Schmoomcgoo

The idea of a gas tax holiday is obviously purely pandering on the part of two politicians who do not believe that voters will recognize that the gas companies will charge whatever the market will bear regardless of taxes and raise the price anyway. (It's gone up $.20 since they suggested the holiday already!) There would be no savings--not even the $28-$30. And all that's only IF such a proposal were to be embraced and passed by congress--fat chance and Clinton and McCain know that.

Obama isn't pointing out the dishonesty of the proposal nearly enough.

3bm103

Maybe they don't know that. Which makes it even worse.

BedHead

No one can ever change one's mind? Well, why was McCain against tax cuts for the rich before he was for them? This is a pretty silly point to get stuck on.

A gas tax holiday is a stupid, symbolic bandaid on a gushing wound. It's pandering. And a vast majority of Republican and Democratic economists agree on that point.

Novelisto

The facts that Bailey21 quotes are correct as far as they go. If one reads the rest of the Businessweek article, we have both given you the link, you'll see that Big Oil is being given a ton of federal tax breaks and considerations. Alll thanks to the Republican controlled Congress at the time, 2005. So yes, to answer your question, protecting the profits of Big Oil is a clearly favorite Republican past time.

Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

garland

No, no, don't fret. It's clear that the issue that most interests you, is who's scoring the most points.

interesteddad

Of course. It's just politics.

In case you haven't noticed....McCain, Clinton, and Obama aren't in a position to do anything about energy prices right now. This is all kind of a fictional game about what they would do if they were President right now. Quite obviously, the next President won't take office until well after the summer driving season. Doh.

kluge

Which candidate states a reasoned and honorable position, and which candidates adopt a phony position to pander to what they perceive as the voter's most ignoble sentiments is an "issue" to me. McCain has exposed himself to me as a politician willing to advocate a position that is not merely not beneficial to the nation, but actually harmful, just to score some cheap points and maybe a few votes. Clinton's not much better on this issue. I don't find that to be admirable; those aren't qualities I look for in a president. I think we've had too many of those types in the White House in recent years, and all else being equal I would vote for the candidate who is willing to tell it like it is before the pandering sellout. Just my opinion - you are free to disagree.

interesteddad

But, you don't object when said candidate is a pandering sell-out to his biggest campaign contributor Exelon in voting for the Cheney Energy Bill in 2005?

ucsd_ucla_dad

That's kind of cool the President (whoever it may be) can just decree that the gas taxes are suspended for whatever duration the President desires and raise taxes arbitrarily on particular companies because they happen to think that company (as opposed to companies in any other market segment) is making 'too much profit' at their own discretion as to what's 'too much'.

mrego

How about eliminating the 9/10's of a cent from each gallon? It wouldn't save us much, but it would cost the oil companies up to $2 Billion a year.

ucsd_ucla_dad

^^ Haha - I hate the 9/10 of a cent. It made some sense (so to speak) I suppose when gas was 25 9/10 cents or 33 9/10 cents to fool the buyers into thinking they were getting a better deal when they weren't, but kind of loses its significance when gas is $3.89 (and 9/10).

Bullet

Kluge,

I applaud your attempt to try to focus on the candidates stand on an issue versus the typical "30-second attention span" media's focus on character flaws. And I applaud the way the majority of the other posters have attempted to keep the focus on the issue.

But here is my gut-feeling on THIS particular issue: ALL three of the candidates have focused on the symptoms and not the cure, in ways that show they care more about expediantly pandering to the base desires of the voting public (yippee! I save $30 bucks this summer!) than they do about making hard choices that might be more beneficial in the long run, but might turn off a few voters in November. What I'm REALLY tired of is the way both sides of the aisle focus on the the "low hanging fruit" of an issue versus actually trying to enact policy that would cure the underlying problem.

OK, I'll admit it. I work a long day, I get home tired and not wanting to focus on making my head hurt more. I want spoon-fed entertainment; funny, light, and not too hard on the cranium. I don't have the time to focus for hours on end on each candidates web-site for the nuances of their positions on each issue. The deeepest I'll go on a topic is usually here on CC.

Lazy? Yep (bad habit, but I'm trying!). Deserving of scorn? ("Come on, this is an election year! You SHOULD care!") Fire away with the chastisment. But, I think I stand with the majority of the American voting public in the fact that I'm too tired and too lazy to do the research myself. I, and the rest of America's boob-tube pubic, rely on the media to do that for us and present the facts. Unfortunately, the media has let America down (big-time!), and has decided to focus instead on the "character flaws" mentioned above.

But I'm on CC (a place I feel where intelligent comments and analysis usually rule above all). Let's look at the bigger problem here. Do we focus on THIS Summer, or do we focus on a long-term solution. How about more drilling in Alaska and off the coasts of Florida? How about building more refineries in California? More importantly, how about getting us off our addiction to oil through investments / increases in Nuclear energy fo now, while we increase funding for research into better sources. Solutions not to everyone's taste, but I want to hear others, expecially the candidates'. What I'm ultimately looking for is the candidate who will stand up and say, "OK, America, we need to focus on energy independence for our kids, not on the price of a tank of gas in July. And here's my plan. It may hurt today, but your kids will thank you". I'll admit, Obama sounds like he's coming close, but I haven't seen his details to give him the victory here. IMO, Clinton and McCain went for this July, and the smattering of voters that comes with that focus.

Come on, my friends in CC. Educate me! I promise to spread the word, so keep it accurate, short, and to the point or I'll lose the masses I'm passing this to in translation. And if it degenerates into another round vitriol against one candidates' character flaws, while showering love and praise for another candidates' very existence, I'm gone. Show me their plans to fix the underlying problem here, or I'm switching back to "Two and a Half Men".

Mudder's_Mudder

If three members of congress aren't, who is? Unless you're referring to a presidential executive order. (See ucsd_ucla_dad's post 55.)

That's what irks me when reporters ask questions like this and expect a sound bite answer. The gasoline tax is complicated. The federal portion is earmarked for certain mandated funds. States set their own tax structures, which vary widely. Oil companies receive preferential tax breaks. Oil is a commodity we import, and the price is sensitive to the strength of our currency and our own refining capacity--not to mention our stomach as a nation for developing sources like Anwar, offshore drilling in the Gulf, and shale.

The price of oil is but one component of overall energy policy, which has to take into account the tax structure, the development and commercialization of alternative sources of energy, foreign policy, and the financial markets. Suggesting something like a limited tax holiday or a windfall tax on producers strikes me as a kind of "chicken in every pot" election season pandering. Which is my tedious way of saying I agree with kluge. I pick the candidate behind door #3, the one with the strongest semblance of a backbone.

Now I want to hear what all three have to say about increasing transparency for the financial markets for the benefit of investors. Let's start with hedge and private equity funds.

interesteddad

OK. Here ya go. The short version:

HillaryClinton.com - Hillary Clinton - Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming

Hillary's plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:

1. A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;

2. An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;

3. A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;

4. Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

5. Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030

6. 10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;

7. An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;

8. A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;

9. A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;

10. A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and

11. Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.

12. A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.

------

And the text of a speech where Clinton amplifies each of these proposals, for example explaining the "smart grid city" proposal:

HillaryClinton.com - Speech

1sokkermom

Obama has the same plan. You can find it on his website.