Letters to the Editor
-
WRONG!
If you watched Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Obama admitted that he voted for the gas tax moratorium in Illinois, but he also admitted that he was wrong. The price of gas just went up.
It would be great when people learn the whole story. This gas tax thing is pandering, $28 - $30 - $70 is not going to help much when it comes to paying for mortgages, healthcare and food.
This is only a band-aid approach that will be forgotten after the election.
If Sen. Clinton wants it so bad, perhap she should offer a bill with Sen. McCain to cut the tax.
She seems to know better than the Economists that say it won't work.
-
Funny thing about economists
One of the brightest economists ever (and the 1993 Nobel laureate in economics) once noted, "If economists are so smart, why is Africa so poor?"
North's point was that one can't ignore political institutions (and reform) and expect a lot of movement in an economy by addressing isolated policies. In fact, economic and political change comes in a very slow, path-dependent manner. As another very bright economist (W.B. Arthur) adds, often times countries, like firms, are "locked-in" to inefficient paths. One policy (whether you support it or not) is not going to break us out of that path and really, it's a moot discussion if we don't also address the root inefficiencies in the energy market and in the political system.
-
nope
George Frost is wrong about Obama being wrong about the gas tax. Sucker.
-
Hillary, you're a gas!
You gotta give it to Hillary and her bag of cheap tricks, if she repeats one stunt long enough, sometimes something she says just sort of stands out and sticks.
-
In my area, no sympathy from me!
Everyone knows that driving at 55 mph instead of 75 saves at least 10% in gas. They also know that driving accelerator/brake wastes gasoline (and wears the brakes). In my area, Tampa Bay, few care. They may gripe about gasoline prices, but their driving habits don't show any real concern.
Safety? Not even that influences our drivers. In fact, the half-empty gas tanks are a life-saver for many who collide and set their vehicles ablaze.
I would not mind paying $5.00 a gallon to get more people off the roads and to slow them down a bit.
Sorry, no sympathy for reckless drivers - as so many are!
-
Your update is
Nothing more than a lame excuse for a one-sided attack piece.
Shame on you, shame on Joan, Salon is going down the toilet faster than greased shit.
-
Sell your vote for $30
http://www.reason.com/news/show/126347.html
-
Instead Of Playing With Taxes, How About Providing JOBS?
If lower and middle class families need financial help to offset the cost of higher gas, do it through the income tax system.
Lower and middle class families only need financial help because Hillary and her Horny Husband thought it would be a good idea to ship millions of manufacturing jobs to overseas sweatshops, as part of their "No Despot Left Behind" program in the 1990s.
Well, it was good for the millionaire elites on Wall Street, anyhow.
Instead of offering a pitiful $30 tax cut to folks who drive a car (most or all of which will end up in the claws of the oil companies) and plunging the government further into debt, why doesn't Hillary triangulate in on a plan to restore our manufacturing base?
One would almost think she doesn't really give a crap about lower and middle class families, and is just co-opting McInsane's gas tax holiday idea in an attempt to pander her way into the White House.
-
Clinton's plan??? I't McCain's!
Good points. Too bad the author had to be disingenuous and portray it as Sen. Clinton's plan when it was really Sen. McCain's.
-
Obama is right about the gas tax
Looks like voters in North Carolina did not fall for the okie-doke. Clinton was attempting to play a card shark game with voters and what we have found out today is that her hands are not fast enough.
Look - here is what the author overlooks. Clinton talks about a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and just what they are pulling in at ~$120 a barrel; what she fails to consider in her tax plan are the refiners - that step in between the oil companies and the wholesale/retail market for gasoline. Refiners are not doing so well, as their costs for oil are rising as fast as they can raise the price on the back-end for their product.
Unless you throw in an 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax holiday.
In one move, you have created a profit window for the refiners - Valero and Tesoro are prime examples - to improve their margins. By law, corporations are tasked with increasing value for their shareholders. They have a fiduciary responsibility to take as much of those 18.4 cents per gallon as they can.
And what about the integrated oil companies - ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips? If they had trouble meeting their quarterly estimates because their refining operations were getting squeezed - and they did - then what is to stop them from improving the profits at those operations?
-
60% return is not enough
Cutting the gas tax is discredited by the fact that only 60% is returned to the consumers. Another regressive tax could be cut that would return 100%. That way we would get a 100% rebate of the gas tax, and we would still have the high price as an incentive to conserve, which will eventually reduce the price.
-
Lipstick on a Pig
Why did the image of lipstick on a pig occur to me when reading Mr. Frost's article?
-
@ jeffersonian/tom payne
Sorry, I'm not "on the market." But please be advised, starting in "6 to 8 weeks," it will be "Dr. Beaver" to you.
-
@Uncle Fester
So maybe you are right, and there is enough 'buzz' in this plan to alter people's behavior. But it seems a little too lean to me. If Hillary could find a way to claim that she could cut gas to $2.00/gallon, she'd be golden. That would be some buzz.
I agree with you about taxes. If I get a refund, that means I screwed up and paid too much. My girlfriend feels the opposite, which never ceases to amaze me. Her balance sheet looks better than mine, so go figure.
P.S. We might soon know what people in IN think of the gas tax. Nothing like a little empirical evidence!
My only point in this discussion has been that most of the arguments I've heard against this gas tax are not the good ones, that there are better arguments. I don't really care either way, like I said (I have no car, and no 401K), but I don't want to follow the party line on why it's good or bad. As long as you agree with me that there is a possibility of non-monetary psychological benefits, I think we more or less agree on the basics.