Elastic Gas

I started out thinking that Hillary Clinton was just making a clever dodge on the gas tax holiday, but now she's lighting in to Barack Obama for having the correct position on John McCain's stupid idea. This is basically the environment/energy/transportation equivalent equivalent of Obama's anti-mandate fliers and it makes it very hard to imagine that she's prepared to try to do anything about climate change.

Meanwhile, short-term demand elasticity for gasoline is low, because the main things you can do to use less of it -- buy a new car or move -- aren't really short-term decisions. But this inelasticity goes both ways and a temporary (though of course one doubts it really would be temporary) cut in gas taxes doesn't give anyone much incentive to cut consumers a break.

What's needed are measures that can increase the short-run elasticity of demand. Making federal funds available to increase the frequency of bus service and/or reduce fares to give people better alternatives to driving might work. Or some kind of program designed to facilitate/encourage the trading in of inefficient vehicles for ones that don't guzzle as much gas. I've heard over and over again about Clinton's vast powers of wonkery and incredibly command of policy, so maybe she should show us some with some creative thinking on a tough problem rather than mindlessly parroting John McCain's proposals.

Comments

I usually only post if I disagree with stuff MY says, because I agree with so much, and don't feel like posting "Well said!" over and over...but sometimes I see something that's just so right I can't help myself, and this post is that much on the money. So...

Well said!!

Posted by Mr. Noah | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM

So in other words, you initially applauded Hillary for lying about her gas tax plan, but are now shocked to discover that she was lying to you all along?

Posted by DaveWoo | April 29, 2008 4:32 PM

You see mindless parroting. I see purposeful parroting.

Posted by phil | April 29, 2008 4:36 PM

"Clinton's vast powers of wonkery and incredibly [sic] command of policy," much like her "inevitability" and "experience" are fictions created by her campaign. I've seen no evidence to suggest that Senator Clinton "knows" any more about any given policy than Senator Obama. I believe she is able to recite facts and figures more quickly and authoritatively, but that isn't really the same thing.

Posted by drjimcooper | April 29, 2008 4:37 PM

But it is pure Clintonism like v-chips or midnight basketball -- another BS program that does nothing about the underlying problem.

Posted by Mike | April 29, 2008 4:38 PM

Don't be so hard on HIllary. This whole campaign thing snuck up on her.

Posted by doug | April 29, 2008 4:40 PM

Obama wins this every way you play it--he's right on the substance, and he's even right on the politics.

If Bush had slapped a $2 per gallon war surcharge on gas in 2003 we'd all be better off. I'm for $6 gas, which is what most of Europe pays already with a lower median income--in some cases, much lower.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 29, 2008 4:40 PM

Wow do I agree with all that. I'm an Obama man who'd of course vote for Hillary against McCain, but jesus... this is exactly the kind of thing that reminds you how downright ineffectual the Clintons were/are.

This is why Obama is an exciting choice with the potential for disappointment where Hillary is just already disappointing.

Posted by Dave | April 29, 2008 4:41 PM

Of course Obama has none of those plans either. But I'm sure his "let them eat cake"attitude really is a winner!

Posted by Rob | April 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Matt, you are making a fundamental mistake of assuming Clinton's wonkery (if she's such a wonk, shouldn't there actually be important legislation with her name on it? McCain at least has his name on several substantial bills) implies an actual concern about policy. Instead in her and Bill's universe policy is just another means of winning elections and power. The idea is to throw so much policy detail at voters that they get confused and assume you must know what the frak you're talking about and vote for you even though they don't really know what it is you want to do or whether it'll work.

Posted by Ron | April 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Even the Krug-man for once credits Obama with the right position. But he assures us that Clinton's plan is "pointless rather than evil".

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/

Posted by El Cid | April 29, 2008 4:51 PM

So, is Paul Krugman going to be honest about this? Or is he going to continue to shill for Hill?

Posted by Seth | April 29, 2008 4:51 PM

WHY THE FUCK DOES GENOCIDE ENABLER JEFF GOLDBERG HAVE A BLOG HERE? And why does he write one post a day?

Posted by Captain America | April 29, 2008 4:54 PM

Grade school math says that if I telecommute one day a week instead of driving to work I cut my gas consumption by 20%.

Of course not everyone can easily telecommute, but the amount of savings fromt the gas tax proposal is a lot less than 20% it is probably more on the order of eliminting 1 or 2 trips per month not per week. People really can't easily do that?

Posted by Eric k | April 29, 2008 4:57 PM

Robert,

Good point!

I just looked it up median income at purchasing power parity.

UK = $40,000
US = $48,000

Price of gas in UK - nearly 5 pounds a gallon - nearly $10. So, I'm thinking we need gas a $12 a gallon here. Screw $2 gas tax we need a $9 gas tax. With rebates to families based on income and what vehicles they have registered. If you are a family making 40k and you are driving a new Suburban some dumbass needs to go hungry.

If I never saw another 5'2" mom with 2 kids driving a Tahoe, that would be fine by me.

Posted by Jmo | April 29, 2008 5:06 PM

"I started out thinking that Hillary Clinton was just making a clever dodge on the gas tax holiday, but now she's lighting in to Barack Obama"

Shorter Matthew:

Clinton's stance was harmless in policy terms and very smart in political before she started using it against Obama. Now that she's actually using the politics of it that he admired, Clinton should be thought of as Satan.

It's the kind of intellectual dishonesty we've all grown accustomed to from Matthew the last few months.

Posted by Petey | April 29, 2008 5:07 PM

Bush and Obama on one side and Clinton and McCain on another. Very strange.

Posted by bperk | April 29, 2008 5:08 PM

I think Matthew has some good ideas on affecting demand. In the very short run, though, those policies seem unlikely to have much chance (though I hope I'm wrong).

Here's a link to a post I just wrote over at Economists for Obama, which is a site run by professional economists supporting Obama.

Jonah Gelbach

Posted by jonah gelbach | April 29, 2008 5:09 PM

Another similarity this has with the mandate issue--this is not the frame a progressive would want to use to argue for their policy. We'd rather spend a year yelling about guaranteed issue and community rating so that McCain looks foolish for not having those things. Instead, we had to focus our rhetoric like a laser beam on the worst "bitter pill" of our plans.

And here we have a lot of policy options on the table--tax credits for better vehicles, research for new technologies, public transit--there's lots of ways we could go, but the one thing we *don't* want to do is have to spend rhetorical energy fighting off a movement to cut (or take holidays from) the gas tax.

In both arguments, this intra-Dem rivalry has moved the battlefield to places and terms unfavorable to our side. Like two people so wrapped up in a fistfight they don't notice that they've moved into the path of oncoming cars.

Clinton's position is right on health care and wrong on the gas tax holiday, though both she and Obama had left themselves an "exit strategy" to back down from their respective wrong positions once they were actually in power. Clinton said she'd oppose the gas tax holiday if funding for the highways couldn't be replaced, Obama said he'd support mandates if other incentives couldn't sign up enough people. So Obama's omission of mandates from his plan wasn't so bad, and Clinton's quasi-endorsement of the gas tax was, as Matt originally noted, commendably clever. The actual policy differences in both instances were benign.

The problem is the process of instigation and escalation that happens in these arguments. And in both cases, especially this one, it really looks like Clinton is to blame for this escalation. (Unless Obama attacked Clinton for her gas tax quasi-support and I wasn't aware). She's defined health care solely in terms of a mandate with an unspecified enforcement mechanism, and she's defined energy policy solely in terms of a tax break that would go mostly to refineries and gas stations. The problem is not whether her policies are right or wrong, the problem is that she's refocused the debate in ways deeply unfavorable to progressives.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 29, 2008 5:18 PM

This is basically the environment/energy/transportation equivalent equivalent of Obama's anti-mandate fliers and it makes it very hard to imagine that she's prepared to try to do anything about climate change.

So where does that put Obama on health care?

Posted by Alex | April 29, 2008 5:20 PM

Eric k,

I would love to telecommute, but can't. Bosses won't let me. I think this is true of a lot of people. So to answer your question anecdotally: people really can't do that.

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 5:20 PM

Personally, I think Obama's a fucking IDIOT on this issue.

A short term tax cut --or not -- is not going to matter one way or another so far as dealing with the Peak Oil or global warming issue.

But seven days before two major primary elections -- and several months before a Presidential election -- is the WORST possible time to let your opponents OUT-PANDER you with the voters.

Obama should not only propose that the gasoline tax cut be DOUBLED, he should go to a service station and have the TV news show him filling up voters cars as they pull into the pump.

He should Wash their fucking windows and check the oil as well.

Jesus, isn't there a single damm progressive out there who knows how to win an election??

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 5:28 PM

It takes a special kind of commenter to attack Matthew for his intellectual dishonesty in refusing to embrace a politician's intellectual dishonesty. Thank goodness we have this commenter in Petey/Al.

Posted by neil | April 29, 2008 5:28 PM

The thing that is most galling to me about this whole thing (Clinton latching onto McCain's stupid gas tax holiday) is that not so long ago, Clinton was blasting Obama for saying that Republicans had had some good ideas. (Remember South Carolina). Clinton pilloried Obama for saying that Republicans had ideas, and tried to say he supported those ideas. (He didn't, and didn't say they were good.)

Fast forward to today, and all of a sudden Clinton is latching on to a Republican idea, and saying "isn't this great?" Granted, she put her own spin on it, but still, it's just galling.

BTW - I haven't seen anyone in the MSM pointing out how she seems to have flip-flopped on the value of Republican ideas. Matt - perhaps you could point this out to a few people?

Posted by Jocelyn | April 29, 2008 5:33 PM

Does she really think she can get enough (R) Senators to support a windfall profit tax on Big Oil to pay for this? She has 3.5 weeks to get this through the Senate?

Not only is she stupid, but she's delusional as well.

Posted by pessullivan | April 29, 2008 5:40 PM

1) Actually, Obama should wait until McCain and Hillary start attacking him over the gas tax cut.

2) THEN he should go out to a service station and volunteer to fill up their tanks. Wash the windows and check the oil.

3) When the TV crews ask him what the hell he is doing, he should say that he didn't realize what his job was until Hillary and John McCain explained it to him.

That they explained that his job is to con the voters by sucking up to them before the election -- and then betray them AFTER the election.

4) That's that why McCain and Hillary have been in Politics for 30 YEARS and have DONE NOTHING About America's energy problem. That why gas is costing $4 a gallon and will be $8 per gallon in a few years.

5) Because politicans like Hillary and John only make cheap gestures before an election -- but don't offend Big Oil by trying to actually do anything about the problem.

6) Obama might then note that's why people are paying $40 per gallon for gas. When the reporters object that they are only paying $4 per gallon, Obama should note that they pay $4 per gallon at the pump -- and $36 per gallon on their income tax for military operations in the Middle East.

7) But of course the stupid shit-eating "consultants" who advise Democrats on campaigns are too fucking stupid to ever come up with such an idea -- much less actually put it into practice.

Because deceitful, ineffective gestures are also THEIR stock in trade.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 5:40 PM

Freddie,

But that was my point, you don't need to eliminate one trip a week to offset the gas tax holiday, only 1 or 2 a month. If the increase in gas prices is killing you you can't find someone and carpool 2 lousy days a month? You can't ride your bike once a month?

I'm just sayin' that people aren't as inflexible in their gas consupmtion as people are arguing.

Posted by Eric k | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM

The absurdity of this whole idea is that if Congress repealed the federal gas tax, we'd be paying about what we paid 3 weeks ago - in the mid-to-high $3 range. That assumes the gas companies don't just pocket most of the difference.

If Congress passes it this summer, I doubt we'll fall below the $4.00 mark.

Funny story, in 2000, George Bush and Dick Cheney were blaming Al Gore's environmental fanaticism for spiking oil prices ($34 a barrel!) and warned that $3.00 gasoline was just around the corner if we made the mistake of sending him to the Oval Office.

Posted by Jinchi | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM

Well here goes...
Gas prices are not high because of supply and demand. Gas prices are high because the dollar has been cut in value.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4200dc9e-1521-11dd-996c-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

But Mr Khelil blamed record oil prices on the weak dollar and global political insecurity.

He told El Moudjahid, Algeria’s government newspaper: “I don’t think that an increase in production would help lower prices, because there is a balance between supply and demand and the stocks of gasoline in the United States have recorded a surplus and are at their highest level for five years.”

He added: “The prices are high due to the recession in the United States and the economic crisis, which has touched several countries, a situation that has an effect on the value of the dollar. Each time the dollar falls 1 per cent, the price of the barrel rises by $4 and of course vice versa."

Obama is right to oppose cutting the gas tax, because it will do nothing except drain the treasury for no real reason. But he is wrong about what to do. Like the Republicans who say drilling in ANWR will give us more oil (in 10 years), Obama says we can conserve our way out of it, which is a joke and a lie.

It's fine to conserve and be against big cars if you want to do that, but it's not really the problem. Meanwhile the economy is screwed because of inflation and Obama does nothing about it.

For instance food. Is he going to tell us to stop eating next?

Posted by wellbasically | April 29, 2008 5:42 PM

Bad Hillary!

Posted by Undecided | April 29, 2008 5:44 PM

Jocelyn, excellent point. There is no end to Hillary's duplicity, it's a bottomless well. She whips up her elderly voters in Pennsylvania by bashing Republicans and accuses Obama of saying nice things about these evil Republicans like Reagan, then she goes ahead and steals freely from Republicans' policies and tactics. Hillary and her advisors really do think the voters are stupid. That and/or they're desperate because as everyone concedes they have almost no chance of winning. And fools like Petey believe somehow Hillary is more "progressive" and is more "electable." As election after election has shown, votes go with real Republicans rather than Republican-lites.

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 5:46 PM

Gee, I thought everyone in the News Media decided Ron Paul was crazy when he said rising gas prices were directly related to the collapse in the value of the dollar.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 5:48 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the gas tax fund road/bridge maintenance? Unless I'm off here, by curtailing the gas tax, we're subsequently cutting off funds to a vital - but grossly underfunded - area of transportation. (I won't even get into funding of public transit - even though I'm carless.)

Of course, I must remind myself that it's far more important to give drivers a break in their pocketbook while the roads and bridges underneath their vehicles literally crumble.

Posted by Judy | April 29, 2008 5:50 PM

The (small minded) genius of this is obvious. Clinton is so right about this issue - and Obama is so good government wrong. McCain actually has to come up with something, because the GOP crowd is paying, basically, the moron tax on gas - they voted in morons, the morons moronically messed up in the middle east and made a shambles of fiscal policy and de-regulated various Ponzi financial schemes, and now those with longer drives, those living in less densely settled areas - namely, those more likely to be Republican - are pissed. This is a cream issue. Obama should have cut off Clinton by supporting this first, but - foolishly - at a time when he needs a shot in the arm, he takes a stance that makes his base happy, if they even know about it, and hems himself in with the disgruntled electorate. Bad move.

Now that he's saddled himself with the goody goody policy, he better find something else to suck up. I'm strongly for Obama, but I'm disturbed that he isn't learning from Clinton how to fight to win.

Posted by roger | April 29, 2008 5:52 PM

Temporarily waiving the federal gas tax this summer between Memorial Day and Labor Day makes a lot of sense as a temporary economic stimulus, and as a way to ameliorate the current high gas prices. You can go back to sticking it to working people after Labor Day.

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 5:54 PM

It's fine to conserve and be against big cars if you want to do that, but it's not really the problem.

Yes it is. Raise the efficiency of the vehicles on the road and you've reduced demand. The FT article is comparing the prices for a weak and strong dollar assuming the fleet of vehicles and the mileage driven is the same as that on the roads today.

That's going to be true for a short-term problem. Laws improving mileage address the long-term problem.

Improve the gallons-per-mile, particularly of the most inefficient cars and trucks in the country and you'll drive down the cost of transportation, even if the oil prices remain the same.

Posted by Jinchi | April 29, 2008 5:55 PM

Clinton's stance was harmless in policy terms and very smart in political before she started using it against Obama.

Matt praised Clinton for finding a smart way to make a stupid policy proposal go away. If she turns around and starts yelling about that stupid policy proposal even louder, then the original reason for Matt's praise is gone.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 29, 2008 5:57 PM

Judy, Obama has been bringing that up. He said today, in NC, that it would cost 7,000 jobs in that state. Don't know if it's true, but they're up on this.

roger: He's been explaining the stupidity of the idea to voters. Hopefully they get it.

Posted by 55 | April 29, 2008 5:57 PM

I think Matthew is discounting Hillary's capacity for policy deviousness, although I don't necessarily share his previously stated fondness for such deviousness (but at the same time, I did like Don Williams devious suggestions).

What would most likely happen is that the Senate GOP minority would filibuster the package in order to block the windfall profits tax on big oil. A windfall profits tax is easily demonizable. Then Hillary can blame the Senate GOP for not providing the gas tax.

That said, Obama noted that this whole thing would save the average consumer $30, less than one tank. In all likelihood, the whole thing would go to the oil companies, who would raise their prices by the exact amount of the gas tax.

pessullivan: "Does she really think she can get enough (R) Senators to support a windfall profit tax on Big Oil to pay for this?"

No.

Posted by bob | April 29, 2008 5:58 PM

Eric K, and Freddiemac,
I think you two have wildly different ideas as to what telecommute means. Eric, you are talking about alternative modes of transport, and Freddiemac is talking about working from home. For the record, telecommuting is working from home.

Hugs and Kisses,
Stacy

Posted by Stacy | April 29, 2008 5:58 PM

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the gas tax fund road/bridge maintenance? Unless I'm off here, by curtailing the gas tax, we're subsequently cutting off funds to a vital - but grossly underfunded - area of transportation."

Your wrong if you think this is a rational reason to oppose a temporary waiver of the gas tax. Along with a temporary waiver of the gas tax, Congress could pass a bill authorizing money from elsewhere in the budget to cover maintenance work needed over the summer.

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 6:00 PM

Conservation isn't really going to happen. If the dollar doesn't change in value, eventually people will make more money as their salaries catch up to the inflated dollar. Then they'll buy big cars again.

If the dollar continues to regain strength against gold, say below $800/oz again, then the gas price will fall below $3/gallon. I predict it here.

Posted by wellbasically | April 29, 2008 6:03 PM

Politicians could make a gas tax much more politically palatable by reframing the issues as such: of course a gas tax is going to increase the cost of gas. However, due to the increased price, consumers will demand less. With less demand for gas, crude oil demand will also drop, which means the price of crude oil in the world market goes down. Finally, this means that the price of gas will also go down. So as a result, the price of gas will not increase by as much as the new tax. Who is paying some of the cost of the tax in this case? Oil producing countries! Less profit for Saudi Arabia and Venezuela - I think that's something we all can agree on.

Posted by DS | April 29, 2008 6:06 PM

Temporarily waiving the federal gas tax this summer between Memorial Day and Labor Day makes a lot of sense as a temporary economic stimulus

We're talking about $20-$30 dollars per vehicle over the whole summer here, Fred. The waiver is a pure PR stunt, likely to be offset completely by outside factors.

Obama is assuming that the voters aren't morons. Clinton and McCain are making a different gamble.

Posted by Jinchi | April 29, 2008 6:07 PM

Re wellbasically's comment "If the dollar continues to regain strength against gold, say below $800/oz again, then the gas price will fall below $3/gallon. I predict it here."
----------
Yes, because we all know that when the Saudi reservoir runs dry, the Baby Jesus will come down from the Heavens and fill it back up.

A "Faith Based Oil Policy". If you don't Believe, you are a heretic who should be stoned.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 6:07 PM

Temporarily waiving the federal gas tax this summer between Memorial Day and Labor Day makes a lot of sense as a temporary economic stimulus

You know, if you want economic stimulus, there's probably a better way to give it than by yoking it to gas consumption. Heck, we could probably more benefit if we just cut a check to people directly. There'd be more money, and it wouldn't go to you based on how much gas you use, which seems like an awfully silly distribution method.

Hey, wait...

Posted by Brad L | April 29, 2008 6:08 PM

There is no such thing as a temporary tax waiver (or tax cut) in today's political environment. It's permanent as soon as its implemented, because anyone who seeks to let it lapse will be drowned out by cries to "make the tax cut permanent!" and "why do you hate the middle class!?!"

On another note, this is one aspect of the "change" I think Obama represents. It is so easy to shamelessly pander, as Hillary has chosen to do here. Instead, Obama chose wise policy over political convenience. It's an approach he's similarly taken with respect to teachers' pay and speaking about higher fuel efficiency standards in Detroit. That's real "straight talk".

Posted by Ready for change | April 29, 2008 6:08 PM

Fred,
Its hard to take you seriously when it is so obvious as to what you will type next. A shitty tax holiday proposal is a shitty proposal regardless of whether you masturbate to Sean Hannity or not. Get serious.

Posted by Stacy | April 29, 2008 6:09 PM

There is no such thing as a temporary tax waiver (or tax cut) in today's political environment. It's permanent as soon as its implemented, because anyone who seeks to let it lapse will be drowned out by cries to "make the tax cut permanent!" and "why do you hate the middle class!?!"

On another note, this is one aspect of the "change" I think Obama represents. It is so easy to shamelessly pander, as Hillary has chosen to do here. Instead, Obama chose wise policy over political convenience. It's an approach he's similarly taken with respect to teachers' pay and speaking about higher fuel efficiency standards in Detroit. That's real "straight talk".

Posted by Ready for change | April 29, 2008 6:14 PM

The main problem with Miles Per Gallon is that it's too low of a number, and humans don't deal well with projecting small differences.

The EPA should require Miles Per 100 Gallons in order to make the numbers bigger and thus more appreciable. Then a Prius is at 4400 or whatever and a Suburban is only at 1000.

I think that would greatly boost the salience of these numbers to the average consumer.

Posted by bob | April 29, 2008 6:16 PM

Re Fred's comment "Your wrong if you think this is a rational reason to oppose a temporary waiver of the gas tax. Along with a temporary waiver of the gas tax, Congress could pass a bill authorizing money from elsewhere in the budget to cover maintenance work needed over the summer. "
-------------

Oh, NOW I see. Pander to the voters by pretending you are giving them a tax cut -- then steal money out of their Social Security Trust Fund to pay for it. Kinda "Rob Peter to ..er.. Pay Peter". But only until you get elected.

You're a sneaky fucker, Fred. I like that.

But isn't this a continuation of the "economic policy" that Bush has been following for the past 7 years? The reason the dollar is worth about 40% LESS than what it was a few years ago? The reason why everything is now COSTING a lot more?

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 6:17 PM

Re Jinchi's comment "Obama is assuming that the voters aren't morons "
-------------
That is the QUICKEST way to LOSE an election.

Having Rev Wright speak at the National Press Club is a far distant second.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 6:21 PM

Stacy,

I know what telecommuting means, my original point was that simply telecommuting 1 day a week is a huge (20%) cut in your weekly gas consumption. Of course I tend to find that when I work at home for the day I more than offset my gas savings (probably about $5) by eating lunch at a much more expensive restaurant than the company cafeteria:-)

For people who can't telecommute, they could likley save as much as the 18 cent a gallon gas tax holiday by finding alternate transportation 1 or 2 days a month.

Posted by Eric k | April 29, 2008 6:27 PM

"Oh, NOW I see. Pander to the voters by pretending you are giving them a tax cut -- then steal money out of their Social Security Trust Fund to pay for it."

Again, Don Williams outs himself as an advocate of privatized Social Security (although unlike President Bush, he seems to favor a full privatization). If all Americans' Social Security contributions were held safely in their individual, private accounts, then the politicians wouldn't be able to "steal" them (they also wouldn't be able to use those contributions to pay for payments to current retirees and other budget items, but Don Williams doesn't care about that).

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 6:37 PM

Fred,
While you're obviously right about Social Security, that doesn't change Don William's point. That money is going to have to come from somewhere. I'm not sure how this is even debatable. The tax holiday is an absolute joke. Anyone with a brain, left or right, can see this.

Posted by Ted2 | April 29, 2008 6:42 PM

Re Fred's comment "Again, Don Williams outs himself as an advocate of privatized Social Security (although unlike President Bush, he seems to favor a full privatization)."
-----------------
1) Well, I do think that Republican respect for "property rights" should be extended to the poor and middle class as well as to the rich.

For the past 7 years, the Republicans have been doing the equivalent of mugging old people in a dark alley --stealing $3 Trillion from their Social Security accounts.

But instead of being sent to prison , they get reelected with lavish salaries and sinecures. I guess "respect for the law" is just another Republican con game for the Rubes,eh?

2) Fred goes on to say:
"If all Americans' Social Security contributions were held safely in their individual, private accounts, then the politicians wouldn't be able to "steal" them (they also wouldn't be able to use those contributions to pay for payments to current retirees and other budget items, but Don Williams doesn't care about that)."

I agree. Then those accounts would have the full Fourth Amendment protection against Government "taking" that protects the wealth of the superrich.

3) I would also note that Bush has NOT been using the Social Security surplus to "pay for payments to current retirees "

but instead has diverted $2 Trillion into tax cuts for the rich and another $1 Trillion into a disasterous war to grab some Iraqi oil deposits for his Texas "bidness" buddies. The ones who rescued him from bankruptcy and ,allegedly, got him off the bottle.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 6:49 PM

D-Will, I'm assuming you're a voter, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a moron. Underestimating the electorate is sooo 20th Century! Thank G_d that we finally have a candidate who time and again refuses to talk down to voters.

As for the issue of telecommuting, here's an idea: Mandate a 35-hour work week. That way, either you eliminate 2 commuter days per month on average, or you get overtime to cover the cost of gas. (You can use the extra 5 hours for your blog comments, thus preserving actual levels of productivity!) Vive Jospin!

Posted by LIJ | April 29, 2008 6:59 PM

Don Williams,

Why do you continue to parade your ignorance on this?

"For the past 7 years, the Republicans have been doing the equivalent of mugging old people in a dark alley --stealing $3 Trillion from their Social Security accounts."

Since for the last 7 years, old people have been getting their Social Security every month like clockwork, this makes zero sense. One more time for you: Social Security tax revenues go into the Social Security Trust Fund where, by law, they are 'invested' in Treasury bonds. Since Treasury bonds, are, by definition, loans to the federal government, the federal government then spends this money. Since you (ludicrously) characterize this spending as "stealing" from the Social Security Trust Fund, you must consider current retirees and poor people thieves, because that's where the federal government is spending money being lent to it by the Social Security Trust Fund's bonds 00 on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 7:11 PM

Didn't anyone here read Krugman on this issue, or learn even the most basic economics in school:

Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 29, 2008 7:22 PM

Just why isn't demand for gas falling? I'm driving less, even though Im better able to afford the increase than many people. I take the train an extra day a week, or else telecommute-- and I am very careful about how much non-work- related driving I do. But even if you don't have my commuting options, there an awful lot of other driving people do they could cut back on. Even if everybody just cut back 5% (or better, 10%) demand would take a major hit.
As for India and China, they are poor countries. I would imagine the run-up in prices would be far less affordable for them than it is for us or Europe. Plus they have alternatives for transportation still-- cars are still a luxury for them. You'd think their demand would be more elastict han ours and would fall quite a bit in the face of these prices.

Posted by JonF | April 29, 2008 7:26 PM

When I argued that Obama should assume that the voters ARE morons, LIJ objected: "Underestimating the electorate is sooo 20th Century!"
-------------
US voters entered the 21st century by electing a two-term President, George W Bush. In spite of Al Gore's warnings in 2000, They gave an alcoholic and failed businessman the national credit card -- and Bush ran up roughly $5 Trillion in debt that the voters now have to pay off.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 7:51 PM

JonF,

The Chinese gov't hasn't raised gas and diesel prices since 2006 - their drivers aren't feeling the pain, hence continued high consupmtion:

State-set diesel and gasoline prices have not been raised since May 2006 because of government concerns that pricier energy could push up already high inflation or spark unrest.

Posted by jmo | April 29, 2008 7:53 PM

"It takes a special kind of commenter to attack Matthew for his intellectual dishonesty in refusing to embrace a politician's intellectual dishonesty."

But Matthew had embraced this precise pander two days ago. And as well he should have.

-----

"Clinton's position is right on health care and wrong on the gas tax holiday"

Agreed with as much agreement as I can muster.

But I'll send you out to the original, rather interesting thread:

Universal healthcare and Social Security are big deals in terms of federal government policy. That's where you hold your ground. The gas tax is small potatoes in terms of federal government policy. That's where you pander like a panda bear on crack, cuz it just doesn't matter.

And that's exemplary political setup. Pander on the meaningless issue. Treat the real issue as if were a box filled with the most valuable gems.

It's yet another illustration of how Plouffe leads the gang that couldn't shoot straight: They're playing the gas tax honorably, while pandering on universal healthcare and Social Security.

They're always picking the wrong battles, and that's how they're well along the road of pooching a race that seemed God given to them two months ago.

Fight for pandering OR fight for policy. And properly pick which issues fall into those two action tactical plans.

To restate it a third time, Clinton's 'wrong decision on policy grounds' on the gas tax is a perfect pander since there are no major ill-effect. Obama's 'wrong decision on policy grounds' on universal healthcare is an atrociously counterproductive way to go about a pander because the underlying issue is deep, and will reverberate through the federal budget at a high level for decades.

Pick your spots.

And that's the best you're going to get out of me at the moment, six Camparis to the wind, that I am.

Posted by Petey | April 29, 2008 7:59 PM

In case you brainiacs don't get it yet, the voters in both North Carolina and Indiana have to commute long distances. Because those are largely rural areas.

When I talk to my brother in rural Virginia about politics, he complains bitterly about the high cost of filling up his pickup.

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080429/ts_alt_afp/usvoteenergyhealtheconomyinflationpoll
------------
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - The spiraling cost of gasoline tops a long and growing list of Americans' economic woes, with consumers also stressed by the rising cost of health care, food, and housing, according to a national survey released Tuesday.

The poll, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found respondents most stressed about the rising cost of gasoline, with 44 percent of respondents saying they're having problems paying up at the pump.

In second place was growing anxiety over getting a good-paying job or pay raise (29 percent), according to the Menlo Park, California-based foundation.

Health care costs were a close third, with nearly three in 10 Americans (28 percent) reporting that they or a family member has had a serious problem meeting the cost of medical treatment or health insurance during the current economic downturn.

Also on the list of top consumer concerns were problems paying rent or the mortgage (19 percent); credit card payments or personal debt (18 percent); rising food costs (18 percent); and stock market losses (16 percent)."
-----------

Matthew should realize that not everybody in this country can take the subway to work. McCain was arguing the other day that Obama is an elitist who is indifferent to the real problems of the poor. This gas tax relief position will nail that message down with a lot of people.

I'm starting to feel like I'm back in the 2004 John Kerry campaign.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 8:00 PM

The voters just saw George Bush give a $200 BILLION bailout to the Investment banks -- and saw that Obama and the Democratic Congress didn't let out a single fucking squeek of protest.

Now McCain proposes giving working people some relief on the high costs they HAVE to pay to commute to their jobs -- and Obama objects.

See how well that goes over in about 7 days.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 8:16 PM

MY - Or some kind of program designed to facilitate/encourage the trading in of inefficient vehicles for ones that don't guzzle as much gas.

Trading in your car or SUV doesn't accomplish much, except deflect your low MPG vehicle onto some other consumer - unless you are wiling to "take one for the team" and accept Zero dollars or scrap dollar value in trade so that the evil non-hybrid car or SUV can be crushed and made into Chinese rebar for their constuction industry or new Guandong factory I-beams..

Otherwise, by accepting blue book trade-in value - you may get to feel morally superior - but your Dodge Durango or BMW will continue its mery way burning gas, except by Juan&Maria and their 5 kids in Mexico or here if they cross the "so-called Border".

Bear in mind that the US was a petroleum exporter until population growth sucked up all the exportable excess, and with Open Borders, we are to grow to 438 million people by 2050, making all conservation efforts a joke....but for those who do want to conserve so they can at least rub their neighbors nose in their exemplary green behavior...we might actually drop prices a little before the exploding numbers of Pedros and Abdullahs and Chandras here and globally negate it.

So, asking businesses to set up employees to telecommute or car pool at least partially is a huge savings in the moral superiority bank. Getting people to accept planning their shopping to as minimal trips as possible is a huge savor. Setting up stricter CAFE standards will help. But nothing works in changing behavior more than high prices. A person who commutes 120 miles a day makes a tradeoff - I want to live nowhere where I work or pay taxes there as long as cheap gas frees me - but permanently high energy prices may force Americans out of that high energy wastage lifestyle they got away with with dirt cheap energy prices.
R Powell said a 2 buck surcharge. It should be higher, maybe 3 bucks, and should be put into real techology and real solutions that get us off ME oil, not pie in the sky "more basic research into non-oil using energy sector uses so 20 years from now we might have some new things". The most practical solution is using that 3 buck or so tax to building coal liquification and oil sand, oil shale projects that could cut the 400 billion we send to Arabs and other foreigners every year down to 100 billion in 10 years and also create 1.5 million new American jobs.

The Ruling Elites mostly escape that pain that will force Americans to change their ways until the immigration makes conservation with no new cheap reliable new energy unfeasible. But we should stick them with some surcharges so that they just don't preach that the lesser proles need to be green while the wealthy consume to great excess as long as they plant trees or pay a premium for "renewable green power" from some 80-year old dam. Slapping a 3 dollar a gallon tax on the corporate and Hollywood type's private jet fuel will make CEOs and Stars fume, but it could be put to use in new energy R&D, and likely reduce the air delays and congestion that private planes for the Ruling Elites are causing.
And people like Al Gore, that have mansions that use 30 times the electricity of an average home shouldn't pay regular rates. We should pass legislation that residential electricity (and water) hogs pay a 40% surtax on any usage more than double that of the average American houshold.

Nationally, we need a Federal tax on the energy supply side. We not only have NIMBY towns, we have whole NIMBY states like Connecticut and Maryland that oppose ANY new energy project be put in their state. No new dams, no nukes ever again, no coal, no natural gas facilities (the terrorists could endanger us!!), no wind power (it ruins our wealthiest people's best water and country views and makes sailing yachts in our favorite spots more difficult!!). Worse, the same sort of Northeast people oppose most energy development elsewhere except "stuff that can be put in bitter people Flyover Country that we don't give a shit about."
Slap big surcharges on electricity that has to be transmitted and go to states that refuse to supply their own citizens.

Posted by chris ford | April 29, 2008 8:37 PM

I guess I'm in the camp who thinks Obama has to find a way to one-up Clinton on this. Gas now costs a fortune. This is a profound shock to the wallet, and is causing ordinary Americans real pain every week. And they want to know what their leaders are going to do about it. They see this as an obvious standard of living issue, and a problem to be fixed, not a necessary evil to be endured. It simply won't do to respond with elitist policy wonkery about how we need all that revenue, and about how it really is a good thing that gas costs so much, because it will force those wasteful slobs to ride the bus more and drive less. Fortuantely, Obama is too bright to back himself into some sort Dukakis-like corner here.

If we really need the revenue, then let our progressive candidates come up with some good populist proposals for replacing the revenue with new taxes on the people who are rolling in petro-dough, so we can stop stripping it from the wallets of working Americans. If you say that new taxes will just be passed on to the consumer, I say it is the politicians' job to figure out how to make sure that doesn't happen.

You know, a lot of working Americans out here far from urban metropolises don't have a lot of "lifestyle elasticisty". They can't take the bus more; they can't drive less; and they can't transition in real time to the more densely populated living Matt would like to see. Plus, they don't want to take the freaking bus, or drive less. They like their cars and they like driving. Its part of the standard of living they are accustomed to, and they want politicians to figure out how to preserve their standard of living, not lecture them on how they must do with less.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 29, 2008 8:54 PM

Your wrong if you think this is a rational reason to oppose a temporary waiver of the gas tax. Along with a temporary waiver of the gas tax, Congress could pass a bill authorizing money from elsewhere in the budget to cover maintenance work needed over the summer.

Give me one good reason why the government shouldn't instead simply send me a $25 check to cover the money I'd save on gas over the summer.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 8:57 PM

Making it impossible for black people to vote for you is a pretty easy way for a Democrat to lose an election too...

But then, when you talk about Hillary's problems with black people, thats racial blackmail. When you talk about Obama's so-called 'white people' problem, thats just bowing to reality...

Posted by Soullite | April 29, 2008 8:58 PM

* What summer are the Senators talking about? It sure can't be this summer. Senator McCain is never in Washington to push legislation or vote on any bills and Senator Clinton has proposed the cost of the tax moratorium be offset by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Do the Senators really believe we are so gullible to think they can pull this off in the next five weeks?
http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | April 29, 2008 9:00 PM

There is no such thing as a temporary tax waiver (or tax cut) in today's political environment.

Very true. George Bush's tax cuts were deliberately written to expire in 2010 - by the Republicans. George Bush started his campaign to "make the tax cuts permanent" about a week after they were enacted.

Posted by Jinchi | April 29, 2008 9:02 PM

Re: The Chinese gov't hasn't raised gas and diesel prices since 2006 - their drivers aren't feeling the pain, hence continued high consupmtion:

How is that possible-- not that the government hasn't raised prices, I understand that a sufficiently autocratic government can impose price controls (heck, our government has done so in eras past). But Chinese drivers should find that while gas is still cheap, it's hard to find, as Americans did in the 70s when price controls kept gas prices low-- and supplies dried up. If China isn't exeriencing gas shortages due to price controls than that tells us something very, very significant: that the run up in price is NOT due to supply and demand at all, since plenty of gasoline can be supplied at lower prices.

Re: the voters in both North Carolina and Indiana have to commute long distances. Because those are largely rural areas.

North Carolina has developed several large metropolitan areas: the I-40 corridor between Raleigh and Winston-Salem, and Charlotte. It's not all "Mayberry RFD" these days.

Re: Trading in your car or SUV doesn't accomplish much, except deflect your low MPG vehicle onto some other consumer

Who may be giving up an even older, less fuel efficient vehicle.

Posted by JonF | April 29, 2008 9:33 PM

Re Tyro's comment "Give me one good reason why the government shouldn't instead simply send me a $25 check to cover the money I'd save on gas over the summer "
-----------
On the one hand, that's a good idea. That way, the oil companies can't simply jack up prices and grab all of the tax cut for themselves. With Tyro's plan the oil companies are still subject to the discipline of market prices. Because consumers can go elsewhere or cut back on buying gas. Plus consumers are still deterred by high pump prices from unnecessary consumption.

The only objection I see is that people in the rural countryside who have to drive long distances to work only get the same relief as those who live close to where they work. Whereas cutting the tax would, in theory, divert greater relief to those who need it most -- i.e., those who buy the most gas.

I'm not sure this is a significant objection -- we don't want to encourage unnecessary driving. And the poorer a person is , the bigger the impact of receiving a tax refund check.

I would make the check bigger-- about $75. Assuming 2 gallons of gas consumption per day , then 180 days of driving uses up 360 gallons. 20 cents per gallon refund yields 72 dollars. Plus $75 is more likely to buy a vote than $25. $25 seems more like an insult.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 9:53 PM

Trading in your car or SUV doesn't accomplish much, except deflect your low MPG vehicle onto some other consumer

If I'm commuting 100 miles a day (or 50, or whatever we are assuming to be the rural case that we are all so worried about), then trading that guzzler for a more efficient vehicle absolutely does something for me. Maybe the person who buys it has a shorter commute, or is using it as a second vehicle or for specific types of tasks, like, say, hauling things. In any case, the point of the exercise is not to reduce carbon emissions, its to make travel cheaper.

Gas consumption is more elastic than people think, even in the "hinterlands."

Posted by Brad L | April 29, 2008 9:57 PM

What Dan Kervick said.

Obama's really shooting himself in the foot on this. Regardless of its substantive merits, a gas tax holiday at a time of record-high gas prices, during the summer preceding a general election, is pretty much a no-brainer politically. The vast majority of Americans are not particularly engaged on the issues of Iraq, economic inequality, climate change, abortion, and the other things that professional liberals spend so much time and energy fretting over. What does get their attention is having to pay $100 to fill up their gas tank.

And it's wonderfully ironic to see the same people who assert that the government is spending too much on roads and highways at the expense of mass transit complain that a gas tax holiday will deprive the government of revenues for the fund used to build roads and highways.

Posted by Mixner | April 29, 2008 10:28 PM

Maybe you all aren't real clear on this, but if Obama has to win by lying and bullshitting, then I REALLY DON'T CARE IF HE WINS. And I'm not alone in that. The whole point of Obama's candidacy is not to take part in the pandering horseshit.

Posted by Rock On | April 29, 2008 11:51 PM

The whole point of Obama's candidacy is not to take part in the pandering horseshit.

That ship sailed long ago. Obama can pander with the best of them. Remember his "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it" ad? Even Obamaphile Ezra Klein called it demagoguing.

Posted by Mixner | April 30, 2008 12:03 AM

Re Rock On's comment "Maybe you all aren't real clear on this, but if Obama has to win by lying and bullshitting, then I REALLY DON'T CARE IF HE WINS "
--------------
1) Really? So to sooth your delicate GIRLISH sensibilities, we're supposed to accept 10,000 more dead kids in Iran and Iraq?

2) We're suppose to accept another $10 TRILLION in debt-- and the deep misery that brings upon the 50 percent of the US households who don't make $50,000 per year?

3) We're suppose to accept MILLIONS of people dying years before their time because of lack of medical care?

Fuck you, moron.

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 12:26 AM

Finally, some common sense from a pundit: Robert Samuelson: "Start Drilling". Excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it?

[...]

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout "energy independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable). The United States now imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. The result: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.

The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity. Producers would have less power to exact ever-higher prices, because there would be more competition among them to sell. OPEC loses some leverage; its members cheat.

[...]

Increasing production also is important. Output from older fields, including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might stabilize output or even reduce imports. No one knows exactly what's in these areas, because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5 percent of present U.S. oil use.

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Higher prices perversely discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenues, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.

Posted by Fred | April 30, 2008 1:23 AM

But Matthew had embraced this precise pander two days ago. And as well he should have.

No he didn't. He embraced a different pander, one in which Clinton did not actually want to have a gas holiday, but wanted to sound like she did. He did not endorse Clinton's position because he agrees with you that the gas tax holidy is a trivial issue. To wit:

In other words, Clinton doesn't agree with McCain's idea. She'll do it only "if we could make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund." But we can't make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund, so she won't do it.

Now she actually wants to impose a tax that will fund it. So instead of a plan she made conditional on an event she knew would not happen, it's now become a plan she actually wants to implement.

It's bad form to make accusations of intellectual dishonesty if you don't understand what the actual arguments are. It also renders your deep insights into how a politician should determine which issues to take seriously not merely pretentious but also fairly stupid.

Posted by Josh E. | April 30, 2008 2:32 AM

Making the buses run at convenient times instead of always 45-30 minutes ahead or behind of when you need to be somewhere might also help.

Posted by MNPundit | April 30, 2008 3:44 AM

Re: Gas priices & the weak dollar

umm...you are aware that all of the GCC states except Kuwait use a dollar peg, right? The dollar does not rise or fall relative to the Saudi Riyal, so the largest oil exporters are insensitive to the dollar's fluctuations against the Euro or other currencies.

Posted by Zeke | April 30, 2008 4:05 AM

It is correct that high gas prices are largely a result of dollar devaluation. As an aside, Zeke's counterpoint doesn't prove otherwise: the currencies pegged to the dollar are just devaluing as well, including the currencies of oil-producing countries that are pegged to the dollar, so the price of oil just goes up in those currencies too as the dollar devalues (and incidentally, that is leading some oil-producting countries to reconsider pegging their currencies to the dollar). Indeed, that is the point of calling it a dollar "devaluation": this is not a function of exchange rates per se, but rather a function of each dollar rapidly losing value in the real sense (meaning the ability of each dollar to buy real goods and services).

However, it is incorrect to suggest that dollar devaluation being the primary cause of high oil prices in dollars means reducing consumption of oil can't save Americans real money. The thing about dollar devaluation is that it won't inflate all goods and services equally: the hardest hit will be things like commodities produced and sold globally, such as oil. But the more the production and sale of a given good or service is local to the U.S., the less it will reflect dollar devaluation (no product is completely isolated from global markets, of course, but neither are all products as global as commodities like oil).

So, for example, suppose one could use either Mode of Transport A which was fueled by oil, or Mode of Transport B which was fueled by local labor (say, a taxi versus a pedicab). As the dollar devalues, the price of Mode of Transport A may inflate more than the price of Mode of Transport B precisely because the price of oil will be affected the most by dollar devaluation, and the price of local labor less so.

And so all that is why I suspect that the price of oil (and other similar global commodities, including many food commodities) will continue to inflate faster in dollar terms than the general inflation rate as measured by something like the CPI, at least as long as dollar devaluation continues. And that will give U.S. consumers an ongoing incentive to shift their consumption patterns away from the goods and services that rely the most on global commodities. And that includes reducing their consumption of oil, to the extent possible, which in turn includes shifting to modes of transport that rely less on oil and more on local products.

Posted by DTM | April 30, 2008 7:04 AM

So in other words, you initially applauded Hillary for lying about her gas tax plan, but are now shocked to discover that she was lying to you all along?

It looks to me like he applauded her for lying, and is now shocked to discover that she wasn't.

It's the kind of intellectual dishonesty we've all grown accustomed to from Matthew the last few months.

By "we," I assume you mean "I and the voices in my head."

Posted by Cyrus | April 30, 2008 8:45 AM

A helpful idea for the longer term is a "fee-bate" on car sales.

If you buy a vehicle with poor gas mileage, you pay an extra tax fee. If you buy a vehicle with good gas mileage, you get tax rebate.

This can be revenue-neutral.

Posted by Oberon | April 30, 2008 9:53 AM

Don Williams --
I am not alone in this. I think if Obama has to resort to Hillary-esque dog and pony shows, most of his under-30 support is going to stop caring and there will be a slow trickle away from the surge in Dem registration as people realize that, in fact, one party really isn't better than the other. But you know, continue to keep your eyes on the short term.

Posted by Rock On | April 30, 2008 12:27 PM

How cute, but when the same dynamics apply to health care but with the tables turned, we get a silent MY. These man crushes are crazy powerful, even the Hawvads fall prey.

Posted by Israel | April 30, 2008 12:28 PM

Re RockOn's comment "But you know, continue to keep your eyes on the short term."
-------------
News flash. If you don't get elected, there is no long term.

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 1:17 PM