Gas Tax Ballyhoo
I don't like to simply post articles here, but I think that this blog by Robert Reich concisely makes the proper points about the proposed gas tax "holiday":
That's just it. Either Clinton doesn't really understand that this policy don't work or she's basically saying that she's committed to pandering in spite of the facts. Personally, I don't happen to believe that Clinton doesn't understand why her proposal can't work. I'm forced to conclude that the latter proposition is the most likely.
I'm also forced to wonder just who a President that refuses to put her lot in with economists would appoint chairman of the Fed.
When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”
I know several of the economists who have been advising Senator Clinton, so I phoned them right after I heard this. I reached two of them. One hadn’t heard her remark and said he couldn’t believe she’d say it. The other had heard it and shrugged it off as “politics as usual.”
That’s the problem: Politics as usual.
The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.
In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.
Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?
That's just it. Either Clinton doesn't really understand that this policy don't work or she's basically saying that she's committed to pandering in spite of the facts. Personally, I don't happen to believe that Clinton doesn't understand why her proposal can't work. I'm forced to conclude that the latter proposition is the most likely.
I'm also forced to wonder just who a President that refuses to put her lot in with economists would appoint chairman of the Fed.
Advertisement
Argh. Should say:
May 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure beats talking about Jeremiah Wright though, doesn't it?
May 5, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zing!
May 5, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear our favorite troll Otto may have suffered some sort of brain damage. He just keeps repeating "Jeremiah Wright" all the time.
May 5, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because this is the last day before the last significant election in the primary. He wants to get it in while he can.
May 5, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT'S VOODO ECONOMICS !
If this scam actually works who know's what she'll pull next! We must stop any form of economic relief before it catches on!!!!
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITE GUILTY CONSCIENCE
May 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trailer Trash Otto, the Inbred Springer Reject, is afraid htat President Obama will not emancipate all we long opressed white men.
May 5, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it brother!
I, too have been oppressed by the white woman.
Meheheheh.
May 5, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you know? Economists are elitists! Nobel prize-winning economists are super-elititists! Therefore, the fact that 221 economists--including 4 Nobel prizewinners--agree with Obama proves that Obama hates white people:
http://gastax08.blogspot.com/2008/05/open-letter-from-economists-opposing.html
(Or, see Otto's comment for a more succinct version.)
May 5, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Hillary has run the math. The votes of Nobel prize winning economists are not gonna push her over the top. She needs the vote of the educationally challenged.
May 5, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly don't think that Hillary Clinton is stupid, so I must conclude that she it just straight up pandering. She has to know that this policy won't work and is stupid but is happy to push it like crazy since she believes it is a means to an end.
May 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not stupid: devoid of integrity.
May 5, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has promised to spend the Windfall profits tax revenues on clean renewable energy development. Now she is promising to spend on a Tax Holiday for Imbeciles.
Billionaires get to save the same amount as blue collar workers. Hillary feels the paint of struggling Billionaires.
Hillary embraces Fuzzy Math!
May 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's fuzzy science also since her plans do not provide for energy security.
May 6, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think they do. And the oil and gas companies know it.
May 6, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
I have to side with CT on this - no one has a good sense of how to secure our energy (other than by gun).
I do not think it is due to lack of good science, but rather the problem is the complexity of the equation. No one wants to be on the wrong side of the energy security math, and we are boxed in by climate change concerns.
May 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secure means what?
May 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies - I pivoted off of the term Energy Security.
In short, I am talking about a way in which we can secure a supply (any supply) to maintain our economy and lifestyle within some semblance of today's standards. For those like clearthinker - I am talking about the high-tech life we lead chatting on the web and such.
Energy Security is likely a medium term pipe dream and the whole caboodle may collapse.
Definitions of secure on the Web:
* procure: get by special effort;
* free from fear or doubt;
* free from danger or risk;
* fasten: cause to be firmly attached;
* protected: kept safe or defended from danger or injury or loss;
* guarantee: make certain of;
May 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if we're talking about getting all we need, that era seems to be coming to an end. I'd argue that the role of government in that case is to ease the transition and make sure that the oil companies don't realize windfall or excess profits as the supply runs out.
I wonder where we would be if FDR had listened to the most respected economists when he took office. I wonder what the conventional wisdom was about something like the TVA. I think Clinton is right on this one. Roll up your sleeves and find a solution. As John Dewey, that pragmatist, showed, the first step in solving a problem is to understand it. The solution of the problem is contained in the problem. Clinton has taken a giant step forward by identifying some of the players for the general public. OPEC, speculators, the oil and gas industry, the government, the media. Let's give her a chance to identify some solutions, beginning with government oversight and an excess profits tax.
May 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy - anyone can name names. Somehow you left off the list "available supply" and "available technology".
Suspending a $0.18 gas tax is NOT rolling up your sleeves - it is pandering. Solving the energy issue will INCREASE energy prices. From heating and electricity to vehicle energy - it will rise as we seek the solution(s). It will rise if we do not seek solutions.
All this "Hillary is a fighter for the common Joe" is smoke up your worshiping ass while the world's energy difficulties will grow.
May 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
See this is my problem with this overarching debate. She simplifies it too much. Like this recent attack on OPEC. First of all, all this talk of suing OPEC and obliterating Iran does nothing to lower gas prices. And it does have an effect on political stability in oil-producing areas, which in turn has an effect on the price of crude oil.
What gets left out of all this OPEC talk is that 40% of our crude oil is domestic. Of the other 60%, roughly half of that comes from OPEC nations. Canada is our top oil importer. Not to mention that if she plans on using WTO to attack OPEC, 4 of the OPEC nations (including Iran and Iraq) are not members of WTO.
And what irks me about Senator Clinton's new gas tax idea is that gas prices have been high. For quite awhile now. And her proposal isn't something she's proposing to do as President, but as Senator. Well, she doesn't have to wait to get into that office. Why didn't she put out this legislation months ago? Now, 25 days from when it's supposed to go into effect? As it stands now, she's doing exactly what she's criticized Obama for: Just words, no action.
But, I return to my new stance on this: Senator Clinton is a tough and gritty fighter. If anyone can get this legislation, windfall tax and all, though in 25 days, it's her.
25 days and counting...
May 6, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit:
feel the pain.
May 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contessa and John just had Gail Collins on and it was hysterical. John read the quotes below from her piece.
The New York Times
Indiana Holiday
“Our question for today is: What does the debate over that cheesy plan for a gas tax holiday mean to the American voting public?”
“Hillary Clinton, who jumped on the gas-tax holiday bandwagon posthaste, wants to pay for it with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This makes her plan much more fiscally responsible. Not only does she balance the books, she turns a proposal that was unlikely to ever get passed into one that could not make it through the Senate if Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy both rose from the dead and hand-carried it there.”
“There are few things more satisfying than taking a strong stand in favor of something that is never going to happen. Free pander!”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03collins.html
May 5, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something else that it means for the voting public is that no one is telling them the truth about what we're really facing in terms of increasing scarcity of petroleum resources. The federal tax on gasoline doesn't even begin to scratch the surface and as a result this proposal is a distraction. I will say that Obama is only marginally better than her on this point. I'd like to hear a lot more honesty from all three candidates on energy issues, but at this point it seems pretty fair to say that it's not at all reasonable to expect this from Clinton or McCain. At the very least, Obama has been willing to call this proposal the ruse that it is. He's also begun to talk about biofuels being a possible dead end. I'm hoping that these comments mark the beginning of a trend for him.
There's something else that really bothers me about this issue. It also goes to the larger meme of 'elitism' that's been bandied about recently. It seems to me that there's a certain anti-intellectualism in our culture. It most certainly exists in the media. I'm referring here to charges of "ivory tower academics" and "liberal college professors". It's a common theme to treat the educated as anathema. This seems counter-intuitive when it is observed that most members of the media are wealthy and college educated. However, it is also true that power finds a way of maintaining itself. By keeping people convinced that being educated is undesirable you can better control what they know and think.
To me, this says something very significant about Hillary Clinton's campaign of late. If you want to gain and maintain power, then I would expect you to say the sort of things she is saying. However, no one who really cares about what happens to the people in this country would perpetuate the awful premise that being educated is somehow diametrically opposed to be an ordinary person.
May 5, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing I'd want to do is defend Hillary on this. But I'm not sure the choices are quite as binary as you present them.
Hillary and Obama have fundamentally different theories of political rhetoric. Obama believes in wrapping his proposals in inspirational and uplifting language; that's been noted so widely, it's become a cliche. But Clinton's every bit as much a showman as Obama; it's just that she's committed to the theater of substance. Her gas tax plan is simply the most blatant example of something that's been generally true of her policy proposals this spring - very few of them have any connection to reality. She's proposed a smorgasboard of discrete (and often costly) initiatives, and liberally sprinkled them through her speeches. Every time she addresses a different constituency, she rolls out another initiative, complete with focus-group tested title and three- or ten-point plans. And the media treats them seriously, as vague or impractical as they might be. Because they, like the voters, understand that there's little chance that Hillary will actually do any of this were she to be elected. Rather, her endless succession of policy proposals is simply intended to illustrate her seriousness, diligence, and concern.
That, I think, is why she unveiled such a ridiculous proposal, and why she and her staff were so clearly unprepared for the ensuing backlash. They didn't expect anyone to treat this as anything other than what it was intended to be - a piece of political theater. They didn't expect it to be subjected to serious analysis, or to have its flaws exposed. That wasn't an unreasonable expectation; it had held true until now. But two things changed - Obama, desperate to change the subject, engaged her directly on the substance of her proposal; and this particular initiative was so patently absurd that the absurdity was easy for the media to grasp and to explain to voters.
So you could call it a pander; but I'd call it a symptom of a broader problem. Hillary rolls out these initiatives to underscore her seriousness and her engagement. It's her way of saying, "I hear you, and I'll do something to help." What frustrates me is that the media has often mistaken this for substantive expertise, when it's simply a rhetorical posture, no different from Obama's embrace of hope. And that's what's happened here - her rhetoric has finally been exposed as deeply unserious. Too bad it took this long.
May 5, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's certainly a compelling perspective. It seems to stand at odds with her complaints of being treated unfairly by the media if this is indeed merely the first instance where she's been examined in this manner.
May 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that perspective. You put to words the sense I got from reading her web site.
Pages upon pages of supposed policy that actually say nothing and point to regurgitated versions of the same thing. It looks like a lot of information, enough to bore the average reader, but there is actually nothing there.
Brilliant political theater.
May 5, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elliot -- you had to include the rock as well?
May 6, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it you do not like it... I thought the stone really topped it off although I wanted to change the color.
May 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's a tad close to avatars I've used and am using now. Certainly in them.
Now, you give yours a bunch of flashing shirt collars and I'll be happy.
May 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! That's a cute picture of your(?) son!
May 6, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
I'll go even further. If you look at the position papers of the 3 major candidates, you will find very little true innovation in attacking these problems. In other words, they are simply feeding back to us what we (and the MSM) have determined to be the "issues".
So the debate becomes nearly pointless.
The stereotypical right in this country assume we can act unilaterally about anything. The stereotypical left in this country assume we have to feel guilty.
In fact, neither view is decent and both prevents us from actually solving problems. Our POTUS should be protecting the rights/values of the US on the world stage and using our leadership position (rapidly shrinking) to get our way.
So, for example, when we talk of global warming, you find very little being said about how China and India (say) are trying to maneuver to increase their greenhouse gas production (to allow for rapid industrialization) by talking in terms of per capita output. Naturally, they have a lot more citizens, so it puts them to an advantage. But what do you find in the national debate?
Righty says: no one can tell us what we can do. A dumb attitude if ever there was one.
Lefty says: we are the worse country in the world and we need to make deep cuts. Of course, they aren't willing to live their lifestyle based on those deep cuts because then they would have to seriously limit, if not eliminate, consumerism in their lives (and this includes, for example, clothing, electronics, and even a variety of exotic foods).
Similarly, our debate of "alternative energy" never gets at the core issues: the lifestyle of our children will be worse than ours and there is no escaping that fact. Instead, people have a myth in their head that we can simply replace oil.
Even on this thread we hear about the age-old conspiracies of corporations "sitting on" enabling technology. This, of course, is nonsense and no evidence is ever presented for it.
Here, for example, is a car that runs "on air":
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news1.7c.html
No one is sitting on this technology. But you will note most obese Americans probably wouldn't even fit in this vehicle, it won't be good for racing around long distances, and it's not even clear what the ultimate cost of manufacturing will be (because you use oil to make things, of course!).
But we never hear about this type of technology in the national debate because the painful truth ("Say goodbye to your SUV") is something that no one wants to hear. So we keep dreaming that the utopia we imagine (current lifestyle) can go on indefinitely when no exponential growth has ever been allowed to continue indefinitely (it ultimately uses up finite resources).
May 6, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct as usual, DF.
While I wouldn't want the pendulum to swing back to the days of the "best and brightest" -- brought to you by the JFK administration by the way, it's amazing how few PhD we elect to office. Compared to most Western countries, we fall way behind in electing people who know something besides law -- or who are real estate magnates.
Instead we get dogmatic views trying to control the political debate -- none of which has helped in the past and is therefore likely to help in the future!
May 6, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she feels so strongly about it, she's a Senator, and can get to work writing up a bill.
How can she credibly support a policy position that must be implemented immediately ("summer holiday") if she's not actually utilizing her legislative powers for its speedy realization?
Even if she's too busy with the campaign to do it, many of her supers are congresspersons, and they could be collaborating on it for her. If she ends up squawking about the gas tax holiday through another news cycle without some legislative action from her camp, then even more people will start calling her out to put her money where her mouth is.
She has NO defense to the accusation of pandering. A smart questioner on the campaign trail could reveal this in a truly devastating way.
May 6, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary may spell relief "P..A..N..D..E..R", but Obama's got Stevie Wonder appearing with him in Indianapolis tonight!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-in-obama-wonder,0,2543608.story
May 5, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you worry 'bout a thing, pretty 'bama.
May 5, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stevie Wonder is a genius. And genius follows genius. So grow up.
May 6, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else here had enough of politicians who don't take the advice of those who know what they're talking about and go blindly ahead with their own foolhardy ideas?
Oh--right--my fellow Obama supporters!
I don't give a hoot how fat Hillary's Rolodex is--she's just proven again that she doesn't know how to use the thing!
May 5, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama should have listened to Colin Powell back in 2002? Good to know. Think he'll admit that in a speech?
May 6, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
A)Did you see that power point slide?
B)Your claim is that Powel is an expert on mobile biological weapons labs?
C)Specious
May 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What did Colin Powell know he was talking about back in 2002?
May 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is attacking economists and pushing this issue because the money-grubbing elites are supposed to see that she is just playing the political game and exploiting the working man who believes the gas tax holiday will do them any good.
So she disparages the elites with a knowing wink, as they're maxed out donations wise where the internet support for Hillary has barely scratched the surface. Extreme Populous Hillary is out of political necessity. Her track record is catering to the elites and the lobbyists, her populous talk is just words. Of course desperate times call for desperate measures and the ends justify the means.
May 5, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can this increase the demand for gas? the lowest three income quintiles pay 5.1% of their income for gas - the highest quintile pays 3.5% of their income. The lowest three quintiles are not seeing their income keeping pace with prices, in fact they're seeing it fall behind the increase in prices. Gasoline inventories were built to record high levels in the beginning of the year, and gasoline use has decreased by .08%. So what has happened to cause this spike in prices? The price of crude oil has gone up, the refineries sold their surplus at unusually low margins and the refineries are switching from winter grade to summer grade, so the oil companies claim - and yet, gasoline inventories remain in the upper half of the average range of inventories at this time of year and refinery margins have increased.
For people who are spending 50.00 a week on gasoline, 18 cents per gallon discount sounds pretty damned good. When Obama was in the state senate, he voted for a state tax holiday on fuel sales three times. Why was that a good plan, but this is a bad plan?
May 5, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are assuming that the tax break will be passed along. First it is paid by the oil company, second, the tightest margin in the oil food chain is at the pump. Gas Stations make pennies on the gasoline sold and hope that people shop in their convenience stores.
If the $0.18 off $3.60 ($3.42) really makes a dent - in a 20 gallon tank that is a whopping one gallon discount - how big of a dent? What percentage of those low income people you list actually drive?
Do you actually get a result where the biggest recipient of the tax break are the people who can already afford to drive?
As for increased demand - should $0.18 actually get chopped off the price, there would be minimal bump in consumption. Not really enough to write a story about.
As for Obama and Illinois Tax Holiday - if I am not mistaken a)the tax is a %, not flat, and b)Obama has already said he feels that those votes ended up with little impact. But I could be wrong.
May 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dramatic thing about Clinton's proposal is that a windfall or excess profits tax will mean that the oil companies have to open their books to the public, justify their profit margin and submit to government regulation of their profits as the oil runs out. That is a very big deal. It's too bad that aspect of her proposal isn't getting more attention.
May 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Magister has a real post on the gas tax as opposed to a link to something we've already seen on the front page here.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-gas-tax-before-the-wind-to.php
Naturally, Magister's informative post won't make the recommended list while this one already has.
has has has
May 6, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gas tax relief will not offset rising prices.
Goldman Sachs:
or OPEC's version:
And the sliding dollar is an intentional plan on behalf of the current Administration as far as I can tell.
That $0.18 will disappear as fast as you can say summer driving
May 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, and maybe not. But what won't disappear is the board that decides whether or not the oil and gas industry is making excess profits. And that's what they -- and apparently you -- are fighting so hard. Since when are Progressives on the side of big oil?
May 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a "progressive" I am for finding a solution, but as a business person, I am not sure that government oversight of company profits will do that - either nationalize, or stay out of the mix. This is a very complex issue and the biofuels/food production conundrum is a microexample of how interconnected everything is.
Ask Mexico how nationalizing has gone.
I can see both sides of the coin, but we are talking about a global issue and not simply profits. Regulation of profits is shortsighted and will trigger the law of unintended consequences. The oil/gas industry is one of the most regulated and taxed industries in the US and a lot of the oil comes from outside our boundaries. You push hard enough, and there will no longer be "American Oil Companies".
May 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Well, I guess my short answer is I think we need more government, not less. We've already elected one President recently who was interested in getting elected by not in governing. I'm not interested in doing that again. Bush has shown that just about anyone can get elected. But once you're elected, unless what you're up to is destroying the government, you have to be willing and able to govern. When I talked about the Revolution, this is what I had in mind. Government of by for not perish. The social fabric. A government that understands that science has established that that human being pumping gas needs calories, sunshine, challenging work, healthcare, good air to be a human being.
May 6, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't yet, I recommend Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
The government is only part of the equation. Which is why a number of us are attracted to the concept that change will take all of us, not just one fighter in the White House.
Every single citizen.
May 6, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you should be voting the GOP who all have increased government for the past 30 years.
It was the Clintons who reduced the size of government.
May 6, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, 18 cents isn't going to make a difference to me, but to many people, 18 cents a gallon does mean a lot. When I hear these kids talk about buying text books at 50, 60 bucks a pop, art supplies at 100/200 bucks a quarter, paying tuition, driving to work and to school and back again, yes, I'd like to see them get a break. We've bailed out the auto industry twice, the savings and loan industry, the airline industry and investment bankers, but when it comes to giving the little guy a break, Christ, you'd think it was the end of capitalism as we know it.
May 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see this one? Courtesy of Disedero.
http://www.correntewire.com/who_you_gonna_believe_econ_101_or_your_lyin_eyes
It works in fact, but will it work in theory?
May 6, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That paper is about tax incidence between two states, one with the tax and one without. Retailers in Illinois lowered their prices to attract more customers and thus more profits from drivers in Indiana. They still didn't realize the full savings they shot for even with incidence being what it was. Also they don't discuss the costs of the program and future costs in lost revenues, that's where the conversation should focus. The incidence experienced in Illinois won't be the case with a National gas tax moratorium.
May 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever you say. Don't let facts get in the way. But hell. Tell me this. What exactly did Obama learn from the Illinois experience that convinced him it was a bad idea? Until a few minutes ago, that was the received doctrine in the echo chamber. So what info did Obama have that showed it was a bad idea? Prices in Illinois went down. I think your friend just got caught talking out of his ass again.
May 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, probably. Not saying he never talks out his ass every so often, just saying the two situations aren't the same and the outcome can't be predicted in the same way. Des was writing as if the tax worked the way it was planned, it didn't, and although there was 2 percent savings in Illinois, the taxpayers had a lot of revenues to make up for, plus interest.
However, I think his qualm was about the loss of revenues. Which is a legitimate concern even with windfall profit taxes.
You convinced yet? Maybe even just a little bit? Hehe.
May 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What it will do is provide immediate relief to lower income workers. No, it's not a long term solution, but Clinton isn't claiming that it is.
May 6, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The gas tax isn't passed along to the consumer, the consumer pays the tax in the first place - the tax is collected at the pump, not at the refinery.
Most low income people don't live in cities, they live in rural/suburban areas. They drive quite a distance to work, because they have to. I don't think people get what's going on here in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Michigan - factory jobs are far and few between, and factories that do exist are moving farther and farther out - not everyone works in an office. People who clean other peoples' houses have to drive to those houses, they have to drive to those construction sites, they have to drive to the health clinic - they can't take a bus, they can't take a cab, they can't jump on a train, they can't get on the subway, so 18 cents a gallon is a godsend to many people.
May 6, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, most of us are in the same boat. Most everyone gets it, but if a policy won't work...it won't work, why push for something we all will have to pay more for in the future and more than likely do nothing to curb gas prices?
On a side note, I'm glad this discussion is going on, I think it's good thing for people to get to know this issue better. I know I've learned a bit on the issue.
May 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, the worst transgressors in this gouging are the credit card companies who are charging 7.5% fees on all transactions. That is passed along to consumers in higher prices for gas.
May 6, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That we agree on.
May 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an awesome post, drosz. I'm tired of a few people here constantly bringing up some notion of the "workers" when we all are in the same boat.
Often the people driving the long distances were those trying to find a house that was affordable. Part of the cost of that house is the commute. And I wonder what cars they drove to/from work on that long commute. Something tells me most of them weren't getting 25 mpg or more.
May 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not all in the same boat. That's my point.
May 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This statement fails to grasp the extent of the situation. Right now it may appear that we are not in the same boat. As the energy supply gets tighter, the boat will get smaller.
I suppose this version of that analogy means you are right - none of us are in the boat and some point. Excluding the ultra-rich.
There is no escaping the shrinking energy supply.
May 6, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't heard , or ignore tha fact that Obama explained he had learned a lesson from back then.
May 5, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Catch up, Tom. We're now at the point where it lowered prices in Illinois back then, but things are different now. The echo chamber is working on what info Obama had back then that convinced him the tax holiday hadn't worked. See the problem? He has egg on his face. Little working paper problem. Little study as opposed to deduction from a theory.
So where we are now is that gas and oil companies don't necessarily raise their prices to take advantage of the fact that the market has borne a higher price. As a matter of fact, in the real world, we don't know what the companies will do if Clinton lays an excess profits tax on them and lifts the gasoline tax.
I say lets get Obama out of the way and find out.
May 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since it is the Majors you are so hot to trot to take on, we can easily deduce what will happen when you slap them with windfall profits taxes - they will cease to be American companies and their investment into US production will drop.
Oil exploration is risky business and expensive. Further it is expensive because a number of the efforts are trial and error which yield nothing.
May 6, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The demand for gas is generally increasing. Lowering the price will generally always increase the quantity demanded. The two main factors of increasing oil prices are the deflating dollar and decreasing petroleum reserves (and hence descreased supply).
This discount sounds good, but what about the lost revenue for infrastructure? If an additional tax is laid upon the oil companies, they will pass as much of it as they can onto the consumer. In this case, the price elasticity of the market is extremely inelastic. This means that the oil companies can pass a significant amount of the tax on to the consumer. Even if both of these initiatives were created before the summer (which won't happen in any case), the price would likely not change at all and may still increase. The end result would be a similar price for the consumer and hopefully similar tax revenue which would no longer be set aside for infrastructure.
May 6, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the demand for gas is falling. In fact, the demand for gas has fallen .08% in the first quarter. Supplies of gasoline are at an all time high.
May 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's domestic consumption. There's a whole world out there thirsty for oil.
Face it folks, the chorus may be singing for it, but gasoline is never going to get any cheaper, ever again.
With oil at $122 a barrel and heading skywards we'll need a lot more than an $0.18 of pandering to deal with this problem.
May 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Historical fact. Consumption is inversely proportional to price. After the oil shocks of the 70's consumption went down, people wanted smaller vehicles, etc.
With renewed drilling, the Alaska Pipeline and the British North Sea fields (both now past-peak) glutted the market in the late 80's-90's and bigger cars came back as did consumption.
The conclusion is that American's can't control themselves. No matter how much food you put on a plate, they'll eat it immediately.
And if you are spending $50/week on gas, you will save $2.57/week (assuming gas is only $3.50/gal). Let's be honest, that's not relief... Shall we price $2.57 in terms of cans of soda to show how little it is?
May 6, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Historical fact. Consumption is inversely proportional to price."
I was about to post that but instead I give you kudos...so, kudos. Clinton's people know this and so do a lot of people. No one saves a dime on this proposal especially when you add indirect costs into the equation (we always forget this, eh!?). We should remember, any government action costs us money, the costs asociated with including a windfall tax ( which include legal and administrative fees) means everyone eventually pays more for this "holiday". It's not just bad economics, it's bad government.
May 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you don't like the label of "elitist" but this is elitist thinking. There are people in the tri-state area of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana who are really, truly suffering. To them an extra three bucks a week means alot. Three bucks a week can mean the difference between having something for their kids to eat on the day before payday. With an extra three bucks a week, people can buy two loaves of bread, three boxes of cornflakes, two pounds of apples, a jar of peanut butter, a lb of hamburger, a dozen eggs or two quarts of milk. You don't see these people lined up at the food banks, you don't see them at dollar general counting out quarters to buy food, to many people 3 bucks a week is chump change, but there are many, many people to whom three bucks makes a hell of a difference in their lives. They have older cars that get poorer gas mileage, they have to have car insurance to drive, they have to drive to work, they cannot afford to live in cities.
May 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then we should convince them of ways to save an extra $6 a week, or more. They could carpool, walk short distances instead of driving, turn off their car instead of idling it when not moving for more than 30 seconds, drive slower, keep their tires inflated, take public transit where it's convenient and available, lobby their politicians where it's not.
I know this will sound "elitist" to some, but it'd save more money than this gas tax holiday would—and it would be better for the environment.
May 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously don't live in a rural/suburban area. People are driving less, they are carpooling more, they are combining trips. The point is that these people have to drive long distances to work, there is no tranportation system. Here's an example of what public transportation is like in my area - if someone works downtown, he has to drive 6 miles to the busport, a take a bus that leaves at 7am and returns at 6pm. That is the schedule. Now that's great if you have a nine to five job, but if you work in a downtown restaurant, say from 4 to midnight, what do you think those people have to do? Drive (not to mention pay for parking) they have no other choice. So sure, it's great to carpool and do all those things, but for now what would you suggest they do?
May 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hence the reason I stated
I used public transit in Atlanta when I lived in the suburbs, so I know what bad public transit is like.
I know several people in both rural and suburban areas who complain about gas prices, but who don't carpool, who drive down the street to pick their kid up from the bus stop, and who buy new, fuel inefficient vehicles when there are cheaper and more fuel efficient vehicles that would serve their needs. In fact, all of the people I know who live in rural and suburban areas that complain about the price of gas fall into at least one of these groups.
I already provided a detailed (if incomplete) list. Make sure your tires are inflated properly. Don't idle your car excessively. If you drive a car made after 1980, don't "warm it up" in the morning (regardless of how cold it is outside) by letting it idle prior to driving. Drive slower. Rotate your tires. Walk or ride your bike when you can. When buying a new or used car, make fuel efficiency one of your criteria.
Any one of these things is more likely to save you money than the gas tax holiday.
May 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Ben.
May 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Ben, those are all great suggestions and I'm sure many people are following them, but when I work at the food bank and see these people come in, humiliated, worn down, worried sick, driving old clunkers and having to replace them with newer old clunkers because they can't afford anything else, who work two and three jobs to keep their heads above water, yes, I think that a tax holiday on gasoline is a good idea. No, it's not going to solve the energy problem, but it isn't meant to do so. These are people in this country who are not "grumbling" about the cost of gasoline and driving their SUVs, these are people who are genuinely afraid they're not going to make it to the next paycheck. We are serving more people now than we did in December and these people are are working. Unfortunately, for many of these people local jobs consiste of grocery clerking, McDonalds countering and pizza delivering. I talked with a woman the other day who cleans houses, sometimes two and three a day, and an entire day's pay is wiped out with a tank of gas. She has no choice but to drive around to these neighborhoods to work and yes, three to six bucks a week makes a difference in her life, because it is cash going out faster than she can make it.
Is it pandering? Yes, so what? Was it pandering when Obama said that he would give a raise to every school teacher in America? Sure it was, he has no more authority to do that than Clinton does to declare a tax holiday on gasoline. When Clinton stands at the gas pumps and talks to people, I'll bet she is getting an earful of what it's like out here in the real world, the rust belt, where people face a 60 mile round trip everyday to get to work at a factory or manufacturing plant. These plants are becoming far and few between and leaving desolation and poverty in their wake as they move away. As far as I am concerned, candidates can pander on and on and if they provide any kind of relief for the regular guy, I am glad of it. If Clinton introduces legislation to enact a gas tax holiday, good for her and shame on those people who scoff at it.
May 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, these people at the food bank who are paying $50 a week on gas will get more benefit from being taught about how to drive and maintain their car, as well as how not to drive, than they will from a gas tax holiday. They will get a lot more benefit from someone fixing public transportation.
For example, the cleaning lady you're talking about. If she had access to someone who could analyze her driving habits, I expect she would be able to save at least 10 times as much as she would from that gax tax holiday.
Also, these savings are two-fold: they help the poor and they help the environment. These savings are also permanent, if they become habits.
The gas tax holiday, on the other hand, harms the environment to the degree that it has any effect on gas prices. Additionally, it's a short-term fix.
May 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, you just don't get it. Where do you think this woman is going to "get access to someone who can analyse her driving habits"? Why do you think that these people aren't already doing what they can and have been doing what they can for some time now?
Check the tire pressure? Learn good maintenance habits? People who have housekeepers have the housekeeper come when it is convenient for them, not the housekeeper.
I am completely amazed at how little people know about the working poor in this country.
May 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She doesn't have to wait until she's called to check her tire pressure. She just needs to check it about once a month. As for getting someone to analyze her driving habits, maybe it could just be someone she knows—perhaps someone who works at a food bank. My point wasn't that she could only benefit from someone doing so (I would've thought that was obviously not my point), but that there were probably numerous ways she could save money on gas. I'm not there so I don't know exactly what she's doing, and every time I mention a way to save money, you seem to suggest that she's already doing it. The only thing that can seemingly help this poor lady is this gas tax holiday.
So, unless you're arguing that your knowledge of the working poor leads you to believe they are idiots incapable of learning, any one of my suggestions is more likely to help them than this silly gas tax holiday. Sure, the ideas only go so far, but they go further than that holiday.
May 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not claiming special knowledge, I'm claiming that some people really have no experience at all with those who are really struggling to keep their heads above water. Sure, we all want to go further but right now people need immediate relief. It's a bailout for Bear Sterns, it's pandering for the regular guy.
May 6, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the gas tax holiday is not immediate relief! That's the whole point!
If you want immediate relief for that woman, provide her with information that will help her today. For example, she could drive slower today and start saving money today. That is immediate. That is relief. Don't promise her tax relief that will never come, and that would be of minimal help even if it did.
If you're really concerned about helping this woman, provide her with information like this or this. These were just a few that came up on a Google search for "saving gas tips". I know these don't all apply to her, but enough do that she could (a) save more money than would be saved by removing the gas tax, (b) save it now, and (c) save it without needing this bill to get passed by Congress that won't get passed by Congress.
May 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's exactly the point, Bev.
Let people feel the "pain" until is great enough that they demand of their local officials to improve public transportation.
That will mean hard choices will have to be made. It's an unfortunate fact, but Americans won't stop being wasteful until it hits them in the wallet.
People have shown a willingness to avoid making transportation choices for years. It's time to end that waffling.
Because at some point in the very near future, we won't be able to improve the public transportation -- and then we will be screwed.
Lastly, I would like to see how many of these people have private debt on credit cards. The statistics indicate that a majority of people in this country have lived beyond their means for years. The real suffering is because people refused to be disciplined about their spending habits -- and it affects the rest of us who live within our means.
May 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, let's do something about these welfare queens greasing off credit cards. It's about time they were made to suffer.
May 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we are talking about suffering, let's talk about it.
Are they suffering more than the poor in India, China, etc? Those people are truly suffering, too.
What suffering will they have in the summer months during the gas "holiday"? That they won't be able to drive on vacation?
Of let's talk about the suffering of now having funds for keeping the roads maintained?
What kind of cars are these people in the tri-state area driving? What kind of cars were they driving in the 90's when gas was cheaper? Were they trying to conserve gas, or were they guzzling?
Forgive my skepticism, but I have yet to see numbers on the lifestyles of people where $3/week for gas is a big difference.
I want them to get the message now that fuel prices are still low to what they will be paying within a year's time, if not this winter.
You aint' seen suffering yet! And the sooner people own up to that, the sooner we can get the country behind an energy program, and not a momentary (and paltry) handout.
May 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's it, they won't be able to drive to Disney World this year - that's what they're worried about.
I've got mine, right?
May 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's because we are past peak oil. Until 1972, the US was able to play the "swing" role by pumping more out of the ground to stabilize any price issue. Of course, the lower 48 states went post-peak in 1972 (verifying Hubberts prediction from the 50's). Until about 2005 or so, the Saudi's played the swing role. However, over the past 2-3 years, they haven't been able to pump at a higher rate -- despite their promises to do so.
At this point, the price of oil is now determined by speculators. And, of course, they know that we are post peak.
In addition, not all oil is traded openly anymore. For example, Venezuela is cutting deals directly with the Chinese which further decreases the supply available on the open market.
In addition, Mexico (our second biggest vendor after Canada) is exporting much less oil than expected from the peak effect -- because they need more internally. Russia, also, will need oil for themselves before exporting the rest -- ditto, Iran. So the amount available on the free markets is actually shrinking faster then Hubbert would predict.
Lastly, this isn't a spike in price. It will continue to trend up, up, up.
May 6, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It didn't work in Illinois and Obama admitted it was a mistake as gas companies just raised their prices. Clinton voted against a gas tax reduction in New York, so I guess I could ask why was it bad then and good now?
It will increase the demand for gas because Hillary and Co are saying that families can use this for family car vacations that they were not going to take this year. Refineries are working at max output for the summer months, so when demand is higher because more can afford more gas, either gas companies will raise prices in order to slow the demand or we'll see long lines at the pumps and gas shortages because of the lowered price. It's supply and demand. If there is more demand then there is supply the price goes up until the supply meets the lessened demand (due to the price hike)
May 5, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In NY it wasn't coupled with an excess profits tax. Keep your eye on the pea. The real question is how did the oil companies gull Obama on this one? Maybe he just couldn't go along at this time because she scooped him with the proposal.
May 6, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a cop out, Billy. In the short term oil companies won't pay this tax, we will, and in the long term it will still cost taxpayers more to implement this.
If you want people to save money on gas prices, and I really would like it to happen, convince people to drive slower than they normally would, take less unneeded trips, keep your vehicle well maintained, carpool, take better care in planning routes for trips, and take public transportation when you can.
However, if we take a cynical view and say people aren't willing to do this, the most effective policies for dealing with short term gas prices will need to come from a local or state level where the knowledge of the culture and needs of the state can be taken into account. It's not sexy politics, but that is what is needed.
May 6, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they'll pay the tax, the tax is levied on income, not gross profit. If you're paid 50,000 a year and you pay 20% income tax, that tax isn't built into your salary, it comes off the gross income made in the pay period. This idea that income tax is passed along to the consumer by the seller is just wrong - it doesn't work that way, it isn't a "cost of goods manufactured or sold" and it isn't factored into the price of goods when sold.
May 6, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are ways to accomplish this though and retailers do this. These costs will be passed on to the consumers and there won't be a need to say it's because the tax...it'll be through speculators who set gas prices. One could lobby the FTC to deal with this, but as I said before, costs, costs, costs, there comes a point where the costs far outweigh the benefits.
There are far less expensive ways to help people save money.
May 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't true, that isn't the way it works. Manufacturers, retailers, pay tax on inventories, and income, not on sales.
May 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, indeed. There should be no tax, windfall, wartime, or excess profit on the oil companies.
Why?
Why, because you're all so much smarter than the working stiff that thinks a tax that has been historically charged is long past due, and that the wealth transferance from the middle class that has boosted those 11 billion per quarter profits maybe is a little too much.
Hey, that wet, yellow, smelly stuff pouring down your backs is rain.
:)
I'm sure you don't mind, as long as you get to feel smart when you bend over.
I haven't seem such an all out media blitz since the run up to war.
Looks like this one is working, too.
May 5, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My vote would be for returning to higher income taxes for all companies.
Mainly, though, the purpose of sponsoring the bill is to say she did. She does not need it to pass, or succeed at its stated goal. She only needs to say she did it and Obama opposed tax relief for working families, or similar formulation.
Selling from the Strategic Reserve would knock the price down hard, since it would compete with the commercial suppliers. But even that's not healthy, when people are finally leaving the SUVs on the lot and buying more efficient cars. Just when we need to aggressively accelerate changeover to alternatives we should not encourage lighting up more cigs before we quit smoking.
Tax relief can be delivered as a tax credit to low-income families, decoupled from gasoline purchase.
May 5, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good call on the credit idea, tied to income. The hard part about alternative fuels is that they do not exist.
Not in a form or volume that would matter that is.
May 5, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We used to be number one in wind and solar. Now Germany is doing quite well with wind, and Japan with solar, thank you very much.
We could do it if we stopped allowing the oil companies and defense companies to buy these promising technologies and sitting on them.
May 5, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.K. that was poor English, but my avatar has been drinking, (again.
I don't expect your avatar to understand.
May 5, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real reason my avatar is sitting down is due to the excess tequila mixed with the Kool-Aid.
May 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true. The entire world is set up to conspire against you.
May 6, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dismissive and rude as usual, but it doesn't change the truth.
Now explain to everyone why America was at the forefront of solar technology and wind technology back in the 1980s, and why they are no longer.
Also explain what happens to these companies when GE or Exxon buys them.
May 6, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reply below, the dumb check box didn't seem to work correctly (again).
May 6, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I agree that it's pandering up to a point, but the basis, that profit tax is what she should be held to.
I'm with you in that all the companies making obscene profits off the war shouldn't be.
It's sickening, really. Blood for oil, and cold fucking hard cash.
I think Obama supporters ignore that part of it because they're in "hillary is evil mode." This was brilliant on her part really, channeling John Edwards, and I may be crazy, but I think I see his fingerprints here.
May 5, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather have vouchers for beer and bourbon.
May 5, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hell ya.
Don't forget Tequilla.
May 5, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks 'round here call that "NAFTA juice". :-)
May 5, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 35% tax rate is a good rate, the problem is that the write offs, tax breaks and tax credits have completely offset the tax.
May 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the economic principles at work here are well understood and this plan simply won't yield the result that is proposed. First of all, Clinton won't be able to implement this plan for the summer. She's in no position to get it done. This is the first clue that it's "extended recess". Furthermore, there cannot be and will not be a change in supply in the short term. Even if the tax was temporarily lifted we likely would see no significant decrease in prices. Demand will rise in the summer months. Additionally, even if this windfall profit tax were applied, the oil companies would be able to pass at least a portion of this onto the consumer. Even in the best case scenario all that would really be accomplished would be to collect funds that would not be earmarked for infrastructure.
In other words, Clinton is telling everyone a lie about what will happen. Oil prices are rising because the dollar is deflating and because oil supplies are decreasing. I haven't heard her say either of these things in a truthful context. All the rage in the world about oil company profits cannot change these realities.
May 6, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
So gas prices might go higher? Well excuse me, but is
isn't that exactly what you say you want?
So the "worst case scenario" is actually the preferred outcome, yet you're fighting it tooth and nail, and accusing people that maybe figured that out already of being, "angry."
Such an easy way to dismiss them.
The thing you're missing here is accountability. Yes, it makes me angry when I see bread lines, and when I see all the bag boys in the grocery store are over 40, and when I see the newest child poverty statistics. Are you saying it doesn't make you angry?
If Hillary Clinton, or some populist minded socialist wants to effectively cap the oil company profits at 15% by instituting an excess profit tax, that is a good thing. The limited amount of oil left should be a public utility and if these greedy jerks are taking our tax dollars, then their books should be open to scrutiny.
Maybe then we can demand and get some accountability beyond their next quarters obscene profits. Maybe we can force them to update their fleets of oil tankers instead of putting up with the leaky crap they have out there polluting our oceans. Maybe we can take some of that 11 billion and put it into alternative energy R & D.
But no, let the status quo rule for no better reason than Obama dropping the ball on this.
Yeah, whatever.
May 6, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gas prices will go higher in the long run no matter what. Her proposal will likely not affect them in the short run.
I'm not fighting anything "tooth and nail". There's nothing to fight, because this isn't going to happen. I'm calling a spade a spade.
You are aware that Clinton is not proposing the nationalization of oil resources (that aren't located in our country), right? That seems to be what you're calling for here.
May 6, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the refinery capacity in the oil producing countries? If we nationalize our oil and gas industry, the government will control refining and distribution. Can't hurt, can it? I actually see some possibilities there.
May 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It can hurt - read my Mexico comment from above.
May 6, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
try 2
May 6, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just straight up pandering. It reminds me of a story somebody tells Lawrence Ritter in his great oral history of baseball, The Glory of their Times, about Rube Waddell, a brilliant pitcher with a bit of a, well, mental disability. The story goes that Waddell's opponents used to load their first-base coaches up with colorful toys; when Rube got in a groove, the coach would lay the toys out on the base path and yell, "Hey Rube! Look!" Waddell would immediately lose all focus and become a human target.
That's pretty much what Hillary thinks of us. "Hey, suckers, look! Gas Tax Holiday!" She's not even bothering to hide it.
May 5, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing wrong with a war tax, in fact it's about fucking time.
May 5, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it previously, but I'll say it on this blog:
Gas tax relief is simply wrong.
a) It's being proposed over the summer months. Why? Because gas consumption goes up. Why? Not because people need to drive to work... it's people driving on *vacation*. The US should *not* be encouraging consumption for especially that. No one is entitled to a vacation that they can't afford.
b) We've heard a lot about helping the "blue-collar workers". Who are these people, exactly? If they notice $10/mo for 3 months, they aren't blue collar workers -- these are the extremely impoverished poor. And they have other issues.
c) For a country that is crying about foreclosures and credit card debt, we sure don't learn our lessons very well: live within your means. We are running out of oil. How much oil do you want to bequeath to your children? Who is really being selfish and greedy here?
d) Very few professions need the pickup trucks, mini-vans, off-roading, and SUVs we see on the highways. These are the least efficient cars. As someone who has never had a car get less than 25 mpg (city -- and this is actual numbers, not the inflated road tested numbers), where are other people helping *me* conserve oil? Why am I working hard to subsidize a piggy life style from the guzzlers?
Let the gas price float. Because if you think people are suffering under $4/gal gas (and it's only $4/gal in CA I believe), you ain't seen nothing yet!
Here's a bit of a peak into the future:
Natural Gas:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3A.htm
I would worry more about trying to save enough money to heat your home in winter than vacationing in the summer.
Gasoline:
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
Now, go back and review what happened in the 70's: gas rationing & price indices out of whack (food costs skyrocketing). In the 70's food prices didn't rise because we were growing corn for ethanol -- they were growing because of the extra costs for energy to grow and process and transport the food.
We haven't even hit the real problems yet and already we hear whining about "relief".
Lastly, pandering works to the people who buy into it. Who are these people? The ones that have little concept about the future and how to plan and budget for it. If it costs too much to fill your gas tank -- keep that in mind the next time you buy a car. Or speed over 55 mph (more fuel inefficient). By simply lowing your highway speed to 55 mph, you can increase the efficiency of your fuel consumption.
May 6, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, great comments. Another simple way to increase gas mileage is to keep your tires inflated to (not over) the maximum and to change the air filter regularly. The average driver can realize savings of several hundred dollars per year just by doing this. Obama ought to pass out tire gauges at a town hall meeting and announce that folks can save more this way than with Clinton's spurious plan...and without the job loss and danger to the highway infrastructure.
May 6, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, general maintenance is important. And a lot of people don't worry about that either. The nice things about the driving speed is it doesn't require any extra effort at all!
I'd love to see this. It would be the best clip since brushing stuff off his shoulders...
May 6, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so it polls well. But do the voters in IN and NC think that if they vote for her, she will pass legislation for this summer, you know, the one almost upon us?
If so, they are laughing stocks.
May 6, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the rest of us will suffer for their stupidity.
It shouldn't even poll well...
May 6, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Economists are dirty, backroom, math intoxicated elitists.
We doan needs 'em!
May 6, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the real issue here is to stop having children as overpopulation is the real culprit.
If you want to see the effect of overpopulation on energy look at
http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~pel/environment/population_pt04.html#ref
May 6, 2008 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next thing I know, you're going to tell me that the way to lose weight is to eat less and/or exercise more. You and your crazy ideas!
May 6, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're on a roll today, Ben! Thanks for the LOL!
May 6, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for all those "alternative energy" enthusiasts, please read
http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~pel/environment/energy_pt04.html
and comment quantitatively on why you still believe in how we won't have to change our present lifestyle.
May 6, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
From your reference:
So... AstroPower went bankrupt before GE bought them. I guess either (a) there was no market for their product or (b) they didn't have the technology to a degree that it was useful. GE then makes a buy on some technology. AFTER AstroPower went bankrupt. There's no conspiracy there.
But you do make one good inquiry: what happened to all the energy programs in the 80s that we had? (We didn't lead the world in all technology as you imply -- the Japanese had some very strong programs building in the 70s and, of course, the 80s.)
The answer is simple: the general populace didn't like the "gloomy" Jimmy Carter concerns about energy issues. These include a high percentage of the rust-belt blue collar workers that supported Reagan who went ahead and dismantled our energy policy. Bill Clinton, by the way, didn't do anything different than his GOP predecessors or successor in this area, so again, Hillary is talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Now, these same blue collar workers (and their children) are whining about the high cost of energy. Good. Perhaps the next time a President talks about attacking the energy issue as "the moral equivalent of war," they will listen more carefully:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
May 6, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
AstroPower was maybe helped into bankruptcy. But they were certainly not the only solar company bought, nor were they they only alternative energy company bought up and stifled by GE. IOW, I disproved your rude snark, and you really can't come up with anything but trivial observations. If AstroPower was such a mess, GE wouldn't have bought them out. That's business.
Comparing Clinton and Reagan is so ridiculous, I'm surprised you can post that drivel with a straight face.
Maybe you didn't.
May 6, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said above, no matter what is presented to you, you see as a conspiracy. This has become like an argument with a flat-earth society person.
If you did know anything about business, you would know that large companies routinely buy up smaller ones because that's how they get their new ideas and products (it's cheaper than maintain the old IMB, or Ford, or GE labs of yesteryear). Microsoft does it... and so does Apple. Maybe they are all conspiring... hurting the little guy.
If you really wanted to read tea leaves, you would see that buying up alternate energy solutions might be just the thing that a company would do to hedge against oil as a primary energy source go away.
And as far as pushing nuclear -- they won't have to. In short order, people will be begging for it.
Did you bother to read the articles I posted above? Or is the American Physical Society a suspected source since I'm suggesting it?
But your world is apparently black and white and built on the supposition that nefarious forces lurking everywhere.
Who am I to talk you out of that world view? So, enjoy it, workerbee. It's all yours.
May 6, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some people call "peak oil" a conspiracy theory.
I'm quite sure that asking people to think a little bit more about a subject so thoroughly and ferociously dismissed is what you consider to be a conspiracy, or you wouldn't make a habit out of resorting to ad hominem whenever you run out of answers to perfectly valid points.
I would hope that rather than asking people here to be dismissive and closed minded as you have, that I have given some people pause and a reason to think for themselves.
That's never a bad thing.
May 6, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just as they used to call "global warming" a conspiracy theory. Of course, now that we have a good twenty years or so of solid satellite measurements few are arguing this any longer.
Similarly, Hubbert's peak occurred in the United States right on schedule and every other oil producing nation in the world has followed this curve. We have decades of data to show that this is the case.
May 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF,
workerbee is on record as implying peak oil is a conspiracy of the oil companies, GWB, and OPEC:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-moral-equivalent-of-war.php
At this point, she is arguing by simply taking a contrary position to muddy the waters. A lot like Hillary!
(see also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM)
May 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - workerbee was actually trying to tell you that some people view peak oil as a conspiracy in the same way you are dismissing her POV as a conspiracy.
Not the same as declaring peak oil as a conspiracy.
Really it is more of a plateau than a peak, but this is not the thread for that.
May 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a plateau because that's what a peak looks like when you are near it. Think how the earth looks flat when you are on it, even though it is curves.
And speaking of flat-earthers, workerbee can also pull up people who argue against global warming -- or who argue that IQ is associated with race.
The problem is you can actually test some of these ideas. Workerbee assumes everything is "set up against the common man". I've never seen a set of arguments laid out, from her -- only slogans.
Her world view is that there is an evil "them" that somehow have a control over "us".
If you want to see some wild comments from her, take a look at
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/new-huffington-post-column-abo.php
where anyone who doesn't agree with her is immediately labeled as a boomer (without any evidence). This shows a general flaw in sorting things out.
It's true she can Google a website. On another thread today, she claims the large "evil" corporations are buying up technology to sit on them. She gives a reference, but even the site she choose -- which has a very obvious agenda from the left -- still showed that the company was in bankruptcy before they were bought.
When this was pointed out to her, she then wanted to claim someone (note anthropomorphizing) "helped them" into bankruptcy. So, no matter what is shown her, she argue conspiracy.
If she wants to use people who are nutcases to argue that peak oil is a conspiracy, well, doesn't that weaken her case even further about those who talk conspiracy?
May 6, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
More for debate.
May 6, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have the time to read this paper right now, but I'll read it later and hopefully be able to comment on it. One interesting point is that this paper was written by two members of the NBER. The NBER's research is published by the University of Chicago. UoC economists seem to have come out in droves against this proposal. Also, as a side note, some well-known members of the NBER include Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises.
From the abstract, I can tell you that one key difference between the period studied here and our current period is that they were studying a period involving a temporary increase in the price of oil. I think it can be very easily and correctly argued that we are not in a period of temporary increase in price.
May 6, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read it, it's about tax incidence between Indiana and Illinois when the tax cut took place. Doesn't really apply to a national tax cut. The authors seem to be surprised no one looked at this, but it should be obvious why. Gas prices in Illinois stayed lower because neighboring state's drivers crossed state lines to buy gas. The market became more elastic in this scenario allowing for the reduction. Illinois lost a lot of revenue by the way. It's the same as liquor stores who realize increased sales when they border a dry county. They have lower prices because they recieve an increased customer base from the dry county and can afford to do so.
May 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose "secure" is a vague enough term that anyone can be right.
May 6, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for chrissakes, will you listen to your pompous selves? The point here is you got postulating a lot of crap about the way oil companies will behave under a set of circumstances that don't exist yet. The study shows that their behavior is not predictable on the basis of the tenants of some theory. Hillary is right. Pragmatically, the solution is to get in there and figure out what works.
May 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatism isn't throwing rocks against a wall and seeing what happens. It's examining the costs and benefits and coming up with feasible solutions. What you propose is the opposite of pragmatism; it's trial and error and while sometimes necessary, it is not efficient. If good government is the pompous position, I guess I'm pompous...it would be the first time anyone ever accussed me of such, though.
And the tenant of the paper wasn't the theory doesn't fit the facts, that was Des' interpretation. It was an examination of gas prices in Illinois and Indiana. There is little to say that the same result can be realized now. Actually it really shows the prices were affected by demand and the incidence of the tax into neighboring states allowed for a decrease in prices and then an immediate uptick beyond the prior levels of prices; that's not a good thing. But it existed in an environment with available supplies to meet demand, that's a big difference from a national tax moratorium.
The study cited per your earlier link: "After linking the stations to driving distance data, some evidence suggests that the tax increases are associated with higher prices up to an hour’s drive into neighboring states." In other words, everyone paid for it after the tax was reinstated, actually they paid more than they saved...but still not comparable with a national gas tax.
Listen, I definitely want people to save money, but this isn't the way to do it. People may hate economists and anlaysts for some odd reason, but these people know what they're talking about. Can they be wrong? Of course, but without even a peep of opposition from any expert on the subject, I just don't see how this is a good idea. Hell, even Krugman begrudgingly said it was a bad idea.
May 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Billy. Methodology is irrelevant. You and Hillary have it all correct, ad hoc. I guess one of you should send an e-mail to Krugman and tell him that you don't need his elitist opinions on health plans either.
May 7, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit that Bobby's stance in this whole election cycle is humorous. Not sure where he is coming from or what he supports. Obviously, an Obama Supporter but kind of funny he is trying to whack Hillary. That the press, punidits, and the Obama campaign has spent so much time on it is interesting. Its and argument that can't be won by either side cause there are no facts to base anything on. Of course she is running with it. She can't lose by arguing putting money back in people's pockets.....
May 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we've been whacked by a whack? My poor little uneducated head is impressed. Send more links!
May 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see the real Gladman back. The Obamacized version was depressing.
May 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He switches back and forth depending on whether he takes his meds in the morning
May 6, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, your radioactive
May 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you are not sure, you should write it out.
you are = you're
May 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think his post was cut off:
May 6, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My lobotomy wears off overnight.
May 6, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know who she'd put in charge of the Fed...
Ric Flair!
He'll put the figure four on inflation.
Whooo!
May 6, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink