«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
McCain Defends Gas Tax Holiday With More Hackery
John McCain is apparently getting frustrated trying to defend the base political pander he calls the gas tax holiday. (Typical appraisal from those in the know: "It's about the dumbest thing I've heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view." — Michael Bloomberg) Here's McCain responding to a voter's question:
"You'd think that I was attacking Western civilization as we know it. The special interests [say], 'Oh, my God. This will destroy our transportation system in America. This will have disastrous consequences.' Look, all I think is we ought to give low-income Americans, in particular, a little relief."
Okay, first of all, to suggest that opponents of the gas tax holiday are "special interests" is preposterous. Experts and economists of all ideological types have criticized the gas tax holiday as braindead. Second, the special interests, specifically the oil companies, are cheering the idea. If you take an 18-cent tax off the price of a gallon of gas, you allow the oil companies to add 18 cents per gallon in additional profits. That's why the original criticisms of the McCain version of the gas tax called it a giveaway to the oil companies!
And one other note. John McCain seems to think that the gas tax holiday helps low-income Americans the most because they drive the farthest. In fact, the opposite is true.
Comments
the "gas tax holiday" is absolutely ridiculous. Hillary was quoted as saying that it would only save around $70 for the average american. That doesn't do a thing to address the much larger issue at hand. Stop giving tax breaks to big oil companes, stop trying pass bills for $70 billion extra to support the war and instead focus on the American economy and renewable energy.
Pres Bush needs to be seriously tortured for all the problems he has helped to create.
Figure it out yourself...To save $70 in the three summer driving months with a car that gets 25MPH you would have to use 390 gallons of gas and drive over 9,500 miles.
Posted by: Ed in Lousiana on 05/02/08 at 3:45 PM Respond
I'd rather pay $4 a gallon than fark up my car on a crappy road.
When the government borrows to cover expenses, it devalues the dollar, making imports--like oil--more expensive.
Posted by: Zack on 05/02/08 at 11:10 PM Respond
It is very likely that the consumers won't see any difference in the price of oil at the pump. The current price of oil doesn't reflect the difficulty of producing oil, but the fact that supply is currently lower than demand. The 18 cents a gallon tax helps lower demand a little bit, but if you took it away, the increased demand would mean that oil companies would be able to raise prices by about 18 cents to once again balance demand with supply.
It is like scalping tickets. If a scalper can get $200 for a ticket, it doesn't matter how much the scalper paid for the ticket, he is going to sell it for $200. Lowering taxes on the ticket is going to lower the price of the ticket if the scalper can find a buyer willing to pay $200 for the ticket.
Posted by: kimbiaje on 05/03/08 at 8:50 AM Respond
Meant to say "isn't going to lower the price".
Posted by: kimbiaje on 05/03/08 at 8:53 AM Respond
I'm not a fan of McCain or Hillary Clinton, but since this idea has been announced, literally every expert has said that this is a BAD idea.
And I am not trying to make light of the situation of low income Americans, but if in the short run they save $30-$70 this summer, but afterward the price jumps back up again, or possibly go even higher, how has that helped their situation in the short run.
This whole situation makes me uneasy. This and the "economic stimulus" are bad ideas that might end us costing us more in the long run.
Posted by: Tanisha R on 05/03/08 at 8:54 AM Respond
The Fed uses that 18-cents
to build/fix roads.
18-cent break=TOLL ROADS!!!!!
No wonder McFed & Hitlery
are all for it!!!
CZECK POINTS GALORE!!!
Posted by: josephjsalas on 05/03/08 at 6:49 PM Respond
"... inventories of petroleum products and crude oil in the United States indicate a general decline over the past twenty years. Lower operating costs associated with lower inventories may have translated into lower consumer prices during normal periods. However, lower than normal inventories can lead to higher or more volatile prices in the event of supply disruptions or surges in demand."
"The nation's petroleum product supply infrastructure is constrained in key areas and is likely to become increasingly constrained unless timely investments are made," Energy Markets, Increasing Globalization of Petroleum Products Markets, Tightening Refining Demand and Supply Balance, and Other Trends Have Implications for U.S. Energy Supply, Prices, and Price Volatility, GAO (Govt. Accounting Office), Dec. 2007.
Read: The Oil Companies want the Refinary Permitting Process gutted...
You Tell Me:
Is that like how, "Public program obligations, already burdensome, will be unsustainable for future generations of Americans. By 2013, Medicare expenditures alone are projected to grow by about 999 percent in real dollars. During a 3-year period, Medicare beneficiaries received certain recommended services less than two-thirds of the time," Health Care System Crisis: Growing Challenges Point to Need for Fundamental Reform, GAO, April 2004.
One would assume here that the politicians are making a supreme effort to distract us from reality, this in order to write their own ticket...
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/04/08 at 10:56 AM Respond
Should be 99% (not 999%)...
And it should be the Presidential Candidates telling you about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOOD LUCK THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/04/08 at 11:03 AM Respond
Here someone needs to illustrate how the $7 billion in US ethanol subsidies could buy a lot of electric cars (they were too expensive--no one was interested--so the automakers killed them...)...
...Because everyone's wondering when Congress is going to axe the mandated five fold increase in ethanol production (not to mention belatedly "re-fund" the solar power initiatives that run out in Aug.)
...Now that the UN has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production (re: the cost of corn for food...)
...And that "atmospheric scientists at Stanford University found that E85 fuel would increase the risk of AIR POLLUTION DEATHS relitive to gasoline. Ozone levels are significantly increased, thereby increasing photochemical smog and aggravating medical problems such as asthma," Wikipedia--Ethanol fuel.
It's like smoking pot but you get lousy mileage instead of losing your keys...
Hey--the craziness is contagious...!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 05/04/08 at 9:24 PM Respond
Seems to me that lower income Americans are more likely to use public transport than to drive their own cars. So a gas tax "holiday" would have little or no effect for them.
There are many ways to provide relief for lower income Americans; most would likely provide more relief. How about more job training so that they could get better paying jobs? How about a livable wage; where does McCain stand on the minimum wage?
Claiming that this tax holiday proposal is for the good of low income Americans is bogus and hypocritical.
Posted by: DaveD on 05/05/08 at 4:43 AM Respond
The whole idea is utterly harebrained. We need real relief, not some knee-jerk gimmick (if such a bill even got through congress, Fearless Leader would veto it).
Posted by: Mrs. Garside on 05/05/08 at 1:02 PM Respond
THE OIL COMPANYS ARE NOT FREE TO RAISE PRICES AT THEIR WILL, OR THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE DONE SO.
Posted by: SIDNEY HEDELMAN on 05/05/08 at 2:01 PM Respond
You don't think that they have, Sidney? How about the price of gas going up the same day that a barrel of crude does. I guess that they are practicing a up-dated version of "On Time" delivery. It certainly couldn't be that they are able to refine the crude and get it out to the service stations the same day using their out dated and inadequate refining resourses. Who are you "shilling for."
Posted by: Roger F. Crawford on 05/08/08 at 11:13 AM Respond
ARCHIVE
April 20, 2008 - April 26, 2008
April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008
April 6, 2008 - April 12, 2008
March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008
March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008
March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008
March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008
February 24, 2008 - March 1, 2008
February 17, 2008 - February 23, 2008
February 10, 2008 - February 16, 2008
February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008
January 27, 2008 - February 2, 2008
January 20, 2008 - January 26, 2008
January 13, 2008 - January 19, 2008
January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008
December 30, 2007 - January 5, 2008
December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007
December 16, 2007 - December 22, 2007
December 9, 2007 - December 15, 2007
December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007
November 25, 2007 - December 1, 2007
November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007
November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007
November 4, 2007 - November 10, 2007
October 28, 2007 - November 3, 2007
October 21, 2007 - October 27, 2007
October 14, 2007 - October 20, 2007
October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007
September 30, 2007 - October 6, 2007
September 23, 2007 - September 29, 2007
September 16, 2007 - September 22, 2007
September 9, 2007 - September 15, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
A Vote For McCain Validates Bush (2)
silverlucie wrote:
The media and the Democrats will keep on blasting McCain.....
[more]
Compromise in Michigan: Another Sign of Things to Come (1)
Greg Jones wrote:
From Blacks4Barack: Today, thanks to Huffington Post, it w...
[more]
Former NSC Aide on Clinton, 'Dual Containment,' and HRC's 'Obliterate' Iran Remarks (5)
lizz wrote:
The suggestion that we're stuck with an "EITHER we attack/...
[more]
McCain Defends Gas Tax Holiday With More Hackery (14)
Roger F. Crawford wrote:
You don't think that they have, Sidney? How about the pric...
[more]
Politics, Pandering, and Policy at the Pump: Who Wins? (51)
Jason wrote:
The price of gasoline is going so high. People are startin...
[more]
Jefferson-Jackson Dinner — Most Exciting Live Blog Ever! (1)
mona wrote:
click here and it will show as "click here"
...
[more]
McCain Keeps Riding the No-Talk Express on Rod Parsley (4)
dustin wrote:
Nice Fox article, Andrew. I wouldn't go so far as to say i...
[more]
Superdelegates for Hillary Wavering: A Sign of Things to Come? (1)
PeggySue wrote:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition o...
[more]
Clinton: Damn the Pundits, Full Speed Ahead (21)
miles77 wrote:
90% of black people have not voted for Obama. 90% of regis...
[more]
Know Your Enemy: Heather Mac Donald (22)
Steve Diamant wrote:
Dear Friend,
I agree absolutely that other solutions are n...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: J on 05/02/08 at 1:57 PM Respond