More Hypocrisy: Obama Supported Gas-Tax Holidays in Illinois, is Mad at Other Candidates for Doing it Now
By Deb Cupples on May 4, 2008 at 7:40 AM in Barack Obama, Gas Prices, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
Sen. Barack Obama is chastising Hillary Clinton and John McCain for supporting a gas-tax holiday. McCain’s proposal is a straight lifting of the tax. Hillary’s proposal would include a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, meaning that oil companies would in theory pay for the gas-tax holiday. Of course, oil companies could just raise prices to offset the tax, which would make it a wash for consumers.
Still, Obama’s criticisms are a tad hypocritical, given his own support for a gas-tax holiday back when he was an Illinois legislator. CBS News reports:
"Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.
"The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.
"During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, ‘Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.‘” (CBS)
Last night, an Obama-supporting friend told me that Obama opposes a gas-tax holiday NOW, because the one in Illinois didn’t work and he learned from his mistake.
I doubt the accuracy of that interpretation, because I think Obama was as smart and analytical in 2000 as he is now.
We don’t have to wait for McCain’s proposal to become law (which is like the one Obama voted for in 2000) to know that it might do harm. Similarly, Obama didn’t have to wait for the Illinois tax holiday to become law to anticipate that it wouldn’t work.
And yet, Obama falsely tried to take credit for lowering gas prices from his constituents back in Illinois when the gas-tax holiday he supported became law.
In other words, Obama is now chastising other candidates for doing the same thing that he did to eight years ago in Illinois. Different standards, indeed.
To be clear, I don’t support McCain’s proposal, because it would likely do harm. I don’t oppose Hillary’s original proposal, because it likely wouldn’t do much good.
Even Obama doesn’t think Hillary’s proposal would do financial harm to consumers; he just doesn’t think it would do much good:
‘I’m here to tell you the truth,’ Sen. Obama says in a new 60-second ad running in North Carolina and Indiana ahead of Tuesday’s primaries. ‘You’re going to save about $25, $30, or half a tank of gas.’ (MSNBC)
Saving $25 may not be an overwhelming benefit to consumers, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt them.
Let’s get beyond the policy debate because, in reality, neither McCain’s nor Hillary’s proposal is likely to become law. Too few congressional Dems would support McCain’s harmful proposal.
Oil-company-loving Senate Republicans would likely kill Hillary’s proposal via filibuster, because it includes a tax on oil companies.
Moving on to the public-relations realm, we have McCain proposing a gas-tax holiday that would likely harm consumers, but the Republican machine wouldn’t spin it that way. It would craft (and transmit incessantly) sound bytes like:
"Sen. McCain wants to cut your gas prices by reducing taxes — and Dems are against this!"
When Hillary came up with a different proposal, she out-maneuvered McCain, by enabling creation of sound bytes like this one:
"We Dems want to cut your gas prices and make oil companies pay for it — but McCain and the Republicans don’t want big oil to lose money; we need to boot those Republicans out of Congress in November."
Are all three candidates politically posturing? You bet. And they aren’t playing to avid readers of Paul Krugman or analytical bloggers who spend hours a week analyzing issues and comparing pundits’ comments.
They’re playing to people who are "informed" by sound bytes they hear on the car radio or by TV news they catch while they’re fixing dinner. That’s most of the electorate.
McCain started this ball rolling. Hillary came up with public-relations protection against Republicans in the form of a harmless proposal that likely won’t ever become law anyway — one that Dems could possibly use to slam McCain.
For that reason, I don’t understand why anyone would demonize Hillary and (in the process) mis-characterize her proposal as "the same" as McCain’s. Yet, some people — like Rep. Mark Udall from Colorado — are doing just that.
Even Obama is twisting facts during campaign statements, which isn’t all that unusual. He said:
"’Now the two Washington candidates in the race have decided to do something different,” said Obama. ‘John McCain started it, he made the proposal, and then Hillary Clinton said ‘me too.”’ (CBS)
As Obama darned well knows if he reads newspapers, Hillary did not say "me too," in that she didn’t simply adopt McCain’s plan. Hillary said, "Let’s do it a different way" and came up with a counter-proposal.
There’s a big difference, not that many people in sound-byte land will actually pick up on the differences.
Yes, silly season is in full swing.
________
Visit my blog, Buck Naked Politics.
This article is misleading and clearly a lie. Yes, Mr. Obama supported to gax tax in Illinios. It did not work so he knows from experience that it will damage the ecomony.
That is not hypocrisy, that’s reality.
Unlike Hillary and Bill in 1996 and 2004, both were against the gas tax holiday because it was not economically feasible to revoke the tax and ensure that the gas companies would not pass on the costs to the public, thus further raising the price of gas.
Next time, report the facts right and do not mislead the public.
I was wondering exactly who put you in charge of this forum?
And kindly don’t be declaring things a lie and other things a fact without solid links. I notice the article poster did that. How come you haven’t?
Ohhhh…….THIS IS RICH……Good Post D……
HYPOCRITE !…..THY NAME IS BARACK OBAMA !…….
SHAPIN UP TO BE A FINE SET OF PRIMARY VICTORIES FOR SEN. CLINTON..
I can smell the sweat here, can’t you?
It is always like this right before an election that Baby Doh! is going to lose and the media said he should win … Indiana … And the North Carolina election is looking Mi-Tee close … yep.
Fear and panic have a peculiar scent all their own.
Dog shit?
Barky doo?
No one put him in charge but Obama has said that he supported the gas tax in IL and it was a failure - did not achieve anything positive there and will not do so now. Every Economist who had a word to say on this said it is pandering and not going to make a positive dent. But then Hillary says she doesn’t pay attention to Economists anyway.
I don’t think one needs to know from experience that simply cutting the gas tax might give oil companies the incentive to raise gas prices.
We know that now, when looking at John McCain’s proposal, simply by using our logic.
Do you want to explain that logic to the person who has to drive to Walmart to make minimum wage? At what point do we just concede and everyone stays home and the business shut down?
Are you good with that?
Beebop,
I was answering Chaz, who accused me of lying in my post and said that Obama knows that McCain’s plan won’t work ONLY because of Obama’s experience supporting a similar failed policy in Illinois.
I was trying to explain to Chaz that one need not actually pass a bill to anticipate its pitfalls (as Obama, himself, has done re: McCain’s plan).
Cool. Sorry.
Chaz probably has the same tough times we all do and is being persuaded to vote against his own interests by the liberal elite of a party more and more out of touch with its historic constituents … hope he doesn’t grow too bitter
What Clinton implies very strongly is that the office of POTUS has specific powers particularly in wartime and with regard to national security…..If the American Economy shuts down due to Gas and the effect the rising cost has on Food prices and trade this would be catastrophic…..No ?
I totally agree with you, Artist.
I just focused more narrowly in my post on political aspects of the gas-tax holiday proposals (and Obama’s apparent hypocrisy).
You know Clinton also proposes an investigation in the profits (mentions Enron) and the traders in her this short term plan. Of course, she also has a comprehensive long term proposal. I have said it before, this is great politics and it is good policy. We should be looking at other revenue streams for the infrastructure because the gas tax is regressive and there will be a move away from using gas (Peak Oil anyone?).
Obama was caught out on this again, as Clinton drives the issues again. He has to go negative on an issue that is a loser. As mentioned, Clinton took the issue away from the Repubs and McCain. This is also the perception of who cares for middle class and working people? The Dems should be putting this package together and passing it (either Bush vetoes, Repubs in Senate filibuster or it passes as a package). And the winner is the Dems and of course, Clinton, since Obama made a serious mistake on this.
Alexei,
Yeah, I’ve heard Hillary talk about investigating market manipulation. I bet she would, too.
Like you, I also think of Enron’s (and Dynegy’s, and El Paso’s…) creation of the California energy crisis. I would not be at all surprised if something like that is going on here.
The perception that Obama does not want the American people to save money at the gas pumps will hurt Obama. I really doubt that the oil companies would be allowed to punish consumers by raising costs without investigations, fines and jail time. Which is what should be happening anyway, after the last spate of testimony before congress.
Yes, and Clinton already has been saying that on the stump; investigate because there is evidence of market manipulation ala Enron. She is brilliant in this both on the perception and on the oil companies raising prices to offset the wind fall profit tax meme. Love to see Dems showing intellect and backbone.
Once again, Obama supporters do not want to hold him responsible.
IF.. he learned from his mistakes… then instead of just attacking Hillary.. why doesn’t he say… “you know, there was a bill that I took credit for in Illinois to temporarily relieve gas taxes and it didn’t work. Here are the reasons is didn’t work. Therefore, there is no approach to a tax holiday that will work.” Period.
It is up to him, Obama, to get the correct message out there and he fails to do so. He would rather attack Hillary, then say he is running a positive campaign.
PLEASE hold him accountable.
Once again, Obama supporters do not hold Obama responsible for his own behaviors, choices and consequences.
IF he actually learned by his mistakes, why is HE not telling us that. Why are YOU telling us that?
Why can’t he say, you know, there was a bill to temporarily remove the gas tax in Illinois, that I supported and took credit for.
We found it did not work for these reasons …xxxx …. and it caused these consequences … xxxx ….
There is no approach to a temporary gas tax relief that would be positive and therefore I do not support it.
INSTEAD … he bashing Hillary like he always does. He runs negative ads attacking Hillary and misleading people! Then says he is the positive one.
PLEASE hold him accountable.
I’d like to know when exactly he told the his constituents in Illinois that the tax holiday didn’t work. I wonder if he ever said this in Illinois back then. Gee, maybe he panders or something.
Obama’s reaction to Hillary’s plan plays well to the tongue-clucking elite wing of the Democratic Party. Call for a reduction in gas prices, and they’ll tell you high gas prices are good because they discourage consumption- if gas is too costly, take that monorail that doesn’t exist to work, you selfish roadhog.
The price of food skyrocketing as a result of high gas prices? Good- America is too fat anyway!
Elitist jackasses like Obama are all consumed by The Big Idea– they reject temporary measures as “uninspired” and “typical politics” and “small-minded” and instead offer Big Ideas (Monorails, Trillion-dollar public transit connecting the coasts, etc.) which they KNOW will never be implemented– but by offering these Big Ideas, they make their Elitist friends swoon and coo with delight.
Unable to solve the problem of World Hunger, they won’t donate ten bucks to the local food bank– and look askance and people who do. Such small-mindedness!
These people are the worst of the posers, because they get nothing accomplished, and are proud of it.
I am enjoying this to be honest. The man has a definite loser wish. After he gets his limp nomination, his ass is grass in November. He just can’t stop insulting the poor people he claims he cares about, he just can’t stop insulting the majority of the democratic electorate. He just can’t stop insulting those swing states Democrats NEED in order to win. This guy actually thinks nobody learned about him since his early runs. He thinks that African Americans, old hippies still on the bong and college kids are going to get him elected. I am truly enjoying this. He might even do WORSE than McGovern. How much fun will that be????
Apparently he was “not present” the day the truck drivers pulled off the road to demonstrate what prices are doing to their industry. Does he know how his arugula gets to Whole Foods ?????
hahahhahahahahahaha …. I wonder if he knows how those little independents get that goat cheese to those little indy markets?
If he gets the nomination it is because the SDs “overthrew” the people’s choice. MI and FL put her in the lead for the popular vote. With those two states delegates per the elections, she is very close now (saw down by 14?) in pledged delegates.
She is going to win more delegates than Obama and increase the popular vote lead in the remaining contests. Her base of support is broader, deeper and more committed. She has a very good chance of beating McCain, while Obama is unelectable. She will make a much better President due to her experience (both in number years and type) and her policy issues. So, by every metric, Clinton will be the leader.
They might have a Big Idea, but they don’t get the BIG PICTURE, which is, every little bit helps. That’s why Hillary is going to win this nomination.
Well put!!!!!
Well that should have been his argument in the beginning . That “we tried that and it didn’t work.” But Barky doesn’t work that way, he attacks Hillary and them comes up with excuses when some one calls him on it.
Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem…….No ?
( It is fitting that a liar should be a man of good memory….No ? )
EXACTLY! I wish some of those TV “journalists” would pick up on the fact, instead of helping Obama pull it off.
His flim flam political life is such that I think he forgets some of the stands he has taken unless someone else keeps track of it for him.
BINGO! Which is how we bloggers help.
GOOD COMMENT FROM NEWSDAY:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_hillary_clinton_hits_barack_obama_over_e.html
cal74 Mar 12, 2008 9:47:39 PM Report Offensive Post
“What the article failed to mentioned is that the nuclear power plants refer to Obama as their Golden Child.. Obama received $230K in contributions from Exelon Nuclear Power Company. What did they get in return? He voted for **** Cheney’s 2005 energy bill, which gave the nuclear power industry 12 Billion in subsidies. How ironic that his top campaign advisor, Axelrod, was a consultant for Exelon.”
short observations:
**Is just a little relief over the holiday that may not be that significant, but certainly WON’T hurt.
**The fact that they argue the relief isn’t that significant counters their argument that it would increase demand to raise oil prices.
**McCain’s plan doesn’t make up for the collective revenue lost for reconstruction but hillary’s does by placing a tax on record profits by oil companies
**Hillary has addresed long term solutions in investing in green collar jobs in biofuel, wind and solar
**Obama is a complete hypocrit seeing as he previously voted for gas tax holidays and he voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill.
Oh yeah he really screwed his constituents with that watered down “voluntary” notification bill– when Exelon has another nuclear leak they get to decide whether to tell anybody who lives near them. Nice guy. But then that company IS among his top ten contributors.
Good Morning Uppity,
I blogged about Exelon some weeks ago at Buck Naked Politics. The TV “journalists” never did run with that story, though it ran either in NY Times or WaPo the first time.
I can understand, given the Senate’s composition, why Obama had failed re: Exelon.
What I have a problem with is that Obama claimed (while stumping in Iowa) that he’d taken on the nukes industry, even though he’d re-drafted the bill.
But that’s how Obama plays, I suppose.
But he HAS taken on the nuke industry. He has taken on their contributions.
A very valid point!
Thanks for posting the NYDN link and quote. It certainly is relevant these days.
Hypocrisy? Obama?! I am shocked, SHOCKED! Why wouldn’t he be in favor of this? He could afford more gas for his bus so he could throw more of his early supporters and mentors, his spiritual advisers under it as soon as they became a liability!
Exactly! A counter-proposal was the right thing to do to take the issue away from McCain. McCain is trying to woo so called Reagan democrats and Hillary doing this is absolutely the right strategy. As usual Obama was a day late and also responding to undercut democrats against McCain.
Clinton is making the Oil Corps. shake….And the Working Class Loves it !
One Obama supporter comments at my blog regularly. He’s VERY NICE and reasonable, we just see things differently.
Even that commenter realizes that Hillary was likely just taking wind out of McCain’s sails. She’s not only a political creature, she’s also hyper-analytical.
In one thread, I told that commenter that I hoped Obama would add a little something to Hillary’s proposal and unite with her because both of them benefit from taking the issue away from McCain.
Apparently, Obama would rather just distinguish himself from Hillary. If he had more experience (in life and politics), he might have played it differently.
She has become a politician with excellent brains. A potent combination much better than Bill Clinton when he ran. She sees the big picture so easily and anticipates so well. I have never seen such mastery. If you all watched This Week, you would see how she masterfully navigated the questions from diverse audience on diverse topics and she is doing things with GE in mind and how democrats can win — she is undercutting McCain without saying anything explicitly. Obama is still fighting to defeat HER and not succeeding for obvious reasons. In fact at TW, it was clear that she was the one to take on big interests (this gas tax holiday is an excellent case in point), to bring about change for that very reason and as well give hope to everyday Americans. Unlike Obama, she has taken her case directly to the people and most of them are responding to it.
PM317,
I also loved her interview with O’Reilly. I watched it on the Internet.
The first word out of my mouth (yeah, I talk to my computer screen sometimes) was “Amazing,” when she got bootstraps O’Reilly to say that he didn’t mind paying extra to give a safety net to hardworking American families.
This is the total opposite of what O’Reilly has said for years, I think (given what some of his fans say about the issue).
Hillary is an incredible diplomat. Of course, we knew that when she marched into Richard Scaife’s lions den and walked out with an endorsement.
BO just showed an absolute lack on economics 101 on MTP this morning.
He stated that the moratorium did not work and the oil companies and dealers move in and just raised the price. Hey Barry, if they could “just move in” and do that, THEY WOULD HAVE. It is the free market. The tax is ON TOP OF what the marketplace price of a gallon of gas. Gesh, it is pretty simple
Plus he continued to Sh-t all over the people of Michigan with his assault on Detroit and the auto industry. He blames Detroit for filling the market, SUV’s.
What a yuppie prick.
He also ignores or is ignorant of the concept of a windfall gas tax, the part of Hillary’s plan the media is conveniently glossing over. If the windfall profits of oil companies are taxed at a very high rate, there is virtually no incentive for those companies to raise the price of oil- raising the price just drops demand, while most of the increase is absorbed through taxes anyway.
Obama gets away with this crap because the media doesn’t want to discuss the windfall profits tax. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Yes, the media has definitely become a problem — and who knows how they will mis-shape public opinion over important issues in the future.
I’ve learned more about the media this race than I have about politics. Amazing (in a bad way).
QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES ?
( Who will watch the watchers themselves ? )
I think the answer to that could well be Sen. Clinton…..No ?
There is a way to force the media to be more objective and its with our wallets: A la carte television channel purchasing. I would not purchase MSNBC and would not have to. We can eliminate the anti-free-market practice of bundling and its even more nefarious dark side of the “news” channels shilling propaganda for the corporate boardrooms of the oil companies and arms merchants. Watch how fast they would moderate their neo-liberalism when people refuse to support their extremist nonsense any longer. Bye bye Andrea Mitchell.
I should add: the demise of The Fairness Doctrine should give us a clue when the propaganda shilling began. We can bring it back and real conservatives will support the use of the free-market in doing so. It would be easy to form a broad political spectrum alliance to end bundling. By the way, the argument of “Bundling saves consumers money” can be easily refuted especially considering the weight of our very liberties and freedoms being threatened.
Those who wish to dominate us forget their palace is no sanctuary — they share the same Earth with us.
And to remind folks: Bush’s staged war was enabled by the MSM. The same MSM has been ramming Obama down our throats. And of course other more subtle propaganda techniques.
Guitarist,
You certainly have nailed down the media issue: the wallet is where it’s at. I hope that enough of us citizens unify over this issue to make something happen.
I didn’t know about bundling, but your explanation makes sense.
I think Fairness Doctrine was dumped in 1987 or 88, so I’m guessing that Reagan was involved. Wasn’t Rupert Murdoch a good friend of Reagan? Didn’t Reagan have something to do with enabling Rupert (a foreigner) to own TV stations?
We can take what I have written and people can send it along to the MSM now. It could help bring a smidgen of more fairness to this election right now for obvious reasons. I’ll post a composite of my three posts on the current top thread (Ambassador Wilson’s article) so folks don’t miss it.
PS: Bundling: like your basic channel line-up which includes MSNBC. We are not allowed a la cart purchasing of what is in the bundle and larger bundles which all include MSNBC, CNN, etc.
I think that if Clinton is elected we will see a return to Fed. Regulation of all industry…..We need it…..It’s startin to look like the late 1920’s……
Good idea!
No one for whom 20 cents is an issue watched MTP.
The people for whom 2 dimes is significant heard NO from BO and that is that. He is so far out of touch with the people he says he comes from that Dennis Kucinich is pretty sure he knows where Barack calls home!
I just listened to a few minutes of “7 Days in America,” Air Obama Radio’s Sunday morning show featuring, among others, Arianna Huffington.
I think it’s hysterical that Huffington’s main complaint about Hillary Clinton’s campaign commercials is that they focus on arguing that Hillary is well-qualified to be President, and they don’t even mention that Barack Obama is, too!
In fact, Hillary’s commercials strongly imply that she would make a BETTER President than Obama! Outrageous! Did you ever imagine that campaign commercials could sink to such a level?
Huffington seems genuinely infuriated that Hillary Clinton isn’t making commercials praising Barack Obama and urging people to vote for him. What planet am I on?
John,
This has turned out to be a strange race: many people who were so rational pre-January have become as unhinged as the segment of Ron Paul supporting commenters who got kicked off the right wing blogs.
That is funny! A shill without a legitimate point.
Didn’t Mr. ‘I don’t take money from oil companies’ Obama take hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil company execs and wives of lobbyists? Well, no wonder he’s against any suggestion that may hurt the oil companies’ bottom line… even if it is just a countermeasure to offset McCain’s proposal. Windfall Profit Tax? That kind of talk just gives Obama the heebie jeebies.
Great post, D. I check your blog out every day… it’s one of my must reads every morning.
Nag,
Thank you so much! I read somewhere days ago that Obama came up with a new tax proposal re: the oil companies. I should have bookmarked but didn’t, and now I can’t find it.
It seems to me that big oil will raise prices to compensate for any tax — unless Congress enacts price controls. I could be wrong and can’t validly criticize Obama’s plan until I find the details.
A gas tax holiday is mostly symbolic. Senator Clinton has said as much. In an interview the other day she said the government should show some willingness to help consumers, not just stand by and give advice.
This is politics plain and simple. But, I’m thinking not all that bad on Clinton’s part. Think about it this way.
I live in Southern Utah where diesel hit $ 4.17 a gallon the other day and will no doubt exceed $ 5.00 in the coming months. My wife and I shop at a large market chain , Smiths, that has an attached fuel center. Like most supermarkets they offer discounts on fuel when you shop. We spend enough in the main store to receive a 15 cent per gallon discount when I buy fuel. I average 25 gallons each time so we save a whopping $ 3.75 on every fill up.
We’re on a fixed income but we can stretch or budget to meet higher fuel costs; we won’t miss a meal because of the added expense. I’m sure prices at Smiths are adjusted to account for the fuel discounts they offer. It’s a gimmick; a gimmick that works. If I dare buy fuel anywhere other than Smiths and miss out on that 15 cent discount, I catch hell big time.
Suspending the gas tax for a few months would have the same effect. It isn’t much; it won’t stimulate the economy or reduce the cost of fuel. But advocating a Gas-Tax holiday certainly beats the hell out of standing on a podium and telling people to suck it up, conserve, car pool, or whatever.
In my opinion, Obama and his advisors have been a bit privileged through out there lives and can’t relate to those less fortunate who can use an extra $ 25.00 for something other than gas.
I lived in Texas until last year. Each year then have a weekend that suspends the State tax on clothing for back to school. I forget the limits and how it is imposed (I don’t have children), but it is a HUGE weekend. You cannot get into the malls … The thing that always amazed me is that they never included shool supplies in the back to school promotions, but what do I know? I just WENT to school …
The point is, people get the feeling that something GOOD is happening. What the hell is wrong with the majority of the Democratic party? Do they not get it that a lot of people — the ones they apparently have no problem categorizing as “bitter” — would like to feel like someone in Washington gives a shit?
I live in Texas and the holiday you speak of is a huge break for all of us especially the Working Class….It generates a lot of retail relief and stimulates the economy…..It is also beneficial to kids that go to parochial school or public schools who enforce uniforms….
Like Hillary said “It is better than sitting around doing nothing!”
And it will let the oil companies know that she is coming after them when she becomes president.
Great point! Another problem is that Obama’s campaign has intentionally marketed itself based on big, vague idealistic-sounding concepts INSTEAD of practical, step-by-step solutions.
It seems to be catching up with him (finally), but the media should have been more diligent about exposing Obama’s long-standing lip service.
15.00 a month, and 180.00 a year, which is, for me, say, two months of electricity.
Or my perscription deductible, about.
It’s significant.
But advocating a Gas-Tax holiday certainly beats the hell out of standing on a podium and telling people to suck it up, conserve, car pool, or whatever
I so agree. I’m real tired of wealthy folks saying hey that’s not alot…well it’s not to you maybe! Besides it sends the message someone is listening dammit!! Hillary is so smart. She undercuts MaCain AND underlines BO’s elitist views at the same time!! Can she be President right now??!
Author –Do me a favor. If you are going to give a hard knock to one of Clinton’s policy proposals–know what the hell you are talking about.
If gas companies raise the price to offset the windfalls profit penalty, they would be PENALIZED again for doing so. This gas tax cut proposal would not only be of immediate relief to consumers at the pump, but would be exponentially beneficial as truckers save a couple of billion of dollars
and food costs and every other conceivable commercial product is touched by this lessened burden. It also–for once–sends a message both to the gas gouging crum and the very weary consumer
that SOMETHING is going to be done in the interest of the average American instead of the filthy and
self-centered oil companies.
I would be very happy if people who propone Hillary’s nomination, would not take uninformed cheap shots at her policies. If you want to
knock her, go somewhere else…Rumor has it that there are plenty of venues out there.
The urban (bus/subway) crowd versus the rural drive your car crowd can argue this all they want. Indiana is the latter. I think most of the states left like their cars …. Seattle may be a tough sell for this, but hey, she probably wasn’t going to do well there any way!
Agree Bee……But rates for the working poor that rely on buses are goin up and services are being cut……It gets to everybody everywhere…
even the HOITY-TOITYS…..If Juan or Mary Jane can’t come into work….No ?
SandyR,
I honestly am not knocking Hillary, as I’m a big fan (which is why NQ lets me post here and why my own blog has dozens of Hillary-friendly posts).
Actually, I’m praising Hillary for having snatched the issue away from McCain (whose proposal might be harmful). Hillary essentially said, “We can’t do McCain’s proposal, but we CAN give you tax relief in a better way: here’s my plan.”
I was merely saying that Hillary’s tax-holiday plan likely won’t get passed into law given all the pro-oil people in Congress and the White House. Hillary is savvy enough to know this (as are Obama and McCain).
That goes doubly for any proposal that would in effect establish price controls.
I agree with you in principle, but I’m not sure that Hillary has proposed real penalties that would amount to price controls.
If she has, she knows those have even less of a chance of passing than a tax holiday with a windfall tax against Big Oil, because there are enough Republicans in the Senate to filibuster such proposals into oblivion.
And they would filibuster (like they did on bills all last year), because Republicans believe that all industries should be able to trample all over consumers as a matter of right.
Presidential powers especially during wartime or times of national crisis are shall we say flexible…..Clinton seems to be implying that she will do what is necessary as POTUS to provide relief if it will keep US from avoiding economic disaster…….FDR and Truman understood this ……No ?
Yep, FDR did nationalize industries. Hillary may be thinking similarly: I don’t know.
My post doesn’t address her broader policies. It deals only with the political aspects of the gas-tax holiday.
SandyR thinks that I was “knocking” Hillary in this post, and I was trying to explain to her that I was not.
Unlike most of the pro-bama blogs, I have never seen Larry or Susan take anyone down except someone advocating violence. It is not an issue of “letting” you post.
This is a blog where we do see a difference of opinion. That doesn’t mean we aren’t going to differ with it when we feel that we don’t agree.
Hi Beebop,
I’m just verbally stepping into it all over the place (’haven’t had my morning caffeine yet).
You’re absolutely right: the first comment (Chaz) says that my post is full of lies, yet chaz’s comment is still standing — solid evidence that NQ allows diverse opinions.
I was just trying to show evidence to SandyR that my post on the gas-tax holiday is not anti-Hillary.
‘Sorry about my clumsy wording
Welcome to REAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY…….chuckle….with the occasional splash of blue language…..and wicked humor……
This site is my solace…..
I know. I love coming here.
Every night before bed (after a hard day of facing the irrationally pro-Obama media), I check into No Quarter to get some relief.
Ironically, I used to go look at anti-Bush Olbermann videos for relief. Now, I can’t stand watching Olbermann, so I don’t.
Ditto!
I was just thinking about this, and given their pattern of behavior, meaning they seem to lack a fundamental grasp of the deeper implications of any issue, whether it be taxes, or the Constitution, (they’re so stupid), they can be handled, eventually.
It seems as if our Congress became the politburo, somewhere along the line, with the attendant thinking…
Crash the “American” ruble, or something…
Yes, they do lack a fundamental grasp. The cliche “big picture” doesn’t seem to be part of their vocabulary.
I agree it will run into troble. And it may no