« Different not Deficient: How Wright Self-Defense is Helping Obama | tonnyb's Blog | Poll: Obama beats Clinton among N.J. Dems »

NC and IN: Hillary is Offering you a $30 Summer Holiday for your Vote


Hillary has an ad blasting Obama for not offering Indianians and North Carolinians a summer holiday from the gas tax.
"I know that times are tough right now," Clinton said. "My opponent opposes giving consumers a break from the gas tax, but I believe the American people are getting squeezed pretty hard by everything happening, the housing crisis, the health care costs and now, of course, this increase in gas prices."
The total saving would be $30 on average. So whadda ya say Carolina? How do ya feel Indiana? Will you vote for her if she promises you a $30 tax break?




26 Comments

| Leave a comment

Why doesn't Obama point out this fact. $30 bucks before the gas companies feel free to raise the gas a bit more since the consumer is still getting a deal.

He should ask Indiana and NC if their vote is worth $30?

he's pointing it out in every speech

his surrogates have the message too

and the MSM have picked it up

Unfortunately, that's what he was talking about at his rally before he had the press conference. So, it got overshadowed.

That is why I decided to post it here. Maybe it can get some attention here.

user-pic

Just to be clear, the $30 is an estimated rebate. However, the more gas you burn, the more you save! What could possibly be wrong with that?!?

There is no rebate. Lowering the tax will *not* lower the price of gas. If you don't understand why you need to do some research.

$30 for the "average" driver is an excessively optimistic estimate (since the price will not fall). In percentage terms it's ridiculous, no matter how much you drive.

Sorry, missed the snark...

user-pic

Well, I wasn't approaching it from an economical point of view, so I was taking for granted that the price actually would fall. I see nothing wrong with yours and Krugman's argument that it would not (or not by much).

My beef is rather from an environmental point-of-view (which is why you might have missed the snark initially). In this regard, I consider it an even bigger fiasco than what your economical analysis alone portrays.

Yes, youare exactly right. it is not a harmless policy, even if it si pointless ecomincally, environmentally it is indeed harmful. All it accomplishes is to tell people, do not change your behavior, do not economize (either for the sake of your wallet, international politics or the health of the planet) do not look for real long-term solutions to real long-term problems. Go right ahead driving gas guzzlers, we'll pay you off.

Higher gas prices should lead us to economize.

I'd rather they keep my $30 and keep some bridges from collapsing.

user-pic

I have to admit that I was a little worried that Obama would back this silly holiday idea as well. I'm glad to hear that he hasn't.

That tax break would cost the American tax payer 9 billion in the short run. Of course that doesn't include the interest we would owe China once we finish paying the 9 billion off.

McCain's plan would cost money. Mrs. Clinton would pay for the reduced gas tax revenue with a increased tax on oil company profits. So her policy amounts to switching tax mechanism to raise the same amount of money while not doing anything to changes prices at the pump. Again in Krugman's words it is "pointless". Politically it is just deceptive.

user-pic

I had forgotten that she was just moving the tax burden to the oil companies. That makes this more of a shell game than an environmental problem like I was first anticipating. I guess I can at least be thankful that it's not as bad as McCain's proposal.

It *is* very much still an environmental issue because higher oil prices are what motivates us to learn to economize and seek out cleaner alternative sources of energy. If policy makers send the signal that they wil step in and try ot lower the price of the harmful sources they will undercut the incentives to change.

I doubt the Europeans are very exercised about this, because their taxes are already so high precisely to motivate much greater efficiency.

Yes, McCain's--also known as a pure giveaway to oil companies--is worse.

user-pic

I suppose what I'm saying is that to the degree that this doesn't lower prices, it's less of an environmental issue. If prices are lowered because of this, then the environmental issue remains.

NC and IN: Obama is offering you a blank check for "change" for your vote.

Just be sure you can pay the taxes.

pretty much anybody with common sense is against Hillary and McCain on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-holiday-splits-cl_n_99296.html

To folks like you, the truth is cheap.

For the rest of us it is as good as gold.

Great a $30 Pander-rebate. I can cash that one to pay for my gas and my Stimulus-rebate to pay for my food. What else can a girl want.

This is in fact a very important moment that has the potential to allow Obama to pivot from the silly symbolism of the Wright affair, to a perfect and critical contrast between himself and Mrs. Clinton (and less importantly McCain).

Mrs. Clinotn is both trying to "buy" votes and denigrate Obama (he doesn't care about/undestand your lives). You might just call it pandering, if indeed Mrs. Clinton was offering the voters something (such as Bill's famous $500 a family tax credit that never happened). In fact, she is not actually offering anyone a break. A gas tax holiday will for very obvious reasons to anyone with knowledge of economic not lower gas prices. Paul Krugman, no friend to Obama, explains it very succintly here:

Let's be clear, it would not save the average family even $30, since that assumes the price per gallon would in fact fall by the total amount of the current tax.

So Mrs. Clinton is trying to buy votes, and undermine Obama's connection to the average voter with a promise that sounds good and delivers with very high certainty, practically nothing (at least she's paying for it...hah)

Mrs. Clinton will say anything to get elected. She will play on the very real vulnerabilities of the people to pretend she is more sincere than her opponent. But in fact, there is no sincerity at all, none. If she has even one competent advisor they should be able to tell her this proposal will do nothing at all.

Of all three candidates, only Obama has the courage to tell the voters this simple truth. There are no easy, cost free short-term fixes to rising gas prices. And the problem with our politics is how easily politicians think it is to lie to the people about this just to score points.

Another way to put this: this is the policy equivalent of the "Tuzla story", build yourself up with something that is demonstrably false.

Obama needs to keep hitting this hard (hopefully more succintly) over and over until Tuesday.

user-pic

I hope the message will be simplified enough for the average voter to comprehend.

I fear that it will not.

All you have to say is "Hillary is offering Americans a $30 summer tax break, by eliminating tax on a gallon of gas. At first glance it might look like a deal. But if you lower the tax, they'll raise the price. Some politicians will promise you anything, and give you nothing."

Whoops the Krugman link did not show up in my original post. It's here.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/


The point is she is saying you get 18 cents per gallon back. In fact, the prices will not change, or barely change and the oil company will just keep the extra 18 cents. There is absolutely no reason the oil companies will lower the price.

She's not offering $30, she offering nothing. But as long as it works to make Obama look like he doesn't care about you and me, who cares?


Considering neither McCain nor HRC will be president this summer it would be difficult to enforce. They are pandering. It is a political gimmick to mislead the voters.

Like Ben, Iam also relieved that Barack did not cave to this ploy.

TonyB is correct it will cost billions. Moreover that is money that pays for repairing roads and bridges and the workers' salaries, too.

While HRC may be a policy wonk she lacks creative, alternative ideas. Why not improve the public transit system instead or what about constructing bicycle paths or something that would improve the situation long-term?

Thirty dollars today gets you around the block maybe. And there is no guarantee it would even save thirty dollars, most estimates are lower -- some by half. But then again it would depend on how much people drive this summer, I suppose.


One thing for sure is that thirty dollars will not even pay for a full tank of gas!

Leave a comment

tonnyb

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 1

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address