 |
|
Like a holiday, except awful in every way
McCain and Clinton push stinky gas tax proposal.Kevin Drum has made me feel guilty about not covering the “gas-tax holiday” flap in greater detail. There’s an actual substantive policy issue here that sheds lights on the differences between the presidential candidates, so let’s give it a full airing. Americans, you may have noticed, are freaking out about gasoline prices, which are rising due to various structural issues that are unlikely to go away anytime soon. That’s a difficult issue for a politician to avoid in an election year, so John McCain proposed suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents per gallon, during the summer driving season, as a sop to drivers. This is an unbelievably bad idea. It’s so bad, in fact, that intrepid journalists have been unable to find a single expert, from any part of the political spectrum, willing to speak up in its favor. The best take-down of the proposal comes from Tom Friedman, who notes that the policy amounts to borrowing money from China (in the form of an increased deficit) and shipping it to Saudi Arabia (by boosting oil purchases). A much longer take-down comes from Jonathan Alter at Newsweek. To summarize:
The plan was such a howler that Hillary Clinton decided to do the obvious thing: announce that she too supports a gas-tax holiday, thus making Obama the sole presidential candidate to opt out of this shameless pander. In fact, he’s now running an ad on the issue. Of course, Obama isn’t spotless. He is running for president, after all, and his ad features mini-panders, such as a promise to investigate “price gouging” by oil companies. But this is minor stuff compared to the gas-tax holiday. Good for Obama. Contextual note 1: years ago, in a crass ploy to appeal to voters alarmed by gas prices that had reached $1.50 a gallon, a presidential contender proposed releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. I speak, of course, of Al Gore during the 2000 election. Politicians do this stuff during elections because it gets votes. McCain and Clinton will probably both reap a benefit from the issue, and Obama, sadly, will not. Contextual note 2: Tim Kaine, the Democratic governor of Virginia, just proposed a gas tax increase to cover a budget shortfall. So some politicians do get it. Of course, Tim Kaine isn’t up for re-election, and he never will be: term limits mean this will be his last stint as governor. Still, good for Tim Kaine. Image by Flickr user MReece. Tags: Gas tax holiday, Pandering, Presidential politics
Further reading
Like this article? Get weekly updates by email!
Comments2.
Comment by Chet
@ May 7, 2008 6 AM
 Good point AIAI…however, keep one thing in mind. What good is the world’s economy and military might when our dear planet has finally had enough? Will world powers help when our temperatures have so drastically risen that our low lying coastal communities are submerged under several feet of water? Will the economy in Utah, Nevada, California, and Arizona make any difference when our temperatures have soared and water supplies have dried up? We do have the opportunity to do something and to be quite honest, we must. It?s a shame that due to our lack of innovation and leadership it?s the children of today, and their children that will suffer so. 3.
Comment by SB
@ May 7, 2008 6 AM
I would support any candidate who vowed to double, tripple, quadruple the gas tax. Our oil addiction in addition to our flawed military endeavors are two of three major issues that are dragging this county down like a big heavy anchor. Ride bikes. Drive a prius. If everyone woke up and significantly reduced their consumption, oil prices would drop due to reduced demand, prices on food and other goods relying on transportation would drop, we could remove our army from oil rich countries and stop spending billions of dollars killing people, and start investing in our own country. Bicycles can save the world. 4.
Comment by ian22
@ May 7, 2008 10 AM
I think that the press against this gas tax holiday proposal has overwhelmingly been against McCain (and thus Clinton) and therefore in favor of Obama. From what I’ve seen in the press this is being labeled universally as a bad idea and “political pandering”. Obama is not spotless on the issue either. You fail to mention as an Illinois state senator Obama voted in-favor of a gas tax holiday when the price of gasoline was only around $1.50 a gallon (less than half the price it is now) in hopes of providing some financial relief to Illinois voters, er… residents. The price of gasoline dropped 8 cents a gallon subsequently. When the issue came up for a re-vote he DID allegedly see the error of his ways and voted against it the second time. Obama has had the luxury of already having made this mistake. He was “for it before he was against it”. Does that sound like another Democrat presidential candidate? How did that guy’s general election turn out? :-) 5.
Comment by ricercar
@ May 7, 2008 12 PM
Obama is taking a political hit for doing the right thing on this. The right thing economically AND environmentally. The two categories are NOT at odds on this issue. Every single expert agrees this “tax holiday” won’t help consumers, and it won’t help the environment. It sure won’t help the treasury. Obama is risking his career as the only voice against this ridiculous war, er, I mean, um, tax holiday. Hmmm. Seems to be a pattern here… I think the open question here that we are carefully walking around is: Why does doing the ‘right thing’ seemingly always hurt a candidate? Are we, as a country, too short sighted to see the long term results of our decisions? Why is it that we constantly make a choice that helps us only slightly today, but gives us huge hurdles to overcome down the road? The fact is that if America had started to address our addiction to oil a decade ago, we would not be in this mess (and likely would not be stuck with this enormous debt, or the two wars). It is our short-sightedness that seems to get us every time, and we continue to pay for it on a daily basis. 7.
Comment by Siouxsie
@ May 15, 2008 11 AM
While I understand that we use an excessive amount of oil, what I do not see addressed in these postings is that there are people who live in parts of the US that do not have access to mass transit. I live right outside of Lexington, KY and there is no option to commuters other than to drive to work. Granted, we could all make a more conscious effort to carpool, but that is our one and only option. Some of us have no choice but to drive to work and would gladly ride a bike, take a train or what have you if we could, but we’re stuck. Thus, we are forced to buy gas and are paying out the nose for it as a result, which is putting a significant strain on our finances. It’s nice to think that we should take a stand against oil, but at the same time you’re cutting people like us off at the knees. Post a comment |
|
I particularly like your support of those candidates who do responsible things, such as Obama and Kaine. I intend to e-mail both of them with congratulations. (Politicians need positive feedback as well as negative.) It’s too bad that Kaine will not be running for governor of Virginia, but I am sure he will remain influential and should know that his responsibility is recognized. I hope that Sen. Obama and his campaign strongly make the point that he is the only major candidate to be statesmanlike and farsighted enough to reject this irresponsible proposal.
Sally