WHAT THE GAS HOLIDAY COULD BE.
Of late, I've been talking a bit about the media's inability to report on policy in a judgmental manner. They know how to imply that Barack Obama has had bad friends, and Hillary Clinton tells lies, and John McCain -- well, they know how to doodle his initials inside a sparkly heart. What they don't know how to do, however, is say that one candidate's health plan, or housing plan, or economic agenda, is better than another candidate's. Which is why folks basically have to vote on grounds of flag pins and flip-flops -- they're not given much else in the way of analytical guidance.
But I sympathize. Policy is hard. Lots of people come to different conclusions. Unanimity is rare. Except on this gas tax holiday. Just about no one thinks it a good idea. Conservative economists loathe it, liberal economists loathe it, energy experts loathe it...it's shameless pandering of the worst sort. So is the media going to create a scandal around McCain's pander? Around Clinton's copy-pander? Will they hound them at press conferences, run segments about the derailed "Straight Talk Express," bring on pollsters to ask whether Americans are tired of being lied to?
Well, not quite. There's some evidence that the media is, at least, representing them aggregate opinion of the experts. And Tom Friedman is certainly on the side of the angels here. But that's as far as the media's been willing to take it. As of yet, there's no real effort to report on a bald-faced, shameless policy pander in the way they reported on Tuzla or "I voted for it before I voted against it."
When confronted by the fact that their coverage of politics is frequently trivial and annoying, many in the media argue that they only report that way because the voters make their decisions based on trivial and annoying issues. But there's no doubt that, with proper press coverage, the gas holiday could be one of those trivial and annoying issues that comes to stand-in for broader character failures or narratives or whatever. It's just that the media doesn't like to deal with policy.
(Image used under a CC license from Cindy.)
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (26)
"And Tom Friedman is certainly on the side of the angels here."
BeT you feel bad about postin that video of him getting pied, don't ya
Posted by: gg | April 30, 2008 11:54 AM
Where is Clinton's gas tax legislation? She's on the stump telling voters they're going to get relief THIS SUMMER but she hasn't introduced any legislation. She's got TV ads, press releases, a stump speech, a policy on her website -- all of which suggests help is on the way this summer. But no legislation.
Policy is hard but it's easy as pie when you don't write legislation that translates your ideas into actions.
Underpantsuit Gnome Gas Tax Holiday
1) promise gas tax holiday
2) ?????
3) savings for the working man!
McCain actually put his dog's breakfast of a program into bill form, S.2890. Clinton's put her dog breakfast in a TV ad but never filed it as legislation in the Senate. How she can say "Talk is cheap" and promise relief "this summer" when her plan only exists on her website, on TV ads and in press releases I'll never know.
Forget evaluating the merit of Clinton's policy proposal. The PROPOSAL ITSELF DOES NOT EXIST.
Posted by: joejoejoe | April 30, 2008 11:56 AM
18 cents from $3.60/gallon= 5%
How about a policy that seeks a 5% reduction in gasoline usage.
Share a ride on 1 trip out of 20?
Walk or bike to whatever it is within walking or biking distance.
Obama should use his "everyone needs to chip in" message here.
Turn off the TV, walk to school, that sort of thing.
Posted by: Mike | April 30, 2008 1:03 PM
Walk or bike to whatever it is within walking or biking distance.
I can assure you the number of places within walking/biking distance for me, in the summer, in Texas, in 100+ degree heat include very little outside of 'the mailbox' and 'the garage'.
Posted by: Bryce | April 30, 2008 1:23 PM
Tyro, over at Matt Y's site had a better pander. Instead of suspending the gas tax for the summer, simply send everyone a check for $25.
This would visibly illustrate the paltry benefit most of us would receive while having the added benefit of actually putting money into the hands of the consumer.
Posted by: Jinchi | April 30, 2008 1:51 PM
"So is the media going to create a scandal around McCain's pander? Around Clinton's copy-pander?"
But, of course. Clinton's "copy-pander" isn't a copy at all.
Unlike McCain's pander, Clinton's pander is designed not to be enacted, and thus not to have any policy impact.
But you knew that already, didn't you, Ezra...
Posted by: Petey | April 30, 2008 2:15 PM
Unlike McCain's pander, Clinton's pander is designed not to be enacted, and thus not to have any policy impact.
I am suspicious of arguments like this. In politics, all sorts of bad ideas take hold because politicians advocate them even when they don't believe in them.
A nice example on the Republican side is Bush's advocacy of campaign finance reform. I am sure that he thought McCain-Feingold didn't have a chance in hell of passing Congress when he endorsed it. But when it did, he was forced to sign it.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | April 30, 2008 3:01 PM
Unlike McCain's pander, Clinton's pander is designed not to be enacted, and thus not to have any policy impact.
So according to your logic, we're supposed to be happy that Clinton is lying about the effect of a federal gas tax holiday, and happy that she's suckering the rubes who she hopes will vote for her?
Why would you believe anything the woman says on the campaign trail? How do you know you're not one of the suckers falling for her line on universal health care?
Posted by: Jinchi | April 30, 2008 3:39 PM
More unbelievable reactions from seemingly smart people.
Now, if getting rid of the gas tax will save a family 20 or 30 bucks a week, or even even couple of weeks, everyone here thinks the proposal must be 'pandering'.
How much money do you people make? My guess is, enough that 20 or 30 bucks doesn't matter too much to you. But to a lot of people--I mean, millions--that would be a nice temporary windfall for a few months.
There are so many people in this country getting by by the skin of their teeth. And thinking of giving them some short-term relief--yes, for which they will likely be politically grateful--is pandering.
It's not a long-term solution. Clinton has a policy outlined about energy, and she's talked about it at length. But there's nothing wrong with helping some people out in the meantime as we can.
And I thought it was the Republicans who lacked empathy and the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Cripes.
You people have totally gone off the deep end.
Posted by: dark1p | April 30, 2008 3:56 PM
It's not a long-term solution. Clinton has a policy outlined about energy, and she's talked about it at length. But there's nothing wrong with helping some people out in the meantime as we can.
Well:
1. It isn't likely to help even short term, because the short-term supply of gas is fixed and therefore oil companies will probably capture most of the tax cuts and keep prices high.
2. Even if it has its full claimed effect, it won't help very much.
The "pander" issue is a distraction. I tend to think that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than most people believe, so I am perfectly capable of believing this isn't simply a pander. But whether it is or it isn't, it is simply bad policy. Nobody here is opposed to good policy that also happens to pander.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | April 30, 2008 4:00 PM
"What they don't know how to do, however, is say that one candidate's health plan, or housing plan, or economic agenda, is better than another candidate's."
It would be a major step if they simply point out "who" would benefit more from a given policy or initiative.
I mean if the majority of our country want to continue to decimate the millions in the middle class for the sake of a few more billionaires so be it.
Posted by: disdaniel | April 30, 2008 4:17 PM
Now, if getting rid of the gas tax will save a family 20 or 30 bucks a week, or even even couple of weeks
It's $20-$30 total not per week.
And that assumes that the oil companies don't just absorb most of the difference - which is historically what they've done.
Posted by: Jinchi | April 30, 2008 5:25 PM
Dark1P
"More unbelievable reactions from seemingly smart people" . . . who don't read closely before insulting others and so making fools of themselves.
It is 20-30 TOTAL dollars; not dollars per week.
Posted by: Sandor | April 30, 2008 8:11 PM
Also Dark1p, even if the average savings of $30 for the summer made a critical difference in people's lives, it would make more economic and environmental sense to give everyone a check for $30. The gas tax rebate is just plain horrible. You have to be incredibly in the tank for Clinton or McCain to like this idea.
Posted by: Jason | April 30, 2008 10:41 PM
Pandering is when you tell a specific group of people what they want to here. The gas tax, good idea or not, applies to everyone. Please say things that make sense.
Posted by: Punditish | May 1, 2008 2:20 AM
As I understand Hillary's proposal, the idea is to cut a tax that is paid by oil companies and move it somewhere else in the supply chain to be paid by ... oil companies. What effect can that possibly have beyond maybe transferring some money from production to refining?
I suspect the real point is to create an opportunity to say something, anything, involving "tough", "oil company profits", and "windfall". Extra points if you mention Exxon.
The voting public has been conditioned for a generation to believe that all energy problems can be attributed to Oil Company Profits, and that therefore all politicians have to do to earn votes is to claim they will Get Tough On Oil Companies. Just like they've been saying since 1975.
Posted by: Tom | May 1, 2008 8:58 AM
When the media makes a big deal out of Obama and Clinton pandering on ethanol while Mccain opposes subsidies, then they'll make a big deal of the gas tax holiday.
In any case, the media doesn't get judgemental about this stuff because Americans are capable of using their own judgement without the media telling them what to think. They are supposed to report, we are supposed to decide.
Posted by: Adam Herman | May 3, 2008 12:13 AM
If the government is looking for a way to help American's with gas prices, they should start mass producing the Hydro4000 witch doubles mpg when used and runs off water. Then mass distibute them to everyone in the country.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 11, 2008 9:24 PM
http://www.watchrolexshop.com
Posted by: wow gold | July 29, 2009 11:19 PM
shanghaimassges
Posted by: shanghai massage | September 27, 2009 3:32 AM
Our website have many goods,Rolex -
Replica Rolex -
Replica Watches -
Rolex Watches -
Replica rolex -
Rolex -
Rolex
Rolex
Replica Rolex
Rolex
Replica Rolex
Vertu
Vertu Replica,
Replica handbags,
Rolex,
Replica Watches,
Phone Batteries I belive that you will like them !050
Posted by: Replica Watches | October 14, 2009 12:46 AM
Today,i bought a new Replica Watches. It has 064
Posted by: Replica Watches | October 19, 2009 5:01 AM
http://www.igchest.com
Posted by: igc | November 4, 2009 9:32 AM
love you
[url=http://www.htyytt.com]very love[/url]
most love
Posted by: zixin | November 9, 2009 8:46 PM
dope dyed
Posted by: fe | November 12, 2009 2:26 AM
useful,i like it!
thank you for your work!!:)
Posted by: fake rolex swiss | November 14, 2009 11:34 PM