Josh Marshall, what the frack? He's spreading this nonsensical meme that the gas tax holiday won't lower gas prices AT ALL. And furthermore, he's claiming that virtually all economists agree on this.
This, despite the experience of Indiana and Illinois, which saw at least a 60% decline in gas prices per dollar of tax cut.
Now you can argue about the efficacy of the policy, but to spread misinformation and lies is a bit ridiculous, no? TPM is basically now a haven for people who took Econ 101, barely understood it, and then stopped taking Econ because it was "too hard".
The email I sent to WKJM, which should have authoritatively ended his nonsense, but apparently hasn't.
_______________________________________________
As one of the few remaining Hillary supporters still reading your blog, I'd point out that the latest talking point on your blog-- that the gas tax holiday won't lower prices-- is completely indefensible. See this link, for a more detailed discussion.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200...
Or this one, which is pro-Obama: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec...
It will lower prices, the question is how much, or how. Economists are saying it will reduce prices by something like 60%-- the question is whether that's insignificant. But again, it's wrong to say that all economists (or even most) think it won't reduce short-term prices. They think it won't reduce LONG-TERM prices, but that's not the point. The other thing I'd point out is that in all this Econ 101 talk, the basic assumption is that we have efficient markets right now, and I don't think it's clear we do.
Furthermore, Hillary's plan was not made in a vacuum. It was made in response to McCain's proposal. So while a number of folks out there have made the fair point that the policy goals achieved by Hillary's plan (essentially a small wealth transfer from Big Oil to drivers) would be better achieved by progressive taxation and rebate checks, they're missing the fundamental politics of the situation. Like it or not, people out there are angry about gas prices. It's literally the top issue that people are writing in to Congress about (more than housing, more than Iraq). In the likely event that Obama is the nominee, this will be a potent issue for McCain. Given how sensitive both Congress and the Administration are to this recession, I suspect that such a proposal might even have a chance of getting passed. (Does anyone who reads TPM remember the Bush tax cuts??? Those were also derided by economists and wonky Democrats, and yet passed with some Dem support.)
Hillary found a clever way to defuse the issue and turn it on its head: blame Big Oil. This allows the Dems to hammer back on the GOP for higher gas prices, and since we all know the GOP will do everything they can to block a windfall tax measure, it allows us to blame them for not passing the gas tax holiday. Now Hillary can't say any of this. But we can all read between the lines, can't we? Furthermore, this sets up the next Dem administration with the ability to try to change the tax structure on energy production, which is anything but an efficient and competitive market.
Obama's position essentially puts him in the very untenable position of favoring higher gas prices for consumers. It may be better policy in the abstract, but it's probably a political loser. I feel strongly that Obama and his supporters in the media and blogosphere are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Hillary's plan is not great policy. However, it's good policy, esp. compared to the alternative (McCain's plan passing), and more importantly it's GREAT POLITICS, not just for her, but for the Democratic Party.
Finally, I'd point out that you all are missing a major point here: this isn't a energy bill, this is a very minor form of short term cash relief for households, esp. struggling households. In the long run, this will have zero impact on energy consumption or production in this country. If you want to talk about energy policy, let's look at their bigger plans. Let's talk about Obama's continued support for ethanol, or the totally coincidental fact that he takes a ton of money from the Corn Lobby (but not registered lobbyists). Let's talk about bad vs. good energy policy. But let's not confuse this debate over a 3 month tax holiday with energy policy.
- RedSox04's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
By the by
I think this is why we call Obama supporters cultists and crazy, by the way.
Honestly, I think WKJM probably conflated a gas tax holiday's long term price impact (which all economists DO agree will be none) with the short term impact (which I understand is pretty universally agreed, with some exceptions, will be some).
But that's still pretty lazy "reporting" and fairly irresponsible.
We've come a pretty long ways, haven't we
from the days when Hillary was the principled Democrat standing up for the New Deal and all the good stuff that Paul Krugman was for.
What is the real difference, between the "populism" of George Bush in 2000 making fun of Al Gore's "fuzzy math" and the "populism" of Hillary Clinton's "tax holiday"? Both exhibit the right-wing meme that all taxes are of necessity bad?
Yes, yes, I know that Hillary is going to slap a windfall profits tax on the big bad oilcos, but if she can't get it, will she give up her "tax holiday"? Not bloody likely.
To say nothing of the fact that the oilcos will quickly jack up prices the 18c.
This isn't populism, it's Bushism.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
really?
On what basis do you think that Hillary will pass a gas tax holiday if she can't get her windfall profits tax? I've not seen nor read anything to make me believe that.
You're ignoring the obvious fact that Hillary is calling for a TAX INCREASE HERE.
Also, you're showing your Obama stripes by making the argument that the oil companies will simply jack up gas prices. That's not what past experience has shown, nor is it what economists are arguing. Did you even read my post? Or follow the links? Or are you just commenting to post Obama talking points uncritically?
I think Obama is closer to Bush, by the way. He's the one who called Reagan a great President, criticized Democratic excesses from the 60s and 70s, and has adopted RW frames on his economic policies. He's also voted for tort reform, against the 2005 bankruptcy bill amendment (look into it, and don't bother coming back with the inaccurate talking point that Hillary's 2001 vote was the same as the 05 vote- this is a particularly noxious Obama lie), and for the Cheney energy bill.
You Don't Seem to Have Come Far At All Judging from the
ridiculous assertions you made in your last post.
There is ZERO evidence to support the idea that Clinton will press for the gas tax holiday without the windfall profits tax. She has run on a platform of fiscal responsbility and is not going to propose something like this without paying for it somehow. To suggest otherwise is just plain ignorant. The fact that she was smart enough to figure out a way to provide a little relief to consumers without gutting our funds for infrastructure just proves she can provide actual specific proposals with a benefit, not just sweeping, unrealistic, vague claims about change.
Furthermore, it is may be a conservative meme to have an adversion to all taxes and want to reduce them by any means possible, but it is a progressive value for sure to have a problem with regressive taxes, of which the gas tax is one.
Furthermore, your baseless assumption that the oilcos will jack up prices 18 cents has nothing to support except your own bias and ill informed view. If we can proivde any relief whatsoever without incurring any costs, except those to the oil companies who have been making a killing on the backs of working people, not only should we, we would be irresponsible to not try to do so.
I know Obama has a lot of bundled donations to keep in mind and that explains his concern for the oil companies, and lack of concern for working people; but what is your excuse?
The difference is
Bush's "populism" was to help big business. Clinton's "populism" is to help the little guy.
And I can't swear to it, but both Clinton's have always been fiscal conservatives, and wouldn't cut taxes unless it was paid for, so it is safe to assume that Clinton can't get the windfall profits tax passed, she won't pass the tax cut.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Fiscally RESPONSIBLE
not conservative. You can't be "socially liberal" AND "fiscally conservative". That's like saying "I'm going to get you health care, but I'm not going to do anything economically to get you health care." Or: "I'm going to get you better schools, but I'm not going to pay to make them better."
I was in the Chi/IN area during that gas tax holiday --
It did make a difference. I don't have a sharp memory of it, but I recall giving the gov's of the two states a big Thank You! while filling up.
Oil -- nearly #122/bbl today, per ABC News.
And NPR had some analyst saying $200/bbl within two years.
ABC Evening News featuring families who have stopped using
electricity due to pressure of increased costs for food and gas. Working people who can't afford electricity. OMG.
One family slept all together in livingroom because it was the warmest room in the house. Kids did homework in the car -- only place with light.
I hope all those snarky commenters at Sadly, No! never have to live close to the bone, as these people are force to do.
OMG.
My only gripe with the gas tax holiday
is that it doesn't do enough to help people at the bottom of the ladder.
------------------------------------------------
Real ponies don't oink- Patrick McManus
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
I don't know who said this on NPR...
And NPR had some analyst saying $200/bbl within two years.
But Matt Simmons (Twilight in the Desert) has been saying we should expect $200/bbl in the short term for several years now.
I read someplace that Saudi ARAMCO is only pumping 8.5 million bbl/day now. A couple of years ago, that was 11 million bbl/day. It's conventional wisdom that Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world, produces 4.5-5 million bbl/day (ARAMCO does not reveal detailed production information by field. That must end.)
If these new numbers are true, that means that ARAMCO is down about half a Ghawar in production level. Hopefully, this is mostly a side effect of the demand level -- since everyone else is producing flat out, ARAMCO can dial back to optimize revenue and ultimate recovery (oil fields that are produced too fast get damaged). But, if they've lowered production because that's all they can get right now, that is very bad.
it's not gonna happen anyway--
congress already said, and doing anything for this summer is based on them and Bush agreeing--not gonna happen.
It's an empty promise that tells voters that they'll get immediate help from the candidate--and not after a new president comes in. And it tells them that the candidate will do immediate things to help people when they come up.
It's not about whether it's a good idea or not or irresponsible or not.
My last e-mail to WKJM
was in mid-March and it ended with the word "dumbass." Now I read TPM just for shits and giggles.
You're much nicer than me, jawbone
I hope all those snarky commenters at Sadly, No! never have to live close to the bone, as these people are force to do.
I hope they do.
With all due respect
Hillary got attacked for two things:
1. For advocating a policy that many people believe has no economic foundation. i.e. that gas prices won't fall. Period.
2. For failing to defend her policy on economic principles and, even worse, anti-intellectually attacking economists.
Now, I have no interest in debating point #1. Some people believe that a gas tax holiday would provide some relief. I don't. But fine. Let's assume that some economist out there would back it up, using the data points cited above.
Then, what Hillary should have done is said something to the effect of: "Well, I have spoken with economists who differ. They believe that a gas-tax holiday would cause prices to fall significantly in the short-term. Indeed, a similar policy in Senator Obama's state of Illinois, which he supported but now opposes, worked...and we have the numbers to prove it."
Instead, what she said was that economists don't matter. Economics doesn't matter. All we need to do is clap louder and FEEL THE PAIN of Americans. Don't you want to help them after all?
Now, that strain of anti-intellectual populism is like nails on a chalkboard for this latte-drinking, sushi-eating professional. One wonders how many times the Bush administration has rationalized lying to the public over the past 7+ years on the grounds that it makes for "GREAT POLITICS" even if the policy was known to be flawed. NCLB? Medicare Part B? Purple fingers? Mission to Mars?
space,
she used the attacks on her to paint Obama as not caring about ordinary Americans, and as listening to economists instead of real people who are complaining and hurting, and as not wanting to provide them any relief from an immediate problem.
Economists are not more important than regular Americans who see and feel a real problem everytime they fill up, and look for relief.
Economists don't exist to provide services for the public--Politicians do.
Economists are irrelevant to this entirely, and it was Obama who uses them to attack her with--a big mistake, i think. He's giving them why he won't help people--people don't care what economists think if gas will get cheaper for a while.
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Who cay-uhs about those pointy-headed "economists" and "intelleckshuals" all thay-uh "fuzzy math"? I waunt the PEEpul to keep theyuh money instead of givin it all to the gov'ment.
This is left-wing populism?
What a crock. It's Bushism, pure and simple.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
Sorry, sTIVo, what accent are you humorously imitating?
Not quite clear on the context of your otherwise apparently insighful comment.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
the crock is the intentional use of it as distraction--
WaPo-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
"... Even before Wright's press club appearance, Obama had been hitting presumptive Republican nominee John McCain for his proposal to temporarily suspend the 18-cent federal gas tax. When Clinton embraced the "gas tax holiday," Obama's aides became convinced that a tailor-made issue had fallen into his lap, an issue that could change the subject.
Obama and Axelrod talked that Sunday and agreed that the gas tax holiday was the perfect vehicle to reintroduce Obama as the responsible reformer who refused to pander, even with a presidential election on the line.
..."
a distraction?
Obama decides that by holding consistently to a position he'd previously held against McCain, one consistent with basic Democratic party values - that the government has a responsibility to tax reasonably in order to do the public's business - has been handed to him as a golden opportunity by Clinton - and takes advantage of it.
This is a distraction?
No, the distraction was the one that Hillary created by making this phony issue the centerpiece of her campaign in the last two weeks. Out of desperation, or whatever. It was Bushite pseudo-populism and more than a little weird. Sure, taxes are never popular, and you can always gin up a little popularity by opposing them, but this election hasn't been about them, and it was an obvious pander by Hillary, who had to adopt a new persona to play that role.
Question for Lambert: how does adoption of this issue move the Overton Window to the left?
It just didn't work. You guys need to stop drinking that particular brand of KoolAid,
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
No, sTiVO, the Mistake is Obama's
And Obama's alone. It shows, on policy for the American people, why Democrats lose elections.
Obama's political strategy these days seems to be to "go against anything Hillary Clinton supports." And, as of yet, Obama has no alternative put forth that does not seem to require Americans in general from continued suffering for five years or more.
The Nonsensical Canards of CAFE requirements, Green Investments, and Energy Efficient Everything do nothing for Americans who are in dire straights right now.
Talking about getting car companies to create a 55mpg car (which, BTW, already exists - Honda has several [the older Civics, CRXs, Insight, and Civic Hybrids], as does Toyota [Tercel, older Corolla, Prius], and Suzuki [Swift/Geo Metro]. Sorry, no Detroit-created offerings) is all good and well, but question: How will Americans be able to afford it if they cannot afford to get to work right now?
Talking about requiring Renewable Power Generation is great; and I doubt anyone disputes concepts that do not require burning carbon for energy here. Question: How is an energy bill being less in 2025 (which is when the plants are supposed to be online) going to help Americans avoid cut-offs in the winter now?
McCain offered "possible relief." Obama slams him, but doesn't seem to offer an alternative, pointing out that Oil Companies will "raise prices" to cover the "change" and that Detroit needs to stop making SUVs and Big Pickups and Cars. That's dandy. Question: How does this help families who see their budgets being eaten alive by fuel costs because there are no jobs that could pay for their family's survival and upkeep locally...right now?
Obama has not addressed the "right now." And his "responses" come off as being Ivory Tower-like. This is where his inexperience in direct battles comes into play. Hitting on "taxes" in the fashion he has paints him into the same corner that most Democrats get hit with: "The Tax-and-Spend" Liberal that doesn't care about the little guy. Barack does not offer an alternative that helps the mythical little guy right now - or any alternative at all.
The point of McCain's Gas Tax Holiday was to score points with the Conservative Base - The Average American who is feeling the pain of gassing their car just to go to work; the struggle of buying food because prices have increased dramatically (thanks to fuel surcharges); as well as the stress of paying utilities (yes, gas prices affect those, too). Obama's miscalculation comes here: He supports the tax as is, which means that we as Americans will continue to bleed money trying to survive. The explanation - It will drain the Federal coffers of highway repair monies.
News flash: This is a classic case of attempting to win by nuance. Nuance does not play very well on the National Stage.
Also, related but not directly, is an Obama bullet point list of some points in his "plan" (BTW, his plan is here (warning: PDF file). Nothing in Obama's plan seems to be directed at helping Consumers directly. It also reads much like NCLB: Long on pronouncements, short on mandates, and has a love for "Cap-and-Trades" to act as incentive for Energy Companies. Now, does his plan sound "Left" here?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.