Oil companies as a target

I've said all along that, politically, Obama was on the wrong side of the tracks in opposing Clinton's move to accept the gas tax in conjunction with a windfall profits from Oil companies. Obama, having voted 3 times for a similar gas tax holiday in Illinois (without hammering the Oil companies), said it failed. Well, it turns out it didn't fail in Illinois, as George Frost writes on Salon, Obama is wrong about the gas tax, but that's just another 'gotcha' moment that no one would be surprised by-- Obama himself has been rolling out 'gimmicks' like proposing a 'second tax rebate' himself this week.

Unfortunately, what gets lost in the whole 'protect your candidate' mode of discourse is that Clinton move, in her linkage of the gas tax to oil profits, significantly moves the debate to a more progressive landscape, by being able to link a popular stance that Republicans traditional club Democrats on, with way more accountability of the Oil companies:

...under Clinton's plan, if properly implemented, any additional profit realized by an oil company by passing on the cost of the windfall profits tax to customers would also be subject to the tax. This means a dollar passed through to consumers to offset the tax would appear as profit ... and be taxed.

How to enforce this? Make it against the law for oil companies to pass the price of the windfall profits tax on to consumers, and then audit the oil companies' books. It is not a difficult accounting exercise to tax excess profits above a certain gross percentage per barrel of oil, or gallon of gas. Every major oil company has sophisticated profit segmentation reports that go to the very senior management of the company. These reports identify revenues, costs and profit at each level of the vertically integrated operation, broken down on a per barrel basis by product type, marketing region, you name it.


The oil companies also will have a powerful inducement to avoid being caught -- and in this kind of toxic political environment, they may actually swallow the tax.


But it takes a little bit of courage to take them on, and a belief that we do not always have to be victims. Obama -- where is your optimism?



Display:


Bush would veto the WPT (2.00 / 3)

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


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST

Here's what pandering looks like (1.00 / 1)

Wall St Journal, May 5, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

===

Obama uses rightwing talking points to attack Dems and Dem core values - and now we learn about his backroom deal on deregulating unions!!!
btw- Hoffa's body has never been found.


When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM?
by JoseyJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's what pandering looks like (2.00 / 3)

Which right wing talking points would those be?  Attacking a candidates patriotism?  Implying that they are a Muslim?  Threatening Iran verbally?  Calling John McCain more qualified for the White House? Using images of terrorists and terror attacks in commercials?  Pushing national security as the key issue in the election?  

Ohhhh wait... that wasn't Obama.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't he say the same thing in 2004? nt (none / 0)

 


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

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?


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM EST

it rose 4% (none / 0)

because the global prices rose.

And the global prices rose throughout the summer as well.


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it rose 4% (none / 0)

Illinois lost millions in revenue. Bush will veto any WPT bill. EOS.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Courage! (2.00 / 6)

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.


by pattonbt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:56:41 AM EST

Re: What Courage! (2.00 / 2)

You don't seem to get - Hillary is taking on the oil companies!
Regardless of the outcome of the vote, or if Reid even allows it on the Senate floor - this is a wake up call to the oil companies that Hillary will stand up to them now and as president.
And she'll fight to strip them of their tax incentives Obama gave them when he voted for Bush's energy bill.

When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM?
by JoseyJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh boy! (2.00 / 5)

The junkie doesn't get to strongarm his dealer, sorry.

I'm sure OPEC is just shaking in their boots.  Until we have viable alternate fuel, we have no bargaining chips here.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Im Sure (2.00 / 1)

The oil companies are shaking in their boots now!


by pattonbt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Courage! (none / 0)

compare exxon's profits for 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 with, well, EVERY other company in the US.

they are raking in billions, and there is no end in sight.

do you really think hillary and mccain's gas-tax stunt amounts to "taking on the oil companies"????

please.

i'm sure they are just shaking in their boots. this isn't even like a gnat flying around their heads; it's even less noticeable


by j cantarella on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (1.75 / 4)

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.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST

The difference (2.00 / 2)

That money doesn't come out of our infrastructure budget, and Obama's been talking about a middle-class tax cut for the whole campaign.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The difference (2.00 / 3)

The money for Clinton's idea doesn't come out of the infrastructure money either! Look, fair is fair. If Obama is going to have the audacity to call Clinton's idea a gimmick, he should at least do the same for his own gimmick.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's that or nothing (2.00 / 2)

We both know that Bush will never sign a tax on the gas companies into law.  It's the infrastructure budget or nothing.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's that or nothing (2.00 / 3)

Ok, so the other argument is that Clinton shouldn't propose any ideas until after Bush is gone because he won't sign them into law? I guess Obama should have kept his mouth shut about his little $1,000 tax rebate. This is the same rebate he leads people to believe is going to happen before Bush leaves office.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It could (2.00 / 2)

They approved one stimulus package, I don't see why they couldn't do a second.  I'm not a big fan of "I'm sorry we screwed up the economy" checks from the government, but they're feasable and more honest than this gas tax stuff, which supposes that Clinton can take on the oil lobbyists, OPEC price gouging, local gas station gouging, commodities trading law, an unreceptive congress, AND a president who will never sign it.

We have proof that a stimulus package will pass.  I guarantee you that Clinton's plan will never, ever pass muster before summer hits.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Like she's even going to try. (2.00 / 3)

And that's what makes it the worst kind of pandering.


by bookish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Like you have a crystal ball! (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is sponsoring a senate bill.
Let's see if Reid even allows it on the senate floor.
If so, let's see how Obama votes.

When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM?
by JoseyJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It will be met with derision (2.00 / 1)

She hasn't made her case to her colleagues.  The very fact that she's making an issue of this is giving Republicans talking points for the fall... "Senator X voted against his own party's plan to lower your gas prices..."

Clinton seems to care nothing for the future of the pary.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where is it? (none / 0)

And when is she going to the floor to fight for it?


by bookish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 2)

And $1000 direct to consumer would be meaningful, while $30 that you might or might not see is a gimmick.  This really isn't that hard to figure out.


by map on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (1.66 / 3)

A gimmick is a gimmick according to Obama.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

He's been talking about middle class tax cuts forever.

Not a gimmick.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

In his latest negative ads, in response to Clinton's idea to target oil companies, he leads people to believe that this is a new $1,000 gimmick to help pay for rising fuel and food costs.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the difference? (none / 0)

The vehicle might be slightly different (a rebate rather than a tax cut), but the end result is the same.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, a gimmick is a gimmick.  But not all tax rebates are gimmicks.  Logic 101.


by map on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:25:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

So, there's nothing at all gimmicky about Obama bringing up the $1,000 tax rebate idea in an ads denouncing Clinton's so-called gimmick?
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

No.

He's tying his solution (a meaningful 1000 tax rebate) to a real life problem, while pointing out that Hillary's solution ($30 you might or might not see) is a gimmick because it would do nothing to help.


by map on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

$1000 != $30
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~Dr. King
by proseandpromise on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The difference is... (2.00 / 3)

with Obama's plan, you don't have to buy gasoline to benefit.  Clinton's plan (assuming it would work) encourages people to buy gasoline.  That should not be a progressive goal.

A $1000 tax rebate, whatever its other merits or demerits, does not do that.


by you like it on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The difference is... (1.75 / 4)

If Clinton had proposed a $2,000 rebate, you guys would have called it a gimmick. Can't you see the hypocrisy of your stance?
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The difference is... (2.00 / 1)

What are tomorrow's lottery numbers, o seer of the future?  


by SKI on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you read my post? (none / 0)

No, you didn't.  You did not respond to the fact that I have a problem with encouraging spending on gasoline.  You are putting words in my mouth.  How dare you call me a hypocrite?

Let me ask you something.  Why do you support hurting the environment by encouraging consumption of gasoline?


by you like it on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read my post? (2.00 / 2)

How date I call you a hypocrite (by the way, I didn't)? How dare you accuse me of wanting to hurt the environment?
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So your argument (2.00 / 2)

is that calling someone idiotic isn't the same as calling them an idiot? Fine. You're idiotic.


by bookish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read my post? (none / 0)

Can't you see the hypocrisy of your stance?

How am I supposed to interpret this question other than an attack on me for "being a hypocrite?"

How dare you accuse me of wanting to hurt the environment?

Do you want to encourage gasoline consumption or not?
If you do, then regardless of whether or not you actually want to hurt the environment, the policy you support does indeed do that.


by you like it on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read my post? (2.00 / 1)

We were talking about Obama's $1,000 rebate idea being used in an ad denouncing Clinton's so-called gas tax holiday gimmick. You don't see anything gimmicky about his idea in that context? If you don't, I see that as hypocritical. You presume that shaving $.18 off a gallon of fuel is going to have a significant impact on consumption. I don't believe it will. The bigger point of Clinton's idea is to put oil companies in the cross hairs, but it would also help people who commute 30-50 miles a day and truckers who transport our food.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Truthfully, (2.00 / 3)

I'm not interested in discussing whether either plan is a gimmick.  I'm interested in which one is good policy.

I'm not in love with the idea of a rebate at a time when deficits are at an all time high and we have so many problems to solve.  However, I'm even less in love with the fact that Clinton's plan, were it to succeed in lowering prices, is essentially offering a rebate based not on annual income, but on gasoline consumption.  People driving big SUV's and Trucks get a larger tax break than people driving hybrids.

Yeah, that sure sounds like great policy.


by you like it on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The difference is... (2.00 / 2)

I'm glad that you can make hypothetical statements with 100% certainty now.  Clinton's plan is a gimmick because there isn't a single economist who thinks its a good plan.  And even if it works exactly as advertised (which it won't) it only means around $30.  The only way to save more would be to buy MORE gasoline, which is not what we need to be doing.  

Obama proposed a tax cut for those who need it most.   How can that even be considered in the same ballpark?  This website has broken down into absurdity.  Reality has no bearing on the discussions that take place here.  

Hillary Clinton could execute a live infant and drink its blood, and you would see Jerome and Alegre shooting out diaries to justify it.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The difference is... (none / 0)

And yes I realize I made a hypothetical statement there at the end.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm an Obama supporter, (2.00 / 1)

... and while I haven't "denounced or ridiculed" his $1000 rebate idea, I have questioned its impact on the deficit.  Frankly, I wish that when he was asked to pledge not to raise taxes on the "middle class", he would have refused and said something like, "I will absolutely try my hardest not to.  But I'm worried about the national debt.  First we'll eliminate George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and we'll cut spending where we can -- especially by getting out of Iraq.  But if we still can't balance the budget, I'd rather ask today's taxpayers to pay for today's spending, rather than keep borrowing from our children."  Alas, that may a bit much to ask of any politician these days.

peace,
lilnev


by lilnev on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm an Obama supporter, (none / 0)

Finally, a voice of reason in the wilderness. I think Obama may  have been trying to avoid Mondale 1984 statement "My opponent tells you that he won't raise taxes, I just told you I will."
Democrats consistently get trapped into explicitly explaining how they are going to pay for new incentives and social programs. Republicans NEVER get trapped into explaining which programs they are going to cut to lower taxes.
Your hyptothecial answer is the best solution of course, and quite frankly sounds like something the Obama would say. But personally,  I am not a fan of Hillary's $30 at the pump OR Obama's $1000 in your pocket. These are rip-off's of that Republican trickle down nonsense.
THe classic Democrat approach to these prices is to either subsidize the gas directly, so EVERYBODY will see savings as the pump (and eventually at the grocery counter) or go directly after the oil companies and make them lower their prices, under threat of raising their taxes.
Republicans see this as socialist, but frankly I don't think they will care.

Good post!


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, great (2.00 / 1)

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!  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 2)

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


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST

This just in: (2.00 / 1)

The Pope is Catholic.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This just in: (none / 0)

BREAKING:  Bear shits in woods!


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Hahahaha. Quite.


Vote McCain: "Because America Needs a President Who Yes Chocolate Ice Cream Would Be Great Now Who Let You In, Nurse! Help!"
by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

Due to Jerome's objectivity it appears he tasted the Koolaid, but isn't swimming in it.
For example, here's an entertaining Obama Koolaid swimmer - equating Wright with Lewinsky.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/2/8 4957/29225/854/507648


When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM?
by JoseyJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell me. (none / 0)

What relevance does one diary, by one diarist, from a different website, whose diary received 7 comments, have anything to do with this discussion here?


by you like it on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell me. (none / 0)

Absolutely zero.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:44:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Which Wright? (1.50 / 2)

Is that the same Rev. Wright that the Clinton's invited into the Whitehouse for marriage couselling after the Lewinsky affair? Or was that a different Reverend Jeremiah Wright from Chicago?


by BlueGenes on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perception is reality (2.00 / 2)

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


by observer5 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:38 AM EST

Re: Perception is reality (2.00 / 2)

it SHOWS pandering to win an election, which is fine because that is what she is trying to do, but don't pretend it shows empathy


by aaaa05 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perception is reality (2.00 / 1)

Hillary proves she's a fighter!
It's a very unusual move for a sitting senator presidential candidate, but these are unusual times with gas prices.
Look for more negative media coverage for Hillary.
NO ONE messes with the oil companies!
And Obama voted with Republicans for Bush's energy bill.
When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM?
by JoseyJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perception is reality (2.00 / 1)

Right....Oil Companies hate it when people buy more gas and keep buying gas guzzling cars. That's what Hillary's policy encourages...if she does not realize that then she is not smart enough to be President.


by JoeCoaster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perception is reality (none / 0)

It also shows a willingness to pander to people's wish to go for a gax tax cut whenever there is a gas price increase.

Why is it that we can't people on board for a slight income tax cut? Isnt that more relief for consumers while maintaining pressure on the individual to cut down on gas consumption?

BTW, from the salon article's own reference, the guy says that there could be only 5 cents savings out of 18 cents. But what we have done is feed the monster that gas tax cuts are to be expected everytime gas prices are high.


by Pravin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perception is reality (2.00 / 1)

Do we have any evidence of this? And why would pushing a proposal discouraged by EVERY ECONOMIST AROUND be "good politics." It sounds more like "Bush politics" which, when it involves the environment and global warming, we're disgusted. But when Hillary's involved, somehow, it's courage.

The Reality-based community will miss you all. Tell Paul Wolfowitz and company we said "Hi."


Vote McCain: "Because America Needs a President Who Yes Chocolate Ice Cream Would Be Great Now Who Let You In, Nurse! Help!"
by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perception is reality (none / 0)

Stirkes a chord?  Unfortunately it sounds like a circa 1983 Def Leppard cover of Django Reinhardt's Nuages.

In other words:  very bad.  


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep (2.00 / 1)

neo-liberal, market forces or embedded economics- I choose the later. So should every other progressive, its what brought us things like 'social security' and FDIC and all sorts of other new deals.
by linc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:49 AM EST

Re: Yep (2.00 / 1)

You're comparing an untargeted, accross the board elimination of the gas tax with SS?  That's hysterical.  


by HSTruman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't know of what you write (none / 0)

Clinton specifically supports a measure that would replace the gas tax cut with a windfall profits tax for the oil industry. If you need to know, windfall profit taxes, conceptually, tax the windfall portion of a corporation's profits- at a higher rate than their regular profit/income taxation.

despite what you know or what you want to believe, this is a huge shift and a big change in policy in the United States- it is very gutsy of any political candidate to do in an oil economy.
by linc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't know of what you write (none / 0)

Obama has proposed a windfall tax as well.  In recent Congress's, the ideas has failed to garner even 40 votes.  So, puting aside the wisdom of such a plan, and I'm far from convinced it's a good idea on its meritsthat wasn't my point.  Rather, my point addresses what the funds from such a windfall tax should be used for.  

To that end, your comparison of a gas tax holiday to the benefits created by social security is ridiculous on its face.  I mean, the idea that a flat tax cut on gas is what we whould used increase revenues for is simply staggering to me.  A targeted, middle class tax cut?  Sure, I could maybe get on board.  But giving everyone on average 30/month for the summer, whether they need it or not?  That's just stupid.  


by HSTruman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem I have... (2.00 / 1)

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.


by you like it on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:03:11 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

I agree that the most significant result of Clinton's gas tax holiday idea (with the windfall profits tax) is that it puts oil companies in the cross hairs. Of course, our new Democrats (those that used to vote Republican) are understandably upset by that idea.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:03:25 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Why don't Obama and Hillary crack down on any subsidies oil companies get? Windfall taxes are taxes on the corporation. It is akin to saying we will tax Walmart for excess profits and then give you a 1 cent sales tax cut.


by Pravin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So when is she going to act (none / 0)

on this audacious idea? I'll tell you when...never. That's why it's the worst kind of pandering.


by bookish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So when is she going to act (2.00 / 1)

Since you support Obama, why don't you tell us when Obama will act on his idea? He brought it up in the context of providing relief this summer, just like Clinton.
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I assume (none / 0)

shortly after January 21, 2009. Unlike Clinton, he's never pushed his idea as something that could happen immediately.

When is Hillary's holiday coming again? This summer, huh?


by bookish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

our new Democrats (those that used to vote Republican)

Straw man much?

I have, in my life, voted for Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, and Tammy Baldwin. Sound like a closet Republican to you? My parents have voted Democrat all their lives, and, like me, went back and forth on the two candidates before settling on Obama.

Much as you can't wrap your mind around it, some Democrats like Obama better than Clinton, for legitimate, thoughtful reasons.


Poor, gun-owning white guy for Obama
by Mandoliniment on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 4)

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.  


by David in NY on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:04:34 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

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


by Tolstoy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM EST

Splendid (2.00 / 2)

I love politics of stagnation and despair.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's McCain's bumper (none / 0)

sticker!

I love politics of stagnation and despair.



by TomP on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice (none / 0)

I'm smart!


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Splendid (none / 0)

My favorite pandering is "Chicks with Balls Make the Best Presidents", that's a good one, and not sexist or offensive to any of Hillary's feminist supporters, no, not one bit, the implication that HRC has to be a man to be any good at president.
 
Eyes are like the groin of the head - Dwight Schrute
by KLRinLA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Really?  Because I already see significant change just in the campaign he is running - do you not see anything in that at all, or have you not been following closely?


by interestedbystander on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Oh, you mean the 'politics of personal dstruction" campaign that he's been pounding Hillary with for the past year?  Yeah, that is different for a primary election.  And all the while saying he's above all that?  Very different....


by Mags on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 2)

Seeing as any honest follower of the Clintons know exactly what the politics of "personal destruction" really looks like, your comment is ridiculous. Be less ridiculous.


Vote McCain: "Because America Needs a President Who Yes Chocolate Ice Cream Would Be Great Now Who Let You In, Nurse! Help!"
by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:39:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

The funny thing is, the opinion polls all show the voters think that is what Hillary has done, not Obama.  So which is it - is she the one that went personal and negative, or is she so incompetent that she has managed to give that impression?


by interestedbystander on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 3)

I would love to be able to read the comments on this site without banging my head against my desk.  Hillary Clinton's campaign made it their ANNOUNCED GOAL to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama.  The only reason they are still in this race is because they are spewing hatred at him.  And when he didn't respond, they called him "soft" and said "if you can't stand it, then leave."  

So then he responds with a little bit of counter-punch, and now he's using "the politics of personal destruction?"  What is it like to repeat Clinton campaign talking points as if they were original thoughts?  Does Clinton break off part of her $109 million for you every time you parrot her spin?  Or did Bill just fly out to help you seal a Kazakh mining deal in exchange?


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

Oh, please.  The campaign he's running is as slick a con job as I've ever seen in my 48 years of Democratic activism.  Axe has done a great job (and made millions) selling "new Coke".  And we all know what how that turned out.


by Tolstoy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

So you give no credit whatsoever for refusing lobbyist money and running a small donor, net driven, record breaking fundraising campaign?  Interesting.


by interestedbystander on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Clever con job.  Don't take money from registered Federal lobbyists  but but happy to accept the bundling they do for him.  Not to mention, the millions from lawyers and Wall Street bundlers.  Love that "change" stuff.


by Tolstoy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Clever con job.  Don't take money from registered Federal lobbyists  but but happy to accept the bundling they do for him.  Not to mention, the millions from lawyers and Wall Street bundlers.  Love that "change" stuff.


by Tolstoy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

He has hit 1.5 million individual donors - yep, that's one clever con job.  


by interestedbystander on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

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.  


by RAULC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

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.      


by David in NY on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:04 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

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


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 1)

What makes Obama's $1000 rebate any less of a lie?
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy (2.00 / 1)

It's actually viable and has a chance of coming through?

After all, we did just have a $300-$600 tax rebate that seemed to work alright.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

There is a chance it will become law.  That is why it isn't a lie.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

No, what's sad is "you guys" are promoting a candidate without experiece or accomplishment.  If he's the nominee, prepare to watch the GOP demolish him.


by Tolstoy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

If only he had been married to the President and then carpetbagged his way into a Senate seat.  Then that would make him a more viable candidate?


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Oh yeah! Sez you!


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

Have you nothing substantive to say?  You sound like the Emperor in Star Wars:

Something, something, something...Daaarksiiiide....


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Except that Hillary's right, (none / 0)

a gas tax would work, as proven in Illinois. That's the main point of Jerome's diary, and it's a point that people apparently accept.

And what is the deal with Obama lying about what happened in Illinois. Clearly a large chunk of the tax relief was passed onto consumers. Yet Obama says the entire 5 cent tax was gobbled up by the oil companies. He must know that's not true.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i see one problem (2.00 / 1)

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.


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST

Re: i see one problem (2.00 / 1)

Or at least BO should back up his statement that it didnt work.  What does he base that on. We can all agree to disagee if we support this but BO said it didnt work.  What does he base that statement on.

david


by giusd on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (2.00 / 3)

Economics? The gas tax holiday only got 60% of the supposed savings to consumers. The rest was taken by the oil companies who increased their prices.

There is another problem with the Salon.com article as well. It doesn't state the fact that the gas tax holiday went into effect largely during the late summer/early fall months and into the Winter. What happens naturally during that time? Gas prices fall because demand falls.

In other words, you can chalk up the decline in prices largely to seasonal differences more than anything else.

It's just disingenuous writing from start to finish.


by Yalin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (2.00 / 1)

This still doesnt address my question.  BO said it didnt work.  He should back that up with some facts.  Also, the study was done by comparing close by states not absolute numbers so i dont see you the season effects the results.  

david


by giusd on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (none / 0)

I just backed up the fact that it didn't work with, well, facts. What more is there to do?

Talk about shifting the goalposts for political expediency.


by Yalin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (2.00 / 1)

I am saying your facts are not correct.

You state that "It doesn't state the fact that the gas tax holiday went into effect largely during the late summer/early fall months and into the Winter. What happens naturally during that time? Gas prices fall because demand falls".

However, the authors of the study concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%.

The control number was "compared to neighboring states" so your suggestion that prices went down due to the season is not correct.  Since the decreases were calculated based on the prices of neighboring states the changes of the seasons are accounted for int the dominator of the ration.  That is a fact.


by giusd on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (2.00 / 1)

Again,

1) The gas tax went into effect largely during the late summer/early fall and winter months. Gas prices ALWAYS fall during that time by and large because DEMAND ALWAYS falls during that time.

2) The gas tax holiday ended in early winter, and gasoline prices rose. Gas prices ALWAYS rise in the months leading into the spring and summer because by and large DEMAND ALWAYS rises during that time.

3) Do you have the #s to show what the normal seasonal change between the states is? I would wager you do not.

4) 40% of the decline in prices did NOT go to consumers. So if it didn't go to consumers and it didn't go to the government, where did it go? Naturally to the oil companies and their satellites.

It's really sad that the economists studying the Illinois gas tax situation and the ones speaking about it now are saying this is a bad idea, and yet people are just holding on to this as if it's wonderful.

Haven't we had enough of an administration that spends too much time listening to the facts they want to hear rather than the facts of the situation as they are? Haven't we had enough?

If this were about political expedience, Obama would have proposed the gas tax and said "We did the same thing in Illinois!" But no, instead of doing that, he's saying it's not a good idea to do it and here's why.

That in and of itself is reason to trust what he's saying. Because it's not politically easy to do. Clinton's stance is pure political pander, and it's just sad.

That being said, I'm glad we're discussing this kind of issue, as misguided as you are ;), than discussing issues like Tuzla or Wright.

These are the kinds of issues that SHOULD dominate our news.


by Yalin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (none / 0)

I cant agree more that i would perfer to discuss issues.  I made no comment about what economists think and economics is not a science at least yet and economists are wrong all the time.

But to your point the price of gas as a function of season is factored into the method they used to calculate the changes in gas prices.  The states used to compare the price of gas will have the same changes in price as a function of season. The study did not look at absolute gas prices but changes in gas price as calculated based on the prices of neighboring states.


by giusd on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (none / 0)

1) I'd prefer the opinion of economists than pandering politicians.

2) The gas price as a function of the season is part of the problem I see with this. That was not something I saw factored into these equations. Additionally, you cannot make the assertion that "gas prices fell x % or x $" without factoring in how they normally fall in relation to neighboring states.

These are issues I have with the article and with the study.


by Yalin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if the price of oil per barrel (none / 0)

was stagnant, and didnt rise, then that 60% figure would be correct.  The only thing is, that during the summer, gas prices do rise because the price per barrel of oil rises, so of course there was only a percentage of the 5%.


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if the price of oil per barrel (none / 0)

The tax holiday itself didn't go into effect until late summer/early fall.


by Yalin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You'd need the Hillary-hating mainstream media (none / 0)

to pressure Obama on the glaring contradiction between what he says happened and what actually did happen in Illinois.

And the media has tons of oil company advertising revenue to worry about. So does dailykos, too, by the way (well maybe not tons, but the dkos Chevron ad plays on)!


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (2.00 / 1)

Is that what Obama would have done?
by zenful6219 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (none / 0)

umm yes - he's done it before.

First Philly debate... but it was worse, because he said she said something she didnt, then said something she did.

If you know what i am talking about, i'd give you credit.


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (1.50 / 2)

The problem I see is that the first change to the tax code that the Clinton's made was a 5 cent Increase of the Gas Tax.

What happened? Consumption went down. Then, PRICES went down. Supply and Demand 101.

Also, there is nothing to stop the oil companies or speculators from jacking the price of gas another 18 cents to pocket the 'tax holiday'.

That is why no economists have endorsed such a ridiculous plan.

Also, Hillary's claim that all economists are 'elitists' is the same anti-intellectual drivel that has been used by RightWingers to denounce everything from evolution to climate change.


by BlueGenes on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:05:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i see one problem (none / 0)

i dont think Oil supply is drastically higher now than a year or two ago.  The price per barrel is MUCH higher however.


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

woops (none / 0)

not Oil supply  - i meant demand


Rise, Hillary, Rise
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:40:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 2)

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.    


by HSTruman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:19 AM EST

I tend to agree... (none / 0)

But it's still far more responsible than Clinton's plan.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (none / 0)

I don't think the guy is this article is from Illinois. They put stickers here on every pump talking about how they eliminated a nickel from every gallon pumped...

And people laughed at them. Honest to god laughter everytime they saw that thing at the pump. There was no more transparent political pander "vote me, I give u money" out there. Obama learned from this experience apparently.

People don't take you seriously when you throw this crap out there. Jerome, I am looking at you here.


by wengler on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil companies as a target (2.00 / 3)

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?


by chewie5656 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:51 AM EST