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

Parent Cafe
1

<p>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. </p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>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!</p>

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

2

<p>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.</p>

<p>Probably for the same reason that he was for Rev. Wright before he was against Rev. Wright.</p>

3

<p>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? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Anyone have a thought on the substance of the issue?</p>

4

<p>I think they are all cowardly on energy taxes. It’s time to raise them, not reduce them.</p>

5

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

6

<p>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.</p>

7

<p>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?</p>

8

<p>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.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>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?</p>

10

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

11

<p>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.</p>

<p>But, of course, you don’t want a real discussion of issues. You want the soundbyte version.</p>

<p>

</p>

12

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

13

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

14

<p>That’s adorable, ID. Issues oriented makes you twitch so much you have to put quotation marks around it.</p>

15

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

16

<p>The details of Hillary’s Plan given here seem to present only the positives, not the negatives of her plan. Where are these details taken from?</p>

17

<p>I think we should tax gas at twice the rate we do now, and improve public transportation. I’m also fine with enacting windfall profits taxes and encouraging OPEC to pump more oil. When we lived in Germany gas was around $4 a gallon (different exchange rate of course) and we survived just fine.</p>

18

<p>“I think we should tax gas at twice the rate we do now, and improve public transportation.”</p>

<p>Me too! I love all those trains in Europe. When my Swiss neighbors moved back they sold both their cars 'cause they didn’t need them back home. </p>

<p>Does anyone know how much gas is in Europe right now? Has it gone up proportionate to US increases? If not, that could support my euro/dollar theory.</p>

19

<p>Well there goes my theory. European gas is running about $8 or $9 a gal:</p>

<p>[Weekly</a> Retail PrPemium Motor Gasoline Prices (Including Taxes)](<a href=“http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html]Weekly”>http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html)</p>

20

<p>Mercymom - I love riding the trains, too. The anti-train argument is that “nobody rides trains anymore” but here in California the few lines we have get a lot of usage. I was in Burbank last week and wanted to take a side-trip to San Diego, so I hopped on AMTRAK for the round-trip. It was SRO from Los Angeles to southern Orange County. (Which isn’t so bad - on a train you can walk around, go to the cafe car for a bite or a beer, etc.) I ended up having a series of interesting conversations with some college students (heading home to the OC from UCSB) some families, a recently divorced spa salesman and read “The Road” cover to cover. A fun, relaxing time. Renting a car and driving would have cost the same (or more) and not been nearly as relaxing or fun.</p>

<p>As to my original question, I think the positions taken by the candidates are significant, and are the kind of thing I can base my vote on, unlike the silly season goofiness which has been obsessing the media, blogs, and certain corners of CC.</p>

<p>I think McCain’s position is stupid, opportunistic pandering. It seriously lowered my opinion of the man. Probably will get him some votes, for all the wrong reasons. Makes me think he’s either dumb, sleazy, or both. </p>

<p>Clinton’s position? Her “holiday” is just as dumb as McCains, just as pandering. Paying for it with a “special” tax on oil companies is the kind of linkage which leads to bad policy decisions. Here in California the Lottery got passed by promising to give the profits to schools. Everybody loves schools, right? But if a Lottery makes sense, do it on its own merits. If more money for the schools makes sense, do that on its own merits. Linking the two is just a way to get people to do something that doesn’t make sense by linking it to something they like. Clinton’s oil company proposal may make sense - and if it does, do it. Don’t link it to the goofy “holiday.” All of her other proposals may make sense as well, but tying them to a voter-pandering gimmick like the gas-tax holiday makes me question their bona fides.</p>

<p>Obama’s opposition to the gimmick may cost him votes - but he did it anyway. Good for him. (And if he voted the other way on a similar proposal at the state level a few years ago, better still for him. The ability to not make the same mistake twice is one I’d really, really like to see in a President.)</p>

<p>My personal take? On this one, Obama +1, Clinton -1, McCain -2.</p>