nader were to bring it up.
May 6, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's doubtful Nader will be asked to participate, he's sort of like a Jesse Jackson right now: he had his one major election shot in the spotlight and now he's yesterday's news.
That being said, I don't believe Nader would bring it up either -- because then *he'd* have to provide some very uncomfortable solutions.
It will be most interesting to see who stays in with the Green party when their lifestyle will surely change if they push a green solution to the energy issues.
May 6, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jackson had 2 major election shots, '84 and '88.
May 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
True enough, I stand corrected. However, they were back-to-back.
May 6, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What discussion? Scaring people? $4/gal gas is something we will have to live with... because in the very near future it will look cheap.
If you were serious about energy breaks, we would be talking about how to heat homes in the winter -- over course that comes *after* the election, so there will be no point.
If Hillary really wanted to bring a discussion to the fore, it would be: this country has to change it's lifestyle: we need to rebuild our passenger and light-rail systems again while we still have time. We have to solve the problem of disposal of nuclear wastes as we will likely be firing up more plants. People shouldn't even be contemplating buying pick-ups or SUVs anymore Etc. Etc.
Of course, *that* would be having a policy. But it's so much easier to talk about a gas tax... and much less dangerous in a campaign.
She has actually made it more difficult to talk about the real issues.
When Dick Cheney said the American way of life was not-negotiable, there were plenty of people clapping who didn't know how much it would cost. It's time to pay the piper.
May 6, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, when I flashed back to see if there were any more comments, your previous one was the one that was visible, so I threw my mention of "Peak Oil" into that reply.
My thing about "the discussion" was along the lines of the "inoculate" theory that DF, myself and others were throwing around a few weeks ago, when it came it Rev. Wright. I don't know that if Hillary hadn't seized upon the "gas tax holiday", Obama would've necessarily said anything on the subject and it certainly wouldn't be getting the play that it is now.
As I said in my original post and in other comments, Kerry got hit because he told a newspaper ten years before running for President that he had supported a 50¢ increase, but there's no record of that vote or him ever submitting a bill. Nonetheless, Kerry was hit with multiple ads calling him to the carpet on the subject and I recall explaining that it'd be a good thing so many times, when the issue came up in this campaign, I instantly recalled how much it hurt Kerry at the time.
With Hillary in the race, Obama may be getting inoculated against single-subject attacks on this issue in the future and McCain can't really jump on him too much now because the Democratic nomination hasn't been settled.
May 6, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, "inoculation" is a buzz word this season.
However, on this topic, I think you will find no one really wants to push it too much, because it's too easy for the other guy to corner you with a few doomsday scenarios -- and unlike the terrorism scare tactics, this one will be based in a harder reality!
Your points are interesting, I just disagree that Hillary did us any favors by confusing the issue.
May 6, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic: I can't resist... you wouldn't happen to be in a small town who's initial is "S", would you?
May 6, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and if you tell me that you're in the same town, I'd have a pretty good idea of who you might be.
May 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not him. ;-)
May 6, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS & BTW) You have to count me among those who have an SUV, though I bought one of the smallest ones available. When we first moved to New Mexico, we had a couple of cars, but there's a lot of places that you just can't go (even here in town) without a high-clearance vehicle.
May 6, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in awe that you made that admission as, of course, you didn't have to. You have my respect for being candid and clear!
May 6, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing a different approach to the subject.
It seems to me the only ones preventing energy discussions are the ones that are dismissing Clintons proposals out of hand in a rather knee-jerk show of pique. There is certainly more than one approach, but I think looking hard at how these profits are being realized is a good start. Certainly, municipalities that have kept their energy sources public are in better shape than private ones, and Congress taking a good hard look at our structure is a good start.
It certainly is, at least, an opening into the discussion.
To use a phrase from one of America's more "beloved" deregulated energy companies, "Ask why."
I think it's pretty obvious the hot and heated dissing of even discussing Hillary's proposal is coming from somewhere.
I always ask Cui bono?
Taxing excess (obscene) profits of an industry that has been a spectacular failure in managing assets might not benefit the bozos that run it, but those monies sure can benefit the rest of us.
After Congress takes a good hard look at that, they can take a good hard look at defense contractors that buy solar and wind companies but push for nuclear.
Conflict of interest?
You don't say.
May 6, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... workerbee... you live in CT where over 1/2 the power is nuclear generated.
I'm sure you can turn off 1/2 your lights and appliances if you don't want to contribute.
People in glass house and all...
May 6, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, clearthinker, you missed the point.
I have no problem with nuclear, solar OR wind. I an not the subject, (as fond as you are as making me the subject, I'm not. I'm flattered BTW, that such a "little and inferior" person as I can constantly ruffle your feathers. It's amusing.)
The point was that companies pushing nuclear might juuust have a little problem with competition.
The history is available for anyone who is interested. The fact is our elitist power companies have been buying up and spitting out the competition for years.
They have been inept, short-sighted, and likely criminal in their management of our resources and anyone who wants to hold them accountable is doing the right thing for our past, present and future.
THAT is a discussion we should be having, rather than being elitist, dismissive, and narrow thinking.
May 6, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? You win, workerbee. Hold your beliefs that everything is a conspiracy against you, the American public, and apple pie.
Your rhetoric is filled with everything you accuse everyone else of: name-calling (elistist, criminal, jerks, etc.), meandering arguments, nonsequitors, 4-letter words, and grade school metaphors about urine, etc.
The great news is that none of this matters. Oil prices will continue to rise and nothing in your world view will be able to explain it adequately and logically. But it's academic at this point.
Oh, and constantly using a latin phrase in your posts would seem to me to constitute "elistist"
May 6, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for showing your 'classy' and 'gracious' side CT, as you tend to do whenever someone isn't marching lockstep along with your thinking.
As far as peak oil being reached, well, the oil companies have been saying that for 50 years, so maybe Greg Palast has a point. The naysayers have also been predicting that Social Security would be soon insolvent for 50 years.
Maybe this time they're right. Maybe they're not. I prefer that ideas be discussed, not dismissed.
I'm sorry that you think that anyone else that has an opinion different than yours needs to be marginilized and ridiculed and destroyed.
I've found that people who rely on that tactic oftentimes have it blow up in their faces.
May 6, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... Oil is a finite resource, the question is really just when we "peak". I've long held that there are incentives for us to find an alternative and an increasing number of oil companies have been headed the same way. Most recently, though they don't actually say "peak oil", but several members of the Rockefeller family have been trying to use their influence within ExxonMobil to get them more focused on alternatives. I really don't think that there's a question about whether we're going to run out, instead it's mostly about when it's going to happen.
May 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no one is arguing that oil isn't a finite resource.
May 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've admitted in another comment that I currently live in New Mexico. Most of the land in this state is owned by some form of government, including the actual state of NM and they collect a percentage of the wholesale price for any oil or gas that is mined from their land.
A couple of years ago, when the price of gas started rising, the state was blessed with an almost $600m surplus. Gov. Richardson immediately sent everybody a "rebate" or share of those profits, he instituted several grant and subsidizing proposals in support of "green" alternatives, he funded a never-before-considered commuter rail line and once he had Richard Branson signed as the anchor tenant, the state broke ground on a "spaceport".
ExxonMobil has had several years of record-breaking profits and because so much of what had been a surplus to the state of NM has become part of the regular budget, we're not sitting quite as pretty as we were just a couple of years ago, but obviously there's a lot of money floating around and if we could find some way to harness it, something argued by both Dems, then perhaps we can all get subsidized windfarms, commuter rail and a spaceport out of the deal.
May 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS Magister, If you want to see how a President did deal with energy issues in an honest manner -- and what it bought him, I just posted a blog:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-moral-equivalent-of-war.php
May 6, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a reminder that the Clinton proposal has always been a package: excess profits tax plus temporary tax relief.
Clearly, the oil and gas industry and just about anyone else who wants to make sure corporate books stay closed is going to push back on the idea of the government determining what a fair rate of return for the oil and gas industry is.
It's becoming clear that she has in mind government intervention and management of the crisis in petroleum that will only get worse year after year. I do get the feeling that she wants to use the power of the government to do something about this crisis as well as the crisis in health care. On the other hand, I don't get the feeling that Senator Obama has as urgent a program in mind. In his case, it feels more like he wants to be President and he'll figure out what to do with the office once he has it.
I was struck by the fact that Brookings and the Nobel Economists, opposing her plan, left out the excess or windfall profits tax part of her plan from their petition.
May 6, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have yet to hear anyone talk about the true benefits of windfall profits taxes... Oil production will not go up if you tax any profit that will have to be spent on improving production.
The whole game gets more expensive, and what used to be a $30/barrel break-even for improved oil recovery is now $50-60/barrel (BBL). On top of it - not all markets are created equal. I have seen on region suffer a $30 negative price differential from what is commonly known as NYMEX crude oil price. And this was when oil was only $40-50/BBL.
May 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exploration and production would be expenses, so they wouldn't count as profits. Therefore, if a "windfall tax" were put in place, something that is favored by both Democratic candidates, then I'd expect the companies to invest more in infrastructure to boost their expenditures and they'd probably do it partially, by having other subsidiaries do some of the upgrades, so they'd be able to keep more of the profits.
May 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've decided my position on the gas tax thing is now:
I know that Senator Clinton is a tenacious fighter, and once she decides to do something, she can do it. So, I'm just going to expect that 25 days from now we can expect a decrease in gas prices b/c the tax has been lifted, and that the oil companies will now be paying into the highway fund. Additionally, I'm going to expect that gas prices won't rise back up that extra 18 cents.
It's going to be great.
May 6, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bigger story is she has the oil companies under the gun. That's a very big deal. Maybe she won't get her bill through the Congress this Summer, but the issue of obscene profits as oil runs out is not going to go away. She has promised to take the oil companies on and she is keeping her promise.
May 6, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I just tossed into another comment and as one could easily see by reading the page which follows the one I linked from the debate; Obama has "strongly called for a windfall profits tax". The original difference was that Hillary said she'd attach her "profits tax" to Sen. McCain's bill, if he were to submit one to create the "holiday", while Obama was silent on the "holiday" subject that night and he has since dismissed one out of hand. I've seen nothing to indicate that he's backed away from the concept of a "profits tax", which he had spoken about on numerous occasions.
May 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's giving him a tutorial in politics and governance then. While he's strongly calling for it, she's moving to line a significant block of voters up behind it.
I have the same problem with a lot of things Obama calls loudly for. I'm not interested in four years of another President who hasn't looked beyond getting elected to actually governing the country.
May 6, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm prepared to help argue his positions, if he becomes the nominee, but I kind of wish he'd put more thought into the politics of what he says. There's a couple of other things that I'm sure is going to come back to haunt him and though he may dislike it, there is a certain game to winning elections and getting legislation passed.
May 6, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why won't she be able to pass it?
May 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would the price of gas rise .184 cents? The tax has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. Nothing.
May 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you agree that lowering the gas tax is not going to help folks one bit?
May 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It lowers the price at the pump by .184 cents per gallon. It has nothing to do with controlling the price of a gallon of gas, it is to give the taxpayer a break on what he pays at the pump.
May 6, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Crosspost) Nice post on how in one case the tax holiday actually worked: Lyin' eyes, lowering current costs as well as rebound costs. Go figger, maybe dem economists ain't that durn smart, eh? Elsewhere there there's a link on how far $30 goes for people who don't have much.
May 6, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a tremendous link! It worked in fact, will it work in theory? is a brilliant question. You made my day. Thanks. Who would have believed that as the campaign wound down Axelrod would turn into such a jerk?
May 6, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or would a % based tax reduction be (somewhat) more effective than a flat rate reduction? AKA the difference between Illinois and Federal taxes.
(caveat: I have not read the full report, only the linking article)
May 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Thanks for the link, Desidero. Though, as someone pointed out in DF's gas tax thread, there's a difference between dropping a federal tax and dropping a state tax, since the tax structure of neighboring states comes into play.
As far as $30 helping people who are struggling -- of course! But my hunch right now is that, on average, people for whom $30 would be a huge boon already use less gas than people for whom it's a pittance. Discounting that as pure conjecture, though, I'd still rather see some sort of relief that focused on getting something more valuable than $30 into the pockets of people who really need it. I'm also not convinced that HC's entire package reduces oil company profits, overall.
May 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course that depends on if they live in LA or out in the sticks, whether they work a single job, whether they're freelancing out of a van, whether they're doing agricultural work, have to go visit grandma, sick and have to go often for treatment, etc. A million scenarios.
I doubt it will make any significant dent in oil company profits, though the threat to open their books may produce some action. They did pretty well in tax repatriation holidays the last few years, and I don't think they relish more transparency.
May 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi:
Why is it that the Clinton supporters love to keep bringing up "transparency" for anyone and everything...
...except the Clintons?
May 6, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's as much transparency for the Clintons as there is for the Obamas, though these are still people vs. corporations. Despite the legal meaning of corporations, I don't extend full right to privacy rights to corporations. The Obama crowd's big issue with Hillary is that she didn't release her taxes early, and then when she did she/he made too much money - a little bit of class warfare to stir America's pot.
May 6, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm talking in terms of the Clinton library... and a host of other suspicious donations from China, who is the real worrisome country (not Iran).
Also, Hillary really had to have her arm twisted to release the information that she did release.
And at this point, a presidential candidate isn't a person, it's a human running for a position of public trust. For example, CEO's and other company officials, must release, by law, disclosure of personal earnings to shareholders... for exactly the same reason.
May 7, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The double bill makes sense that a tax holiday alone doesn't but it still misses the real mark. It is a pander because its effect won't last beyond the short term, i.e., the election. Since the windfall profits tax is pretty much hopeless with the current Congress its a show to make the opposition look bad.
THE current crude pricesa have yet to percolate through the distribution system. I would guess we're seeing the result of $70/bbl oil now. THe tax holiday won;t help much when gasoline hits $6 or $7 a gallon.
I would prefer a targeted tax credit if we intend to help low-income voters. But showing how we can avoid a future of contsntly rising gasoline prices is a better plan, I'd say.
May 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said above, I don't think a tax holiday alone could get through Congress and I agree with most people that Bush would probably veto it, if the bill also contained a windfall profits tax.
Of course, I also don't think any of it would come to a vote and I believe Pelosi has said as much, but if we were facing Bush running for re-election or if Obama had taken a different position, then I'd probably advocate forcing the issue for political reasons.
If the Democratic majority insisted, the Congressional Republicans and President Bush would be presented with a choice that could easily be painted as them wanting to protect oil profits, while keeping the tax "burden" on average folk. But, unfortunately, with Obama taking such a firm stand and because he can't back down now, we couldn't actually bring the thing to a vote because the differences between the parties wouldn't be so cut and dry.
May 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say that the tit-for-tat deal among Clinton and Obama over the "gas issue" is beneath my level of interest. Gas prices are easy political hay. The problem is so intertwined with greater issues of the war, the economy, and health care, I can't waste energy (sic) thinking about such a small part of the equation.
Prices have always been too low in the states and now we are really in some serious economic trouble. Living in Germany for years, so-called high gas prices were part of my everyday life. Europe has real mass transit. One can take a bus or train anywhere. Most folks with a little dough can afford a somewhat biggish car for a long trip and a very small car (not legal here) for trips in town.
With health insurance at reasonable prices, people have more room in a budget to pay the "real" price for gas.
The dollar is crashing against the Euro for many reasons. One reason is that Europe has factored health care, mass transit and the real cost of energy into their economic structure.
Our problems also stem from unreasonable attitudes on taxation. In Germany, by example, citizens understand the need for paying for what is important. Even with high taxes, West Germans paid an additional ten percent surcharge for a time to help absorb East Germany. And under that strain, the government actually let East Germans cash in their completely worthless money into West German marks. The better good.
America is fat with excess and tittering from economic imbalance. Who gives a fig about 4 dollar gas? Yes, politically it's important in the short term. But it's time to pay the piper on many fronts and no one seems ready to write a new tune. That includes Frau Hillary and Herr Obama.
May 6, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's showing how much she's learned since the last time she took on corporate America. As I said upthread, she's lining a significant block of voters up behind the windfall profits proposal, using the gas tax to get their attention. Be interesting to see if she can do something similar with health insurance before she takes office.
May 6, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care is my issue, I suppose. And one of the great mistakes my wife and I made was leaving Germany without thinking that through. It's rather amazing how few people with health care (like us) have thought through what happens at retirement if you have a serious illness.
I've also thought that Hillary might have a better shot at it than Obama. So much of her legacy would ride upon it. So I'm happy to vote for her. I worry that neither can win now. We'll see.
I've enjoyed reading your bullets into the echo chamber. I think the naivete people have about Obama reflects something symbolic -- more mythic than realist. I don't mind that. I think neither can bring real change at the systemic level. End the war perhaps, get some sensible people on the court. That matters.
Obama is about poetics, as you point out.
May 6, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm about done here. There has been a real shift in the Democratic Party this year. I don't know if it's permanent or temporary, but I find it distasteful. I had finished with politics and political solutions a few years ago. I came out for one more primary because of my wife and daughter, but I'll probably sit the general out.
May 7, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is it you find so distasteful?
Obviously you will not sit it out should Hillary somehow pull a magic trick out of her hat.
Explain more please.
May 7, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you doing up so late?
May 7, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
He had to get a drink, can't you see?
Yes, I think I can sympathize. I remember being dismissed as a traitor by Republicans back in '84. Now I feel like I belong to the traitor wing of the Democratic Party.
May 7, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this primary campaign is about over. We've seen a new majority emerge that has selected Obama as its candidate. It's been a good process, but I think everyone has said and heard said everything they need to say and hear. I was one of those who thought it would be over a couple of months ago, so I'm satisfied for it to end. I have no desire to sail with the Obamanauts, but I wish them a successful voyage.
May 7, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as I would have trouble spinning Indiana as a big win for Hillary, my latest missive on Michelle is probably a warning/heads up that will be ignored.
And while we haven't talked about it much, probably "No Country for Old Men (People)" is one huge side of this election cycle. It's a bit like we just finished eating dinner and I still don't know what I ate.
May 7, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't do that Billy. Unless the polling gets better for Obama v McCain, we'll need every vote to keep McCain out.
:(
May 7, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
My home state and my home town couldn't be any bluer. McCain doesn't have a chance here.
May 7, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? You two are crazy. You're two of the best Democrats around here. Who'll keep us honest if you leave??
May 7, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I read it, your point is that there are two sides to the gas tax issue; the policy and the politics. I certainly agree here, and I cringe every time someone tries to shoot the idea down with "OMGz0r she does not have the money to pay LOLLOLOLO" without addressing her windfall tax proposal. More on this further, but here is the most important quote from your post for context, to which I must take exception:
If we do not discuss the environmental issues (or the less obvious economic issues,) there is no policy side to the argument. For various reasons that have nothing to do with paying for the rebate in the short term, a reduction in gas prices is about the worst direction this country can go in this junction of history.
Addressing the politics, then, the windfall tax could be considered to be a crucial point. Even if we assume the bill passes (which it would not) there is no way to make it effective in time for this rebate which means those construction jobs and that highway maintenance would not have the funds in their budgets in time to avoid at least some of the effect of the 300 000 jobs lost etc.
As has been explained, there is also a huge difference between a temporary and a permanent windfall tax (the latter is supported by Obama and Clinton both) because the former is not enforceable in any way.
Bottom line is that almost none of that $0.184 would make it to the consumer.
Clinton is not stupid. The only possible conclusion is that she knows that this will never pass but pushes it anyway because she also knows someone out there will be swayed to vote for her because of it. It is despicable.
May 6, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under the heading of politics: If Hillary were to become the nominee, McCain wouldn't be able to use the tax against her. While he may have tried to use it against Obama, by having a debate within the confines of the Democratic Primary, Obama's reasoning has had a head start through society and unlike the situation in '04, the media has helped amplify his position.
In '04, I'd argue that a 50¢ increase, especially back before the price started to rise would've been beneficial to the environment and to the treasury. The media really didn't do a lot beyond the Sunday shows to counter Bush's charges against Kerry, so if they take the same hands-off attitude in the fall, then McCain attacks could've hurt. Thankfully, perhaps they're changing their ways or maybe they don't have the same prohibition about taking down Hillary, but for whatever reason, the media has helped spread the word this time around and pretty much everyone has heard why Obama feels the way that he does.
May 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WENCH HILLARY ISN'T STUPID, ME MATIES! SHE IS SKILLED IN THE WENCH ARTS OF THE TONGUE!
QUITE TAXIN' FOR SOME.
BRING BACK WINDFALL PROFITS! BRING BACK THE 1990S!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 6, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am pro windfall taxes on oil companies. Anti cutting the gas tax. Just my two cents.
May 7, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment