I just don't understand how this squares with the Hillary of January who was an expert policy wonk who could deftly explain the details of policy to the common man. Either she knows this is a terrible idea and is lying and hoping people will forget about this shameless pander come November, or her uber-wonkishness has been greatly exaggerated.

I hate Economists, that doesn't change the fact that this is a bad idea. I'm not going to cost hundreds of thousands of people their job just so I can save 20 bucks on gas and 10 dollars in food. I'm not going to cost people their lives by making them drive on roads that are even more poorly maintained then they are now, either.

Thismay be the only issue in history where you can't find a single economist who supports it. There is such a diverse range, you can find one to support supply side econmics, youname a crack pot theory and there is an economist somewhere to support it.

Just from a federal deficit standpoint,this is a bad idea.At a time when we should be reducing demand,along comes these 2 old pols (in every negative connotation possible)to give drivers a freebie.
Bad,bad,bad,bad.

I don't need no damn Economists and I don't need no fancy-pants "facts" and to hell with your ivory-tower complete sentences and

I'm not going to throw in my lot with the economists?

I bet Paul Krugman is crying right now.

I mean what the hell does that even mean? I would hope she knows there are liberal economists too -- many of whom work for (d'oh) the White House. She's basically saying: "I'm not going to let my decisions be guided by quote-unquote numbers." Which is a sadly common Presidential attitude since 2000, but I was kind of hoping we would finally get past it.

If there's anything better than a good round of "Democrats say*" it's a more specific case in which one Democrat can be pitted against another, with a reasonable Dem v. the Republican-aligned case.

Way to go, Hillary!

(*An offshoot of TANF, or "There are no facts", journalism, i.e. "Republicans want to keep cutting taxes, Democrats say that's a bad idea", and independent expertise doesn't exist.)

What makes a person continue to support a widely rejected policy? I don't think she truly believes in her own plan and knows that most voters, especially those swinging ones, will probably not hear from the experts about how the costs far outweigh any benefits. It's just a game of political expediency.

Er, I should probably change that to, "many of whom would work for a Democratic White House.

If people drive 10,000 miles during the summer, and have cars that do 30 miles per gallon, they need 333 gallons, at 18c tax savings, that makes it $60. Not all that much, but highly regressive. Just sayin'.

How much longer do we have to wait before we can burst free of the bonds of politeness and just say plainly that Hillary Clinton is pandering to the bitterest, stupidest, down-and-outest, most racist elements in American society under the guise of populism? I can't wait to see her quaffing large quantities of Budweiser and Schlitz in ice houses and beer hall parking lots, riding mechanical bulls, hunting coon and possum, and sporting a flag tattoo. And leaving the elitists in Washington behind.

jones: There is no way you could do all that figgerin' in your head maybe you used a calculator that makes you an Economist and a 'litist.

She is speaking to the people who have to decide whether to pay medical bills or a mortgage payments as well as those who believe they may very well be in that situation soon.

They can use the $30, but more importantly it emphasizes that the economists or Ezra do not have to live pay check to pay check, like many blue collar
Americans.

Now how is it possible for the gas tax holiday to be a 'bad idea'??

Gas is much more expensive then when the tax was first put on gas, so the idea that it was going to cause conservation has been shown to be complete BS.

The fact that it is a highly regressive tax and hurts the poor much more then the Ivy League, Wine and Champagne crowd Obama hangs with. Ayers and Wright will still be filling their limos.

Has half the party really lost touch with the working man? They simply don't get it. The idea that your doing it to 'concerve' is BS, because you brag about how much money it is raising - so you speak with forked tongue.

You honestly believe that sparing people 18 cents per gallon for 3 months is going to bring down the Republic??

You notice the only time Washington cares about being able to pay for soemthing is when they are giving you your own money back? They seem to be able to pay for everything else without such gnashing of teeth.

"If people drive 10,000 miles during the summer, and have cars that do 30 miles per gallon, they need 333 gallons, at 18c tax savings, that makes it $60. Not all that much, but highly regressive. Just sayin'."

And if they drive 100,000 miles during the summer, it would be $600!

If people drive 10,000 miles during the summer

If people drive 9,461 miles, 104 miles per day instead of 111 miles in your unlikely example, they'll realize the same savings. Sen. Clinton could tell them that, be a leader and tell people that, but she'd rather pander.

I sure would like a better answer from the 'tax the peasants crowd' on us peons 'conserving gas'

Here's the situations in my family I sure hope you have an answer for with your gas policy:

1. My sister has to drive her grandchild from Binghamton to Rochester twice a week for cancer treatments on her brain tumor..how do you suggest she cuts her gas cost? Take the 13 month old on the bus with her shunt and various other medical connections. Maybe only go once a week?

2. My wife drives 36 miles round trip three days a week so my son can go to speech therapy...what's Barack suggestion for paying the gas bill? Maybe she should just leave him their for the week? He could sleep on the stoop....

3. My sister has to travel about 90 miles to see her specialist in Allentown who recently moved from his old practice. He is one of the few specialists that deals with her disease and has performed 3 surgeries on her.
Should she just forget about seeing him and just go to her local family doctor??

Its so nice of Obama and his crowd to pumish us for trying to do the right thing.

You would think they would go after their limo riding friends, or their gas guzzling private jets, or their 8,000 square foot homes for 4 people, etc. etc.

Its nice to be lectured to about conserving gas by those that have spent the last year and a half crisscrossing the United States in cars, limos, private jets, corporate jets, rented jets, etc. to try and get elected. Obama has used more fuel in this campaign then my family will use in our life times; so don't lecture us about conserving gasoline.

Why don't the politicians campaign from their homes via closed circuit television.

Why do the leftists elite wag their fingers at the soccer moms and Joe Job for driving their SUVs and Minivans while the politicans are guzzling fuel to go across the country in 6 hours simply to make a 30 minute speech at a fundraiser.

I think if I hear from Obama one more time about how important it is that we pay up, I'm going to puke, when's the last time he conserved anything??.

Just like when the congressional leaders all packed into their cadillacs, their Hummers and their Suburbans to go to the gas station to complain about prices.

If people drive 10,000 miles during the summer, and have cars that do 30 miles per gallon, they need 333 gallons, at 18c tax savings, that makes it $60.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

The only argument that anyone seems to be able to muster in support of this ludicrous "tax holiday" scheme is that it would actually help low-income people make ends meet by lowering the price of gasoline. But look, if you think that removing an 18-cent excise tax on gas will lower the price at the pump by 18 cents a gallon, then you're basically retarded. Do you simultaneously repeal the law of supply and demand?

Anonymous,

It is so clear by now that you are a Clinton die hard, and there's no real reason for me to respond to your post because it won't change your mind. But Jonathan Alter has nicely laid out the problems with this idiotic tax break:

(1) There is nothing stopping the oil companies from raising prices during the holiday

(2) At best, assuming there is no increase in prices, it offers the taxpayers on 30 bucks over the summer

(3) It sends more money to the middle east, and funds terrorist sponsors Saudi Arabia

(4) It encourages gas consumption (for causes both worthy and unworthy)

(5) It takes funds away from infrastructure repairs to use the roads we drive.

(6) It will cost 300,000 construction jobs

There is nothing in this plan that actually helps out your family. It ends up causing job loss and leaves us with more rotting infrastructure.

Barack Obama has proposed plenty of sensible tax redistribution boiler plate. You know, rescinding the bush tax cuts and giving the middle class a 1000 dollar cut. But you probably don't care about what he's proposing anyway.

Attacking economists is essential to becoming a strong political scientist (as Hillary, Obama, and Klein all agree).
I remember last year, in my first and last poli sci course our professor of a class of 1000 said economics is stupid and to ignore it. Ignore capitalism, fine, ignore private markets, okay, but to ignore economics is to ignore reason. Even Karl Marx would agree.
This does not mean everything an economist says is rational and likewise everything a poli sci student says is not. The distinction is while an economist will always use reason (correctly or not) a poli sci student will only use it when it supports his liberal sensibilities. And whenever it conflicts they will merely apply the abstract notion of morality.

>>Do you simultaneously repeal the law of supply and demand?

Yes, of course you do, and you rewrite history. And when questioned, deny, deny, deny.

It's the Clinton way. "Get over it" is the message. There's all those lunchpail Dems to woo.

"It's simply a bad idea, albeit one that polls well with the most ignorant demographic in the democratic party, so Clinton is running with it."

Fixed that line, for accuracy.

line dancing your way to the presidency...

what must it be like not to be true to yourself.
to try with all of your enthusiasm and none of your integrity to convince people of things that you dont believe in. to sacrifice your inner wisdom and principles, until you dont really know what you believe in anymore.
and how little do you think of the people you convince?
and to pretend, with your spouse, that the people you really regard as "dummies" are your new best friends...

Hillary needs to learn that populism isn't about insulting the educated, it's about respecting the will of the electorate.

You can ignore some economists. Hell, just about any of them boys from Chicago can be ignored all to hell. They haven't done anything but get nuns butchered in South America and prop up dictatorships. You can't ignore the psychological aspects of economics, though. They are well founded. The Gas tax isn't a tax paid on sale, cutting it won't go to consumers. There just isn't enough elasticity in it's demand, so producers will just pocket the change using 'increase in demand' as an excuse.

As one of those hard working Americans just managing to pay the bills, and having asked the same thing of my coworkers, this pathetic gas tax thing is pretty insulting and it makes us all very nervous about exactly what would happen to all the programs it's paying for.

But, I guess, since I used nouns & verbs and stuff this probably makes me a 'litist.

Because obviously if any real working person doesn't jump up and down with glee at how proletarian HRC shows herself to be by claiming to p*ss a few bucks in our direction, we're just a bunch of la-di-da latte swillin' fancy pants ivory tower 'litists, unlike them true-blue Wellesley gradyeeatin, corporate lawyer defendin', NAFTA-boostin' John Henry types like Hillary Clinton.

I sure would like a better answer from the 'tax the peasants crowd' on us peons 'conserving gas'

Sorry anon,

Bad policy does not become good policy because you have good reasons for needing the gas. Among other qualities, good policy addresses the problem at hand and does more good than harm. Clinton's proposed policy fails on both counts.

1)It is not likely to lower the cost of gas. As has been pointed out, the gas companies will just raise the price and pocket the profits. If people will pay 3.50/gallon including tax, they will pay 3.50/gallon excluding tax.

2) But lets say it somehow magically works that the price goes down some minimal amount. It will come at both a cost to the infrastructure revenue and higher costs down the road as demand increases.

You're in a tough spot. I am too. Many of us are. That doesn't change the fact that if we really want to lower costs we have to work on decreasing demand. Attempting to artificially lower the costs by a few pennies has never worked in the past and indeed there is no earthly reason to think that it could work in this case. That is the reality. All of your ad hominem arguments about how little we care about poor people and how horrible our characters must be for not supporting this idiotic policy are worthless in the face of this reality.

I will say it again. If we want to lower costs, we need to lower demand. If you intend to respond just keep in mind: you don't know me, you don't know how much money I make and you don't know my priorities. They are irrelevant. Explain where you think my analysis is wrong.

The economists say that in the end, it won't cut the price much, or even at all, because the supply is basically fixed for the summer--supply less elastic than the demand.

So the winners are the oil companies, since they will just reap the tax cut. But, but, but, Hillary will tax them. OK, if she takes what they make from the tax cut, we are right back where we started, since I don't think that gas prices will drop much by dropping the taxes.

I am all for giving people who have to make ends meet some relief. But then just give those people a check. A lot easier than this convoluted tax plan. and it actually will accomplish something, unlike Clinton's crazy (non) plan.

Contemptuous anti-intellectualism and a stubborn refusal to admit one's errors are the road to Bushism.

If people drive 10,000 miles during the summer, and have cars that do 30 miles per gallon, they need 333 gallons, at 18c tax savings, that makes it $60.

Convenient, then, that those people have just received a check from the government for 10 times that amount. If this does not cover things, then another $60 check might be warranted, but I'm not sure what the point of a gas tax holiday is.

The price of food, incidentally, has risen substantially, and I'm sure any relief in that direction would more than make up for the psychological comfort that rising gas prices this summer do not include a tax.

how to really take the ouch of summertime:
a gas tax holiday,
and....a free bag of rice!

(recipe on the bag
for the clinton family favorite...
curried favor.)

She is frighteningly ignorant of basic economics. On the show Closing Bell a couple of months ago, after reciting a litany of economic complaints, she added that the dollar was going down EVEN AS the fed was lowering interest rates. That is a "because of" relationship, not an in spite of one, as she seemed to think. This woman is a moron.

I just watched the relevant section of This Morning with George Stephanopoulis (it's right at the start), and it's clear in the context that she's not dissing all economists: she's saying that in this case she disagrees with them, and goes on to say that her policy could be implemented effectively. I think she explains it quite effectively: a big chunk of current high oil prices is due to market manipulation; oil companies are making record profits; some of those profits should be taken and passed on to the consumer by temporarily eliminating the 18.4 cent/gallon federal tax and collecting it from the oil companies directly. It's a message to the oil companies.

In terms of economic effect, a lot of the problem with recessions is a downward spiral involving consumer expectations. A highly visible price reduction such as this could brighten consumer expectations without actually costing a lot of money.

The idea is not stupid at all.

I just watched the relevant section of This Morning with George Stephanopoulis (it's right at the start), and it's clear in the context that she's not dissing all economists: she's saying that in this case she disagrees with them, and goes on to say that her policy could be implemented effectively. I think she explains it quite effectively: a big chunk of current high oil prices is due to market manipulation; oil companies are making record profits; some of those profits should be taken and passed on to the consumer by temporarily eliminating the 18.4 cent/gallon federal tax and collecting it from the oil companies directly. It's a message to the oil companies.

In terms of economic effect, a lot of the problem with recessions is a downward spiral involving consumer expectations. A highly visible price reduction such as this could brighten consumer expectations without actually costing a lot of money.

The idea is not stupid at all.

This turns that old political economy principle on its head- concentrated costs, diffuse benefits.

So it sound like we all agree, Congress should pass the Clinton/Obama "Help with Higher Prices" bill which will direct an additional $60 check to anyone who made under $40K in 2007. Perhaps we can also get an additional $60 rebate to anyone who purchases a hybrid or vehicle with a low carbon footprint.

As someone who just turned a 6 month collection of coins into $40 for groceries, I can tell you that I will appreciate $30 after 3 months.

coinstar: the first problem is that you won't get your 30 bucks. The oil companies will simply push the price up to where it would have been including the tax. Basically, Clinton will be handing over the money to the oil companies, and you won't see a single red cent. Second, we lose money to spend on infrastructure, so worse roads and more failing bridges. Third, that lack of investment in infrastructure means fewer jobs and hours for construction workers, which will depress the local economy because of the loss of money in paypackets. In fact, there are so many idiocies about Clinton's approach that it's hard to count them. The one certainty is that a) it won't happen b) it shouldn't happen c) if it did happen, you would gain nothing financially, and
d)your home area would be worse off overall. If that sounds like relief to you, I have a (crumbling) bridge which I offer you as an investment opportunity.

"The one certainty is that a) it won't happen"

then...what's the problem? Seems like a lot of handwringing over nothing then, yes?

Why does Obama get a pass for his love of unending ethanol subsidies while receiving credit for denouncing the finite gas tax holiday? Is the former not worse than the latter?

One economist supports Hillary:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/05/ill_shill_for_h.html
I'll Shill for Hillary
Bryan Caplan

Hillary's having trouble finding an economist to back her suspension of the gas tax. But she need look no further - I'll rise to the challenge. Here's my economic case for the tax cut:

1. The American people want to "do something," and Hillary's tax cut will at least do little harm. As I argued a while back:

No one is going to listen to the politician who says "Do nothing." Under the circumstances, I can't think of a single politically viable policy that would be better than cutting the gas tax. Maybe it would mildly reduce the price of gas. But even if supply is so inelastic that 100% of the tax cut goes to suppliers, it is easy to overlook a big social benefit: Tax cuts have a good chance of politically crowding out price controls and worse.

2. If (due to highly inelastic short-run supply) 100% of the tax cut goes to producers, that's not a bad thing. It helps to balance out the long-run disincentive effects of populist measures. Think about it this way: If energy crises were equally likely to provoke price controls or tax cuts, oil companies would be more likely to keep searching for new energy sources during crises.

3. The short-run elasticity of supply in probably near-zero for the world market, but Hillary's tax cut affects only the U.S. So as I argued previously, American consumers will at least get a moderate piece of the tax cut:

If one part of the world cuts taxes and the rest doesn't, then gas flows into the lower-tax area, and consumers in that area benefit. This is clearly true for state-level gas taxes. If Virginia dropped it's gas tax, more gas would flow into Virginia. And since the U.S. is just one corner of the world economy, cutting gas taxes in the U.S. would cut U.S. gas prices - even if global production is unchanged.

With arguments like these, I doubt that I'll be getting any phone calls from Hillary's team. Her proposal is defensible; it's just not defensible using arguments that the American people wants to hear.

"The one certainty is that a) it won't happen"

then...what's the problem? Seems like a lot of handwringing over nothing then, yes?

Posted by: coinstar | May 5, 2008 9:46 AM

Just converting one low-information voter at a time. And if you think we should not discuss things that won't happen, I'd point out that this one won't happen because people have discussed it, and realized that it is an economically illiterate idea that benefits no-one except candidate Clinton. Happily, she seems to have lost more than she gained, so there is a little justice in the world.