"Gas Tax Holiday" - Can anyone name the benefits?

[Coldkilla]

Is this really a Gimmick? Video

Is there really no economist that believes this will work? What makes Hillary smarter than the people who's JOB is the economy?

From my point of view, she really is getting dirty in the game of politics. I don't know why anyone would agree with her. So you save 0.30 cents a day for 2 months... $30 saved. That is suggesting that the extra taxes imposed on the gas companies wont turn around and just simply make gas more expensive in the long run. What benefits from her plan anyway? (Besides siphoning votes!)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Is this really a Gimmick? Video

Is there really no economist that believes this will work? What makes Hillary smarter than the people who's JOB is the economy?

From my point of view, she really is getting dirty in the game of politics. I don't know why anyone would agree with her. So you save 0.30 cents a day for 2 months... $30 saved. That is suggesting that the extra taxes imposed on the gas companies wont turn around and just simply make gas more expensive in the long run. What benefits from her plan anyway? (Besides siphoning votes!)

Benefit:

Citizens angry at paying a lot for gas might see her as 'on their side' and vote for her.

I have to say, this is an example of an issue where I see Obama as the leader, 'doing the right thing', not pandering, just as on the symbolic issue of the lapel-flag pin arms race.

(Are you *really* loyal to the nation if you won't wear the pin? Hmmmmmmm?)

 

[Coldkilla]

Sad most people wont spend 3 minutes researching it.

 

[Vic]

It is a ridiculous and unconscionable campaign gimmick on her part. There are no benefits to this plan to the American people -- hell, it's not even a shell game, just a thinly-veiled agenda to hand over the federal gas tax to the oil companies.
One good thing to come out of it though, is how this issue has highlighted Obama's own political integrity.

 

[jonks]

From my post in another thread:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti...s-tax-redux/#more-2596

A coherent discussion of the Tax Holiday bs Clinton and McCain are pandering to voters with. When asked if she can produce just ONE credible economist who supports this idea, her response was "Well I?ll tell you what, I?m not going to put my lot in with economists.? :roll:

It's pretty purposefully pure pander. What do economists know about the economy anyway?

 

[Vic]

From http://www.politico.com/static...80502_list_gastax.html

150 of the nation's top economists speak out against the Gas Tax "Holiday"

An Open Statement Opposing Proposals for a Gas Tax Holiday
In recent weeks, there have been proposals in Congress and by some presidential candidates to suspend the gas tax for the summer. As economists who study issues of energy policy, taxation, public finance, and budgeting, we write to indicate our opposition to this policy. Put simply, suspending the federal tax on gasoline this summer is a bad idea and we oppose it. There are several reasons for this opposition. First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers. Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation. Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed. Fourth, the gas tax suspension would threaten to increase the already record deficit in the coming year and reduce the amount of money going into the highway trust fund that maintains our infrastructure. Signers of this letter are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of good public policy.
Henry Aaron, Brookings Insitution
Gilbert Metcalf, Tufts University
Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University (Nobel Prize in Economics, 2001)
James Heckman, University of Chicago (Nobel Prize in Economics, 2000)
Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University (Nobel Prize in Economics, 2002)
Charles Schultze, Brookings Institution (President of the American Economic Association, 1984, Chairman Council of Economic Advisers 1977-1981, Director, Bureau of the Budget, 1965-1967)
Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution (President of the American Economic Association, 1986, Director of O.M.B. 1994-1996)
Peter Diamond, M.I.T. (President of the American Economics Association, 2003)
Richard Schmalensee, M.I.T. Sloan School of Management (member of Council of Economic Advisers, 1989-1991)
Michael Jensen, Harvard Business School (President of the American Finance Association, 1992)
Clyde Prestowitz, President, Economic Strategy Institute (Counsellor to the Secretary of Commerce, Reagan Administration)
Robert Shapiro, Sonecon, LLC (chief economic advisor to 1992 Clinton Campaign)
Michael Greenstone, M.I.T.
John Shoven, Stanford University
Wallace Oates, University of Maryland
Barry Bosworth, The Brookings Institution
Bob Bixby, Concord Coalition
Alan Auerbach, University of California, Berkeley
Jonathan Skinner, Dartmouth College
Diane Lim Rogers, Concord Coalition
Martin Weitzman, Harvard University
Lawrence Goulder, Stanford University
Gerhard Glomm, Chairman, Economics Dept. Indiana University
Roger Morris, Indiana University
Willard Witte, Indiana University
Elyce Rotella, Indiana University
Eric Leeper, Indiana University
Arlington Williams, Indiana University
Susan Monaco, Indiana University
Robert Campbell, Indiana University
Michael Alexeev, Indiana University
Robert McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice
David Cutler, Harvard University
Martha Blaxall, George Washington University
Jeffrey Liebman, Kennedy School of Government Harvard University
Seema Jayachandra, Stanford University
Frank Ackerman, Tufts University
Ken Cordell, University of Georgia
Catherine Wolfram, University of California, Berkeley
Julie Nelson, Tufts University
Nancy King, Yale University
Richard Howarth, Dartmouth College
Jeff Romm, University of California, Berkeley
Joseph Cortright, Impresa Inc.
Beth DeSombre, Wellesley College
David Lindauer, Wellesley College
Jan Kregel, Levy Economic Institute
John Gowdy, R.P.I.
Alan Krupnick, Resources for the Future (director of research)
Winston Harrington, Resources for the Future
Tim Wolf, Global CFO, Molson Coors Brewing Company
Nancy King, Yale University
Gloria Helfand, University of Michigan
Ulla Grapard, Colgate University
Susan Feiner, University Southern Maine
Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business
Robert Schwab, University of Maryland
Marilyn Power, Sarah Lawrence
Andrea Cohen, Tufts University
Paul Courant, University of Michigan
Chris Avery, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Robert Stavins, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Alan Deardorff, University of Michicagn
Rebecca Blank, University of Michigan
James Galbraith, University of Texas
Loretta Fairchild, Nebraska Wesleyan University
Roger White, Frankliln and Marshall College
Anne Mayhew, University of Tennessee
Gillian Hewitson, Franklin and Marshall College
William Waller, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Adriana Lleras-Muney, Princeton University
Myra Strober, Stanford University
Marcellus Andrews, Barnard College
Noelwah Netusil, Reed College
Yannis Ioannides, Tufts University
Jim Levinsohn, University of Michigan
Richard Thaler, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business
Chih Ming Tan, Tufts University
Thomas Swartz, University of Notre Dame
Todd Easton, University of Portland
Duncan Foley, New School for Social Research
John Weyant, Stanford University
Charles Wilber, University of Notre Dame
Adam Jaffe, Brandeis University
Ian Parry, Resources for the Future
Dani Rodrick, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Jon Faust, John Hopkins University
Paul Portney, University of Arizona
Stephen Cohen, University of California, Berkeley
Joel Darnstadter, Resources for the Future
Ilyana Kuziemko, Princeton University
Ron Stanfield, Colorado State University
Paul Davidson, The New School
David Popp, Syracuse University
Haynes Goddard, University of Cincinnati
Robert Gertner, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business
Stanley Black, University of North Carolina
Patrick Conway, University of North Carolina
Buck Goldstein, University of North Carolina
John Akin, University of North Carolina
Wojciech Kopczuk, Columbia University
Mary King, Portland State University
Jesse Rothstein, Princeton University
Leemore Dafny, Northwestern University
Erin Mansur, Yale University
Jeff Zabel, Tufts University
Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland
Harley Shaiken, University of California, Berkeley
Michael Haneman, University of California, Berkeley
Jeffrey Perloff, University of California, Berkeley
Sheila Olmstead, Yale School of Forestry and Environment Studies
Edward Barbier, University of Wyoming
LeRoy Hansen US Dept. of Agriculture
Shanna Rose, New York University
John Weyant, Stanford University
A. Myrick Freeman III, Bowdoin College
Michael Bernstein, Tulane University
Richard Revesz, New York University
Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University
Jonathan Isham, Middlebury College
Wayne Gray, Clark University
Radhika Balakrishnan, Marymount Manhattan College
Charles Kolstad, University of California, Santa Barbara
Erzo Luttmer, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Randall Dodd, Johns Hopkins University
Todd Schatzki, Analysis Group
Lori Bennear, Duke University
J. R. DeShazo, U.C.L.A.
Hilary Sigman, Rutgers University
Marianne Ferber, University of Illinois
Joshua Fischman, Tufts University
Martha Campbell, SUNY Potsdam
Sanford Jacoby, U.C.L.A.
Bruce Kogut, Columbia Business School
Jaime Ros, University of Notre Dame
Arleen Leibowitz, U.C.L.A.
Daniel Mitchell, U.C.L.A.
Eban Goodstein, Lewis & Clark College

 

[RightIsWrong]

I can think of a positive......

The money allocated to roads will be less next budget year since it won't have come in because the tax was lifted during the busiest part of the year.

 

[Rio Rebel]

This gas tax "holiday" is a pandering move, obviously. It will solve nothing, cause a blustering, and simply shift a tiny bit of pain from one area to another.

The next thing you know, some clown will come up with an idea to just give money directly back to the people to "stimulate" the economy...

 

[1prophet]

"Gas Tax Holiday" - Can anyone name the benefits?

Yes, for the oil companies due to increased sales

 

[LegendKiller]

It's a pandering shell game that reallocates costs from gas to foreign debt. We have to pay for this shit one way or another.

 

[Craig234]

Before anyone goes reading *too* much into the integrity issue on this, it's also fair to say that the politicians do want and need to win elections to get their agenda enacted, and some pandering *to taxpayers* isn't the end of the world, when they find themselves facing irrational voters who will reward bad behavior.

If taxpayers are wrong and will give a lot more votes to the candidate who offers a policy like this, *and the policy isn't especially harmful*, why wouldn't they say 'ok'?

How would they tell their supporters and donors they are passing up a chance for quite a few votes in a tight race by not taking agreeing to give voters what they want on this?

I'm sure she has consultants who have polled the issue advising her on the effects on how many votes she'll get. She has to pick her battles in trying to win.

So, I think Obama shows, I wouldn't exactly say 'integrity', it's not as if she is lying, stronger leadership in being willing to say when he thinks the public is wrong.

But it's not as if this turns Hillary into GWB on the ethics scale. It's a pretty compelling political case for her, and the downside isn't especially 'evil'.

Compare this to, say, Tom DeLay's willingness to get some contributions by selling out the humanitarian relied for the thousands of imported workers in the Marrianas Islands in slave-like conditions, after the Senate passed a bill to help them, DeLay blocking the bill being considered in the House and pledging to block it for the donations, and golf trips, he got. So, Obama right Hillary wrong, but it's not an issue I think deserves huge weight in the election.

It's actually her previous willingness to serve interests such as Wal-Mart, IMO with questionable ethics in terms of allowing Wal_Mart's behavior, that concern me more.

I think her decision can pretty easily be defended as politically compelling, on balance.

Them's the hard facts, sometimes bad voter behavior creates a dilemma. If her backers asked her how she dared throw away these votes with so little harm, they'd have a point.

They could eaily point out to her that she was not trying enough to win - they'd made big investments in her and deserved more, not her indulging every little concern.

In fact, to play devil's advocate for a moment, one could argue that this bodes concern for Obama's ability to compromise. Politicians of great principles have also known when to pander to get things done. A president who doesn't know when to do so could end up being the sort of ineffective Jimmy Carter reputation, saying what he thinks a lot but not getting all that much done.

No, I'm not saying that to the point of changing my position; but I do note that our desire for integrity after Bush isn't unlike our desire for 'honesty' after Nixon, giving us Carter.

While Bush's *policies* were bad, and arguably evil, his effectiveness was all too good insofar as just his getting elected with so many negatives (and stealing 2000) was 'effective', but he also got every major priority passed except for destroying social security - he got his 'tax cuts for the rich' that plunged the nation back to debt, he got his war in Iraq even continuing in a democratic congress 5 years later that had won on an anti-war platform, he got his Medicare big pharma corrupt bill so bad even the Rank-and-File Republicans were appalled by it and only got it passed after terrible maneuverings from covering up its cost to bribery. He got his radical ideological picks for the Supreme Court, if not his crony. He got all this and far more.

So, to repeat my conclusion on this, I don't think Hillary deserves all that much condemnation for being wrong on this, but I do think Obama deserves points on courage.

It's our role as citizens to want to see the underlying problem with our fellow citizens which creates the demand for this pandering with bad policy get fixed.

As long as the underlying problem of bad voters is there, bad policy is inevitable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a pandering shell game that reallocates costs from gas to foreign debt. We have to pay for this shit one way or another.

And we'll pay for it both ways, unfortunately, as this will NOT result in a reduction of the price of gas.

People are talking about "pandering," but this issue really shows where Hillary's interests lie IMO. We've already seen that gas prices have about hit the breaking point for the American consumer. Sales of subcompact cars AND cars with 4-cylinder engines just hit record highs. Gasoline consumption is down. People are driving less, and consuming more efficiently when they do drive. Now here comes Hillary and McCain to give the oil companies 18 cents breathing room for the summer, spun as help to the consumer.
So while it might look like pandering, I prefer to call this corruption.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Blah blah, Democrats good, blah blah, Republicans bad, blah blah, pander, spin

Is there any Democrat incompetence that Craig won't defend?

When a Democrat panders, it's just good sense. When a Republican panders, it's evil.

I gotta hand it to you, when it comes to shilling you are the best.

 

[M0RPH]

What you people fail to acknowledge is that Hillary's gas tax plan is predicated on the assumption that it will be paid for by the oil companies in the form of a windfall profits tax. So, let's assume for a moment that this is in fact how it will be paid for. How is this bad for anyone to get a discount on gas paid for by the oil companies who have been raping us?

And while an average driver may only save $30 a week on average, for truck drivers and certain small businesses who are really being crunched by gas prices, this would help them in a significant way. And again, if the oil companies are going to pay for it, why not? You may argue that she is full of crap and that a windfall tax on oil companies would never happen, but that is not an argument against her proposal itself, it's an argument about whether she'd be able to get it passed.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
What you people fail to acknowledge is that Hillary's gas tax plan is predicated on the assumption that it will be paid for by the oil companies in the form of a windfall profits tax. So, let's assume for a moment that this is in fact how it will be paid for. How is this bad for anyone to get a discount on gas paid for by the oil companies who have been raping us?

And while an average driver may only save $30 a week on average, for truck drivers and certain small businesses who are really being crunched by gas prices, this would help them in a significant way. And again, if the oil companies are going to pay for it, why not? You may argue that she is full of crap and that a windfall tax on oil companies would never happen, but that is not an argument against her proposal itself, it's an argument about whether she'd be able to get it passed.

See Boberfett's post above.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
What you people fail to acknowledge is that Hillary's gas tax plan is predicated on the assumption that it will be paid for by the oil companies in the form of a windfall profits tax. So, let's assume for a moment that this is in fact how it will be paid for. How is this bad for anyone to get a discount on gas paid for by the oil companies who have been raping us?

And while an average driver may only save $30 a week on average, for truck drivers and certain small businesses who are really being crunched by gas prices, this would help them in a significant way. And again, if the oil companies are going to pay for it, why not? You may argue that she is full of crap and that a windfall tax on oil companies would never happen, but that is not an argument against her proposal itself, it's an argument about whether she'd be able to get it passed.

1. You assume that the oil companies will pay windfall profit taxes without raising more money via higher prices to offset the new tax

2. You assume that any monies realized to the consumer via savings of the tax will be left to their wallets by the oil companies

I realize that both of those answers are the same thing and just reworded....but that is the reality of this stupidity. Anyway you put it, the American taxpayers will be fucked by the oil company.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
What you people fail to acknowledge is that Hillary's gas tax plan is predicated on the assumption that it will be paid for by the oil companies in the form of a windfall profits tax. So, let's assume for a moment that this is in fact how it will be paid for. How is this bad for anyone to get a discount on gas paid for by the oil companies who have been raping us?

And while an average driver may only save $30 a week on average, for truck drivers and certain small businesses who are really being crunched by gas prices, this would help them in a significant way. And again, if the oil companies are going to pay for it, why not? You may argue that she is full of crap and that a windfall tax on oil companies would never happen, but that is not an argument against her proposal itself, it's an argument about whether she'd be able to get it passed.

While this might be the ideal, there is not a single credible economist out there who believes that the gas tax holiday will have this effect. Not one.
At best, this is a shell game.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Is this really a Gimmick? Video

Is there really no economist that believes this will work? What makes Hillary smarter than the people who's JOB is the economy?

From my point of view, she really is getting dirty in the game of politics. I don't know why anyone would agree with her. So you save 0.30 cents a day for 2 months... $30 saved. That is suggesting that the extra taxes imposed on the gas companies wont turn around and just simply make gas more expensive in the long run. What benefits from her plan anyway? (Besides siphoning votes!)

Benefit:

Citizens angry at paying a lot for gas might see her as 'on their side' and vote for her.

I have to say, this is an example of an issue where I see Obama as the leader, 'doing the right thing', not pandering, just as on the symbolic issue of the lapel-flag pin arms race.

(Are you *really* loyal to the nation if you won't wear the pin? Hmmmmmmm?)

Yeah, there are lots of political benefits:
1) Low-info voters vote for you
2) Get to wave the populist banner
3) Oil company execs may contribute money in exchange for the tax break

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Blah blah, Democrats good, blah blah, Republicans bad, blah blah, pander, spin

Is there any Democrat incompetence that Craig won't defend?

When a Democrat panders, it's just good sense. When a Republican panders, it's evil.

I gotta hand it to you, when it comes to shilling you are the best.

You get it wrong, pretty much as always.

You pretend that taking a look at the behavior of the two parties and comparing them is somehow 'partisan' if the answer just happens to show a difference - whatever the facts.

If the democrats pandered in ways as harmful, they'd be as bad. If they pander in ways that are more harmful, they'd be worse. And if they pander in ways less harmful, better.

As pretty much always, you don't deal with the facts, you just come here and spew an illogical attack.

You show me the equivalent of the democrat doing what DeLay did, show me where Pelosi has done anything comparable, and I'll say thank you for the new info.

Compare their records overall, the harmful effects, and you would see who is far worse, but that's like asking a pig to sing. You don't deal with facts, with truths.

You just come here and take cheap shots; since you only have a little gun, you use it.

Where's your substance to respond to my points, either on the degree of harm of Clinton's position, or of DeLay's? Silence.

You are here to lie about my post, Boberfett.

 

[b0mbrman]

The important question: Can Krugman name the benefits? :laugh:

 

[Dari]

What's the point if the gas stations just raise the price to offset their lost?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Blah blah, Democrats good, blah blah, Republicans bad, blah blah, pander, spin

Is there any Democrat incompetence that Craig won't defend?

When a Democrat panders, it's just good sense. When a Republican panders, it's evil.

I gotta hand it to you, when it comes to shilling you are the best.

You get it wrong, pretty much as always.

You pretend that taking a look at the behavior of the two parties and comparing them is somehow 'partisan' if the answer just happens to show a difference - whatever the facts.

If the democrats pandered in ways as harmful, they'd be as bad. If they pander in ways that are more harmful, they'd be worse. And if they pander in ways less harmful, better.

As pretty much always, you don't deal with the facts, you just come here and spew an illogical attack.

You show me the equivalent of the democrat doing what DeLay did, show me where Pelosi has done anything comparable, and I'll say thank you for the new info.

Compare their records overall, the harmful effects, and you would see who is far worse, but that's like asking a pig to sing. You don't deal with facts, with truths.

You just come here and take cheap shots; since you only have a little gun, you use it.

Where's your substance to respond to my points, either on the degree of harm of Clinton's position, or of DeLay's? Silence.

You are here to lie about my post, Boberfett.

The only one lying here is you, Craig. The facts are self-evident, in that RIGHT HERE AND NOW we have a Democrat pandering in nearly-identical fashion to a Republican. So kindly go troll your usual spiel elsewhere. This thread is not for discussing overall records for the sake of your ego.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
What you people fail to acknowledge is that Hillary's gas tax plan is predicated on the assumption that it will be paid for by the oil companies in the form of a windfall profits tax. So, let's assume for a moment that this is in fact how it will be paid for. How is this bad for anyone to get a discount on gas paid for by the oil companies who have been raping us?

And while an average driver may only save $30 a week on average, for truck drivers and certain small businesses who are really being crunched by gas prices, this would help them in a significant way. And again, if the oil companies are going to pay for it, why not? You may argue that she is full of crap and that a windfall tax on oil companies would never happen, but that is not an argument against her proposal itself, it's an argument about whether she'd be able to get it passed.

If the savings is $.18/gallon how are you getting $30/week for an average driver? I get around 300 miles per tank full and I fill up about 3 times per month. My tank is 14.5 gallons and it's usually just under 14 to fill it so that's about 42 gallons per month. An $.18 savings on 42 gallons = $7.56 per month and $1.89 per week.

 

[Fern]

Yes, she is unashamedly pandering to the *blue collar* crowd. She's offering to throw them a (smal) bone and they don't care what economists say anyway.

Not to mention that she stole this from McCain....

The blue collar democrats, AKA the Reagan republicans seem her only chance now. While they won't help her much in the Dem primary, they will help with the over-all polls. This is her last remaining argument for the Super D's - most electable than Obama in the gen elec.

Some *funny* math here: $.30 per day equals $30 in 2 months? I get $18. ($.30 per day x 30 days = $9 per month).

Then someone quotes savings of $30 per week foe an "average driver'? Jeebus, how much do you drive? It's only .18 per gallon. That's allmost 200 gallons a week! At 20 miles per gallon that's 4,000 miles driven per week.

Then I'm hearing that we fail to take into Hillary's plan says the oil co's pay for lost revenue. What I hear on the MSM is that Hillary FAILS to take into account she's already suggested this oil company money be spent elsewhere. Can't spend the same dollars more than once Hillary fans.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
The important question: Can Krugman name the benefits? :laugh:

Here's Paul Krugman on the :topic

Whaddya know, I hadn't read him before my post, but he takes exactly the same position.

In fact, it's odd how he does so right down to the point of the later additional comments that he doesn't see this as all that important an isssue.

Anyway, John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no.

I guess we can await Boberfett attacking him for 'shilling' for the democrats for comparing the policies and posting why he sees the Republican version as 'evil' compared to hers.

Add: Just to be clear: I don?t regard this as a major issue.