so it's pandering at a minimum. Who doesn't know this?

that article says that the Il gas tax, was cut y 5%

prices dropped 3% and when it was done they rose 4% so is everyone here ok cutting 18 cents to save 14 cents knowing that at the end of the summer the price raises by 18 cents?

I mean I guess no one needs to drive again AFTER this summer.

also we are now down to 20 days, exactly when is she going to go write that windfall tax bill and at least "try" to get it through congress?

The courage to pander for votes!  Such a stellar show of backbone!

Considering she has done nothing to actually promote these pieces of legislation and has little time to do so (not to mention the impossibility of any such thing passing) before the point becomes moot is not courage, its the exact opposite, its cowardice.

She cant win a straight up fight now (actually I think she could have if she fought right from the beginning instead of lazily assuming it was hers and dint have to try) so shes going to promise everyone puppy dogs, ponies and ice cream.

When basically everyone - left, right and center - calls this gimmick for what it is except the chronically reality based Clinton supporters (God forbid we trust the elitist economists!!!!) is really telling.

I have no problem with the pander per se, but the pimping of it here as something other than it as (and the gall to call it courage?) is amazing.  No self respecting democrat should be able to stomach this garbage - its sad.

True courage is opposing a blatant, but easy to sell, pander.

This is becoming bizarro world.

I didn't know that gas prices in Illinois are still around $2/gallon, instead of over $4 like the rest of the country.

I guess gas tax holidays do work!  

I kind of get the vague feeling that Jerome isn't an Obama fan.

HRC's plan may be symbolic/unrealistic/quixotic, but it SHOWS emphathy with working people. And it definitely strikes a chord - big time.

is not with the WF profits tax, but with the gas tax "holiday."  Any WF profits tax needs to be used to develop alternative energy.  Not to subsidize the price of gas.

Subsidizing the price of gas is not progressive.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the oil companies only raked off 40% of the tax rebate in Illinois (what your figures show), there is no certainty that the rake-off wouldn't be 100% giving our current point on the supply curve.  Indeed, the customer will probably take the full incidence of the tax.  If you don't get this, check out Atrios today.  

At an earlier point on the supply curve, where the demand for oil could increase the quantity produced, a decrease in the tax would probably result in a decrease in prices.  At this point, however, there is no excess capacity, and the increase in demand simply raises prices.  Under these circumstances, there is no reason for prices to fall with a decrease in the tax, and that decrease will quite certainly go to the oil companies.  

The greatest pander of all is the silly, meaningless claim of "hope and change".

Oil is a very finite resource- the supply/demand equation is one-sided.  A real energy policy would propose raising gasoline taxes (a la John Anderson when he proposed a $1.00 tax a gallon back in 1980.) Certainly, cutting gas taxes is the wrong way to go. AND BTW, there are obviously other ways to help families in need besides throwing less than a quarter at them everyday (18 mpg in 18-mile round trip commute=18 cents)- it almost feels like a tin cup.  

I've not see one Obama supporter denounce or ridicule Obama for the $1000 tax rebate he's been promoting in ads over the past couple of days (in response to Hillary's gas tax holiday proposal). By his own definition, his rebate is a gimmick.

No.  No gimmick, and no reason to denounce.  Again, see Atrios for the explanation.  If the gas tax "holiday" is designed to give drivers (high estimate) $30-40, then why not just give people the damned money?  That's the only sure way they'll ever see it (since otherwise the oil companies will eat it up with price increases).  The tax holiday really can't assure they'll ever see a cent.  Obama is right, that if we want to help out people with gas prices, the efficent, and only certain way to do it, is to give them the money.      

You guys are ok with a big lie because it helps your candidate.  That is sad.

Well, it turns out it didn't fail in Illinois

If he said it failed and it didnt, the Clinton camp should have made more of an issue out of it.

The article you cited to calls the Illinois experiment a "success" because 60% of the gas tax holiday ended up going to consumers.  The author also said that $30/month would make this idea a success.  For those of us that think both of those metrics are ridiculous, this article does little to change our minds.  Nor, I would add, does your one Salon article counter the near unanimous opinion of economists that this is a terrible idea.  

And, for the record, I think the idea of a second stimuls package -- irrespective of who proposes it --is ridiculous too.  If Congress can actually target help to those who actually need it, rather than shouting "free money" from the roof tops, lets talk.  But more rebate checks for damn near everyone is stupid and not progressive in any way shape or form.    

Prediction:  If somehow Hillary gets elected we will never hear of this crazy idea again.  

She is totally pandering here.

And can we drop this "Obama voted for it, too" crap.  He voted for it.  It didn't work, so he doesn't want to make the same mistake twice.  Why is this so hard to understand?

Can you at least admit that we're being pandered to by Clinton?  I took three tax law classes in the last two semesters of law school, and the windfall profits tax is not going to help matters any.  

When they tried the windfall profits tax back in the 1980's, it was supposed to bring in some $390+ billion in revenue.  However, it only brought in an additional $80 billion in revenues.  Further, it lowered domestic oil production, as it became unprofitable for domestic oil drillers to continue drilling in the face of lowered revenue streams.  

The WPT hurt the US, as it made us MORE dependent on foreign oil.  And that is what it will do yet again.  

At least Obama is telling us the truth with respect to what the gas tax is all about - a gimmick designed to get her through an election.  It's more of the same Washington promises we've had made to us for decades.  

It saddens me to see folks so easily duped by politicians they support.  Where's the cynicism?    

as opposed to the "slime your opponent" mode of discourse?

The "gas tax holiday" is really a liberal idea?

Maybe next you'll write about how Clinton's "gun pander" is really a progressive play, too.

Or how her "obliterate Iran" rhetoric is a subtle leftward move intended to steal foreign policy wind from Bush and McCain's sails.

Show us the written legislation.  When it is on paper and actually making the rounds on Capitol Hill then it could become more than a gimmick.  Real chance of that happening, none.  

on many fronts, we need to start reigning in oil company profits and price gouging.  If properly implemented as discussed here, this is one start.

I think Obama's vote for the Cheney energy bill puts him at considerable disadvantage in having any credibility with energy prices and help for the average american citizen.  

What was he thinking?  That he would curry favor with repugs?

I read the same article in Salon it was quite an  eye opener. Unlike the "experts" and Obama supporters, I see the gas tax issue counter intuitively as a brilliant move for Clinton, it frames Obama beautifully. Let me count the ways:

1). Obama has been turned into Dr. No. The ultimate pessimist. We all know this type of person at work who only exists to tell you why you CAN'T do something. Obama is Mr. It-Can't-Be-Done. Are we voting for a passive explainer-in-chief or an active commander-in-chief?

2). Clinton's gas tax argument feeds into the growing perception that  Obama is weak, he won't fight for me when push comes to shove. And he will cave the moment the men in suits from the oil company come knocking at the White House.

3). To riff off of Fity Cents' "Get Rich Or Die Trying," this gas tax issue for Hillary is "Get Help Or Die Trying."  At least she is TRYING. Beats just shrugging your shoulders and saying no. Who do you want operating on you in the ER, an Obama-like surgeon who whips off his gloves and throws in the towel, or  a Hillary-like surgeon who keeps trying, keeps pushing, even when every other "expert" has given up?

4). I've never met anyone who would turn away the promise of more money in their pockets. Why would anyone vote against the gas tax especially if we know Oil companies are not exactly foregoing their own share. Even if I did not believe the gas  tax could be done, I would certainly vote for Hillary to send a message. Why would I vote for a "No Can Do" Obama? What message does surrender send?

5). The MSM is Obama's greatest enemy, the six figure desk jockey's sit in their studios and mock the gas tax and the paltry $30 and by extension the voters, unfortunately Obama is allied with these messengers of hopelessness, he has become the MSM. Passive, self-satisfied, comfortably smug. So much for change.

Anyone who thinks this is solely about gas taxes is short sighted, this is equally about perceptions of our candidates. Who will take the risk? Who will stand up for me? Who will listen to my issues? Surely Mr. ObamaNo  has failed the test woefully.

I give up Hillary supporters you win

its Pointless debating you people ... I mean Hillary is right even when she is wrong  and Hillary tells the truth even when she lies

But Obama tells you people the truth and he is called a loser because he is honest with people and speaks to them like adults !????

I give up .... you cannot have a reasonable debate with these people  they know she is taking advantage of the working class and they applaud her because its a good political move ?

I mean she is taking advantage of your fellow democrats and you cheer her on?? and you still trash Obama when he is actually looking out for your interest....... see ya

There was a time when Dems when the Repubs were pushing this kind of shit, would see it for what it really was, and be unified in calling it irresponsible.

McCain must be laughing his ass off watching us argue over the merits of this joke of a proposal. Unbelievable.

again, if you want to help working class families, give them ALL a tax break of $30. This would include real help to those who walk, bike or take mass transit to work (the people who really should get the incentives for not polluting as much).

Clinton's tax holiday is the sort of myopic thinking that's at odds with how liberals frame issues.

So what is it? Save the environment by creating incentives for NOT driving or pander to the voters through incentives that allow more fossil fuels to be burned?

Should we reallocate how these tax dollars are spent to improve/expand mass transit or pander to voters so that they may continue their unhealthy appetite for fuel consumption?

It's these kinds of arguments that really prove to me just how conservative the U.S. is.

Mention that Clinton opposed a gas tax cut when she ran for Senate in New York?  Yet we always hear that Obama supported it in Illinois.

"[W]hat gets lost in the whole 'protect your candidate' mode of discourse" is honesty.  And good policy.

Really, Obama has been excoriated by Clinton supporters for attacking her health plan - and defended by his own because his plan is "good politics" by comparison.

Now, Clinton's supporters are promoting a bad policy because it's good politics.  And attacking Obama because he dares to say so.

Fucking tedious is what this primary is.

That said, I do appreciate this brief policy-centric respite from the spin-centric Wright bullshit that JA had been reporting.  Kudos for that.

If you cut the cost without increasing the supply, the result is gas lines. I am all for progressive taxation however controlling prices is not the way to do it.  Jerome, you are old enough to have waited in lines during the mid and late 70s - we Don't want to go there again.

Enough already with the fantasizing about a windfall profits tax.

The bottom line is: Hillary has had close to 8 years in the senate - you know, her extensively touted "experience" - and high gas prices aren't a recent phenomenon.

W H E R E   H A S   H I L L A R Y   B E E N?

Why haven't these brilliant ideas surfaced over the past 4 years of ridiculously high gas prices and absurd profits for oil companies?

Why does this proposal materialise on the eve of a decisive primary?

I'll tell you why. Because she knows DAMNED well that the oilmen in the WH and their cohorts in congress will veto any such tax. They've made that clear.

This is an EMPTY PROMISE - and she knows it.

This is sick!

All this time and energy about oil companies and WFP-what a joke.  Hillary and McCain are so dishonest about the facts.  Obama at least confirmed he did vote in Illinois for the gas tax relief and it was a bad idea in the long run.

Both Hillary and McC know that this is true but it makes for good soundbites on FOX.

I would rather hear them talk about the last father that was killed in our occupation after 7, yes 7 trips to the area.
What this country has done to get "our" oil that happened to be under Iraq!  
So Pitiful!

Now that the facts are out, why does Obama get away with blatantly lying (emphasis added):

Now, running for president, Obama says the tax reduction was a complete failure, and that "the oil companies, the retailers" ended up benefiting most because they raised prices by the entire amount of the tax cut.

"I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all," Obama said. . . .

Okay, Mr. Obama or your representatives, you say you "took a look." Show us any evidence of that. The only scientific study shows 60% of the tax holiday savings went to consumers. Show us your study that shows "consumers had not benefited at all." Show us your 'look' that showed the gas stations "raised prices by the entire amount of the tax cut." Did anybody really "take a look"??

Since Obama- for whatever bizarre reasons, casts himself as an insurgent (how many terms was this fella a state senator in Illinois? They are taking the day off work to campaign for him, by the way- now, that's "change taxpayers can believe in!", huh)- casts himself as an insurgent & actually gets away with it, he tends to just stand outside throwing rocks at Washington. Which I can & have done myself. We all do it.

Clinton understands that we can't allow Republicans to own the meme of tax and spend Democrats & remain indifferent to the plight of people in terms of inflation & more expensive energy, fuel & other costs, like groceries.

I ate at the Glider Diner in Scranton, PA a few days after Barack barked at reporters wanting to discuss fp, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" & though the table was clean, the tip was left there- about 17 dimes, maybe 10 nickles, no quarters, no pennies. Although 18 cents sounds ridiculous by itself, the US uses an astronomical amount of gas daily & these savings add up- especially for people like cough cough Barack Obama who personally drive giant 8 cyinder SUVs yet like to posture & rant at Detroit.

Clinton's also offering us a solid energy plan & great green jobs plan I'd dearly love to see implemented. Her gas tax holiday plan also implements paygo & unfortunately, Colbert didn't get that detail in his broadcast last night. This small distinction is in fact a huge philosophical difference between the kind of governance proposed (and demonstrated, by her husband) by the Clintons & the question marks- does he even understand the core issue?- brought to the table by Obama.

Time for the curtain to come down on the amateur hour.

and the if the gas tax holiday actually came to pass as McSame and Clinton propose and I actually saved $0.18 per gallon for three months, I'd end up saving $5 a month in gas. Why, I could buy a latte every month for that windfall! Would that make me one of the latte-swilling elites I hear so much about these days?

Jerome, you've lost it.  You're not much different than linfar or alegre lately.

This bill has ZERO chance of passing both the Senate and Bush's desk.

Given this environment, Clinton harping on about this is absolutely pandering.  Additionally, she's taken the right-wing frames on this and forced them on Democrats again.  I seem to remember you criticizing Obama for doing exactly this in the past.  Way to show some consistency!

Additionally, who is supposed to audit the books of the oil companies here as you described?  I believe its the FTC.

Do you really trust that the Bush-appointed commissioners who lead that agency will enforce this one?

If you're encouraging a Democratic candidate to rely on the oversight of Bush appointees right now, you're out of your mind.

More than 200 economists, including four Nobel prize winners, signed a letter rejecting proposals by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain to offer a summertime gas-tax holiday.

Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin and 2007 Nobel winner Roger Myerson are among those who signed the letter calling proposals to temporarily lift the tax a bad idea. Another is Richard Schmalensee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was member of President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=aTzCmqCNyLho&refer=h ome

Those damn elitists....

Jerome,

You are forgetting the basic economics for the consumer. First, a change in a single states tax isn't going to have the same effect on oil markets as a national tax change, especially coming from the USA. Oil prices aren't going to "fill the gap" because one state drops a tax. They will, however, fill the gap when the whole country goes down that route. Even if Clinton recovers revenue and "takes it" to the oil companies for windfalls, that doesn't help the consumer at the pump. It may save our highway funds but not our pocket books. But guess what, if we don't take the tax away, we STILL save our highway funds but we keep the price at the pump from erasing the savings. Why would be go around our back to scratch our nose? Are you as a consumer of gas willing to finance this attack on oil companies? Go after windfalls but don't make it tied to the idea of a tax cut.

I wouldn't put my eggs in this basket.  It is one study with no peer review based on cutting a percentage tax as opposed to a flat tax and comparing the difference in price with neighboring states.  There are no other studies to back it up and you could only use it comparatively if drivers in the U.S. regularly went to Canada or Mexico to seek lower gas prices.  This does not consist of "proof" that the gas tax holiday might work.

Secondly, name one industry where we have a beauracracy to ensure that tax liability is not passed on to the consumer.  You're bringing up an issue that would be fought tooth and nail in court.

How much more bullshit can you spout, Jerome?

What Obama did in 2000 in Illinois is now being used as rationalization to help Hillary when she is dead wrong?

In 2000, there was NO huge demand from the rising middle class in India and China. Because of that, today high prices have NOT lowered worldwide demand. It might lower some demand in the US, but what makes it go up is the rapidly increasing demand in the developing nations. Now their governments are subsidizing their consumption, and this will not be sustainable reason. But George Frost is an idiot since he does not take this into account.

In the past every time the price has risen, the supply has risen with a small phase lag. But right now for 4 reasons that will not happen:

1. OPEC, which is supplying 40% of the oil today, is not relinquishing making higher profits on increasing oil prices. They are not at max producing capacity, and could increase, but will not.
   
2. Non-OPEC countries such as Brazil, Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, are almost at capacity. Russia has said it simply has no extra capacity. Brazil land Mexico are at their limit also. New finds will take at least 5-7 years to start producing.
   
3. Right now, as per Schlumberger's presentation recently at Caltech, the gap between supply and demand is at a historic low. Any political turbulence that could throw out one of the smaller players could irreparably damage the supply-demand curve.
   
4. Iraq and Iran are both producing well below their capacity, for reasons we all know.

George Frost's whole argument is so idiotic! And you had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find support.

Hillary's gas tax holiday is as bad an idea is was Arnold Schwarzenegger's idea to keep California vehicle license fees low. He won the election, we got something like $100 rebate on VLF, and now each UC and CSU student is paying $5,000 more in course credits per year.

When Hillary says she is not going to believe economists, I am at the point where I am considering staying home if she somehow wins the Democratic nomination. I had urged all my Dem friends that to avoid McCain/Bush for another 4 years, we need to vote for Hillary even though we support Obama now. But when she spouts anti-intellectual crap like this, for me there is little distance between her and McCain!

This proposal is more than a little asinine.  Impose a supplier tax and then through some unknown mechanism (auditing their books, hah -- do you realize how understaffed the SEC/DOD/Commerce are in auditors?) keep the oil companies from passing along the cost to consumers.  What a load of crap -- let's watch the evolution of this policy:

1) Latch on, remora-like, to John McCain's "Gas Tax Holiday".
OOPS -- we're defunding the Highway Trust Fund!  

2) Tack on a windfall profits tax for the oil industry.
OOPS -- windfall tax is a supplier tax, just like the gas tax, and will be passed on to the consumer, just like the gas tax.

3) Superglue on a mysterious audit to ensure that oil companies don't pass along the tax to consumers.  
OOPS -- the oil companies know their business better than your auditors, and enforcement is very very difficult, if not impossible. Oh, and it's politically impossible.

This trial-and-mostly-error economic policy is not a sign of clear-headed wonkery (which Sen. Clinton and her DLC buddies are known for). If you're going to pander by offsetting fuel prices (and encouraging usage....), then at least come up with a clean, enforceable policy.  Two alternatives spring to mind, although I'm sure there are more:

1) Establish energy price controls, perhaps seasonally.  
2) Create a income-capped fuel and energy tax credit.  

Oh, and Clinton's statement last night that "OPEC can no longer be a cartel" -- what is this, the magical realism school of politics?  The crusade against OPEC she promised is sure going to help the consumer...

OK, so now we're choosing our candidate based on policy, not electability?

Hillary authorized the war. Easy choice.

Well on friday before I deposited my pay check I had $.47 in my account.

And yes 30.00 would help a little, very very little.

30 bucks is nothing In the larger picture. Obama can see that. So can hill but its getting her votes (votes > big picture)

Thanks for the 2 large pizzas Hillary. Thats all I see getting out of this sham.  

You're becoming like the snake that is consuming itself. You can't find legitimate analysis that confirms your point so you find some other blogger that makes the same ridiculous point.

You cite a George Frost post from Salon? Why don't you just cite to one of your own earlier posts that says what you want it to say? Frost is getting rightly blasted in the comments on that site too.

please, this is sad. the gas tax is a joke and anyone who knows anything about economics has backed that up. i know you've got g.frost on your side......but is this really "moving the debate to a more progressive landscape"???? hardly. it sounds like a stitched-up republican gimmick of political expedience, and that's exactly what it is. if she really wanted to go after the oil companies and/or really help ease the economic burdens of those people for whom $30 would mean a lot, this is not the way to do it.