Letters to the Editor
-
Results are not conclusive
The retail prices decreased 3%, then it went up 4% after. So, the net was +0.88%. [For the math challenged, if gas was 1.00, after the 3% reduction, it was 0.97. Then, after the 4% increase, it was 1.0088 which is an 0.88% increase.)
BUT, Clinton states that oil companies would make up the difference in a separate tax. So, the two ideas are different in implementation. And, comparing this study to what Clinton is proposing is ignorant at best. Remove one tax and add another to the prime producer will not work because the tax will just be passed on from the top. In fact, I would be surprised if this made things worse because the initial cost of gas, before the state taxes are added as a percentage, will be higher creating a higher total tax from states.
All in all this idea is dumb. It will not work, and it is playing on the fears of voters; this is something that republicans have used to their advantage for decades. And, most Democrats condemn these tactics. Too bad Clinton is taking this route. It will be difficult to vote for her if she manages to win the nomination.