Clinton and McCain are Idiots

[Sam Stone]

As Clinton Seeks Gas Tax Break for Summer, Obama says No (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?ref=politics)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports.

So gas prices are spiking, because demand is outstripping supply. And these two rocket scientists think that cutting the price of gas is going to improve this situation...how? It's going to increase demand and exacerbate the problem.

Senator Clinton gets extra stupid points for wanting to pay for this by putting windfall taxes on the oil companies. So in addition to stimulating demand, she advocates a policy that would inhibit production as well. Less supply, more demand. Won't that be fun?

Obama's the only one with his head screwed on straight over this issue.

[Knorf]

Gotta say I agree.

However, I suspect McCain and Clinton know the truth as well; it's just campaign rhetoric to delude the gullible.

One of the reasons I like Obama: he prefers to talk to people as if they were grownups who can reason.

It's idealistic, but I like it.

[Soapbox Monkey]

One of the reasons I like Obama: he prefers to talk to people as if they were grownups who can reason.

It's idealistic, but I like it.

Unfortunately for him, this is America, where it would seem that well over half the population is unable to reason. He'd do well running for office in Europe though.

[Quartz]

So gas prices are spiking, because demand is outstripping supply. And these two rocket scientists think that cutting the price of gas is going to improve this situation...how? It's going to increase demand and exacerbate the problem.

Sorry, but I'm with Clinton on this. People need vehicles to get to work and to do their jobs. The price of fuel significantly impacts the profitability of that. Ever heard the phrase, "I can't afford to take that job?" By lessenning the tax burden before you start to make a profit, more people should make more profit, on which they can then be taxed.

[catsix]

Quartz said:
Sorry, but I'm with Clinton on this. People need vehicles to get to work and to do their jobs. The price of fuel significantly impacts the profitability of that.

Do you actually think that suspending the federal tax is going to drive down the price of gas?

The oil companies will increase their prices by 18.4 cents a gallon over the summer during the suspension and then once the tax is re-applied, gas prices will be even higher than they would be if the tax had not been suspended.

[Liberal]

Sorry, but I'm with Clinton on this. People need vehicles to get to work and to do their jobs. The price of fuel significantly impacts the profitability of that. Ever heard the phrase, "I can't afford to take that job?" By lessenning the tax burden before you start to make a profit, more people should make more profit, on which they can then be taxed.The problem is that lower prices will create a higher demand. A higher demand will cause the prices to rise because there's a finite supply of oil.

[phouka]

Sorry, but I'm with Clinton on this. People need vehicles to get to work and to do their jobs. The price of fuel significantly impacts the profitability of that. Ever heard the phrase, "I can't afford to take that job?" By lessenning the tax burden before you start to make a profit, more people should make more profit, on which they can then be taxed.

The phrase "I can't afford to take that job" is usually code for "I can't afford to own a really spiffy gas guzzler and drive it round trip with only myself as the occupant on the paycheck that job would earn."

Yes, some - perhaps many - people need vehicles to get to work, but it doesn't have to be a vehicle they own and drive all by their lonesome. It could be a carpool or public transportation. Walking and biking to work, where possible throws in the added benefit of healthy exercise and no gasoline costs at all.

In this situation, our demand is a lot more flexible than we like to pretend.

[Quartz]

The phrase "I can't afford to take that job" is usually code for "I can't afford to own a really spiffy gas guzzler and drive it round trip with only myself as the occupant on the paycheck that job would earn."

Yes, some - perhaps many - people need vehicles to get to work, but it doesn't have to be a vehicle they own and drive all by their lonesome. It could be a carpool or public transportation. Walking and biking to work, where possible throws in the added benefit of healthy exercise and no gasoline costs at all.

In this situation, our demand is a lot more flexible than we like to pretend.

Public transportation? Hahahahaha! Unless you live in a major metropolitan area, and work in the same area, it's often if not usually not an option. Ditto carpooling: if you're a goodly distance from the workplace, there's a goodly chance that there's nobody nearby. And a 20 mile walk or bike ride simply isn't on.

Let the government tax you on the money you make, not tax you such that you can't make money in the first place.

[Boyo Jim]

This is yet another of those things that politicians advocate because it sounds good and there is zero chance it will actually happen.

[Hakuna Matata]

Public transportation? Hahahahaha! Unless you live in a major metropolitan area, and work in the same area, it's often if not usually not an option. Ditto carpooling: if you're a goodly distance from the workplace, there's a goodly chance that there's nobody nearby. And a 20 mile walk or bike ride simply isn't on.

Let the government tax you on the money you make, not tax you such that you can't make money in the first place.


bullshit. Have you even looked into carpooling? I live in rural Kitsap County here in the northwest and vanpool into work everyday in downtown Seattle. I know lots of people who do this--but you have to research it. Your answer is a cop-out.

[Cheesesteak]

Ditto carpooling: if you're a goodly distance from the workplace, there's a goodly chance that there's nobody nearby. This is complete nonsense. Unless you live in the boonies, and work in a different boony, chances are exceedingly high that someone who lives in your general area also works in the general area where you work. At a minimum someone who lives on your way to work probably works near where you work, and would split the cost of gas with you.

The problem is that our society hasn't embraced the idea of carpooling, so there are no resources to tap into. Obama should propose a national carpool database. Enter your starting zipcode, ending zipcode, work schedule, and get a list of people who would be good candidates to carpool with. Add some suggestions on how to run a workable carpool, advertise it, and people will start using it.

The very LAST thing we need to do is to encourage demand, we need to encourage reducing demand.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Note that Quartz lives in Britain, unless something has changed, where you can take a train to work from just about any silly little village.

And you could always just drive the four miles to the station if you don't feel like taking the train.

[Squink]

The problem is that lower prices will create a higher demand. A higher demand will cause the prices to rise because there's a finite supply of oil.Yes, I would far rather be promised a chicken for each of my many pots. At least that's something the American farmer could deliver.

[Martiju]

Note that Quartz lives in Britain, unless something has changed, where you can take a train to work from just about any silly little village.

And you could always just drive the four miles to the station if you don't feel like taking the train.

What has changed, unfortunately, is the privatisation (and then semi-nationalisation) of the rail network over the past 15 years. When I changed jobs at the end of last summer, I looked into commuting the 80 mile trip by train whilst I moved house, thinking that even if it might be expensive it would at least be relatively relaxing. I did it twice - each time the journey took over 4 hours each way and cost me close to $100 as you have to use different train companies operating entirely separate timetables. Of course, at each end I also needed to either drive and pay to park or get a taxi - increasing cost and time further.

By car I could do it in 2 hours door to door at about $35 a round trip (even with our petrol prices of something like $10 a gallon). Nobody else was likely to be driving from Somerset to Worcestershire every day!

For small stations now, you're lucky if 3 trains stop a day, though countless whizz by trying to make up time lost so they aren't penalised by the Govt.

Not justifying what Quartz said, but your view is just a tad outdated!

[John Mace]

Yeah, there isn't much economic sense in what they are proposing, and it looks like election year pandering. It would, however, make sense to have a debate about what the proper tax rate on gasoline and petroleum should be as it is unlikely that we are currently at precisely the correct level.

Let's not forget that this is yet another thing the president can't actually do-- Congress would have to vote on this, and I can't see it passing. I wish these folks would stick to things that the president has authority over and not pretend like they can rule by edict.

[yojimbo]

Clinton and McCain are helping the common man whereas Obama the renowned elitist is hurting the common man in the pocket as he has no understanding or empathy with them..

or so I'm led to believe ;)

[Captain Amazing]

The problem is that lower prices will create a higher demand. A higher demand will cause the prices to rise because there's a finite supply of oil.

Doesn't that depend, in part, on the price elasticity? Gasoline is a fairly inelastic resource, so getting rid of the excise tax might not increase demand enough to cause a price rise to make up the difference...even with increased demand, the final price might be cheaper than it is now with the tax.

Besides, to play devils advocate, the excise tax is an artificial constraint on demand imposed by the government anyway, so all getting rid of it will do will be to get rid of a distortion shift the supply/demand curve closer to what it would be if it were a truly free market.

[BrainGlutton]

It's going to increase demand and exacerbate the problem.

Just how elastic do you think the demand for gasoline is?!

[DigitalC]

Clinton and McCain are saying the right things to get elected, being right doesn't mean people are gonna like it.

[Sarahfeena]

Just how elastic do you think the demand for gasoline is?! Just a WAG, here, but I'd imagine it's MORE elastic in the summer, since the increase usage is pleasure-based and not need-based.

[Liberal]

Doesn't that depend, in part, on the price elasticity? Gasoline is a fairly inelastic resource, so getting rid of the excise tax might not increase demand enough to cause a price rise to make up the difference...even with increased demand, the final price might be cheaper than it is now with the tax.

Besides, to play devils advocate, the excise tax is an artificial constraint on demand imposed by the government anyway, so all getting rid of it will do will be to get rid of a distortion shift the supply/demand curve closer to what it would be if it were a truly free market.Absolutely. What with all the taxes imposed on both the demand and supply sides, not to mention frivolous regulations supported by fees and frivolous favors supported by subsidies, God only knows what the price of gas really ought to be. Frankly, it's surprising that it isn't more fucked up than Soviet toilet paper.

[BrainGlutton]

One liberal economist, (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press) at any rate, is sure the gas tax cut would not result in lower prices at the pump.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Not justifying what Quartz said, but your view is just a tad outdated!
You're probably quite right- I haven't been a regular (or even infrequent) passenger since I packed up and left in '96.

[mazinger_z]

One liberal economist, (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press) at any rate, is sure the gas tax cut would not result in lower prices at the pump.
Gonzomax, is that you? Are we reading the same article? Seriously, Dean Baker's little blurb is saying the same thing that others (except Quartz, apparently) is saying: "Repudiation of the gas tax will not save consumers any money."

I agree with John Mace that this is just election talk pandering, though I'm woeful of McCain's admission of knowing nothing about economics (please make Mitt Romney your VP). I also agree with Sam Stone that HRC is doubly stupid for calling for a windfall tax as well.

[John Mace]

...though I'm woeful of McCain's admission of knowing nothing about economics...
He didn't say he knew nothing about economics. He said it wasn't his strongest area of expertise. There's a big difference.

[Weirddave]

Wait, I don't get this, can one of you smart people please explain it to me? HRC (and McCain) is calling for the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline in order to lower the price of gas at the pump. To offset the lost revenue from this tax, she proposes to.........institute a new tax on gas companies???? Am I reading this right? Does that make ANY sense at all? Are we to believe that the boards of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, etc... are going to decide "Well, a federal excise tax on gasoline, that we can pass on to the consumers, but a windfall tax?? My God, we'll have to eat that one!" :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Otto]

He didn't say he knew nothing about economics. He said it wasn't his strongest area of expertise. There's a big difference.
To be precise (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802030007), he said "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Of course he then went on to deny that he had ever said such a thing and when presented with proof that he said it not once but twice, backpedaled by saying, "I spent 22 years in the military. I spent 20 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I've been involved in national security issues all my life. I attended the National War College. Of course I know more about national security than any other issue. That's been my entire life." and claiming that his time as the head of the Commerce Committee showed he was "smart on economics."

[Maeglin]

Doesn't that depend, in part, on the price elasticity? Gasoline is a fairly inelastic resource, so getting rid of the excise tax might not increase demand enough to cause a price rise to make up the difference...even with increased demand, the final price might be cheaper than it is now with the tax.

Besides, to play devils advocate, the excise tax is an artificial constraint on demand imposed by the government anyway, so all getting rid of it will do will be to get rid of a distortion shift the supply/demand curve closer to what it would be if it were a truly free market.

Textbook theory, but it misses the nuance.

Gasoline is inelastic in general. High demand for gasoline in the summer is driven by leisure travel, which is demonstrably quite elastic. The final price might be cheaper, but arguably the social welfare cost of the government losing $10B in revenue exceeds the benefit of incrementally cheaper gas.

Sure, taxes cause deadweight loss. But this experiment was done in IL years ago, and interestingly, it was heavily supported by Obama. The dip in gas prices was tiny, and it cost the government of IL $175M.

It would be hard for me to believe that HRC in particular is all that interested in eliminating deadweight loss, as she clearly favors "windfall" taxes for the oil majors. Removing a market distortion might be a fringe benefit that is clearly not in the spirit of this proposal.

[Bosstone]

Sure, taxes cause deadweight loss. But this experiment was done in IL years ago, and interestingly, it was heavily supported by Obama. The dip in gas prices was tiny, and it cost the government of IL $175M.Probably why he's against it now.

[John Mace]

To be precise (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802030007), he said "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
Yeah, and he's right. If any of the candidates says he/she does not need any further education in economics, then they are fools.

Of course he then went on to deny that he had ever said such a thing and when presented with proof that he said it not once but twice, backpedaled by saying, "I spent 22 years in the military. I spent 20 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I've been involved in national security issues all my life. I attended the National War College. Of course I know more about national security than any other issue. That's been my entire life."
Well, that's strange denial in that it's just another way of saying what he originally said.

[RedSwinglineOne]

One of the reasons I like Obama: he prefers to talk to people as if they were grownups who can reason.


I agree. The thing that bugs me most about this is that Hillary is implying that Obama doesn't understand that "the American people need relief.", when maybe he is the only one that understands that 18.4 cents aint gonna make a bit of difference.

[D_Odds]

Wait, I don't get this, can one of you smart people please explain it to me? HRC (and McCain) is calling for the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline in order to lower the price of gas at the pump. To offset the lost revenue from this tax, she proposes to.........institute a new tax on gas companies???? Am I reading this right? Does that make ANY sense at all? Are we to believe that the boards of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, etc... are going to decide "Well, a federal excise tax on gasoline, that we can pass on to the consumers, but a windfall tax?? My God, we'll have to eat that one!" Election year rhetoric...even better than mid-term pandering. I'm putting this checkmark in the Sen. Barrack column.

[Cervaise]

One of the reasons I like Obama: he prefers to talk to people as if they were grownups who can reason.He's doomed.

[NurseCarmen]

Thank god we have two candidates for president that are willing to show that they have the long term thinking that the Bush administration has become famous for!

[Ocean Annie]

The tax holiday really doesn't amount to much savings, a couple of bucks on fill ups for most drivers. I've read the soaring oil and food prices are a commodities bubble which HRC alluded to in one of her stump speeches today.

[Quartz]

Note that Quartz lives in Britain,

Correct.

unless something has changed, where you can take a train to work from just about any silly little village.

This is simply not true. For many people, it's simply not possible to use mass transit (bus, rail, etc). Even where there is mass transit available, it is often at inconvenient hours. Forget about working late. And heaven forfend that there should be a strike or too many drivers ill. Personal transport gives you freedom and flexibility. I'm relatively lucky in that I can walk to the train station. It's a 20 minute walk, mind. But let's take a simple example: a journey to my aunt's. By car it's 45 miles, 75 minutes, absent traffic problems; by train, ironically a more direct route, it takes two and a half hours (including walking).

Another example: I used to live in Aylesbury and work in Stanmore. 25 miles and an hour by car. At the time it was simply not possible in any reasonable time by train due to bad connections, or by train and bus from a nearby train station, and I lived a stone's throw from the station. That 25 miles (each way) took roughly a gallon of petrol. Today that'd be roughly £10 per day, £50 / US$100 per week, £2500 / US$5000 per year, just for the privilege of working. Most of that being fuel duty. And that's paid out of net income; the gross equivalent would have been double that. Talk about a stealth tax!

To expand on Martiju's point, I recently wanted - at short notice - to attend an event in Birmingham for the day. 86 miles. Rather than brave the rush-hour traffic, I opted to travel by train. They wanted over US$200 for the ticket. I walked away. It was too expensive.

[mswas]

This is complete nonsense. Unless you live in the boonies, and work in a different boony, chances are exceedingly high that someone who lives in your general area also works in the general area where you work. At a minimum someone who lives on your way to work probably works near where you work, and would split the cost of gas with you.

The problem is that our society hasn't embraced the idea of carpooling, so there are no resources to tap into. Obama should propose a national carpool database. Enter your starting zipcode, ending zipcode, work schedule, and get a list of people who would be good candidates to carpool with. Add some suggestions on how to run a workable carpool, advertise it, and people will start using it.

The very LAST thing we need to do is to encourage demand, we need to encourage reducing demand.

And here-in lies part of the problem. People think that the government has to step in to create a car-pooling database.

[descamisado]

The cynic in me thinks Clinton and McCain (Clinton anyway) want the electorate to think they're saving them some money and each can appear to be somewhat anti-corporate, not business as usual, by asking oil companies to make up for the suspended sales tax.

As has been said upthread, reality is consumption will go up, not down and the oil companies will use the opportunity to raise prices permanently. They'll know full well that this ploy of taxing the conglomerates is just that, and will laugh their way to higher and higher profits.

The appearances they want to project will work, even the tax is not suspended.

[Voyager]

Just a WAG, here, but I'd imagine it's MORE elastic in the summer, since the increase usage is pleasure-based and not need-based.
True, but even full year demand is a bit elastic. California has had high gas prices relative to the rest of the country, and this has resulted in a decrease in absolute (not just per capita) consumption. The Prius got real popular real fast here. If people stop buying SUVs and start buying the better hybrids, consumption will ease.

Anyone remember when gas was $2.00 a gallon and calls for increasing the tax to maybe reduce consumption and fund decent research was met with gasps of horror. How they said the economy would tank and people would suffer with gas at $2.25?

[Merijeek]

bullshit. Have you even looked into carpooling? I live in rural Kitsap County here in the northwest and vanpool into work everyday in downtown Seattle. I know lots of people who do this--but you have to research it. Your answer is a cop-out.

Not to agree with Quartz, who is an idiot, but I think Seattle counts as "a major metropolitan area".

I work in Pearl, MS (a suburb of Jackson, MS) and live 6 miles from my office. I'm the closest to my office of all the employees. I'm the only one who lives in Brandon. The rest live at the Reservoir (about 10 miles in a different direction), Byram (15 miles in another direction), Clinton (20 miles in another direction).

Public transportation in Jackson is a joke, and there's nothing that goes out to Pearl, Brandon, or Clinton.

So, what to do?

-Joe

[descamisado]

The tax holiday really doesn't amount to much savings, a couple of bucks on fill ups for most drivers. I've read the soaring oil and food prices are a commodities bubble which HRC alluded to in one of her stump speeches today.Well, combine that with the mortgage crisis bailout that a $1,200 tax rabate will provide and every American will be living on the sunny sie of the street in no time.

[ElvisL1ves]

And these two rocket scientists think that cutting the price of gas is going to improve this situation...how?By improving their chances of getting elected President.

Oh, wait .. you thought a policy proposal during a campaign represents actual intent? You really need to pay more attention.

[Quartz]

Not to agree with Quartz, who is an idiot

Ah, it's nice to know that reasoned argument is alive and well. Yes, I know we're in the Pit.

By improving their chances of getting elected President.

I fear you are correct; I hope for the best.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Anyone remember when gas was $2.00 a gallon and calls for increasing the tax to maybe reduce consumption and fund decent research was met with gasps of horror. How they said the economy would tank and people would suffer with gas at $2.25?

Well, hasn't it?

One thing that has been overlooked here is that the money raised from these gas taxes goes to rebuilding and maintaining the infrastructure. I'm not a fearmonger or anything, but I distinctly remember the results of poor maintenance and lack of infrastructure investment lying in a river in Minnesota last year. I would respectfully submit that putting off maintenance due to a funding shortfall will not exactly help the situation. Add to that even a modest increase in usage due to price reductions and we strain it further.

I hate taxes, but even I am willing to go to bat for this one.

[Digital Stimulus]

Oh, wait .. you thought a policy proposal during a campaign represents actual intent? You really need to pay more attention.Really? You're gonna go with that? How very curious...

I'd not bring it up except that you've argued so vehemently and tenaciously for Clinton. So, does this line of thinking apply to all policy proposals that pass through Clinton's mouth? If not, how are we to distinguish her actual intent?

[DigitalC]

Sure enough Hillary is attacking Obama over this in her new ad (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/clinton-hits-obama-in-new-ad/). Theres nothing stupid about her support for the tax cut.

[Ocean Annie]

Well, combine that with the mortgage crisis bailout that a $1,200 tax rabate will provide and every American will be living on the sunny sie of the street in no time.

Happy Days are here again!

[Merijeek]

Well, combine that with the mortgage crisis bailout that a $1,200 tax rabate will provide and every American will be living on the sunny sie of the street in no time.

Interesting...

Anyone have the dollar figures on the mortgage bailout (so far) versus the "Vote Incumbent" bribe?

-Joe

[jayjay]

Sure enough Hillary is attacking Obama over this in her new ad (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/clinton-hits-obama-in-new-ad/). Theres nothing stupid about her support for the tax cut.

You know, except for reality...

Seriously, the fact that we've descended to the point where treating Americans like adults and expecting them to understand reason is political suicide fills me with despair.

[ElvisL1ves]

So, does this line of thinking apply to all policy proposals that pass through Clinton's mouth?To the same degree as it does through Obama's - and, as you'll recall, they're mostly the same thing, hmm?

You sound as if this is the first campaign you've ever paid attention to. This one is being conducted no differently than the usual pattern, by any of the 3, all of whom have succeeded to this point because of that.


Gimme a break and go do your history homework, kid.

[Manda JO]

You know, gas is considerably more elastic when you start looking at three and five and ten year time frames, and this isn't a temporary supply-shock type rise in demand where you just have to worry about right now. Gas prices are not going down, and people will start to buy more efficient cars, take jobs closer to home, stop visiting their mom across town quite so often, etc., etc.

[John Mace]

Interestingly, the story on this in the San Jose Mercury points out the Obama voted 3 times to temporarily suspend the IL gas tax when he was in the state legislature. No details as to why he did it back then.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'd not bring it up except that you've argued so vehemently and tenaciously for Clinton. So, does this line of thinking apply to all policy proposals that pass through Clinton's mouth? If not, how are we to distinguish her actual intent?
I think it's fair to say that policy proposals made during the primaries don't count as intent. Their very nature forces candidates to pretend to be less centrist than they really are.

Once the actual election cycle begins, I think we can fairly expect candidates to honor pledges made once in office.

Of course, none of them will- of the last three Presidents, two have completely failed to deliver on the major elements of their respective platforms. That's why they call these things "campaign promises" instead of "promises". Clinton probably did too, but I don't know what his major campaign pledges were.

[Digital Stimulus]

To the same degree as it does through Obama's - and, as you'll recall, they're mostly the same thing, hmm?

You sound as if this is the first campaign you've ever paid attention to. This one is being conducted no differently than the usual pattern, by any of the 3, all of whom have succeeded to this point because of that.


Gimme a break and go do your history homework, kid.
Hey, fuck you, you disingenuous, bitter, Republican wannabe. It's certainly not my fault that you have to argue from the point of view that the candidate you back is an unmitigated liar. Here's a rallying cry it seems you'd get behind: Clinton '08: Never Enough Bush in DC. Or, how about: Hillary '08: The Mis-leader You've Been Waiting For.

Evidently, according to you, we actually don't know that Clinton and Obama's policy proposals are "mostly the same thing", at least not as items deserving enactment. I'll pose the question again: if Clinton is expected to lie about (some) policy issues she advances solely to get elected, how are we to distinguish her actual intent?

[Digital Stimulus]

I think it's fair to say that policy proposals made during the primaries don't count as intent. Their very nature forces candidates to pretend to be less centrist than they really are.I don't think anyone can argue the political savvy of choosing to advance certain policies at certain times in a campaign. However, ISTM that a candidate should never advance a policy that he/she doesn't at least hope will be enacted. Even if there's no realistic chance of it happening (due to political reality, lack of funding, etc.). Else, why pay attention to their platforms at all?
Once the actual election cycle begins, I think we can fairly expect candidates to honor pledges made once in office.But this doesn't rise to the level of a "pledge". Rather, it's merely a proposal -- one that demonstrates how the candidate views an issue (and it's subsequent solution).
Of course, none of them will- of the last three Presidents, two have completely failed to deliver on the major elements of their respective platforms. That's why they call these things "campaign promises" instead of "promises". Clinton probably did too, but I don't know what his major campaign pledges were.Again, this doesn't rise to the level of a "pledge" or "promise". Interestingly, it thus carries less import in my eyes; it's not something that forms a core plank in a platform. What got me is the unabashed acknowledgement and acceptance that Hillary is flat out lying as a matter of political expediency, and the further implication that we should be OK with that.

[descamisado]

What got me is the unabashed acknowledgement and acceptance that Hillary is flat out lying as a matter of political expediency, and the further implication that we should be OK with that.Why shouldn't we be okay with it? After all, only Obama is expected to be "above-it-all" and only expected to always act in ways that further his elevation to sainthood; any behavior that is human or, heavem forbid, smells of politics in any way is strictly forbidden.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Again, this doesn't rise to the level of a "pledge" or "promise". Interestingly, it thus carries less import in my eyes; it's not something that forms a core plank in a platform. What got me is the unabashed acknowledgement and acceptance that Hillary is flat out lying as a matter of political expediency, and the further implication that we should be OK with that.
I don't think she's lying at all - she probably does hope that this measure passes. She's just not upfront about her reasoning - she knows it won't do anything for the economy, but it will do wonders for her campaign if she can claim that she is partly responsible for a drop in the price of gasoline.

(assuming this does result in a short-term drop, which I think is likely, even if it causes an increase over the long term)

[RedSwinglineOne]

Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday slammed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24388777/)

Economists say benefits will go to oil companies, not consumers.

NEW YORK - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

“Score one for Obama,” wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. “In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.”

[Really Not All That Bright]

A Bush aide stumping for reducing fuel consumption?

The irony could be served in all the best restaurants.

[Maeglin]

A Bush aide stumping for reducing fuel consumption?

The irony could be served in all the best restaurants.

Mankiw is not a Bush crony now, nor was he when he worked for the administration. Hence his untimely departure.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Mankiw is not a Bush crony now, nor was he when he worked for the administration. Hence his untimely departure.
The irony is still appetising. He did appoint the guy, after all.

[Maeglin]

The irony is still appetising. He did appoint the guy, after all.

True, but Mankiw has consistently supported higher taxes on gasoline for, well, as long as I can remember. It is not as if he just changed his mind on this matter recently.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Just keep on pricking my bubble until it bursts, why don't you?

The irony is still... edible.

[SmartAleq]

I really liked Thomas Friedman's opinion piece in the NYT, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html) quite scathing and goes on to make some other telling points about this country's energy policy--or more accurately, its complete lack thereof. Way to go!

[Digital Stimulus]

5-4-Fighting, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or deadpan. I apologize for not being able to pick up very well on your meaning. Might you clarify?
I don't think she's lying at all - she probably does hope that this measure passes.To be clear, I don't know if she's lying. I don't know what her intent is (beyond getting nominated), although I think she'd actually like to make life better for Americans. While I think both her and McCain's proposals are worse than useless (something along the lines of Friedman's Op-Ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=5e50edff9f212b25&ei=5087%0A)), this is a separate point from my issue, on which I may not have been clear.

My issue, as it was poorly worded in the last sentence of my post, is that ElvisL1ves -- who has, in other threads: admittedly overstated his case, requested cites for obvious opinion, and even demanded cites for Hillary's "intent" when they cast her in an unflattering light* -- now admits that it doesn't really matter what policies Clinton proposes...they're easily waved away as a kind of politician's Tourette's syndrome. It doesn't even rise to the level of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", as he accepts (and expects) that she'll lie openly for political gain; rather, it's a case of "tell me what I want to hear, baby...and the reach-around is optional".

As 9thFloor so eloquently put it (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9747892#post9747892):Anybody who doesn't know Hillary has/is/will lie is delusional. And many still vote for her anyway, knowing that, because they're grown-ups.Yes, indeed. It's a race to the bottom by some ardent Hillary supporters. "Pander away, mon cherie"; just so long as we can view ourselves as "grown-ups".

*I can dig up cites for each of these, if you really want. Without links: the first is from the "Does HRC want McCain Elected?" thread, the second is when he asked for a cite that SDMB posters were generally more knowledgable than the average voting public, the third refers to the Politico.com reportage that Hillary was attempting to "poach" Obama's pledged delegates. Of course, that last has since been proven, by her own words, to be accurate.

[Shayna]

The cynic in me thinks Clinton and McCain (Clinton anyway) want the electorate to think they're saving them some money and each can appear to be somewhat anti-corporate, not business as usual, by asking oil companies to make up for the suspended sales tax.

As has been said upthread, reality is consumption will go up, not down and the oil companies will use the opportunity to raise prices permanently. They'll know full well that this ploy of taxing the conglomerates is just that, and will laugh their way to higher and higher profits.

The appearances they want to project will work, even the tax is not suspended. They're dumbasses who think we're all dumbasses just like they are. Good thing not everyone's as big a dumbass as they'd like to think. . . In response to Senator Clinton and Senator McCain's recent calls for a gas tax "holiday," former Clinton Energy Secretary Federico Peña released the following statement today:

Today we're seeing another example of Washington politics at its worst. Senator Clinton is running TV ads and launching repeated attacks on Barack Obama for not supporting the gas tax holiday she's supporting, but today her own aides told the Washington Post that they know that this is a questionable plan and that they are using it to make it appear they're against big oil. The Clinton gas tax gimmick does little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will actually increase oil prices. It is the kind of pandering that insults people's intelligence. With energy prices skyrocketing, we're looking for real solutions—not political posturing to get elected. Barack Obama knows that a gas tax holiday would save the average family only about 30 cents a day. It's designed to win elections, not fix our energy problems. . .

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGCnkF/commentary

P.S. Hi 5! :)

[Maeglin]

Interestingly, the story on this in the San Jose Mercury points out the Obama voted 3 times to temporarily suspend the IL gas tax when he was in the state legislature. No details as to why he did it back then.

All very true. He seems to be the only one with actual experience in this area. During the suspension of the tax, the NBER studied the effects and concluded that the lost of $175m of revenue to IL did not reduce the price at the pump. He was demonstrably wrong at the time for supporting it, so I am quite pleased that he seems to have learned from the experience.

[D_Odds]

Not to agree with Quartz, who is an idiot, but I think Seattle counts as "a major metropolitan area".

I work in Pearl, MS (a suburb of Jackson, MS) and live 6 miles from my office. I'm the closest to my office of all the employees. I'm the only one who lives in Brandon. The rest live at the Reservoir (about 10 miles in a different direction), Byram (15 miles in another direction), Clinton (20 miles in another direction).

Public transportation in Jackson is a joke, and there's nothing that goes out to Pearl, Brandon, or Clinton.

So, what to do?

-JoeFortunately, I live in Queens and work in Manhattan (that's NYC for the one person in the back afraid to ask what that means). I have reliable, frequent public transportation options.

This is good, because my work day may always start on or near the same time, but it ends either (a)whenever I finish immediate items for the day or (b)when I get so frustrated hitting a bar is better than hitting my monitor. I couldn't use a carpool, because I can't commit to leaving at 6:00pm every day, and what to do if I miss the carpool.

Carpooling can work if you can find people traveling the same route every day on a fixed schedule. There are quite a few of us without that luxury.

[descamisado]

5-4-Fighting, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or deadpan. I apologize for not being able to pick up very well on your meaning. Might you clarify?It’s okay if you didn’t get my meaning, given that a lot of my inside jokes end up being "inside" between me, myself and I.

I was simply piggybacking on your quite valid comment regarding the acknowledgment and acceptance of Hillary’s lying for political expediency and using that as a setup to obliquely take ElvisL1ves to task for implying elsewhere that Obama is the only candidate who has to always remain “above-it-all” and be disallowed, not only to lie (saints don’t lie), but even unable to do anything that’s remotely expedient or even strategic if it’s helpful to himself. or his campaign. Otherwise, he's a fakir and the different way of doing things message is completely invalidated.

[Darth Sensitive]

The phrase "I can't afford to take that job" is usually code for "I can't afford to own a really spiffy gas guzzler and drive it round trip with only myself as the occupant on the paycheck that job would earn."

Yes, some - perhaps many - people need vehicles to get to work, but it doesn't have to be a vehicle they own and drive all by their lonesome. It could be a carpool or public transportation. Walking and biking to work, where possible throws in the added benefit of healthy exercise and no gasoline costs at all.

In this situation, our demand is a lot more flexible than we like to pretend.

You, of course, take DART to work after biking to the station, right?

Public transport in the suburbs of Dallas is a joke.

[Digital Stimulus]

It’s okay if you didn’t get my meaning, given that a lot of my inside jokes end up being "inside" between me, myself and I.Thanks, that's the interpretation I would've made if I were forced to do so. And the one I was hoping for...but sometimes, I just can't tell.

[Martin Hyde]

Let's not forget that this is yet another thing the president can't actually do-- Congress would have to vote on this, and I can't see it passing. I wish these folks would stick to things that the president has authority over and not pretend like they can rule by edict.

You might want to pay some attention to the title that Obama, McCain, and Hillary have in common.

That is, Senator, they are all in Congress, and will be in Congress for the duration of this summer. So they do actually have some influence on legislation.

[John Mace]

You might want to pay some attention to the title that Obama, McCain, and Hillary have in common.

That is, Senator, they are all in Congress, and will be in Congress for the duration of this summer. So they do actually have some influence on legislation.
Good point.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You might want to pay some attention to the title that Obama, McCain, and Hillary have in common.

That is, Senator, they are all in Congress, and will be in Congress for the duration of this summer. So they do actually have some influence on legislation.
On March 13, and again on April 8, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama were in Washington at the same time and present for the business of the United States Senate. I mention this because, so far as I can tell, those are the only dates in 2008 when all three presidential candidates have been in Washington attending to the business of the Senate -- and the business of the United States Senate is their job.
Not very much influence, unless you can cast a senatorial vote by mail.

[MilTan]

Not very much influence, unless you can cast a senatorial vote by mail.

Well, as far as I can tell, Obama and Clinton, at least, do come back for crucial votes. They both came back to vote on the torture ban (McCain ducked), and for the pay discrimination act aimed at overturning Ledbetter (McCan ducked again).

[Polerius]

So gas prices are spiking, because demand is outstripping supply. And these two rocket scientists think that cutting the price of gas is going to improve this situation...how? It's going to increase demand and exacerbate the problem.

FWIW, on NPR the other day, there was this expert (can't remember who he was exactly) who said that the current gas prices are not the result of low supply and/or high demand, but of speculators running up the price of oil.

He cited some evidence for this. Two of his points that I remember are:
* demand for gas in the US is going down for the first time in many years, due to increased prices, but that is not stopping gas prices from continuing to inch up
* oil refineries in the US are cutting down on production due to the lowered demand, so the issue is not shortage of supply.


Anyway, I'm not sure if what he is saying is correct (I don't have time to research this), but I think the point is that we should not automatically think that prices always have to follow the ECON101 model of "supply and demand", without taking into account the role of speculators on the oil markets.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, as far as I can tell, Obama and Clinton, at least, do come back for crucial votes. They both came back to vote on the torture ban (McCain ducked), and for the pay discrimination act aimed at overturning Ledbetter (McCan ducked again).
Slightly off-topic, but how did McCain not get roasted for skipping the vote on the torture ban?

[descamisado]

Slightly off-topic, but how did McCain not get roasted for skipping the vote on the torture ban?It is being talked about.

Last night on Countdown, Keith reported on it, naming McCain Worst Person in the World for blaming Sen. Jim Webb for holding up the bill that Webb is sponsoring, saying Webb has not been eager to negotiate. McCain is reported to be intending to introduce his on bill, says his staff has been trying to contact Webb to discuss the bill.

Webb's reply was basically "He's so full of it."

That about says it all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24395873#24395873

[MilTan]

It is being talked about.

Last night on Countdown, Keith reported on it, naming McCain Worst Person in the World for blaming Sen. Jim Webb for holding up the bill that Webb is sponsoring, saying Webb has not been eager to negotiate. McCain is reported to be intending to introduce his on bill, says his staff has been trying to contact Webb to discuss the bill.

Webb's reply was basically "He's so full of it."

That about says it all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24395873#24395873

The McCain-Webb conflict is about the new GI Bill, not the torture ban.

[descamisado]

The McCain-Webb conflict is about the new GI Bill, not the torture ban.You're correct, my mistake. I went looking for information for the torture ban and got sidetracked.

Damn, I wish a mod could delete this type of post.

[B. Serum]

Sorry, but I'm with Clinton on this. People need vehicles to get to work and to do their jobs. The price of fuel significantly impacts the profitability of that. Ever heard the phrase, "I can't afford to take that job?" By lessenning the tax burden before you start to make a profit, more people should make more profit, on which they can then be taxed.

1. Clinton's and McCain's proposals are temporary measures. Unless you're talking about a summer job, this reasoning is flawed.

2. If you think that the price of oil isn't going to keep climbing over the years with or without a summer cut, you are failing to plan properly for your future.

[ElvisL1ves]

Hey, fuck you, you disingenuous, bitter, Republican wannabe. Better hurry up, I think the librarian is on her way over to tell you your half hour's up.

While you're waiting for your next turn, you can go look up some supporting evidence for your assertions of fact (and not lamely try to claim later they were just "opinions").

[ElvisL1ves]

All very true. He seems to be the only one with actual experience in this area. During the suspension of the tax, the NBER studied the effects and concluded that the lost of $175m of revenue to IL did not reduce the price at the pump. He was demonstrably wrong at the time for supporting it, so I am quite pleased that he seems to have learned from the experience.Has he ever said he was wrong about it?

[Digital Stimulus]

While you're waiting for your next turn, you can go look up some supporting evidence for your assertions of fact (and not lamely try to claim later they were just "opinions").Which facts would those be, fuckwit?

[athelas]

As a Republican, I've got to say that opposition to the gas tax holiday makes good sense, and that I'm dissappointed that McCain's playing the same populist game the Democrats have reduced to a science. But while Obama opposed the holiday, he also has a plan (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP_1wrIyt1Nc) to tax oil companies instead - a plan which is just as economically nonsensical (the same market inelasticity that makes a tax holiday a bad idea also means that the companies will pass on the majority of the tax to the consumers) and has the additional problem of being permanent rather than temporary. Obama's trying to outpopulist the populists, and his policy is correspondingly even worse.

[ElvisL1ves]

You no longer even claim to have any connection with the world of mere fact?
Well, that's refreshingly honest of you, for a change.

[Richard Parker]

Has he ever said he was wrong about it?

Yes, not that you care.


SEN. OBAMA: And, and that's my point. I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue.

MR. RUSSERT: So you learned from a wrong vote.

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, I learned from a mistake.

[Digital Stimulus]

You no longer even claim to have any connection with the world of mere fact?
Well, that's refreshingly honest of you, for a change.Such a poor, pathetic little man you are. :(

[gonzomax]

The problem is that lower prices will create a higher demand. A higher demand will cause the prices to rise because there's a finite supply of oil.
Sure. Gas drops from 3.70 to 3.52 ,I am going for a long ride with that cheap fuel.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, not that you care.I do care, but I've seen so many "He's just so dreamy! And she's such a witch!" posts that it's only natural to be skeptical about claims about what his actual stated positions and beliefs are. Or, from those sources, hers.

That said, assuming you're copying from an actual interview despite the lack of a link, he's thereby locked into his current public position no matter what he might want it to be instead. It can be expected to work as well as Mondale's promise to increase taxes did.

And in no case can real intentions be construed reliably from such minor campaign positions (In the case of NAFTA changes or Iraq withdrawals, his own senior staff has acknowledged as such - search "Goolsbee" and "Powers").

Not that you care. ;)

[John Mace]

That said, assuming you're copying from an actual interview despite the lack of a link...
Here you go. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24445166/page/3/) It's from Meet the Press earlier today.

[Richard Parker]

. . .he's thereby locked into his current public position no matter what he might want it to be instead. It can be expected to work as well as Mondale's promise to increase taxes did.

What?

[gonzomax]

The stupidity of it is the Gas tax is a user fee. The more you drive ,the more you pay. But the money goes to fixing and building roads. the more you drive the more you use them the more damage you do. But, you also pay more to fix them. it is somehow very just. It is possible it should not be referred to as a tax at all. If you dont have a car ,you pay nothing.

[Maeglin]

What?

I second that. I understand each individual word, but together, not so much.

[Maeglin]

And in no case can real intentions be construed reliably from such minor campaign positions (In the case of NAFTA changes or Iraq withdrawals, his own senior staff has acknowledged as such - search "Goolsbee" and "Powers").

Not that you care. ;)

This is probably true but certainly irrelevant. Voters rationalize their choices using policy positions, not the other way around. Naturally you dismiss HRC's monstrous posturing on this specific issue the way, say, I might dismiss the relatively mild trade rhetoric on Obama's part. What a shock.

[ElvisL1ves]

Keep trying. You're getting warmer.