Newspapers praise Obama, blast McCain and Clinton on gas tax "shameful pandering"
By: Lowell Published On: 5/1/2008 6:24:57 AM
The Washington Post editorializes today that Barack Obama, of all three presidential candidates, is the only one who is refusing to "play the game" of gas tax pandering.
We do not underestimate the impact of high fuel prices on families that need their cars to get to work and school. But the gas tax is one component of the per-gallon price that comes back to benefit the motoring public, in the form of funding for road construction and maintenance. Much of the rest leaves America, going to such places as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. ...We have to agree with Sen. Barack Obama, the only candidate who has refused to play this game. "It's not an idea to get you through the summer," he said. "It's an idea to get them through an election." His opponents no doubt hope that Mr. Obama's stand will prove to be political suicide. We think it qualifies as political courage.
Keep in mind, by the way, that the federal gas tax is just 18.4 cents per gallon, about 5% of the current gas price at the pump. Also keep in mind that revenues from the gas tax are dedicated, that is they must go towards the Highway Trust Fund. In other words, a cut in the federal gas tax takes money directly away from spending on things like bridge repair and road maintenance. Brilliant, eh?
Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton have hit on a new way to pander to American voters: a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The proposal may draw applause and votes from Americans feeling the pain of nearly $4-a-gallon gasoline. But it is an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers.
[...]
Fortunately, Mr. Obama has not caved to the rising calls for cheap energy and has refused to follow his rivals down this misguided path.
Until recently, Mrs. Clinton also seemed to get it. Like Mr. Obama, she supports tougher fuel-efficiency standards and a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions - which would have the effect of raising energy prices and reducing demand for gas. Mr. McCain supports a cap-and-trade program.
Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain have explained the inconsistency in their positions. We know pandering when we see it. We also know that suspending the gas tax for the summer won't solve this country's energy problems or even reduce the price of gas.
This is "pander bear" politics at its worst and we should all recognize it as such. It is also utterly incoherent; how can you support reducing demand and cutting carbon emissions while supporting a (temporary) reduction in the price of gasoline? Short answer: you can't. It's malignant malarkey, nothing more.
Finally, check out Tom Friedman's op-ed from yesterday, "Dumb as We Wanna Be", which blasts the gas tax giveaway as "not an energy policy" but "money laundering."
The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: "Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most."
Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.
Shameful pandering is right. At a time when the United States desperately needs a serious energy strategy, all we get from President Bush and two of the candidates running to succeed him is nonsensical pablum and pander? What happened to the "straight talk" we used to get from John McCain? What happened to Hillary Clinton's good judgment? Does running for president turn people's brains to mush or what? And why is it that Barack Obama is the only one who seems to be capable of resisting this idiocy? Perhaps because Obama has the "backbone" John Edwards talked about over the past year, and perhaps because the other candidates -- not to mention President Bush -- don't?
Today the WSJ published a brief interview with Chevron CEO Mr. O'Reilly including this snippet:
WSJ: What do you think is the likely range for oil prices?
Mr. O'Reilly: I can't predict what the price is going to be. You would have to tell me what the economic situation in the world is going to be a year from now. I don't think it is going to get back to those relatively low levels we experienced in the late '90s and early 2000s.
WSJ: Ever?
Mr. O'Reilly: No.
www.wsj.com
So much for Clinton being good (Lowell - 5/1/2008 8:17:00 AM)
on energy issues. It's ironic, because the closest I came to publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton was when she came out with her energy plan. I was very impressed, as were many others. Unfortunately, this temporary gas tax rollback idea tells me that it was all a mirage; she's either not serious about energy or she's just willing to say whatever -- including contradicting her own energy plan -- to get elected. Either way, it's extremely disappointing.
clinton on the republcan team (pvogel - 5/1/2008 8:30:17 AM)
She and her advisors seen what republican pandering gets, ( elected) and she has wholeheartedly jumped into the sewer with them.
As predicted.
Look for her to demonize hispanics, and other stuff too.
If Obama can beat her, he should have no problem beating mccain
Strange thing that "rolling over" (Alter of Freedom - 5/1/2008 8:51:09 AM)
When you give a dog a bone he tends to be happy. Voters are no different. If you think that the electorate, save the elitist bunch, does not enjoy a bone why is it I wonder 99% of folks will be cashing that check/rebate in May.
Again, like everything else it seems Americans like expediency. America has reached a point where it cannot contemplate long term problems or solutions and want instantanous answers no matter how ridiculous.
Something some elitists have not figured out yet is the average person seems to like being "pandered" to and will gladly acept the gas tax relief and the rebate if for no other reason then they feel entitled to the relief from a government they feel gets too much of their money anyway.
This is where leadership comes in (Lowell - 5/1/2008 8:55:29 AM)
For instance, after 9/11, President Bush could have and should have called for sacrifice and a crash program to get off our "oil addiction." Instead, he told people to "go shopping" - a total abdication of leadership, one of the worst of his horrendous presidency. Now, it's time for leaders who will actually lead. If not, we will simply watch as our problems get worse and worse, with the occasional "bone" to the masses to keep them distracted. That is NOT a way to run a great nation like ours, or any nation for that matter.
Exactly (Eric - 5/1/2008 9:46:50 AM)
We need leadership, not pointless pandering.
This pandering to make voters feel good reminds me of parents who give their kids anything and everything they want (endless sweets, don't have to clean room, don't have to do homework, etc, etc). In the end those parents trade responsibility for instant (and temporary) gratification and that's exactly what these supposed leaders are doing. Total failure of responsibility. Pathetic.
The worst part, as already pointed out, is that the Federal gasoline tax is insignificant compared to the price of the product itself. If, say, the fed tax accounted for 50% of the price they'd have something to work with (still very very wrong IMO, but at least it would be something solid). But a handful of pennies against $4.00? Pointless. Completely pointless.
Wrong. (Tom Joad (Kevin) - 5/1/2008 11:16:58 AM)
People accept pandering because it's the only form of politics they have been offered. They accept it because politicians want to take the easy way out and not make tough decisions so they can be reelected and popular.
What would have happened if Bush didn't propose this tax "stimulus"? Nothing...because he didn't want to make the tough decision to tell the people "suck it up, we're going to go through a rough patch" Insead, to him, the only way to get us out of a economic hole is to dig deeper and put our problems on the backs of our grandchildren.
That's why the "gas tax holiday" is such a bad idea. It requires absolutely no sacrafice from us. It has us look the other way while our dilapidated infrastructure falls down around us, more emissions are dumped into the atmosphere, and the oil companies scrape another 9-10 billion from us.
We elect leaders to be leaders, not one of us.
While I agree in principle (Alter of Freedom - 5/1/2008 4:59:45 PM)
We have to look at some vary troubling "pandering" items coming out of these campaigns. For example, "let go after the oil companies profits"...You tell undeducated ot disconnected masses that an oil company made 10 billion last quarter and portray the Corporate evil scenario and why we should take the profits away, but fail to inform the audience that that revenue is a paltry 7% return. WAKE-UP call. Blaming the oil companies is the truest form of pandering there is--telling people who are suffering to make ends meet who is to blame for it---when in fact all three of these in the running have been part of the problem and not the solutions in the Senate. Simply open up the financials, 7% hardly compares to the 20+% other companies and industries are getting these days so should we be going after those profits as well. Personally my coffee at Starbucks has risen much higher the last five years than gas. A cup of White Chocolate Mocha Grande costs more than a gallon of gas and most of us do not think twice throwing down four bucks for coffee without somehow feeling outraged or ripped off. Why is that I wonder? Could it be the constant portrayal of oil companies making billions at the "expense" of the little guy---simply the best run marketing campaign ever.
The biggest factor is the majority of the nation out there cares little for the Good Samaritan "sacrificing" you endorse no matter how noble and our "leaders" are in fact simply mirrors of ourselves. We somehow now are prone or programed to feel as though if an elected official is not aligned with our idealogy or agenda that they are somehow less than a "leader". The difference is a true leader is one that leads from the front and can never be partisan.
Excellent Points (HisRoc - 5/1/2008 8:23:39 PM)
And, notice that HRC is touting a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies to pay for the gas tax holiday. More pandering since economists will tell you that a windfall profits tax falls hardest on domestic production fields who are selling their oil at $120/barrel and has little effect on the major oil companies who import the lion's share of their crude, paying $120/barrel for it.
and do not forget the light sweet crude and other nuances (Alter of Freedom - 5/1/2008 8:34:12 PM)
Notice how its much easier to tell folks who know nothing about the economics that the "windfall profits tax" will somehow benefit them when she knows it will not. If she believes it truly will then she has no business being President anyway.
I also cannot help but notice that no one is talking about that bill in the Senate from the gentleman from North Dakota (a Democrat) to increase production in Gulf of Mexico, California Coast and Alaska and how about his proposal to end the stockpiling of oil. Funny how the three potential candidates seem to be focusing on the wrong end of the spectrum in this debate.
Gas Tax Holiday (South County - 5/1/2008 8:30:54 PM)
This strikes me as real small-bore, reactionary, short term feel good but meaningless politics. We're talking drops in the bucket. Its just like the windfall profits tax, another superficial proposal. Candidates know they can say stuff like this becuase it sounds good on the stump but they know that a 51-49 Senate will never in a mllion years pass a windfall profits tax.
Exactly (Alter of Freedom - 5/1/2008 8:35:31 PM)
And the pundits portray these folks as being "leaders"!! If that is true what does that say about the rest of us?
Windfall Profits (South County - 5/1/2008 10:32:16 PM)
I think that those who advocate increasing taxes on corporations, in this case oil companies, forget that ultimately corporations pass the burden of higher taxes on to consumers. Under this scenario, prices may actually rise further at the pump...