“It’s about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time, from an economic point of view,” Bloomberg told reporters at City Hall. “We’re trying to discourage people from driving and we’re trying to end our energy dependence … and we’re trying to have more money to build infrastructure.”
Gail Collins: A funny, sarcastic, and perhaps most insightful angle on this:
All this actually tells us something about the Democratic candidates, which has nothing to do with fuel prices. Obama believes voters want a sensible, less-divisive political dialogue, that the whole process can become more honorable if the right candidate leads the way. Hillary really doesn’t buy that. She has principles, but she doesn’t believe in principled stands. She thinks that if she can get elected, she can do great things. And to get there, she’s prepared to do whatever. That certainly includes endorsing any number of meaningless-to-ridiculous ideas. (See: her bill to make it illegal to desecrate an American flag.)
Paul Krugman: A Princeton Economist and rabid Clinton supporter (one of my favorite columnists for his Iraq war stance, but I find him rather incoherent lately) who includes the sentence that the Gas Tax Holiday is a bad idea, and has also said so on his blog. I wonder if he’s hoping for a Clinton administration cabinet position. He says:
“To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.”
The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.” Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.
NYT editorial “The Gas-Guzzler Gambit” on May 1st :
Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain have explained the inconsistency in their positions. We know pandering when we see it. We also know that suspending the gas tax for the summer won’t solve this country’s energy problems or even reduce the price of gas.
As I’ve said before, Clinton deserves the hits she’s taking on this issue — I’ve yet to see a single expert who thinks her proposal would do Americans any good… One of the principal objections to the holiday proposal has been that because the tax is not actually collected at the pump, there’s no reason to believe that the oil companies will actually pass on to consumers the full savings from the suspension of the tax.
Sam Stein from the Huffington Post did some investigative work and failed to find any expert or stakeholder who supported the idea besides the Clinton and McCain administrations. This included requesting experts favoring the plan from the Clinton camp (no response). In a typical quote Roger Tauss, the International Vice President for the Transport Worker’s Union, said:
First of all it is pocket change and it doesn’t do anything short term. It will just put more money in the oil companies pockets. It is typical Washington beltway crap. It is just like typical. They make a big fight over a small, nothing issue, and nothing will ever get done.
And the NYT had an article this week about how the high gas prices are creating significantly more demand for smaller fuel efficient vehicles. In other words, the high prices are working – we’re starting to get more efficient (there’s a long way to go though).
Finally we have a real policy issue difference between the candidates, and one that touches on the critical problems energy policy, national security and climate change. I think the Obama campaign should be more pointed in their response to the McCain-Clinton Gas Tax Holiday. After all if there’s consensus that this is a useless policy, what does it mean that McCain and Clinton are basically trying to buy voters’ support for a $28 that they will most likely not even get? Isn’t that more than a little bit condescending to the voters? I’ve lived in the Midwest, people there are not dumb, but they may feel alienated from the East and West coast (rightly so oftentimes). As the pundits have pointed out: this just a case of Washington politics trying to pander to those midwest voters, not provide meaningful policies and vision. As for the comments that McCain and Clinton have otherwise suggested energy and climate change proposals: Why do would we want to take a big step backwards on both energy and environmental fronts before going forwards? Considering that we are exceeding the worst case scenarios for fossil fuel consumption, we need real leadership and vision. This is pandering, not leadership.
The gasoline prices have become the number one issue, and people may react to any relief that is offered, even if it never materializes in their pocketbooks. Even though economists and environmentalists clearly label this as a bad idea, there are many who will profit from this, all along the oil to gasoline pipeline. You can be sure they are working to make the voters think it is something good for them.
<
p>But we must say, enough is enough, and reject any politician who seeks power through pandering, when the result is obviously bad for us all.
Barack was for a gas tax holiday in IL before he was against it now. The WaPo, LA Times, Yahoo, etc. have articles on his voting record in IL:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>How wonderfully politically expedient. I’m sorry, but if he did vote that way and is now attacking Clinton for something that he voted for in the past, he’s got some explaining to do. Counting on the media letting this slide is not going to work.
Here:
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>I find the analogy to year 2000 Illinois and the current crises facing the United States and the world to be tenuous. First, the Illinois measure, which Obama later voted against making permanent, did not raid the Federal highway funds that go to repair our tragically antiquated roads and bridges; getting off foreign oil was not a top national priority before 9/11; as a country we are now hype-aware of the damage that CO2 emissions is doing to the ecosystem; an Illinois gas tax holiday in 2000 does not have the potential to drive up gas consumption the way a nation-wide holiday would; driving up gas consumption in Illinois in 2000 does not have the potential to raise already tragically high $120/barrel world-wide oil prices and thus helping to drive up (along with the ethanol boom) world-wide food prices to the point more people are starving then a year ago. Apples and oranges.
<
p>I’m not an expert on Illinois politics in 2000. Perhaps the tax holiday was indeed the wrong thing to do then, but the context of the purposed national gas tax holiday is so different that I can’t see any use in comparing the two votes. The solution, a tax holiday, may be the same in both instances, but that doesn’t mean the question, the challenges and consequences are the same or even comparable.
<
p>First of all, Clinton wants to “raid” the windfall profits of Big Oil to fund the gas tax break, not Fed highway funds.
<
p>Secondly, foreign oil isn’t any more an issue today than it was in 2000…heck, in 1976. today, as in previous times, there’s been a lot of talk, not much action:
<
p>
…I’l admit upfront that I have done little actual reading on the Clinton proposal (or the Obama proposal or McCain proposal). I know that 60% of the federal gas tax goes to federal highway fund. No tax means a loss of revenue stream for those funds. So am I to understand that the loss in those funds will be 100% offset by the windfall profits of Big Oil?
<
p>To the second point: sure, Jimmy Carter was saying this back in the day. And sure, in reality, foreign oil may not be any bigger of a problem then in 2000. But think we live in an unprecedented time of consciousness about the problems of dependance on oil, from foreign policy and environmental standpoints. It may still all be lip service, but it gets more lip service than ever and people are more literate than ever, and more open than ever to finding alternative energy solutions.
<
p>Whether or not we as a society harness this new consciousness and do positive things with it remains to be seen. But I think it’s fair to say that getting off foreign oil is a higher priority for voters on all levels then ever. Or at least in highest in any election cycle in my lifetime.
As an Obama supporter I have no problem saying that he was wrong in 2000. But he is right now. It’s good for people to grow and to make better decisions.
<
p>But come on.. the windfall tax.. really? First, no chance in hell it passes. Second, the tax incidence would actually be on the consumer. It’s econ101, which Clinton and her supporters seem to have missed.
<
p>Notice that US production is lower in 2006 than it was in 2000, which is lower than 1976.
<
p>Notice that US imports are higher in 2006 than in 2000, which is higher than 2976.
<
p>So if we’ve got less US oil and more non-US oil now than in 2000 or 1976, how again is foreign oil no more of an issue today than in 2000 or 1976?
Predisposed partisans need not bother!
<
p>From MTP today. (See video here)
sinks daily that any good will result from the last eight years of stupidity, nor will there be a positive outcome for the next eight. People who live in glass houses….
I use linky and everything. Gawd you’re tough.
That was one of the best damned answers I’ve heard in a very long time from a politician. He called his opponent to task where they have a serious difference in opinion. He then didn’t beat around the bush with Russert when asked if he thought it was pandering, etc. He answered the question forthrightly instead of trying to provide spin or blab on pointlessly.
I’m neither in the Obama is god nor Hillary is goddess camp. I’m seriously disgusted with the media, blogs and individuals who focus on personalities vs. reality. The definition of pander is to provide gratification for others’ desires. Under that definition, there is little difference between any of the politicians who are running. To use “pander” as a pejorative and then use exactly the same cloaked in a different veil is amusing, but obviously another tactic. In this case, I see it more as my pander is better than your pander — nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. I have my doubts about whether either candidate can pull off much more than cleaning up some of the mess. Tax cuts or tax holidays aren’t going to do anything to fix the real problems. I guess spin is in the eye of the beholder.
I do not see Obama’s stance as pandering at all. I see it as good policy that environmentalists and economists stand in support of. The McCain/Clinton idea, to the contrary, is very much pandering.
<
p>In this case it is clearly pandering (providing gratification to other’s desires) to the lowest common denominator – the poor and less educated. How else can one explain that not a single economist with any standing (or any at all that I’ve been able to find) support the initiative while it has been received with open arms by those with, according to news stories, the poor and less well educated?
<
p>As for the “Obama is God” complex I do not believe I suffer from that. In past comments I’ve taken both candidates to task for their various stances and actions. I am happier to point out the positives of each when they make good proposals and take appropriate stances. This is one instance that deserves kudos.
you are not one of the “Obama is God” posters. I’m still seeing pandering all the way around. Sorry, must be poor and uneducated. ;-( Seriously, that is one of the things that makes me dislike the Obama campaign. I don’t think there should be a gas tax holiday, and I believe the economists. That said, I’m still disgusted by the whole primary and don’t see very much difference. I reiterate my flip a coin suggestion to get on with it and focus on the problems we face instead of prolonging the pandering opportunities.
No matter any opinion on pandering regarding this talking point from Clinton the idea is really smoke and mirrors. If the feds suspended the tax on fuel their is no evidence from any source that the price of Gas or Diesel would drop the equivalent amount non what so ever as a matter of fact if you read closely the financial reports the oil companies currently are cutting into profits to hold the price down to the consumer as much as possible. Certainly not because they are looking for the good citizen award this year but out of fear that more drastic measures would be taken cutting into their record profits. This logic does support Ms Clinton’s assertion that there would be a role back but how much and for how long is anyone’s guess but certainly I refuse to believe that saving $25-35.00 total over the summer is going to give the SUV drivers pause to drive 500 miles on a vacation on those savings and lets get real the small business man who has to drive to his clients is not going to see a reduction that is going to keep him from passing on the huge increases to his clients.
<
p>The thing that does amaze me is no one is reacting to the lack of a real energy policy over the last 8 years. What happen to the investigation in to Chaney on his secret meetings with the heads of big oil? Maybe an answer or two would become clearer if we continued to look down that road. Yet I do believe that what we are seeing is Commodity speculation which is a byproduct of two things the collapse of the mortgage market and the fall of the US Dollar. Big money is now looking for profits from buying up and speculating that the top has not been reached in commodity trading. Basically trying to recover some of their losses and looking for the next big profit generator for cash investments. The question we also need to ask is will this economic bubble burst and what happens then where do they robber barons move their wild speculation into next?
<
p>It is my opinion that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or even John McCain need to understand what is driving these markets what kinds of policy can be implemented to restrain these wild swings but more importantly everyone needs to realize that this entire economic model we are currently seeing is directed at one group and that is to maximize the extraction of income from the middle class. I would love for someone to show me evidence where the top 1% those making net income over $150,000 a year is truly feeling the bit of $4.00 a gallon gas or home heating oil or electric utility fuel surcharges they merely move there portfolio into the next profit generator commodities and it continues to grow. For the rest of us it is grin and bear it and hope we can survive it.
<
p>Last comment I am waiting for any of the candidates to come up with a plan that would mean a real savings for the working family. How about a tax credit on our 2008 taxes for the .18 cents a gallon gas tax if your gross income is under $150,000.00 a year. Save your receipts and add it up I think that may make a difference and it does not completely raid the highway fund. That’s not pandering that’s returning the dollars to the real people struggling to survive this latest Rich man vs Poor man Scheme.
I personally think Clinton’s position is wrong, it’s pandering plain and simple. Her explanations are even worse. That being said, Jerome at MyDD posted this (hilarious):
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Pander much? He didn’t need to add that at the end did he? I think his campaign believes that not supporting a tax cut of any kind might hurt him so they had to start throwing tax cuts of their own. Maybe they should have done it in different commercials.
…when did he adopt the idea of a $1,000 tax cut?
<
p>It seems he introduced the idea last September. ( MSNBC | CNN )
I thought the commercial was great, up until the end. He highlights (correctly) that’s she’s pandering, then throws in the $1000 tax cut.
That line can be drawn wherever.
<
p>Which “proposal” sounds more pragmatic. The other then becomes pandering.
<
p>Obama is constantly pandering to me. Aren’t I lucky!
you are wicked lucky, like for real.
Maybe it is tacky, or maybe it is as suggested elsewhere juxtaposing a pragmatic tax cut with a sham tax cut that won’t get past. I was just addressing the idea that this was a recently manufactured idea.
Obama’s proposal he added in the commercial is part of his economic package. It is something that he as long discussed and it’s not a gimmick.
<
p>But to be fair Hillary in her economic package has pushed for extending child tax credit and child care credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, marriage penalty relief, new tax cuts for health care, college and retirement.
<
p>Suspending the gas tax is a horrible idea with no backing from any economist. IMO they probably threw that in there at the end since there was some evidence that the tax cut had some kind of positive impact in Indiana. This is Obama’s 3rd commercial on the topic in that state.
He voted for that and then realized it was a bad idea.
<
p>Which suggests that he has both experience and judgment.
<
p>This dog don’t hunt.
This is one of several things that makrs a true statesman to me. He not only realized it was a bad idea but admitted, publicly that it was a bad idea. Quoting from the Russert interview:
<
p>
Providing tax relief at first glance might seem like a good idea. It was something that he supported, then after review and the impact in IL with gas tax relief he found that they did not get their intended results. Based upon that experience he can say it’s a bad idea and why it’s a bad idea. While it might look good in the short term, it will not have the desire effects, he will not pander or lie to the electorate, he’s going to tell you the truth. I don’t see how you can grade that response other than A+ for a candidate.
<
p>But then you have the commercial that ended with the proposal of $1000 checks to everyone, should of just stayed with the gas tax.
It contributes to the perception that US politics and the system are unfixable.
People are not rejecting it pundits are.
Here is why.
http://oldthinkernews.com/Arti…
Paul: Not ready to endorse McCain, likes Obama’s foreign policy
<
p>Jacques DeMolay and Aleister Crowley are laughing from the grave.
<
p>LH, are you Golden Dawn, Silver Star or OTO?
I had this expat assignment in Berlin. The trip and the resulting re-indoctrination into “American culture” has indeed resulted in the ultimate Alice in Wonderland moment.
<
p>Paul likes Obama’s foreign policy? Damn, forgot to check the subliminal cell phone mind altering control ray frequencies tonight! Friggin Apocalyptic horses got in the grain room again.
<
p>I do though await a copy of David Rothkopfs Superclass.
http://www.amazon.com/Supercla…
<
p>Hey, if nothing else it’s a break from lamestream media.
By claiming Discordianism as my faith, I am protected by the Constitution for being an anarchist.
<
p>Isn’t this the best nation ever?
I am a Knight of the Fifth Veil.
http://www.proliberty.com/obse…
Bummer that we don’t have the stuff to construct those nifty light saber things.
Whoa..
Like reading RAW’s Cosmic Trigger.
CAMPAIGN 2000: The New York Senate Debate; Excerpts From Second Debate Between Mrs. Clinton and Lazio
(h/t Mash
To this:
<
p>
<
p>I would add:
<
p>
Ironic, I think Obama’s point about how multimillionaires Clinton and McCain likely haven’t pumped their own gas in decades is a good one.
<
p>George Stephanopolus grilled Clinton today on ABC. He asked (to paraphrase): “Even your supporter Krugman is against the gas tax, can you name one economist who supports this policy.” And Clinton couldn’t. She sidestepped the question saying something about not listening to Washington elites I recall. (Krugman doesn’t live in DC as best I know, he’s a Princeton NJ outsider). Although I think I saw a flash of resentment before answering the question. Oh well, there goes Krugman’s cabinet position.
<
p>Reflecting on this more today, I think it is really great the gas tax issue is receiving this kind of attention, and that it is receiving broad bipartisan support this past week. The next president, whomever that is, might as a result meet much less resistance to enacting a real carbon tax that actually has some teeth, assuming s/he actually had the gumption to propose it.
re: Krugman. You “find him rather incoherent lately”
<
p>1. Krugman’s written in his blog that he’s not interested in being in the cabinet, nor does he feel he’s suited for it. You have no evidence that Krugman’s ambitions are to hold a govt position of power. (Unlike, say, other economist-bloggers who’ve run for governor.)
<
p>2. He didn’t originally support Hillary. The bulk of his praise in this primary has been for Edwards, and when JRE quit, Krugman decided Hillary’s healthcare plans were closer to the standard JRE set for policy. His criticisms of Obama have been largely focused on healthcare policy, where Obama doesn’t hope for as much as Hillary does. Pretending that Krugman is incoherent on this point has been a silly spin by the Obama supporters, but they keep doing it.
<
p>re: Gail Collins.
She’s mind-reading. She doesn’t know what Hillary believes, but she knows how to write passages for a high-school-mean-girls slam-book, and it just so happens that Hillary is her target du jour. She’ll turn that same mind-reading nastiness on Obama when she feels like it. It’s better not to use words like “insightful” when discussing Gail Collins, or her sister mean girl, Maureen Dowd.
<
p>Oh, and when Gail Collins says Hillary doesn’t take principled stands, Gail’s wrong. Hillary’s health care plan, which includes the necessary mechanisms for universality, would be tougher to pass than Obama’s, but it would cover more people. So, in addition to mind-reading Hillary, which is one of those things that can’t be disproven or proven right, Gail is a little too quick make generalizations that can be easily argued against.
Point taken on Krugman’s ambitions. I’m just speculating (but talking about not wanting politican office sounds like someone who took the time to wonder about political office, again speculation). But he’s been really bizarre on the Clinton/Obama topic. There’s something he really doesn’t like about Obama (or something that he really prefers about Clinton) but which he hasn’t spelled out. It seems Krugman is offended by the inspirational component of the Obama campaign. Perhaps he’s been around undergrads too long. And it’s always interesting to see what happens when columnists you like on one subject switch to another (e.g. Dowd Clinton-Bush years)
<
p>I disagree about Collins. I think she’s on to something on this one. And I like her evolving tone, she has this mischievous but slightly disinterested and sarcastic thing going on, very different than Dowd’s take-no-prisoners approach: Is being a politician a matter of convincing the people to vote for you so you can do the right things? Or is it a matter of sticking to what you believe in popular or not and letting (or leading) the people (to) decide. Is the other side so powerfully (Rovianly) shameless that you have to choose the former path? Clinton’s got herself in a bad spot on this one, she chose the former path, without a solid economic or environmental rationale to stand on.
<
p>What do we the voters want? More of the way politics have been done (do we have a choice when the other side is so cunning, goes the logic), or a clean break to some sort of new politics of open integrity? Isn’t that what this election is becoming about? McCain/Clinton versus Obama? Swift-boating versus new politics? McCain’s been swift-boated himself by Bush in 2000, and has since fought against it (the actual swift boat event). So is he really so (Rovianly) scary? Are the voters ‘smart’ enough to handle such openness, or should we lure them (us) with promises of gas tax holidays that move us backwards and confuse the issue? The changes we need are big to solve climate change, don’t we need societal buy-in to get there instead of gas tax holiday shenanigans? Wasn’t that the problem in the Clinton-Gore years (no progress on Climate Change due to lack of societal buy-in)?
I was really warming up to Hillary. Sure, I’m still an Obama supporter, but I was coming around to the idea that she’s such a fighter (and some other strengths) that having her win the nomination wouldn’t be so terrible.
<
p>And then she pulls this stuff.
<
p>Energy policy is my litmus test. Sure, Obama isn’t perfect, like when he backed coal-to-liquids for about a day before backing off, but he was almost perfect re: energy policy on Meet the Press today.
<
p>But Hillary’s stand on this gas-tax issue is horrid. It’s pandering, bad policy, etc.
<
p>And then she drops this one: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists” when pressed on why no economists back her plan.
<
p>You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.
<
p>This is a dumb statement on the face of it. This is a dumb statement in terms of strategy (way to weaken yourself on the issue where Dems should be strongest). It’s dumb in about fifteen other ways that I don’t care to enumerate.
Lots of policy that would make loads of economic sense- a consumption tax to replace the income tax, say– is a political non-starter.
<
p>When gas hits $4+ by labor day and becomes a Big Issue, at least Clinton will have something on point to demonstarte that she understands that it is a Big Issue.
<
p>Obama instead offers up general economic plans that offer relief not just for this but also for that and the other: demonstrating that in his view, the doubling of the price of gasoline is not a Big Issue at all.
The price of gas has doubled in four years (and tripled in nine years). Temporarily dropping an 18c/gallon tax, which will likely lead to a 10c or less drop in price at the pump, is not a solution. It’s pandering, and it makes things worse.
<
p>Hillary’s not running for Economist, she’s running for President.
<
p>I would prefer a President that listens to economists, and doesn’t disregard them when their input is inconvenient. I’ve had enough of Presidents that ignore experts at their own peril (examples upon request).
HRC: Hey you know that number one concern, that is causing exquisite pain in the your pocketbook? Well, “we fell your pain” (TM) and we’re trying to come up with proposals to alleviate the situation as best we can.
<
p>BHO: You might think that this problem is your number one concern, but that is only because you don’t understand anything about economics or the oil markets. We’re here to tell you what your problems really are, and fix those.
<
p>Good policy wrapped up in lousy politics. Maybe he really is just like Patrick.
<
p>(BTW– doesn’t anyone here read the WSJ?)
Man, that Obama guy is really elitist. I can’t believe how arrogant he must be to say things like that.
<
p>Oh, wait- he didn’t say anything like that:
<
p>
<
p>I’m not big on blaming the oil companies for everything (don’t forget Big Coal), but what great politics: “He needs us to take a permanent holiday from our oil addiction.” Right back at ya.
<
p>This is good policy wrapped in good politics. It got the focus off the Wright stuff and got Hillary saying stuff like “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists.” Frankly, she sounded like GWB there (don’t agree with me, Mr. Smart Pants? Fine, I’ll marginalize and ignore you, to my own peril).
But boy oh boy this is good policy meeting lousy, lousy politics.
<
p>A nice opportunity to acknowledge that rising fuel prices makes people poorer, and is therefore a BIG and growing problem.
<
p>Instead, noting that rising fuel prices is good for us because it encourages less consumption, blah, blah.
<
p>Obama: Suck it up and pay more because global warming demands it. And eat your brussel sprouts. And put on a sweater while you’re at it.
<
p>If gas prices do what they are expected to do over this summer, the price of oil will be issue #1, #2, and #3 for the voters.
<
p>And Obama’s proposals to deal with the immediate problem is… what? Hope? Stronger CAFE standards to decrease demand by 2020? But we can’t afford the mortgage on account of having to drive to work TODAY, say the voters.
CMDs last two statements will likely get him to revise his cited position!
Other than nationalizing the oil companies and/or fixing prices.
<
p>Good luck with that.
<
p>Oh, here’s an idea- drop the federal gas tax! That’ll save people $30, $40, or even $50 this summer! Problem solved!
<
p>Americans are clearly very sensitive to the price of gas (as someone from the API noted, what other product has it’s prices shown all over town in 2-foot-tall letters?).
<
p>But people are smart enough to know there’s no silver bullet (or magic wand, as GWB likes to say). Global demand is strong, and global supply is constrained (temporarily or permanently remains to be seen). Speculation may or may not be a strong factor, but I have a hard time understanding how speculation would be a fundamental driver of the prices we are seeing.
<
p>Maybe sometimes people are OK with hearing the hard truth.
and I wish she hadn’t proposed the tax holiday. I’m not strong on economics, but I think it is telling that she can’t even trot out her own economic advisors to back her up.
<
p>That said, I’m getting pretty sick of seeing this Clinton/McCain shorthand beiong applied to every issue. I do know that her plan calls for a windfall profits tax. It may be unworkable, but it is a significant difference from McCain’s plan. Saying that her plan leads to a loss of construction jobs and raids highway funds is just dishonest.
<
p>As for Obama’s courage, he really doesn’t have much choice, does he? He voted for a tax holiday, but now says he made a “mistake” after it’s too late to do anything but oppose Hillary’s plan. Let’s face it, Obama has a lot of good qualities, but a profile in courage he ain’t.
<
p>I also find it amusing that the tax holiday is projected to be so insignificant that it will put nothing into consumers’ pockets, yet so influential that it will dramatically effect climate change. C’mon.
From Markos
<
p>The meme is just to tangible to let slide.
Actually, I see it this way. We’re already affecting climate change, consumers/citizens and policy-makers need to acknowledge that the only real way to decrease emissions, short of autocracy (excuse the pun) is increase prices so demand goes down. More accurately, it means allowing gasoline to be priced at its true value, including the externalities of damage to climate, road building infrastructure, etc. Indicating that we can roll back the clock and return to cheaper gases prices sends exactly the wrong message. The market needs to expect prices to stay high in order for consumers to actually invest in gradually more efficient cars etc. It’s about leadership and vision, and its going to take a lot to get this very large problem under control. The key part of that is public understanding and perception, and the “gas tax holiday” does the exact opposite of what is needed on that front.
I haven’t heard anyone say that cutting the gas tax will have a significant impact on climate change.
<
p>It’s more an issue of which direction do we want to head in- do we want to continue the mindset which finds us with an over-reliance on using fuels that we buy from people who hate us and/or which have significant environmental impacts, or do we want to bite the bullet and transition to a smarter, more sustainable energy policy?
It’s funny that we have a hard time telling which side is which anymore. NYT conservative columnist David Brooks writes some colorful words:
<
p>
chickens are coming home to roost:
<
p>Oil passes $122 on $200 oil prediction, supply concerns
Tuesday May 6, 11:41 am ET
By John Wilen, AP Business Writer
Oil prices rise to record over $122 a barrel on prediction of $200 oil, supply concerns
$200 a barrel and Gas will be well past $4.00 a gallon this Summer. This is what we get for listen to Bush’s lies about IRAQ and letting the Fox Dick Chaney set a secret Energy Policy welcome the return of middle ages you bunch of Serfs. Can you see that Castle in Crowford. Forget the pandering time for Price fixing and make the oil men bleed red for a while. Time to build the windmills and get off the grid!!!!