Isn't the Clinton/McCain Gas Tax Holiday supposed to occur during this summer, while George Bush is still president? Do they really think they can pass that legislation in a month without clear support from the Whitehouse or either chamber of Congress?
Of course not, because Clinton and McCain, along with every other economist, pundit, and average American citizen, recognizes that the idea is foolish and nothing more than a very transparent election year pander. I try very hard to believe what politicians say during election years, but the gas tax holiday proposal is such a pie-in-the-sky idea that even my most optimistic brain cell refuses to accept it as a well-reasoned policy stand taken by not less than 2/3 of the people claiming to be qualified to lead our country through the next four years.
I may be able to accept that the gas tax holiday is the offspring of McCain's overall economic policy. After all, he freely admits that he doesn't understand economics at all and, supposing in his economic ignorance he just tows the party line, well we've seen enough irresponsible tax cuts and deficit spending over the past eight years to get used to it.
But Hillary Clinton has no business supporting the gas tax holiday at all. By all accounts, she is probably one of the most well versed policy wonks on the Hill right now. Surely her "elitist" ivy league education provided her with a rudimentary understanding of basic macro economics. But nobody ever won over a vote by telling the American people that high gas prices are a function of increased global competition for a limited natural resource and refining capacity that, somewhat inexplicably, has not been increased since Hurricane Katrina exposed its weakness. Nobody won over a vote by explaining the hard truth that the days of dollar-a-gallon gas are long since gone in this country.
Here's an idea. Instead of proposing band-aids that don't even cover the wound, why not propose what we Americans have shown we do best in times like these: innovation. Hmm, I wonder what candidate has spurned the gas tax holiday and repeated his or her calls for expanded energy research programs? Oh that's right, the one who is winning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Will a gas tax holiday get passed? No chance. Do the Democrat candidates need to support it? Absolutely. It will be political suicide in the general election if the democrats are viewed as opposing what amounts to a tax cut for the working man, especially since the Republican candidate supports it.
I'm starting to worry if Obama really has what it takes to win the general. He's winning college votes because they understand the things that you talk about in your article. But the people from Billy Bob's neck of the woods are only going to see that he's against lowering their gas prices. Voters do care about long-term solutions, but when things are going badly they really just want some short-term relief.
I'm glad it's just this instead of gay marriage, flag burning or some other retarded issue that won't be mentioned after the election. Then again, there's no telling what will come out once the general campaigns get rolling.
Yes, GWB was on the record as saying that he didn't support the holiday and would veto any proposed legislation. The sad part on how the McCain-Clinton tax holiday fiasco unfolded was the lack of parsing by the opponents of Clinton's plan. While McCain's was to be a flat-out suspension of the tax, Clinton's was to be a suspension of the tax on the consumer side, IF the lost revenues were offset by taxing the oil companies directly. And while the economists could be right, that the suspension of the tax shifts the demand curve to the right. However, this effect could be minimized by having the suspension take the form of a tax credit; as such, the nominal value of gasoline would not be changed. Regardless, the economic effects were probably overblown, given that those that need the relief are not going to change their driving habits over 18 cents a gallon.
The other part of the story is how well the pandering tag has stuck on Clinton given this decision. Early on, when the main issue was health insurance, there were a significant number of economists (and the Edwards) who thought Obama's lack of the universal mandate, by undermining the risk-allocation function of insurance, was pandering to moderates fearful of big government. Yet, Obama's plan was viewed as a "bridge" between two extremes. The truth is that almost all of the candidates' stances on all things economic--economic stimulus packages, foreclosure relief, etc.-- are generally disfavored by economists and reflective of pandering to one group or another. The difference is that when the position appeals to a group which the individual doesn't belong, then it is pandering.
Billy Bob- I have to take issue with your characterization of the people from your neck of the woods. I think anybody who participates in our capitalist society ought to be able to grasp supply and demand.
Snead- agreed (hey, that rhymes), at least this round of pandering is not aimed at overt discrimination or curbing free speech rights. It will be interesting to see what McCain has to do to galvanize his base, although, given the fact that the dems are either putting forward a black man or a woman, he may not have to do much to appease the people who actually vote based on those red herring issues.
T- as to your first point, I think the simplest way to go about shifting gas tax burden would be to raise taxes on the oil companies, but that would most likely just be passed on to the consumer via higher gas prices. I think the sensible short-term solution is to increase refining capacity, which may lower prices, but will only exacerbate the underlying problem. Again, high gas prices are a symptom, not a disease.
As to your second point, I'm not so sure I agree that all election year economic policies are panders. Obama's plan doesn't necessarily undermine the risk-allocation function of insurance, it just limits the size of the risk pool. Further, if it actually worked, then I think you would see just as many people signed up as you would under Clinton's. The universal mandate probably makes the actuaries a bit easier to determine (e.g. readily available health statistics for the American people as a whole), but insurance companies have been thriving on their own limited risk pools since they've been around, so I don't think a non-universal mandate health care package is totally disregarding the risk allocation function.
c'mon blue, "every average American citizen recognizes that the idea is foolish"
elections in america are won and lost on sound bites and jeremy wright issues...not substantive comprehension...sad, but true...
and if i'm not mistaken barack hussein obama (j/k) spent the first 3/4's of his campaign just a hoping and futuring...now those are some real issues, wouldn't you say?
ah...where are the benevolent dictators when you need them?
oh and one last thing...don't count hillary out...remember, she has those FBI files....
Lester: I think you and I will have to disagree about the relative intellect of the average American voter. Just remember that most of the dunces you see on Jay Leno's Streetwalking aren't the crowd that turns out to vote.
I think the perception that American voters are easily swayed by soundbites and red herring issues is really just a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, if all you feed people is junk food, chances are they'll get fat.
Post a Comment