Then I saw her on Bill O’Reilly’s show, and she totally sold me on it.

Not a mere pander to voters in an election year, she managed to disarm Papa Bear with her plan to assess windfall profit taxes on Big Oil in order to fund it.

So, she helps the little guy out AND greases the skids for a more populist tax system.

It’s so going to suck if we get Mr. GOP-Is-The-Party-Of-Ideas instead of Hillary.

But now I’m convinced that at the very least it will not do any harm and who knows it might even save some struggling folks a buck or two. Even more, I think the symbolism is important - giving people a break and paying for it with a tax on corporations. After eight years of corporations coming first, I think this is an important symbol. Plus, my guess is that after ditching the tax, it will be hard to reinstate and permanently moving a tax from consumers to corporations is a good thing (although I realize the tax is paid at the refinery and not technically at the pump).

Someone at Talk Left dismissed it as pandering. Well, god forbid democrats offer a policy that’s popular with the public. Better to tell them that high gas prices are good for them and lose elections, I guess.

But never fear, Nancy and Steny have announced it dead on arrival at the House (I’ve noticed telecom immunity and other Republican proposals never are dead on arrival). My favorite part of their rejection was this from Pelosi:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said “there’s no reason to believe that any moratorium on the gas tax would be passed on to the consumer.” She has left the measure off the list of energy proposals that she may try to attach to the supplemental Iraq war-spending bill.

That’s right, the gas tax holiday is dead on arrival, but never fear about those other energy proposals. The democrats are going to attach them to the Iraq supplemental. As I said at Talk Left, what brave leaders we have.

And what’s even better is that such a proposal would put the Republican Congress in a hell of a fix. Do they vote against it? Does Bush veto it? God forbid the Democratic leadership ever does anything because it’s good politics.

It’s almost as good as Obama’s commercial about how the way to lower gas prices is to fix Washington. If we have to wait until Washington is fixed, gas is going to be $10 a gallon.

That’s what the entire “creative class” [cough] is saying on this one. Whose team is that, pray tell?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

“Looking back to 2000 when Obama was in the Illinois Senate, gas prices had soared to $1.50 per gallon (high for those days, but a bargain by today’s standards) and state legislators wanted to provide some relief. Obama voted for Senate Bill 1310, which reduced the state’s sales tax on gasoline from 6.25 percent to 1.25 percent for six months. It passed 50-0, with six senators voting present.

“Obama joined other senators in requesting gas staions post signs that said the legislature had lowered the gas tax. That was prompted by concerns that oil companies would pocket the savings and not pass it to consumers. Obama even joked that he wanted signs in his district to say “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”

But six months later, Obama voted against a bill to make the reduction permanent. He said statistics suggested that “the elimination of the tax has not been passed on to the consumer.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…

So..to be fair..he was against making it permanent..but didn’t seem to have an issue with a temporary rollback.

Recovered DU member

… for stealing his signature move (voting “present”)?

stand up for tax breaks for Exxon and firing public workers. Thanks!

very tough—but only when it comes to things that would hurt some big industry’s profits, i think—they preemptively killed this and universal healthcare even before they could happen—but not immunity for spying or iraq funding or bush’s tax cuts or the patriot act or ..

And meanwhile, for years now and even today, they only warn and talk about future subpoenas for all the GOP’s blatant and openly committed crimes—all ongoing at full speed.

And Obama uses this to change the subject but he’s not offering anything in its place to help people—as usual.

And Obama uses this to change the subject but he’s not offering anything in its place to help people—as usual.

As usual, you are not quite correct.

Senator Barack Obama, who’s also running for the White House, has a proposal that would take money out of the pockets of oil companies and put it in the hands of the poor.

Obama would use the money to help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, expand the earned-income tax credit and aid people in paying their energy bills.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/aqgacp…

But of course, it is progressive to support the McCain tax plan that will offer Exxon a $10B gift and it is horribly unprogressive obamatistic to put in a serious excess profits tax and direct aid to the poor.

That is, in the “we hate the colored guy” progressive circles.

it’ll actually make gas companies raise prices to pay for the tax.

Prices are the problem that needs to be solved. That’s what voters are complaining about.

Before she proposed the gas tax holiday. She only linked the two, win McCain came out for a gas tax holiday, with no way to recover revenue from corporations.

So, in essence, she stole the thunder from McCain’s plan, which would have gotten a lot of play, if she hadn’t set up the confrontation with Obama, who of course came out against it, so he wouldn’t be seen as copying Clinton(too late for that, buddy). On top of that, it makes Obama look bad in the eyes of most Americans, who only see that Clinton wants to give them a break not only on gas, but on freight(I work at wholesaler and retailer with 70 employees over 3 branches, and freight is going to cripple us before too long) Lower gas prices would have a ripple effect for cash strapped people all over the country, and it would save a lot more than $25 or $30 a month.

It’s a very smart move, and opens the door for a windfall profits tax, something that is a progressive idea. More people should be behind it. It’s smart policy, and she’s using smart politics, something we desperately need.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Any tax cuts at all are completely irresponsible with this deficit—and they’re not at all connected to the immediate problem so wouldn’t even be part of any actual bill intended to get money from oil companies and raise their taxes, or intended to actually solve the gas prices problems.

And we wouldn’t see the money from tax cuts for at least 2 yrs from now, while gas and food prices would keep rising.

in NY, and they’re very successful—and tangibly and immediately help people.

This gas tax holiday is the same thing—giving a little help on costs for things that are absolutely necessary is never wrong.

I live in NY as well and that clothing tax break is a great thing!

Recovered DU member

Is the refineries. There hasn’t been a new one built in a while. Gas is very expensive here, b/c of the Derby, and that is because there are so many more people here, using the same amount of gas we always use.

Nobody wants to say, because everyone understands gasoline will be going eventually. The oil companies know it, they just want to squeeze all of it first. They don’t want to invest in more distribution, because it will cost money, in lower prices and long term.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

especially helps working families w/kids for back-to-school clothes—and it helps profits at all the stores too.

It’s an immediate help to people—the gas tax holiday would be too.

new
Submitted by amberglow on Fri, 2008-05-02 23:00.

Any tax cuts at all are completely irresponsible with this deficit—and they’re not at all connected

So you are against Hillary’s gas tax cut?

to the immediate problem so wouldn’t even be part of any actual bill intended to get money from oil companies and raise their taxes, or intended to actually solve the gas prices problems.

Which is why OBama proposes a tax credit for poor families.

And we wouldn’t see the money from tax cuts for at least 2 yrs from now, while gas and food prices would keep rising.
* reply

No - a tax credit and EIC could be immediate. Of course you do understand that dropping the Federal gas tax does not mean gas prices will drop since oil companies can raise prices?

Lower gas prices would have a ripple effect for cash strapped people all over the country, and it would save a lot more than $25 or $30 a month.

The problem is that reducing the tax does not necessarily or even probably reduce the price. There are a small number of producers of refined gasoline and they set prices as high as they can sell. Reducing the tax simply means those 18c/gallon go to exxon and not feds.

we have no sales tax on clothing weeks here
Submitted by amberglow on Fri, 2008-05-02 23:10.

This gas tax holiday is the same thing—giving a little help on costs for things that are absolutely necessary is never wrong.

There is a price competitive retail clothing market. There is not such a market for gasoline. That’s why there is not a single serious economist who predicts the tax decrease will actually produce much of a price drop.

You are actually engaging an issue, instead of insulting the people you will need to win, if Obama does get the nomination.

So, since your engaging, let me ask. Why do you have a problem with Clinton using the gas tax holiday, a simple policy that appeals to most Americans, with the windfall profits tax. She has been stumping on this, and as per usual the MSM and the Boiz forgo mentioning it. And instead of letting McCain hog all the spotlight, she takes it back, and draws attention to her good idea(with Obama following with a “me too!”).

Of course all that positive energy she developed for Democratic policies! is quickly stolen by the Democratic congress, who come out and say it can’t be done(coincindentally bolstering Obama in the eyes of the voters, nice “neutrality” there).

The fact that electing the personality is more important than electing the policies absolutely disgusts me, especially considering the sneering condescension many on the blogs demonstrated to people who felt electing a president who shared their “values” was more important than electing the candidate with better policies.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!