Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Think Clinton's plan to suspend the gas tax temporarily is a bad idea? A similar measure in Illinois -- which Obama backed -- seems to have helped consumers.
  • Absolutely ridiculous

    Frost illustrates very clearly that everything Obama says about the "tax holiday" is clearly supported by his Illinois experience, yet Frost claims that Obama is wrong. Did Frost read his own essay?

    First of all, let's look at the overall absurdity of the plan. At today's prices, a driver would have to spend approximately $600 on gasoline to save $30 during the "tax holiday." If someone is "choosing between food and gas," $30 out of $600 over the course of an entire summer is not going to make a difference. Their problems are much larger than any thing a tax holiday can alleviate.

    Frost claims that a study of the Illinois plan proves Obama wrong. In fact, the study backs up Obama. The Illinois action SHOULD have cut gas prices by 5%. At the pump, the price only dropped 3%. Frost generously phrases this as "This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists." No. What it suggests is that 40% of the intended benefit was shanghaied by the oil companies. 40%. That money was going to repair roads, educate children — you know, the things we keep governments around to do. And the Illinois legislature's well-meaning but badly thought-out "holiday" redistributed that money to the bloated oil companies.

    So Frost suggests a labyrinthine regulation/audit/windfall scheme to tax excess profits above a certain gross percentage per barrel of oil. Isn't that just a very confusing and sneaky way of implementing a price cap? And if you're going to do that, why not just have the spine to institute a price cap?

    At best, Frost says "it is "not a foregone conclusion that the suppliers will get all the benefit." Not a foregone conclusion? Is THAT how we're formulating public policy these days? By going with any plan that isn't 100% destined to result in the worst case scenario?

    Basically, Frost is saying that the Clinton plan isn't doomed to utter failure. It's not purely a give-away to the oil companies. Just a 40% giveaway. But he calls Obama wrong. Who the hell IS this guy, and who's paying him write this crap?