Will Hillary Repeal the Clinton Gas Tax?

Posted May 5, 2008 | 08:52 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Bill Clinton raised the gas tax and no one in the political press seems to remember that, including George Stephanopoulos, who helped him do it.

Most political reporters obviously have no idea that in his first year in office President Bill Clinton raised the gas tax. He did it in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history, and after a presidential campaign whose centerpiece was a middle class tax cut that he forgot about once in office. If reporters knew that President Clinton raised gas taxes by 4.3 cents, they would be peppering Hillary and Bill with questions about the Clinton gas tax hike like, if you think gas taxes are too high now, are you in favor of repealing the Clinton nickel?

Bill Clinton actually wanted a much higher gas tax within the structure of a new BTU tax on every form of energy we use, but a 4.3 cent increase in the gas tax was all that we could squeeze out of Congress. I say we because I was the chief of staff of the Senate Finance Committee where I helped strategize its passage by one vote. It passed the House and Senate by one vote. Many Democrats in Congress lost their jobs in the next election because of that vote -- a vote Bill Clinton begged them to cast.

I was sure that when Stephanopoulos got his chance to grill Hillary about her proposed temporary cut in gas taxes, he would bring up the Clinton nickel. But, no, not a word about it. And, of course, Barack Obama's lame TV commercial responding to Hillary's TV commercial attacking his elitist position on the gas tax does not mention the Clinton nickel. Hillary says she wants to give drivers a three month 18 cent a gallon cut in the gas tax after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra nickel per gallon for fifteen years and gets away with it because no one remembers the Clinton nickel. Anyone who votes for Clinton in order to save 18 cents per gallon for 3 months should not let her stop there; they should demand that she repeal the Clinton nickel. And then we'll find out if her pandering knows no bounds.


Comments
235
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

(part II)

When are the American people going to realize that the public sector is OUR sector. It serves all of our most vital needs. Europe understands this and is 50 years ahead of us and enjoys a much higher standard of living across the board than we do. If you pull the plug on: health, education, transportation: you live in a brutal, primitive, clan war fare type of society. Live becomes UNAFFORDABLE!!!! Wake up! We need to invest in the public good, or do you want to pay $250,000 for each of your children's basic 4 year college degree?

Stop believing the Republican lie: 'no more taxes', 'do you want government to tell you want to do?'!!! This is really saying: 'let us pull the plug on all your most basic needs so that my rich friends in industry can control and charge you anything they want for: clean water, security, health, education, my goodness, looks like you ran out of money, sorry bub, let someone else take care of you now ...'.

Please don't insult our intelligence and insist on saving us 5 cents when it will cost us a fortune later.

- DWK

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 05/08/2008

(part I)

If our president had asked the American people 8 years ago: we can massively improve our transportation infrastructure and develop a massive green technology industry that will employee 1000s of our brightest minds, reduce our dependency on oil, create new public transportation options, fuel efficient cars, create communities where walking and biking become real viable options where we could live healthier lives, etc. BUT, to create such a bold initiative, we need to add a $1 a gallon gas tax.

Would those who agree with Lawrence O'Donnell have voted yes? Of course not! They are quibbling over 5 cents in taxes! Guess what? Gas cost $1.35 8 years ago, now it costs $3.50 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are where is this money going? To the billionaire stockholders of big oil.

- DWK

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 05/08/2008

Cont'd Asia Times:
In January 2006, when the CFTC allowed the ICE Futures the gaping exception, oil prices were trading in the range of US$59-60 a barrel. Today, some two years later, we see prices tapping $120 and trending upwards. This is not an OPEC problem. It is a US government regulatory problem of malign neglect.
...In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes.

Perhaps 60% of oil prices are speculation
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and numerous hedge funds speculate.

Over the past couple of years, global crude oil production has increased along with increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years, global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby "substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE06Dj08.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 05/07/2008


Get off the turnip truck. The gas tax "issues" is a distraction. The elephant in the room, Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission. Why? Asia Times has an informative article:

Speculators knock OPEC off oil-price perch
By F William Engdahl
The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It is controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today's crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds.

....A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report ... pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation.

HERE'S THE KICKER: Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits? It seems to have deliberately walked away from its mandated oversight responsibilities in the world's most important traded commodity, oil.

... January 2006, the George W Bush administration's CFTC permitted the ICE, .... to use its trading terminals in the United States for the trading of US crude oil futures on the ICE futures exchange in London -

.... The US government energy futures regulator, CFTC, opened the way to the present unregulated and highly opaque oil futures speculation. .http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE06Dj07.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 05/07/2008

HELLO OT THERE!!!!!!!!!
3 -Reasons to VOTE for Hillary:

1)Allow her to fix the NAFTA mess,her husband signed into Law,that has cost us JOBS.

2)To lower the GAS TAX ,that her husband RAISED.

3)TO PASS MORE MESSED UP LAWS,THAT WILL ADD TO THEIR PORTFOLIO OF SUCCESS.

VOTE,VOTE YOU DUMMIES FOR HILLARY CLINTON AND COMPANY AND THE GEORGE BUSH
ADM. WILL LOOK LIKE HEAVEN ON EARTH INSPITE OF GAS PRICES,IRAQ WAR AND
FORECLOSURES.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 AM on 05/07/2008

The gas tax suspension is probably one of the most absurd debates yet. How irresponsible it is to attempt to buy votes with money borrowed from our kids? The truth is the gas tax is one that benefits us all by providing a good transportation system as well as some of the few remaining good jobs in this country. While there are problems such as the Minneapolis bridge disaster, by and large, the highway fund has done a pretty good job keeping up with the nation's transportation needs. But things cost more to build and repair infrastructure just as everything else does, yet Clinton wants to disrupt the funding of this important program. My vote is worth more than 27 bucks and it confims for me that Clinton lacks the judgement needed to be president. Don't forget she voted for the Iran resolution which shows she learned nothing from her vote on the Iraq resolution. She claims to have the most experience but if this is what she has gained from that experience, give me an inexperienced Obama anyday.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 05/06/2008

O'Donnel must be living in some alternateive universe. Gas cost what in 1992-2000? Only a moron would use that comparison. This is a good idea if the oil companies are going to pay for it as Hillary's plan stipulates. Give Americans a break for the summer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 05/06/2008

The Summer of what year?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 PM on 05/06/2008

Dear ResidentChimp, let me introduce you to the law of Supply and Demand...when you reduce the price of a commodity- demand will rise-- unless you increase the supply the price will rise back up...
We cannot increase the supply of gasoline--therefore the the prce will not stay down and Americans will get no breakand when summer is over a jump in price again... and will continue to drive more than we should. bad for the environment, bad for roads, bad for the drivers pocketbook, bad bad bad. Only a moron would not realize the consequences of increased demand...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 05/06/2008

We're not STRICTLY dealing with supply and demand here. Speculation has pushed the cost per barrel beyond what even OPEC considers reasonable. Refusing to add to the Strategic Oil Reserve at inflated prices might discourage speculation, but ultimately we must find a way to push ourselves away from the table.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 05/06/2008

Unless the author is using sarcasm, why would he recommend not stopping and removing the "Clinton Nickel"? Don't repeal ANYTHING -even temporarily. Make the citizens realize it's NOT going to get better. It's going to take some MAJOR PAIN for people to grasp what the term "finite" means.
This is a serious issue, but please don't use this issue as a means to slam EITHER candidate. While I don't enjoy Hillary's 'pandering', I'm growing MORE weary of the OBAMA-leaning articles -- btw, I can't drive my car on 'HOPE'.

As far as Stephano'reillypoulos, we all know he couldn't ask about the nickel because he was too busy being spoon-fed Fox questions.

I would never dissuade anyone from stating the facts (which Mr. O'Donnell did quite well), but why not try to offer some alternatives? And as a responsible writer, why not stay away from the 'spin' ? -- I'm starting to get sick of this ride and I see it serving NO purpose except to further split our party.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 05/06/2008

If Hillary were serious she would introduce legislation providing for both the gas tax "holiday" and the windfall profits tax to pay for it. However, she knows that it will go nowhere and if, by some strange alignment of the planets, that it passed the House & Senate, President Bush would veto it. How dumb does she think we are to present us with something so patently phony?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:24 PM on 05/06/2008

Thanks for the info, but Lawrence you were on Dan Abrams show last night. Did you mention this fact then? Surely you aren't the only one in the MSM that knows this...why isn't it being talked about?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 05/06/2008

Thoughts About The 2008 Election

How much more accurately can one's character be judged than by his/her honesty? After the exposure of several "misspoken" comments, Sen. Clinton simply directed the public and media to get over them and move on.

As president, exactly how frequently, might Sen. Clinton's ''misspoken'' comments occur? If there were a crisis at 3:00 a.m., would we be able to differentiate between the "misspoken" and the truth and really feel safe?

It is also so unfortunate how it truly appears that Sen. Clinton's personal ambition is so strong that she would rather destroy the Democratic Party making it possible for Sen. McCain to win, giving her another opportunity to run for president in 2012.

Additionally, the coverage of Rev. Wright has been disheartening. By having the issue of Rev. Wright snowball into sensationalism to help their ratings, the media has and continues to do irreversible damage to the credibility of news coverage for myself and others with whom I have spoken. Like many others, I am still baffled as to why Sen. Obama is being held responsible for someone else's comments or actions.

Sen. Obama has proven his ability to unify masses without focusing on negative strategies such as: attacking and distracting; demeaning characters; and reaching down to return punches.

After speaking to several people in Pennsylvania, I have learned that others share my feeling. My question is, are there others across this country who share these same feelings? Please respond.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 05/06/2008

This is trivia Larry. By the way -- WHAT business relationship with Clinton campaign???!??

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 05/06/2008

So....Lawrence...next time, you write Obama's ad on this. I did not know this either. I am sure all you guys have a heads up on how to get the campaign on the phone. I can only email them. But it is a great point, and thanks so much for calling our attention to it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 05/06/2008


Rats. I'd e-mail this to Obama for America if I had read this
a couple of days ago. Great polit. research. This is the stuff
we need from you political pros who spend their time and lives studying
it and knowing it and reporting it. We're busy working at our things, but
we need to know the facts.
Thanks.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 05/06/2008

George Frost writes in Salon:

"While an Illinois state senator, Obama supported a state tax holiday very much like Clinton's proposal, but without the saving mechanism of a windfall profits tax. ...
"During one state Senate floor debate, Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."
"Now, running for president, Obama says the tax reduction was a complete failure, and that "the oil companies, the retailers" ended up benefiting most because they raised prices by the entire amount of the tax cut."

Actually, a study by two respected economists shows the opposite: consumers received most of the benefit. Maybe if Obama knew that his pandering proposal actually had worked, he might have teamed up with Hillary and pandered some more.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 05/06/2008

The passage of the bill in Illinois was much more likely, because the state does not have the Bush administration running it. There is no guarantee that a windfall-profits tax would work -- and Sens. Clinton and McCain know this, so does Sen. Obama. However, Obama is speaking from experience and from common sense: Of the myriad attempts to pass a tax on oil companies, Bush repeatedly has threatened to veto any legislation calling for such, and there's no way the bill would make it to his desk anyway. Sen. Clinton regrettably and quietly had to admit this earlier today, stating she knows it would be "very difficult" to pass such legislation, and we're not talking about something for next year -- we're talking about this summer. For all their denigrating of the concept of hope, she and her campaign certainly have a lot of it built up for the passage of a bill to tax oil companies' profits. So, if you're keeping score: Clinton hoped Al Gore would be president; she was wrong and NY jobs were lost. Clinton hoped Bush would not use military force in Iraq; she was wrong, and now over a million Iraqis and over 4,100 U.S. troops are dead. She hopes to tax oil profits in order to replace the funds she wants to use for a gas-tax holiday; the House effectively let the gas-tax holiday plan die. Pandering or no, her legislative track record should be scrutinized.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 05/06/2008

Could you give us a cite or link to that study? Or name the "two respected economists"? And would such a study be of any value to Hillary -- in that she just rejected such analysis as "elitist"?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 05/06/2008

At the start of this election cycle, I was very pro-Hillary. That has changed dramatically - not from anything said against her by an opponent, but from her own campaign efforts!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 05/06/2008

Good post Larry. Wow- some angry posts from the Clinton camp but that's no surprise.
It is so disturbing to me that there is so little good news coverage. This is probably the most important election in US history and we get superficial, tabloid coverage. --- No wonder we are in so much trouble in the country.

And for you Clinton supporters- Hillary and McCain are like bookends. They will never turn this country around. The longer Hillary drags this primary out- the more posts like this surface and show what phony, power hungary political machines the Clintons are.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 05/06/2008

How about transferring that tax to the oil companies. If you repeal it, you'll have nothing to pay for the corporate oil wars our military has been co-opted to fight.
Before Bush and Congress repealed the US Constitution and the rule of law, you could punish monopolistic behavior and war crimes.
If we had representative government, they would be holding investigations on oil company business practices.
This is nothing more than an Enron business plan successfully executed with the help of corrupt government.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 05/06/2008

Actually, the gas tax does not go to pay for the war, it is all mandated to be spent on highway construction and maintenance. If you cut the tax (or have a holiday, etc.), expect more falling bridges...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 AM on 05/07/2008

Bill Clinton was a big time CROOK when he was in office. Hillary is no BETTER than her ELITIST HUSBAND. Yes they're both ELITIST, CLAWING and SCRATCHING to get back in OFFICE so they can TAKE more from the POOR and MIDDLE CLASS in this Country. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 05/06/2008

Simple math:
Saving $0.18/gallon means:
$1.80 on 10 gallons (for which you will pay more then $35.00) say, 120 miles in a Hummer or 460 miles in a Prius
$18.00 on 100 gallons (for which you will pay more then $350.00) 1,200 miles in a Hummer or 4,600 in a Prius
$180.00 on 1000 gallons (for which you will pay more then $3,500.00) 12,000 miles in a Hummer or 46,000 miles in a Prius

Do you know of anyone except Semi drivers who drive 12,000 miles in 15 weeks, much less 46,000 miles?

Who is saving money? The folks with the biggest gas guzzlers. The folks we need to get rid of their SUVs and replace it with something fuel efficent.

Want to make this tax break make a difference? Make it so that 18 wheelers get an $0.18 refund for each mile they drive for 15 weeks (They fill out log books, and have to turn them in already, so it no new expense for them). Lowering cost for them will lower cost they pass on to all other makets.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 PM on 05/06/2008

I am glad someone else sticks up for the truckers. OH,Hillary please turn the light off when you leave!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 05/06/2008

END NEOLIBERALISM NOW!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 05/06/2008

Spot on! (and very funny)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 05/06/2008

The Word of the Day for May 06, 2008 is:

Veritable - being in fact the thing named and not false, unreal, or imaginary.

Such irony!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 05/06/2008

You know Lawrence - we've written about your off orthodox Hillaryism - but you have gone berserk lately.

For a smart guy, you have become quite a propagandist of your own right. Satire and cynicism are eloquent tools of writers - but you just make stuff up.

When will you disclose your business relationship with the Hillary Clinton campaign ??

If you don't, I will.

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 05/06/2008

New York...has the highest state gas tax at 31 plus cents...so there Hill, work on your own state. And Bill doubled it from 9c to 18c 3 years later.
If the gov't allows a decrease to us the gas buyers, then the oil companies will up the price just that amount to still get us to pay for it so they don't lose that money then they will turn around and get a massive tax deduction and more subsidy for having paid it. Wow, economic boondoggling here folks. Think about it. Who is really to benefit ? Can we please figure that out?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 05/06/2008

Lawrence,

While I agree with you that Bill Clinton raising the gas tax is fair game as a campaign issue for Hillary and that the media has been negligent or ignorant in not bringing up this issue, when Clinton was president, the gas tax could easily be raised and not cause most people any hardship while contributing a good source of revenue to try and reduce the big deficit he inherited. There is nothing wrong with a gas tax if the money is properly spent to benefit the public. Obviously wasting any monies in Iraq or on pork is not a good use of any tax revenue including that from the gas tax. So while you make a valid point because Hillary is raising the issue of eliminating this tax, comparing the options Bill Clinton had when gas probably was costing $20 a barrel to the options now when it is costing close to $120 per barrel doesn't make much sense. The real issue is that Hillary can't do anything to repeal the gas tax unless she becomes president. All she can do is try and fool people into thinking she can do something for them now.

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 05/06/2008

I believe the gas per gallon at that time was around $2..........a far cry from what it is now. The economy under Clinton was very good.......Mr O'Donnell, not like it is now with $4 and food prices at the supermarket...somewhat a trickle down from truckers paying so much to deliver food.
L. O'Donnell would do anything to bash Hillary..........from stretching the truth to just plain telling lies.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 05/06/2008

Lawrence seems to like to stir it up and, judging by the outrage and fury his silly blog has created, I'd say he did a fine job. I really get it: you just love Obama and you hate Clinton. BUT why must your choice for the candidacy close off your minds to the content of Lawrence's comments?

In 1993 gas prices were $1.07 AFTER the nickel increase (DOE reference) The country had a deficit and taxes were raised with the approval of Congress, as is the law.

So my question to the ranting fanatics, is what does a tax hike FIFTEEN years ago have to do with the current cost of gas now? I'll answer that for you: A B S O L U T E L Y N O T H I N G ! ! But it sure did rile you up!

it's just like shooting fish in a barrel, right Lawrence?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 05/06/2008
collapse hawkeye58 See Profile