« What About the Good News? | Main | End of an Era » "Obama is Essentially Right"30 Apr 2008 10:23 am Here's a crazy media moment. ABC News is reporting on the candidates' gas tax dispute and instead of just going with claim and counterclaim a reporter informs us that he spoke to several economists about the issue and they all agree that "Obama is essentially right" that what Clinton and McCain are proposing wouldn't accomplish anything: Strange days. Comments (59)
It's a display of shameful bias in favor of truth. 
Krugman hits this perfectly: I’ve been on the road (actually doing a public dialog with Barney Frank on financial reform), so I’m just catching up. Anyway, John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no. (My bolding.) ----- And didn't Matthew endorse Clinton's plan on the gas tax just a couple of days ago?
The "good" journalism got started at the end of this segment when Gibson asked what kind of savings this would mean for the typical middle-class American household that pulls in $500,000 per year from dividend income. And then he asked what percentage of Americans buy gas wearing a flag lapel pin. Who cares what a bunch of egghead economists think! I wanna hear about lapel pins!!!!
What the hell? And on ABC at that? Prepare yourself- the End Times are at hand!
Amazing. A reporter being tough and objective and not going for a stupid gossip column angle. He could have explained it a little more forcefully--if you cut the gas tax by 18 cents oil companies will raise the cost of gas by 18 cents--but I'll take what I can get.
CNN also had an extended segment with a CATO institute guy agreeing with Obama that the gas tax holiday would do nothing. Strange bedfellows these times make. Anyway, I don't quite understand why Clinton and McCain are talking about what they "would" do to try to lower gas prices this summer. They're currently in the Senate, right? Can't they actually do something, if they really believe what they're dishing out? Finally, I get what Krugman is saying in Petey's post, but I disagree. The gas tax issue is a matter of larger principle -- namely, the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander.
Weird. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews and all of his commentators agreed that it was a stupid idea, but McCain & Clinton's stupid idea was better than Obama's nothing.
I'm sorry, an ill-advised tax reduction plain can't happen but health care is on the verge of passage? What country is Paul Krugman talking about there?
I don't know why Krugman thinks the chance of a symbolic-but-"pointless" pander that helps Americans keep wasting gas for one last, glorious summer on the already-unpopular-president's watch, and which has support from McCain, Clinton, and probably Bush as well, is *less* likely to occur than a major restructuring of 1/7th of the American economy.
And didn't Matthew endorse Clinton's plan on the gas tax just a couple of days ago? I believe Matthew complemented Clinton's political posturing on the issue, not the actual plan.
"I'm sorry, an ill-advised tax reduction plain can't happen but health care is on the verge of passage? " Shorter southpaw: Yes we can't! or The audacity of despair.
Good thing it's cutting against the two candidates who routinely feel comfortable rejecting any and all negative coverage as hurtful bias. Hasn't the rhetoric of bias permeated American political discussion so much that we're just in a "post-fact" era now? A bad fact just means that particular reporter hates you personally, right?
Dear Hillary, Respectfully, if you really do love America, the best thing that you can do for it is to shoot McCain in the head with a handgun smuggled onto the senate floor, and then turn the gun on yourself and blow out your brains. Yours, America
Finally, I get what Krugman is saying in Petey's post, but I disagree. The gas tax issue is a matter of larger principle -- namely, the extent to which a candidate is willing to pander. It is worse than that. While I agree that Clinton's health care policy is more sound that Obama's, her economic policies (especially housing) are wacked. Everything that she says there is pandering. Why else on Earth would she say crazy stuff like a commission composed of Greenspan and Rubin --- two of the main architects of this mess. Additionally, she supports these euphamistically named "affordability programs", which benefit the rich people by subjugating poor people with more debt so that house prices stay up. Every time she does this, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that her corporatist ties have corrupted her, and that she will be totally unable to address this economic crisis. And that is going to be even more important than health care.
They must have figured Obama was toast over Wright, so they could afford to be gracious and cover an issue for once.
I'm gonna try and pretend I didn't see this. Otherwise I might start getting my hopes up that some MSM guys will reveal how incorrect and misguided the conservatives' plan is for thinking that domestic drilling will fix all our problems.
"I'm sorry, an ill-advised tax reduction plain can't happen but health care is on the verge of passage? " Shorter southpaw: Yes we can't! or The audacity of despair. More honest Petey: I'm pretending not to know the difference between aspiration and probability.
Yes, Abut what does Jeremiah Wright think about the gas tax holiday? It's a legitimate issue.
Bravo! Actual reporting from ABC? Maybe they're trying to regain their reputation ....
On the other hand, not having the "gas tax holiday" doesn't accomplish anything either. And enough demagoguing about collapsing bridges and increased demand. 18 cents a gallon isn't going to create that either. Obama is right on the gas tax holiday but he also voted for Cheney's short-sighted energy plan so I'm not all that impressed.
1) What's REALLY Strange is that yesterday I suggested that Obama needed to OUT-PANDER Hillary with the voters on this issue given the upcoming primaries -- and I suggested that Obama should go to a service station and pump gas into voters cars. 2) Today, I check the news and see that HILLARY has now announced that SHE is going to be pumping gas into voters cars in Indiana. 3) This means one of two possible things: Either someone in the Hillary campaign is spying on our comments -- or else Hillary thinks like me. To quote James Carville, I wouldn't want to live in a country that would have someone like me in the government.
and and http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080430/pl_nm/usa_politics_gastax_economists_dc
southpaw, Good one.
"What's REALLY Strange is that yesterday I suggested that Obama needed to OUT-PANDER Hillary with the voters on this issue given the upcoming primaries -- and I suggested that Obama should go to a service station and pump gas into voters cars." Obama would rather be right than be President. He's not going to lower himself to do the necessary work to actually win.
Summer gas tax relief >>>> 3 months duration(?) = 5000 miles (20k per year?) /20MPG average = 250 gallons burned X .18 savings per gallon = $45.00 saved. All this drama over $45.00 per car? $15.00 a month. Geez. We've pissed away a 1/2 a trillion dollars (likely more) in 5 years to battle to a draw in Iraq. Fighting a ragged group of malcontents having no air force, no navy, no mechanized artillary, no satellite capability, disrupted supply and command chains and limited financial resources. WTF is a more pressing matter here?
Krugman: "Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach." Your average citizen who doens't know what mandates entail, do know the stereotypical differences between Democrats and Repubicans, liberals and conservatives, on the two main issues: taxes and security. With the gas tax pander, Clinton has now endorsed the conservative narrative on both issues. Demogogue 9/11 and call your opponent weak on security - i.e. scare the voters - and pander on the tax issue. It's your money! Endorsing the conservative narrative is much more of a breach. Clinton's camp know they have almost no chance, so they're flailing in desperation, trying anything hoping something will stick. Obama will have greater election coatails and has drawn more into the process and increased turnout. This is what will be needed to enact meaningful legislation on healthcare or whatever. Meanwhile Hillary's Tonya Harding campaign - with Krugman's help - is poisoning the Democrat's chance at the White House. Isn't that a serious breach? With McCain in the White House, probably very little would get done on health care.
Wow, ABC news doing actual reporting on a real issue--knock me over with a feather! Hillary and McCain are shamelessly pandering. It's one thing for McCain to do this, but Hillary knows better. Shame on her! Lawrence O'Donnell on Ed Schultz yesterday made it very clear how Bill Clinton was the one who (rightly) increased the gas tax back in the 90s to help pay for our crumbling infrastructure. There is no way this so-called "holiday" would even make it thru Congress. The whole thing is the worst kind of pandering. Voters may fall for it (it does sound great if you don't stop to think it thru) but I sure hope the superdelegates are thinking about the kind of leadership this demonstrates.
"Obama would rather be right than be President." Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, would rather be President than be right. Which is a great reason not to vote for either of them.
After the hatchet job Gibson and Snuffleupagus did on Obama's Wright repudiation speech yesterday, I suppose they realized they had better do some real journalism sooner or later in order to avoid being recorded as an illegal campaign donation to Hillary.
Two observations: 1. It seems to me that ABC is walking back a bit from the trivia-debate assault. Good for them. 2. What is really important is whether you will vote for Hagee or Wright in the main election.
In any sane society Hillary and McCain would be torn apart by angry mobs.
Ah, DBX, I didn't know about that yesterday. Spoke too soon I guess.
And didn't Matthew endorse Clinton's plan on the gas tax just a couple of days ago? No, but I'm sure you'll keep lying about it just the same.
Petey says "Obama would rather be right than be President." That's a pretty ringing endorsement. Why would you vote for someone who believed the opposite?
The colossal hypocrisy of Clinton's position is her pretense that she will somehow be able to get a windfall profits tax on oil companies through a Senate that has 41 Republicans and a Joe Lieberman in it. Instead, we'll either lose tens of thousands of infrastructure jobs and repairs this summer or we'll have to borrow billions more from Hill's hau pengyos in Beijing.
The colossal hypocrisy of Clinton's position is her pretense that she will somehow be able to get a windfall profits tax on oil companies through a Senate that has 41 Republicans and a Joe Lieberman in it. Instead, we'll either lose tens of thousands of infrastructure jobs and repairs this summer or we'll have to borrow billions more from Hill's hau pengyos in Beijing.
Unlike Obama, true patriots know you can buy at least half a dozen flag pins with those $18.00 dollars. And sure we'll add a few billion more to the national debt, but as rightwing patriots we all know we can kick that down the road to our kids, very much like how we are kicking the Iraq war down the road to those people serving their fourth tours of duty. Now if you will excuse me, my couch pillow needs fluffing.
The colossal hypocrisy of Clinton's position is her pretense that she will somehow be able to get a windfall profits tax on oil companies through a Senate that has 41 Republicans and a Joe Lieberman in it. Instead, we'll either lose tens of thousands of infrastructure jobs and repairs this summer or we'll have to borrow billions more from Hill's hau pengyos in Beijing.
This would almost be encouraging if the economics of it weren't so, so very easy to understand that it's frustrating to see an ostensible professional journalist have to phone a Ph.D. contact to get it explained. Taxes move supply curves like this; when you're far to the right on a steepening supply curve, where increases in demand yield price increases but not supply increases, all the gain from a tax cut is of course going to be captured by suppliers. This is literally second-day stuff in any intro college course.
"No, but I'm sure you'll keep lying about it just the same." Ugh. Please don't make me do research. I do make an effort not to lie.
Jack has a good point. We are actually in a gasoline glut right now. Consumption is down, and refining capacity is up. The glut has actually caused some capacity to sit idle out of cost concerns for the first time in many years. We could jack up the gas tax, and suppliers would eat it, not pass it on to consumers.
Hillary will deliver health care reform! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! "Gas tax holiday" is the real Hillary. Remember the good old days of v-chips and midnight basketball. At least midnight basketball couldn't hurt; it didn't help. But, her other grand idea of freezing interest rates is just insane. Maybe we could have some additional tax credits or something for homeowners out on their butts.
Re Jack Roy's comment "Taxes move supply curves like this; when you're far to the right on a steepening supply curve, where increases in demand yield price increases but not supply increases, all the gain from a tax cut is of course going to be captured by suppliers. This is literally second-day stuff in any intro college course. "
Matt didn't endorse the policy. He (idiotically)endorsed the politics of Clinton's initial statement as a "clever dodge," which your own link demonstrates. I criticized him for that at the time. Now Matt's got a problem with Clinton for actually taking up McCain's cause instead of just finding a way to sidestep the issue (which is what she initially did). Matt's a squish, but you are misrepresenting him.
"That's great. Obama will win the votes of college economics majors in Indiana and North Carolina." Well, it is important to hold your base.
"That's great. Obama will win the votes of college economics majors in Indiana and North Carolina." It isn't that complicated. While most voters would not bother to figure it out themselves, an honest pundit could say, "This move won't save any driver a nickel. It will all go to the refiners". There was an article about it on CNBC. If any of the seven people who watch CNBC pick up on it, it might migrate to the other news channels, or even network Sunday morning bobbleheads.
So Petey loves Clinton's ability to pander and lie and thinks she'll deliver mandates? Sad, poor little Petey obviously hasn't had his juice box yet today. "It is worse than that. While I agree that Clinton's health care policy is more sound that Obama's, her economic policies (especially housing) are wacked. Everything that she says there is pandering. Why else on Earth would she say crazy stuff like a commission composed of Greenspan and Rubin --- two of the main architects of this mess. Additionally, she supports these euphamistically named "affordability programs", which benefit the rich people by subjugating poor people with more debt so that house prices stay up. Every time she does this, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that her corporatist ties have corrupted her, and that she will be totally unable to address this economic crisis. And that is going to be even more important than health care. Posted by Walker | April 30, 2008 11:16 AM" Very true. The fact that she wants to freeze interest rates and doesn't know how interest rates affect inflation means she might just be an idiot. She might put our economy in the crapper and her husband might have freed terrorists, but she promises mandates without an actual enforcement policy, so she must know what she's talking about!
I don't think this has anything to do with the media suddenly becoming responsible. It has more to do with their affection for the gas price storyline. "Policy change implemented, summer vacation saved; tedious economic analysis at 11" -- that is not the story that the media wants. What they want is to have an entire summer during which the skeleton crews that remain after everyone goes on vacation can fill airtime with shots of gas signs taken by local affiliates, incredulous recitations of gas prices, and man-on-the-street interviews with drivers explaining that yeah, all things considered they would prefer to have more money rather than less. It's the easiest story in the world. I admit it's a little odd that they aren't doing he-said-she-said at this early point in the gas price story cycle, but it's understandable: they don't want the situation to be resolved, and so may tend to favor doom & gloom explanations of the situation. That those explanations are correct is irrelevant.
"Well, it is important to hold your base." Was that supposed to be derisive? WEEEAAAAKKK! Oh, that's right, Bill and Hill just fell off the turnip truck the other day. They are SOOOOO in touch with the "common man" with no college education. Except for AA's with no college education. They don't count... "He's not going to lower himself to do the necessary work to actually win." So, Hillary pumping gas for the first time in her life qualifies as work?
"That's great. Obama will win the votes of college economics majors in Indiana and North Carolina." Well, it is important to hold your base. I actually thought Obama's line on this was good from a populist perspective. He said something like: This isn't a tax cut designed to get you through the summer; it's a gimmick designed to get them through an election. That's bound to resonate with people skeptical of Washington. And if you believe the polling, there's a lot of those.
Ugh. Please don't make me do research. You're apparently not very good at it, so I'll do it for you. Several people in that thread pointed out that you didn't understand what MY was embracing and were wrong to say he was endorsing Clinton's current pander. You are continuing to make a false statement after its falsity has been demonstrated to you. That's lying.
Petey: "I do make an effort not to lie." It would be more helpful if you try to make an effort not to be a moron. Or as Yoda put it better, "Try? No! Do - or do not. There is no try."
I am utterly flabbergasted by Obama's subdued handling of this issue. His message is so subtle that he needed to buy a 60-second ad just to explain it all. If Bill Clinton were in Obama's shoes right now, he'd say something like this: "My opponents, Clinton and McCain, who maybe ought to run on the same ticket, want to cut the tax on gas by 18 cents. Now, what do you think is going to happen? Are the oil companies just going to give in and pass the savings on to you? Or do you think they're gonna keep that money? I know you're not stupid. And neither am I: the big corporate interest lobbyists have given millions to my opponents' campaigns, but I've gotten my money online, directly from you. So I can afford to tell you the truth."
To be fair, Danks, what Obama said is simply a different, and probably comparably effective way of dealing with it. Instead of the teacher Bill style, Obama's way is more the knowing wisecrack. He belittles the size of the cut -- in a humorous way that gets a laugh from the audience ("that's halfa tanka gas") -- and then flashes up on screen something like "$1,000 middle class tax cut" accompanied by a bunch of messaging about changing the usual game in Washington. It's still effective stuff, just different. I'd like to see Obama try the Bill method, though -- Obama's way works for effective 30-second TV ads but it isn't so easy to turn into 10-second soundbites for TV news.
Truth has a definite bias for Obama.
What a surprise, Petey the pussy ran away.
DBX, I really think there are two different points that Obama could have made: 1) The tax rebate's effect would be de minimis, maybe only saving folks $30, we need a more long-term solution, etc.; 2) McCain and Clinton are in bed with oil companies who would love a windfall from lower taxes in the name of consumer savings. This whole plan is an elaborate lie to make rich people richer, and both McCain and Clinton are the candidates of rich people/special interests/oil companies/big pharma/Wal-Mart, etc. Now, seriously, why doesn't Obama have the balls to go with #2? Leave #1 to pundits and economists and Mike Bloomberg, he should have gone with #2.
DBX, I really think there are two different points that Obama could have made: 1) The tax rebate's effect would be de minimis, maybe only saving folks $30, we need a more long-term solution, etc.; 2) McCain and Clinton are in bed with oil companies who would love a windfall from lower taxes in the name of consumer savings. This whole plan is an elaborate lie to make rich people richer, and both McCain and Clinton are the candidates of rich people/special interests/oil companies/big pharma/Wal-Mart, etc. Now, seriously, why doesn't Obama have the balls to go with #2? Leave #1 to pundits and economists and Mike Bloomberg, he should have gone with #2.
|
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So now what? The RNC sues to prevent further dissemination of the ABC news story?
Posted by steve duncan | April 30, 2008 10:30 AM