Gas tax holiday = Terrible Idea

Posting this here as a mod has decided this doesn't belong in GD.


http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=the_nyt_allows_senator_clinton

The NYT Allows Senator Clinton to Lie to Hard-Hit Middle-Class Families and Older Americans
Dean Baker


Senator Clinton joined Senator McCain in calling for the temporary elimination of the 18.4 cent a gallon gas tax over the summer. While the article notes that, "environmentalists and many independent energy analysts" share Senator Obama's view that the elimination of the tax would save consumers little, it still asserts that, "his position allowed Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast with her opponent in appealing to the hard-hit middle-class families and older Americans who have proven to be the bedrock of her support."

Actually, almost all economists would agree that the tax cut proposed by Senators Clinton and McCain would save consumers nothing. With the supply of gas largely fixed by the capacity of the oil industry (they claim to be running their refineries at full capacity), the price will not change in response to the elimination of the tax. The only difference will be that money that used to go to the government in tax revenues will instead go to the oil industry as higher profits.

If Senator Clinton is able to use this proposal to draw a contrast with Senator Obama in expressing concern for middle-class families it could only be attributable to the extraordinary incompetence of the reporters who are covering the campaign. While typical middle-class families may not have the time and background to realize that Senator Clinton's proposal would not save them any money, reporters do.

The fact that Senator Clinton, like Senator McCain, sought to deceive them with a bogus tax cut should have been the main theme of today's election reporting.


Addendum: The Post does what newspapers are supposed to do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802753.html

--Dean Baker

Same as it ever was.

Musical forums is FUN!

infrastructure (already on shaky ground, as we in Minnesota know all too well) and would also erode the jobs provided by the maintenance and building of that infrastructure. It's a losing proposition for EVERYONE but the oil companies.

Clinton does it again. I suspect her support for McCain's stupid proposal is to paint Obama as opposing tax cuts, not supporting struggling Americans, and that she is on the front lines to help the workers just trying to get to work.

I see that early polls didn't show much support for McCain's proposal, most saw through the scam, but I expect that soon people will grasp at anything.

Clinton gets sleazier by the hour.

It will do nothing to solve the high gas prices. It is a temporary blip, with little economic impact.

In the meantime already scarce infrastructure dollars will see further attrition, we will do nothing to impact the environment through conservation, and the oil companies continue to rake in windfall profits unabated. Only the government is stiffed.

This is the money line of the entire piece regardless whose campaign we're talking about being covered.

10 gallons at $4 is $40, savings under the plan, $1.85. That is unless the oil assholes keep the price the same,thus making more money. This is their last chance to screw us with oil, before they move on to whatever the new thing is that powers our cars.