A bona fide ISSUE! Gas tax holiday: McCain vs. Clinton vs. Obama

kluge · 05-01-2008, 04:58 PM

Hey, a member of that endangered species has been spotted: an ISSUE! Nope. Not about a candidate's personality, their divorce, their spouse, their pastor, their flubbed line - but an actual disagreement about a government policy clearly and intentionally stated, which actually might mean something to people's actual lives.

OK, gas around here is now $4 a gallon. You pay it at the pump, see it on the signs at the gas stations, everybody is PO'd. Each of the three candidates has staked out a position:

McCain: Suspend the $0.18 per gallon federal gas tax for the summer, to give relief to suffering Americans. Cost to be taken from our already red-ink stained federal budget.

Clinton: Gas tax holiday, but make up the revenue loss by taxing oil companies.

Obama: A gas tax holiday will just mean sending more money to Saudi Arabia, increase the deficit, only save the average family about $30 for the summer, and not cut our use of oil. Fuhgeddaboudit!

So where do the CC pundits stand on this (dare I say it) ISSUE?

interesteddad · 05-01-2008, 05:06 PM

Obama should explain why he was for a gas tax holiday (voting for it twice in the Illinois state legislature) before he was against a gas tax holiday.

Probably for the same reason that he was for Rev. Wright before he was against Rev. Wright.

kluge · 05-01-2008, 05:23 PM

So, interesteddad, I take it that you have absolutely no opinion on the merits of the issue, and see it (and everything else, as far as I can see) as solely an opportunity for a politically-motivated cheap shot?

Seriously though, should I take your snarky attempt at changing the subject to be an admission that your favored candidate's position is utterly indefensible and moronic, driving you to a desperate attempt to change the focus of the question? (Which candidate is that, by the way, so we can keep score here?) Or are you not really "for" anyone, being content to be against anything and everything that Obama says, does, breathes or is photographed next to?

Anyone have a thought on the substance of the issue?

WashDad · 05-01-2008, 05:25 PM

I think they are all cowardly on energy taxes. It's time to raise them, not reduce them.

treeman · 05-01-2008, 05:30 PM

The gas tax holiday is rather silly for a variety of reasons. The bottom line is that it is an election year ploy to appease the voters. You don't get things for free. If they cut this tax, there will have to be either a decrease in gov't spending or an increase in tax revenue somewhere else. Whichever it is, and I think we can all guess, I would want this clearly identified and quantified. Even worse, most economists (and I am one) would argue that lowering the taxes by $.18 (or whatever amount) won't lead to an $.18 drop in prices for consumers. New York allowed counties to either lower the state taxes on gas by $.03, or keep the tax in place but also keep the tax revenue at the county level. Most counties chose to lower the tax. My county did not. Lo and behold, our gas prices were the same as surrounding counties (big surprise) and we took in more revenue. For a more detailed explanation of why this happens, google the name Mankiw and gas tax.

I am unhappy with all three candidates. Obama on this issue seems more willing to stick his neck out and tell it kind of like it is (why blame the Saudis when it will be U.S. companies sticking it to us if we do this), but the earlier position is troublesome. Maybe he learned from his mistake. Hillary should know better, but given her desire to win at all costs, she will support a bad policy (not quite a lie, but certainly not the leadership that we need). As for McCain, he either doesn't know energy economics, and that should scare us, or he does and ... well, read the comment attached to Hillary. As for flip - flopping on issues, Hillary takes the cake for the war. Barrack gets several cupcakes for the Reverand Wright issue. And McCain stands his ground on the war, and he is dead wrong. While I admire resolve, I also admire learning curves.

mercymom · 05-01-2008, 05:34 PM

I vote for raising the gas tax and using the increased revenue to properly fund Amtrak. I love train rides. We should also raise it a little more to pay for desperately needed repairs to the interstate infrastructure. If it gets high enough people will be ready to conserve more, go for high mileage vehicles and support better mass transit. But that's just me.

mrego · 05-01-2008, 05:51 PM

I thought the tax on a gallon was more like 44 cents... oh yeah, that includes sales tax on top of the tax (definitely eliminate that), state excise taxes (eliminate those too), Clinton's 4.6 cent deficit reduction tax (nobody mentions that...eliminate that too, why should motor vehicle users be the only ones paying for that), plus the Federal excise tax (that funds the interstates, right?). Boats use gas and trains use diesel, so what about those taxes?

momofnewP · 05-01-2008, 06:03 PM

I agree that this gas tax holiday is silly. It saves $28 over the course of 3 months for the average gas user. I use much less, so would save maybe $10. Can't they come up with a better, long term solution? I just paid $4.09 per gallon for premium gas yesterday.

interesteddad · 05-01-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

I take it that you have absolutely no opinion on the merits of the issue

No. I have strong opinions on a politician who takes a stand today for political expedience that directly contradicts one of the few stands he has taken in a thin record of accomplishment. I think that issue needs explanation. Why was Obama for a gas tax holiday (twice voting for it) before he was against it?

3bm103 · 05-01-2008, 06:10 PM

Darn. And I thought this was going to be an intelligent discussion on the issues.

interesteddad · 05-01-2008, 06:28 PM

If you want a serious discussion, then don't frame the question in terms of soundbyte "yah" or "nay" on a gas tax holiday. Present the full plan, including taxes on oil company windfall profits to offset consumer tax relief and specific plans to deal with unregulated speculation driving up prices.

But, of course, you don't want a real discussion of issues. You want the soundbyte version.

Quote:

Details of Hillary's Plan

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies to Pay for Temporarily Suspending the Gas Tax – Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months. Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight. Unlike Senator McCain's plan, Hillary’s plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways.

Suspending the gas tax will provide real, immediate assistance to American families and for our economy. Recent testimony before the House of Representatives by the American Trucking Association indicates that even small changes in price can have big impacts. Just a one-penny decrease in the price of diesel annualized over an entire year would save the trucking industry $391 million a year.

Take Immediate Action to Crack Down on Speculation and Market Manipulation in Oil and Gasoline Markets – Oil and gasoline markets contain loopholes for traders, and the markets are inadequately policed by regulators under current law. As a result, there is considerable concern that current market prices reflect the influence of speculators and other forces beyond supply and demand. In early April, an Exxon Mobil executive testified under oath before a House committee that the price of oil should be $50 to $55 per barrel based on supply and demand fundamentals. Marathon Oil's CEO stated last October that: "$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market…it has to be speculation on the futures market that is fueling this." Hillary would take action to reduce the influence of speculators, crack down on market manipulation in oil markets, and outlaw price gouging by:

Closing the Enron Loophole – Hillary supports closing the "Enron loophole," which exempts electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders from U.S. government regulation. The loophole has helped lead to the dramatic growth of trading on unregulated electronic energy exchanges, and has made the U.S. energy markets vulnerable to price manipulation and excessive speculation. Even Alan Greenspan has cited "investors and speculators who took on larger net long positions in crude oil futures" as one cause of oil prices. In June 2006, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued: "The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put the Cop Back on the Beat." This report analyzed the degree to which financial speculation in energy markets had contributed to the dramatic increase in energy prices in recent years. The report concluded that "[s]peculation has contributed to rising U.S. energy prices," and endorsed the estimate of various analysts that the influx of speculative investments into crude oil futures accounted for approximately $20 of the then-prevailing crude oil price of approximately $70 per barrel.

Protect the consumer market from price gouging for petroleum products – Hillary will make it unlawful for any supplier – wholesaler or retailer – to sell crude oil or gasoline at an unconscionably excessive price. Price gougers would face new fines and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and five years in prison and civil penalties could be assessed from $500,000 up to $5 million. Today, there are no federal laws prohibiting price gouging in the oil and gas industry, leaving some states to prohibit these actions. In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission conducted a study of post-Katrina gas price, and while it did not find widespread gouging, it did find 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale, or retail level that fit a definition of price gouging under legislation that Senator Clinton has backed and is proposing to enact now.

Call on the Federal Trade Commission to Take Action Against Market Manipulation in Wholesale Oil Prices – The energy bill passed last year included new provisions to provide greater transparency and prevent manipulation in wholesale oil markets, and to empower the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and pursue violations. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has chosen not to use this new authority. To ensure that oil companies and traders are not ripping off consumers, Hillary is calling on the FTC to begin investigations using these new powers. In addition, Hillary is calling on the FTC to propose regulations under the new law within 60 days to prevent market manipulation in oil markets. Recent cases show that market manipulation is a concern in oil markets. In 2007, Marathon Oil paid a $1 million fine to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to settle charges that a subsidiary had tried to manipulate crude oil prices in 2003. Action by the FTC to investigate the current oil market and to develop and enforce new prohibitions on market manipulation would help to minimize foul play in oil and gasoline markets.

Take more aggressive action to pressure OPEC to increase production – OPEC recently reiterated that it will not even consider increasing crude output until September 2008, even though limited supplies are contributing to record oil prices. Hillary believes we should be taking more aggressive action to address OPEC's control over global production levels and hold OPEC accountable for its decisions. President Bush’s efforts to pressure OPEC over the past seven years have been inconsistent and unsuccessful. Hillary supports sending a strong signal to OPEC that the era of complacency has ended. Hillary will:

Use the WTO to Challenge OPEC’s Production Quotas – With nine of the thirteen OPEC member countries also being members of the WTO, Hillary believes we should use the tools available at the WTO to address OPEC's refusal to increase production. WTO rules currently prohibit member countries from imposing export quotas. Yet OPEC member countries are actively and explicitly banding together to restrict oil production and affect global prices. Hillary is calling on the President to engage in immediate negotiations with OPEC members and, if no progress is made, file a formal complaint against OPEC countries at the WTO. Filing a complaint at the WTO will send a clear signal to OPEC countries that the U.S. is committed to an open, transparent global oil market. Such a step will give OPEC members an incentive to increase production as well.

Allow OPEC Production Decisions to Be Challenged Under U.S. Anti-Trust Law – Currently, OPEC countries cannot be challenged under U.S. anti-trust laws, even when they are engaged in coordinated, commercial activity to control the global oil market. Hillary supports amending the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act so that the Justice Department can bring suits against OPEC countries in U.S. courts for price fixing. Changing the rules would help hold OPEC countries accountable for their decisions.

Close the oil and gas loopholes and use those resources to provide direct assistance to working families facing skyrocketing energy bills on top of record gas prices. Hillary believes that in addition to imposing a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, Congress should move immediately to end the approximately $7.5 billion per in tax giveaways and subsidies that we continue to provide to oil and gas companies, despite their record profits. These subsidies are in part a result of the 2005 Energy Bill she voted against. She would use those resources this year to provide assistance to lower-income families who are not only being hit at the gas pump, but with skyrocketing energy and food bills as well. This winter, a record number of families were forced to seek assistance through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to heat their homes. This included 108,000 Kentucky families. Hillary was the only candidate to call for providing emergency energy assistance to these and other struggling families as part of the economic stimulus package. Now, as many states’ moratoriums on utility cutoffs expire this spring, millions of families could face the prospect of having their energy shut-off and having to go without electricity, hot water or the ability to keep their homes cool this summer. Hillary will use a portion of the proceeds from closing the oil and gas loopholes to ensure that these hardworking families, who are already struggling to pay for gas at the pump, do not face the extra hardship of having their energy cut off. She will use the remainder of the proceeds to provide immediate aid to lower-income families that are facing high food prices as a result of the record price of oil.

Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and release oil from it when that becomes necessary – Hillary is calling on President Bush stop taking oil off the market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is now 97 percent full, which analysts believe is more than adequate. Continuing to fill it at these high prices exacerbates high oil prices and costs taxpayers money. Hillary also believes that the SPR should be more actively managed to enable releases from the SPR to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

mercymom · 05-01-2008, 06:31 PM

Well, how about this theory, which a friend of mine has, but I haven't seen written up anywhere. My friend thinks that the price of gas (and perhaps other imports) is going up due to the devaluation of the dollar. The other countries sell the gas in euros, and we buy it in dollars. So as the value of the dollar falls, the sellers lose money cause they have to convert the dollars we pay to euros. So they raise the price to keep their profits stable.

My friend's theory is that if we pushed the dollar back up, a lot of these price issues would go away w/o any need to mess with the taxes. (but i would still like to fully fund amtrak and fix the interstates)

interesteddad · 05-01-2008, 06:44 PM

I would propose that we also extend this "issues oriented" discussion to include the ramifications of a US Senator with heavy campaign funding from one of the largest energy companies voting for Dick Cheney's 2005 energy bill which included massive tax breaks for energy companies.

What do ya'll think about that? Should US Senators have voted for or against that bill? What does a vote on that important bill say about judgement now that US drivers are paying the price?

garland · 05-01-2008, 07:04 PM

That's adorable, ID. Issues oriented makes you twitch so much you have to put quotation marks around it.

interesteddad · 05-01-2008, 07:20 PM

I put quotes around it because the intent of this thread was not to have any kind of meaningful issues discussion, but instead to play volleyball with the 15 second CNN soundbyte versions. I bet nobody posting here had even bothered to look up a candidate's actual position statements in their entirety.

BTW, one of the most important roles a President must play is providing leadership. That includes communicating to the American public that she or he understands their pain (i.e. paying $4 a gallon at the gas pump) and is willing to jump in and show that the government is listening.

That is a different dynamic than a longer-term policy debate, such as whether or not a Senator should vote for Dick Cheney's energy bill in 2005 that was a Christmas tree of energy company giveaways.