Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Bad Ideas by Hillary Clinton


Maybe it's all the whiskey and beer she swilled with the common people of Pennsylvania. Maybe it's the fatty foods she's been eating with people like us common folk impairing her judgment. Maybe it's good old pandering. But something has turned otherwise bright and intelligent Hillary Clinton into a damned fool.
Clinton has joined with John McCain in endorsing a gas tax holiday that would stretch through the summer travel months, an idea that Barack Obama appears to have rejected out of hand. Yes, Barack and a number of leading economists.
The idea is simple enough: during the summer months, you would pay no federal gas tax on your gasoline. The tax works out to a little more than 18 cents per gallon, so, if you pump nearly 11 gallons at a time like me, you'd save a whole two bucks. That two bucks makes a world of difference to Senator Clinton, who touts the plan as a way to cut the burden on us, the underclass. Nevermind the fact that the increased demand on gasoline would, probably, hugely increase already massive oil company profits.
Senator Clinton's idea is dumb, and there seems to be no serious support for it. I'd be mildly shocked if it ever came to fruition, and I say mildly because we do actually live in an era of zero responsible leadership. My problem is what it represents. First, in my mind, it shows no reflection or serious thought on Clinton's part. You endorse this kind of idea when you are thinking of getting votes only, and avoid considering the long-term ramifications of an plan like this. She is a bright person, and when bright people make terrible decisions, you must question their motivation. She's desperate to paint herself as the people's candidate, so desperate that she's willing to eschew reason to get a vote. Poor show, Senator.
Second, this "fix" demonstrates our national ignorance to the energy problem. We're dumb, writes Thomas Friedman. There is no leadership on national energy policy. No one is willing to go out on a limb and explain how we'll reduce our dependence on oil, how we'll reform our industry to address the rising cost of energy, and (inexplicably) no one is touting the benefits that naturally occur when an economy jettisons old tech for cutting-edge tech. Some people, like Vermont Law School's Energy Institute, understand the problem, though it is questionable whether they see the totality of the problem, or whether they only grasp the environmental aspect of it. We clearly need some ideas.
So, I have one. If our government doesn't want the two bucks for each fill-up, instead of cutting the tax, let's redirect it. Take the two bucks from every fill-up and create a giant investment fund. Some non-partisan, government group will administer it. We'll send use the money to figure out what the hell is wrong with us, how to fix it, and to invest in smart companies that can, well, save our world.
But, that'll never happen.

10 comments:

SayHey Kid said...

Ask a lower-class family of 4 what two bucks means to them. Two dollars might be a snack to you but means quite alot to them.

Dews said...

That may very well be, but that family of 4 is already paying the 2 bucks tax as it is.

The tax system already favors the rich, so if the lower class are already not reaping any kind of benefit from said tax, then assigning that tax a purpose (ie, assisting said class in fuel costs perhaps) and rigidly sticking to it would be a huge step in the right direction.

SayHey Kid said...

Very true, but any relief is helpful. Take it from a guy who spent his childhood eating cereal from a bag and not a box.

But I know what your saying. Just dont undermind those who are not as "fortunate" as others.

Dews said...

Trust me when I say that both myself and Dewey come from modest means among a very poor part of Vermont...

I think the general idea though is that rather then immediate give everyone back 2 bucks (which you will never again be able to charge after we're all used to it), take what has already been a sunk cost and rigidly invest it into a fund that could possibly with interest essentially do the same thing (hypothetical "hedge" fund perhaps, to use the interest to subsidize fuel costs?).

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...

I understand the value of two bucks, trust me. I used to be, and my family still is, "them."

But don't be so quick to think that two bucks a tank now is going to be some sort of salvation. I'm willing to wager that a lot of families would forgo the two bucks today if it meant that they'd save even more later, which they might if candidates like Clinton started talking seriously about energy instead of trying to give "them" two bucks a tank.

Jack Gonzo, MD said...

Look, the gas taxes goes towards highways. Taking that away will make people buy more gas, which will make the price go up and give even more profit to the gas companies. It's a horrible idea, thought a horrible idea by every economist worth his weight, and is just a bribe for votes.

SayHey Kid said...

In my eyes in not just 1 tank of gas. Hell, we went through 2-3-4 tanks a week due to long commutes for both my parents and several intermediate sports. It does add up!

We should put a fund aside toward alternative fuel means or future discounts but not at the expense of the taxpayer. I truly believe that the corporations who rape consumers should be a sole or at least a majority contributor. Gas jumped over 1.50/gallon in the last month and that is unacceptable!

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...

It really is unacceptable. I understand that the states have looked into price-gouging, but have found nothing. That is hard to believe. Wish the feds would start investigating.

Dews said...

I have no problem putting a lotta blame on American auto-manufacturers for fighting the CAFE fuel standards the last 15-20 years.

Only problem is that'd be like bleeding a stone.

SayHey Kid said...

Dews you are correct but when you break it down the automakers were serving public demands for SUV's. But when its all said and done, who is profiting off of these gas hikes- The oil producers! How is that? It makes no sense?