Letters to the Editor
uncle ovipositor
Published Letters: 74 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Pandering to the Wright
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gas tax holiday? Really? People are still taking this seriously?
1. The tax isn't there to punish people, it's there to pay for highways and bridges, something that we're barely capable of doing. Remove it and our infrastructure gets even worse, as hard as that is to imagine. So everyone except McCain agrees we can't actually get rid of the source of revenue.
2. So Clinton wants to apply the tax to the oil companies, not the consumers. That doesn't mean gas prices will go down. In fact, what will almost assuredly happen is that gas prices will go up .18 a gallon. Or more, because that's how they do - and not even because they're evil oil companies. When you sell something, you incorporate the taxes and the cost of manufacture into the price you sell it for.
So there won't be a benefit. Which you should know, Ms Walsh, even if it wasn't included in any of Sid's emails.
So promising people that they'll get back $30 a month - "It's not much, but I know that every bit counts for hard-working Americans" - even when it won't happen is a sign of ... fortitude? What happens when it doesn't actually work out that way? Can we call it stupidity then?
It's pandering. In the past you've expressed an admiration for pandering, Ms Walsh. Please see "Looking Past Pennsylvania", in which you say that even though she won't do anything about it, the fact that she's claiming she'll get rid of FAFSA matters more to you than being honest about it. Because you hate FAFSA! Yeah!
Standing up for stupid things because they're appealing is generally a bad thing in my book. Saying things to get elected is as well. I'd much rather she give out free ice cream or something.
I'd like to think that you're making arguments like this because in your heart of hearts you believe them. Maybe you sincerely believe that what America needs now is to be told that everything's going to be easy to fix and we'll all get a lollipop. But I doubt it. You're arguing to win, not to be right, and in this I think you're aligned with the approach Clinton has taken to campaigning. It's politics, and I think there's some room for that, but I would appreciate it if you stopped pretending to be a neutral party in all of this.
"essay based" indeed.
-
@ weeping
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The next question is, what is the likely long-term impact of lowering gas prices, because as I see it, we should be moving towards not away from higher gasoline prices, ones that more accurately reflect their environmental costs, the price of extraction, the foreign policy element involved in dealing with the middle east, etc.
While I agree that gas prices should go up for any number of reasons, the mistake you're making here is assuming that the gas tax holiday would lower prices at the pump. It wouldn't. As with the sale of anything brought to market, the cost of making something is factored into the price at which it is sold. So, if they get charged .18 more for every gallon of gas they sell, they will add that in to the price at the pump. Outside of price controls and a state-run market, there is no way to avoid this outcome.
I realize that this is way off from the point of your question, and there's a lot to be discussed about sustainable energy, but it's important to keep in mind that the premise is logically flawed in an economics 101 kind of way. Not surprising, since it was an idea that John "I know nothing about economics" McCain came up with.
-
G'bye, Sharks
[Read the article: Stars, Sharks put the time in overtime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like the Sharks a lot, but there's no shame in losing that game. That really was about as good as hockey gets.
I don't like anybody's odds against Detroit, but I didn't like the Stars' chances against the Ducks or the Sharks, so I'm not going to rule them out. They looked good.
-
I wouldn't hang Reid based on what he said on the Daily Show
[Read the article: Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, yes, but Reid (and all of the democrats) do still have to work with the guy. Lieberman's quite conscious of his status, and has offered more than once to take his ball and go home. The numbers in the senate are such that pandering to him results in some greater goods happening, and the alternative (him becoming an independent who conferences with the republicans) would have much worse results. So they would be stupid not to publicly treat him like a friend with whom they have a minor disagreement.
Were Reid to say that Lieberman's vote for torture and lifting habeas corpus were an abomination, Lieberman would have still voted the same way. Were Lieberman to leave the Dems, they wouldn't have control of the senate.
It's a political position that Dems have to take. And now I feel dirty for standing up for Reid.
I think the true test will be what happens after November, since it's likely Lieberman won't be the deciding vote anymore, one way or the other, and that pesky minor issue of the war will be dealt with somewhat differently.
-
I'm taking bets on this one
[Read the article: Obama is wrong about the gas tax]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How long until Joan sites this article in defense of HRC in a blog post? Other writers might well do the same, using terms such as "well-researched" and "eye-opening".
If they're really lucky, maybe they can get it sited elsewhere in the media world.
Echo chamber-er-er-er.
-
sort of a plaid
[Read the article: "There's a pattern emerging here"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glad she's going to stick around and campaign for another couple months to spread this kind of joy and insight. Definitely good for the party to have someone come in and push a racial divide.
-
Factual error?
[Read the article: Carville says Obama is likely nominee]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carville, while an advocate for HRC, was never an advisor or on her payroll.
She's not on the client list on his site, and I seem to remember him saying he wasn't doing presidential consulting for anyone in this race. His only political employment currently seems to be as a pundit.