McClinton?
As George Wallace was fond of saying, “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them”, meaning the Pugs and the Dumbos. Has Hillary proven the point on her support of a temporary suspension of the federal tax on gas, supported by McBush but opposed by Barack, or is this the kind of hands-on leadership that Clinton exhibits but Obama lacks? Or to put in a way that Lefty can relate to, is this a case of bad new politics vs. classic win old politics?
PS. The facts appear to be that $9 billion will be drained out of the Highway Trust Fund (never to return, inspite of Hillary’s “promise” that she (and only she without the support of Congress) can impose a profit tax on the oil companies) and a loss of 300,000 infrastructure jobs over the summer. As I am sure you know, this tax is used to build bridges, repair bridges, repair highways, etc. The estimated savings to a car driver is about 30 bucks or so over the summer, depending on the type of gas-guzzler you drive. The cost to you is $30, the price for old politics is priceless.
Posted: April 29th, 2008 under Best of the Blogs.
Comments: 4
Comments
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: April 30, 2008, 10:11 am
Josh:
I wish I had the time to give a meaty answer to this one. I hope I can sneak it in on a future blog (Hint !).
First, the gas tax has a negligible effect on gas in the LONG TERM because oil companies don’t set the price based on the amount of tax the government puts on it. They set the price to maximize profits. We ‘re talking cartel, here. Competition is limited in the oil market. It’s the short term we have to worry about. People will be watching the price of gas if the tax is removed temporarily. Example: If the gov drops the tax by 20 cents and at the same time the oil companies raise it by 20 cents, the oil companies will be hauled before congress. You can bet, however, that they will sneak in any increase they can get away with.
McCain is reckless, and Hillary and Obama are both correct in different ways. Given a choice I would go for raising the gas tax which would have little effect on gas prices and using the money for stimulating alternative energy sources.
I wish I had more time. Let’s please address this in the future.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: April 30, 2008, 1:14 pm
Even more than the bad financials of the deal and the unnecessary loss of highway funds, it’s not an energy policy. From Tom Friedman today:
“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.”
Read more here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: April 30, 2008, 2:00 pm
Nosebetter, have at it right here. Can you start by explaining how Hillary is “correct”?
It’s also clear that unless McCain and Clinton introduce a bill now, there is no chance of this happening this year? Just talking points. Presidents can’t suspend taxes, only Congress can.
Comment from Sasha
Time: April 30, 2008, 3:54 pm
Tom Friedman is a right wing hack imo. Just sayin’
Write a comment