When I read yesterday's account of the debate over what to do about rising gasoline prices, I really was astounded by the pandering--though I sometimes wonder why one would be astounded in this era where getting elected is far more important than taking a principled position. On this issue, the scorecard is clear: Sens. Clinton and McCain failed miserably and Sen. Obama took the right stand.
Let's start with the obvious: people are feeling a lot of economic pain, though I would argue that that pain has been there for a very long time, years before the collective political wisdom declared the country in a "recession". They have nowhere to turn to get easy cash now that their housing-value ATM's are gone, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs or on the verge of losing their jobs, health care is still a disaster, pensions are evaporating, the cost of food is going up and...the list is long and unpleasant.
And, then, there are fuel costs. I've been working a bit with the truckers who, as you may have read, are organizing, in a truly grassroots campaign, protests against the rising fuel costs. They have a broader view of the problem, focusing on the obscene profits being made by the oil companies. You can understand their plight and, at the same time, not succumb to meaningless and, ultimately harmful proposals--and, certainly, you would hope for such leadership from people who are competing for the highest office in the land.
So, come Sens. Clinton and McCain to this issue and what do they propose?
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season.
Sen. Obama was correct when he said:
Mr. Obama derided the McCain-Clinton idea of a federal tax holiday as a "short-term, quick-fix" proposal that would do more harm than good, and said the money, which is earmarked for the federal highway trust fund, is badly needed to maintain the nation's roads and bridges.
This is pandering at its worse. First, though I'm all for Sen. Clinton's proposal to levy a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, there is zero reason to suspend the gas tax. Eliminating the gas tax for the summer might save consumers $40-$50, on average. That is a ridiculous sum--and reminds me of the pain the whole nation suffered (massive unnecessary deficits and a widening of the gap between rich and poor) from the great share of the Bush tax cuts enjoyed by most people (an average of $300). It makes people think you are doing something when, in fact, all you are doing is scoring some political points and actually making the problem worse.
Second, the gas tax actually is an important thing that funds the fixing of roads, bridges and the rest of the infrastructure that makes the economy function. You need not travel more than a few miles in any city to understand how badly those funds are needed. Once you start suspending the gas tax for one reason, it becomes a target for any politician looking to score a few points against "government spending."
Third, and maybe the most important point, the predicament so many Americans find themselves in when they go to the pump to fill up their cars is a legacy of our political and economic system and our long history of refusing to face up to reality: that we guzzle cheap gas relative to the rest of the world, drive idiotic cars, encourage suburban sprawl that is an oil company executive's wet dream and exist in a political system that rewards oil and coal while killing alternative energy.
I am no Tom Friedman fan and find his views on globalization to be predictable coming from a real elitist (as opposed to someone who is unfairly painted as an elitist for political reasons). I say this mostly to underscore how right he is in today's column:
It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer's travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.
And...
The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious -- the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.
There is an opportunity here for a teachable moment. Sen. Obama will win the nomination (it's just a matter of time, as much as a lot of people are wringing their hands over the lead-up to the eventuality of the day so count me as one who is bored by the media-induced drama). He could set the tone for a future administration by simply stating, as I think he has tried in the past:
In the heat of this battle, I could troll for a few more votes by offering people a promise that has no meaning, but I won't. It may cost me votes in the upcoming primaries but what is more important is the future of the country and the planet. Telling you that I could save you a few bucks in your bill at the gasoline pump might make you feel good--but we won't solve the crisis that forces you to pay more at the pump by getting rid of a tiny amount we all pay to make sure that we have the basic services our society needs--roads, bridges etc...The economic pain you feel today is a result of a system that is controlled by [list of foes here]. If you elect me president, we are going to take on [list the obvious foes here] and make sure that your economic future is not controlled by [list Exxon etc. here]. It will also mean we will have to make some significant changes in the way we think about creating energy and using it. But, taking the power way from [Exxon etc.] will mean that we, the people, can determine that the price we pay at the pump does not come at the expense of our families and our planet.
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
The gas tax rebate or holiday (or whatever you may want to call it) is nothing but political pandering at its WORST!
I find Tasini to be dishonest once again. He does NOT state what the truckers demands are. They demanded that Bush stop putting oil into the SPR, and they were for the tax halt, among other things. Why does he REFUSE to say what their demands were?
We put something like 70,000 barrels a day into the SPR at this time. That's on the order of 0.3% of our current oil consumption. Let's see... 70,000 barrels produce 7 gallons/barrel*70,0000 barrels = 490,000 gallons of diesel a day. Class 8 trucks use roughly 18 billion gallons of diesel a year. So that's about 50 million gallons of diesel a day for long haul trucking. 500,000 gallons out of 50 million is 1%. Filling the SPR at the current rate amounts to 1% of the diesel use for long haul trucking.
Truckers are thus either VERY desperate or VERY misguided in their demands. On the other hand... not stopping the filling of the SPR is tantamount to saying that the president has even less sense than a bunch of desperate truckers because the difference to the SPR is absolutely negligible.
I see that Mr Tasini has NO credentials in gas and oil. I retired from the industry as a chief operator in a refinery and long time observer of the industry. You will notice that there are NO facts presented in the article, simply opinions without foundation. While it is true that suspending the federal tax will have a slight effect on the price, it is wrong to lump Clinton and McCain's plans together since hers address the concerns raised about the trust fund. He is dishonest in that.
The FACT is that gasoline inventories are at near record levels and refineries are cutting back production since US gasoline consumption has dropped 4% since this time last year. The real cause of the price rise is the speculation going on in oil futures which most elites are involved in. The world demand has increased 2% so far and production the last quarter has increased 2.5% outstripping demand with a projected increase to 4% by the third quarter. So there is NO oil shortage which common sense should tell you by looking around and NOT seeing long lines at the pumps. I would refer all to the Star-Telegram.com/ed_wallace and look at his column Thank You Bubble Boys. He lays it out for all to see. Or go to Sen. Sanders D-VT for his plan which has most of the elements of Clinton's. Obama's plan is simply MORE of the SAME, NOT Change.
Randy, while you might have experience with oil, you are failing to apply economics 101. In free markets the price is how much THE BUYER is willing to pay. Americans are willing to pay $120 per barrel and have not significantly reduced their consumption, yet. Europeans pay roughly twice as much (because of the tax structure of most European countries) and are still driving. I don't expect that to change much before we reach the $200/barrel range.
POGO: WE have met the enemy and it is us...
What obscene profits? Look at % earned and there's NO obscene profits... Last I looked, WalMarts Profit % was higher... Some of the Oil Corps are huge, so profits are in the Billions $$$$, But NOT % wise...
One answer is simple... POGO: WE have met the enemy and it is us... Lower (and ENFORCE) a 55 MPH Speed Limit Nationwide and need for foreign Oil is gone... Also we then have a surplus from the existing refineries... Effects accidents, etc... Anything over 55 MPH greatly increases % of fuel consumed... Texas has 85 MPH gas sucking Speed Limits, for example... Uses what, 1/4 to 1/3 more fuel as well as adding wear and tear...
NO! NO! NO! That effects ME........ WE CAN"T do that...
Actually we probably need to increase a dedicated Federal Tax to fix infrastructure...
I live in Texas and it makes NO sense for us to have such a low speed limit since the distances people travel here are FAR in excess of what the rest of the country does. Back east it does make sense. It is also a safety issue as well since you will add more hours on the road. It takes 13 hrs to get to El Paso from Houston where I live driving at 75mph which is slightly over the 70mph limit. We don't have an 85 mph limit.
Threre is NO oil shortage at all now. As a matter of fact, the oil shale deposits in the Rockies have enough oil to supply all US oil needs at current rates of consumption for 100 years. The break even point for that oil is $35/bbl. The reason the oil companies are not hiring every rig that can drill like they did back in the 70s is that there is NO oil shortage and the price is speculation driven which can go bust at any time. Thus no incentive to invest billions into that kind of technology.
Like I said....
NO! NO! NO! That effects ME........ WE CAN"T do that...
So at 55 MPH Houston to El Paso = 745 miles = Approx 14 hrs..
So at 75 MPH Houston to El Paso = 745 miles = Approx 10 hrs..
745 Miles at 20 mpg = 37.25 Gallons
745 Miles at 1/4 less = 49.60 Gallons
Difference = 4 Hrs
Difference = 13 Gallons @ 3.50 /Gallon = $45.50
Roughly 1/2 a day to travel... 13 more Gallons of my fuel used to save you 4 hrs for a 1/2 days travel...
Sadly, nobody has figured out a way to make money on oil shale, yet. Even at $120 per barrel the oil shale wonder does not want to materialize. But good luck with your investment in oil shale. Maybe it will happen at $200 per barrel. At which point oil shale will stop the further rise of oil prices. But do I really need to say that at $200/barrel the effective energy content of oil is more expensive than solar energy is today?
ahahaha McClinton have been officially DENIED! See.... Democrats need to listen to Barack Obama. Obama going to tell it to you straight. This is a huge example of the differences between Obama and Clinton/McCain (McClinton).
Obama refused to feed into the political pandering.
Like Obama says:
"This is an idea that, when all is said and done, will save you -- at most -- half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer," he said
. "Well, let me tell you, this isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's designed to get them elected"
It simply shows that Obama will not do anything to discomfit his elitist friends who are invested in the oil futures markets. If we do what Clinton and Sen. Sanders want which is to open the Strategic Petroleum reserve as GHW Bush did, the price of oil would crash. It would thus leave a lot of Obama supporters hanging out with a loss. THAT is NOT change! It is the SAME old song that we the ordinary folks are the ones at fault for our woes and our betters know better. Of course, Obama's Marin County supporters will not have any problem meeting the price rise. The rest of us WILL.
Wow...we have three choice this year for President
A Republican
A Republican-Lite
A Democrat
I'm voting for the Democrat.
So am I. That is why I am voting for Clinton and NOT GOP lite Obama. If you look at his positions they are all to the right of Clinton. If you don't think so, go to Sen.Sanders I-VT web site and see what a REAL progressive puts forward as the solution to the oil price rise.
Particularly Senator Obama's position on war and war related matters. Today is backwards day, right?
Is he the one who supports breaking up OPEC? How exactly is he proposing to do that? How about a declaration of war against Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Ecuador. To the best of my knowledge even Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton are not suggesting expanding the US wars against any other country than Iran. As for the role of OPEC... most of these countries are basically pumping at their max. capacity. Even if there was a way to break up OPEC (but there isn't), there would be no more oil in the market than there is right now. And so far there is no shortage in the oil market.
They all pander on energy, using the line "energy independence". There is no energy independence and they know this. However, they all feed the line, over and over. Biofuels was a scam from ADM (a big Obama supporter). Wind power can provide about 2% of our needs. Hydro is tapped out (no new dams).
It is all pandering with no feasible plans.
You forget to mention solar which can easily provide ten times as much energy as we use right now, at which point the heat generation from our power plants would start driving global warming, so that's when we reach the thermodynamic limit for our planet, unless we start building giant cooling structures which rise above Earth's atmosphere or giants orbital solar shields.
The physically feasible solutions are known for decades. The only problem is that the US is not willing to pay for them. Europe, on the other hand, is. Solar power to the Europeans is a great source of non-exportable jobs. And jobs are far more important over there than the cost of energy. The same is true for the US, by the way, Americans just haven't figured it out, yet.
It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Sure, you get a free tank of gas this summer, while bridges keep falling into rivers.
This is as egregious a bit of pandering as Dubya's tax rebate was in 2000. Vote for me, and I'll give you three hundred bucks. Actually, it might be a bit more egregious, as this time it's vote for me, and I'll give you forty bucks. Hell, I make less than 50k a year, and even I can see that 13 bucks more a month for three months doesn't mean squat. I'm open to a windfall tax on oil companies, but this "tax holiday" is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.
btw, does anyone here realize that those subsidies the government gives to oil companies are what keep our gas prices at approximately half what the rest of the world pays for gas? Time to wake up, America. If you candidates want to show me you're serious about gas prices, then promise me you'll raise the mileage requirements for American built cars that havn't been raised in 30 years, no matter how much the oil companies, auto makers, and SUV drivers howl about it.
This is a joke right? If Senator's McCain and/or Clinton really believe that a three month break on the 18.4 cent gas tax will be helpfull then they need to quickly introduce legislation in the Senate to make it happen. They dont even have to go back to Washington. An aid could write up the bill and submit it to the Senate Clerk. Hell they could write it themselves and fax it in. Short of that I am led to believe that maybe they really dont believe what they are saying and are only trying to pander for a few cheap votes from the idiot class. It has been well established that considering that summer is the peak driving season gas prices would merely "adjust" back up unless there was a major reduction in gasoline demand which quite frankly this little stunt does nothing to encourage. The sad part is that most Americans dont even realize that only about 60 percent of that 18.4 cents is actually being used to build highways and bridges and the remaining 40 percent is stolen to fund congressional earmarks and for projects that are either remotely related to transportaion or not related at all. The really sad part is that this pandering may actually work!
Obama's 100% right on this thing. A gas tax holiday makes no sense at all.
As I was running this morning, I tried to make a mental note of how many cars that I passed had one driver. I get easily distracted when I'm running so it wasn't easy, but I can confidently estimate that the proportion was well over nine in ten. I don't see that people are cutting back on gas consumption. Maybe they're supporting their gas habits with credit cards, savings, shorting the family grocery bill, I don't know.
It's not that hard to save gas...carpool, take turns driving the neighborhood kids to school, take the bus to the mall, plan all of your errands in one trip instead of multiple. Until I see people taking these measures, I don't feel sorry for what they pay for gas. It's a voluntary contribution to rich oilmen and terrorist Arabs.
Nancy Pelosi who is running hard for vice president has the right idea stop putting oil in the national reserve. All presidents have taken out oil during high price peaks and replaced it when prices are lower. It will get lower when we get a president who will set up a program to replace fossil fuel. I have a copy of a speech delivered to the American oil magnates by the Saudi oil minister. He says the producers should reach a point where the consumer is happy and the oil companies can make a comfortable profit. He says if this had been maintained they would not be forced to mix ethanol with their gasoline. But in this era of greed it will never happen.
Agree we need a comprehensive program to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Ethanol is a scam.
Well, let's just say that Bush or McCain or Hillary attack Iran, that will totally destabilize the entire Mideast region....then I guess the "speculators" will push the price of crude to $2-3 or even $400 a barrel. That means gas at the pump could go to ooh..$10-$15 a gallon.
Right now crude goes up a $1 a barrel when someone throws a grenade at a pipeline in Nigeria or a 100 gallon oil spill occurs. Does anyone really think the 18.5 cent gas tax is an issue. It is just politics as usual. And if the american voters can be bought for $30 this summer, then they deserve the pols they elect.
Why do we just keep rethreading the same old pols and expect different results. The American public needs to wake up. I am a 40 Yr Repub voter, I am just waking up to the mess my partisan voting has brought the US. Sen. Obama deserves a chance to clean up the mess in DC.
A great post! What scares me most in Hillary and McCain's proposal is the political tactic of pandering to Americans' desire to hear that in order to fix the energy crisis, they don't have to do anything. Ethanol has allowed everyone to keep driving those great SUV's and a gas tax holiday will let everyone drive around a little more this summer! Europe is absolutely laughing at the fact that we think paying a THIRD of what they pay for gas is crippling. Colbert said it best this week - nothing is more pleasing voters than to hear that in order to fix a problem, they don't have to sacrifice anything.
Exactly!
No one is going to save the country for us, we have to save it ourselves and the first step is taking responsibility, taking our government back from the wasteful panderers and telling every candidate that plays these games that we are deeply offended by their presumption that we are stupid!
We have to get angry over 'say anything, do anything' style politics coupled with irrelevant, petty diversions. We have to let politicians, all of them, not just those running for office today, that we have had enough of this.
We are not stupid. We are capable of meeting the challenges if given the option and we have every right to be offended by this kind of harmful pandering.
We have a gasoline crisis - and it *is* a crisis when prices go up 200% in ten years - and the solution is to encourage more people to get out and drive around, thereby using more gas?
I'll know a fool when I see him support this idiotic 'solution'
Sen. Obama took the right stand???
Hmmm, back in 2005 Sen. Obama voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill...was that the right stand?
Sen. Clinton voted against it.
Of course, NOW Sen. Obama says the bill was a bad idea. He, "was before it before he was against it".
Thats the leadership we need from our next president.
Factcheck.org: The Bush/Cheney bill ended up raising taxes on oil companies & gave tax cuts to clean coal technology. But it's easy to confuse the two depending on which end Hillary speaks from. McCain & Hillary tell the nation more of what they want to hear, and less of what they need to hear. After 8 years of sleepwalking, everyone should want to wake up from this nightmare.
"He was for it before he was against it. "
Sort of like Hillary with the war in Iraq, NAFTA, etc.? Which had bigger repurcussions?
So, are you saying you are not buying the economists' stand on this?
Just because it was Senator Obama who took the right stand, you will argue against the economists' take on the problem.
When someone accuses one candidate of something the others have done also...It cancels the arguments. War....gas....war....gas, get it?
No, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't.
You forgot to mention that the primary reason that roads are falling apart faster than they are being fixed is because blacktop is made with oil. The price per mile to pave a road today is several times more expensive than it was a few years ago. So not only do we screw ourselves over by not contributing to funds to repair roads, we could fix more roads and bridges by honestly addressing the usurious oil company pricing AND by coming up with some better plans for alternate technologies.
But I'm sure that question didn't work well in polling efforts, so hillie went with the 'give em some shiny beads' route. We must be a nation of idiots to tolerate clown candidates like mccain and clinton.
Saving $40-50 is only "ridiculous" to the elitists who support Obama. There are people in this country who are cutting back on food and simply luxuries like a Saturday afternoon matinee because oil prices. Obama's response and the thinking of this blogger drives home the point as to why he does not appeal to those white blue collar workers.
My question is: how can a total savings of $40 over a 3 month period remedy the dollar crunch at the pump? The answer that economists & Obama have given is that cutting the tax will also cut thousands of construction jobs, & will neglect the roads & bridges, & refinery companies may not distribute this savings to the gas stations, so the $40 will not reach everyone. After the gas tax holiday, the price for gasoline can be raised higher to compensate for the summer tax cut. It's like putting a wet band-aid on a wound...it won't stick.
The year is 2008, and the best that politicians can offer is a 3 month gas holiday tax. Can't we just go to the moon again?
Again ask the working poor what they can do with the money. It will reach those who need money the most. Its better than nothing, which is what Obama is offering, because I clearly heard him MOCK the savings.
Posted April 30, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST)