Matthew Yglesias (April 30, 2008) - Solutions, Not Speeches (Domestic Policy)

Pres. Clinton in 2000:

Q. Mr. President, in light of the fact that OPEC has decided to increase production, do you see it as a mistake for the Senate to proceed with a bill that would suspend the gas tax? And if it reached your desk, would you veto it?

A. Well, I don't expect it to reach my desk because there seems to be bipartisan opposition to it in the House, including among the leadership. But the problem I have with it, apart from what it might do to the Highway Trust Fund and the spending obligations that have already been incurred by the acts of Congress, the budgets, is that I'm not sure that the savings would be passed along to the consumers in addition to that.

Posted by David | April 30, 2008 5:36 PM

It's a reminder that Bill Clinton, who certainly stands out among presidents for his wonkishness and interest in policy detail, also wound up gravitating toward a political strategy that leaned heavily on what you might call "policy gimmicks" rather than a serious effort to grapple with national problems.

This is the most sensible thing that you have ever said about the Clintons. This cannot be repeated often enough.

We are going to need a real leader to get us through this unfolding economic mess. A leader who is willing to make Volcker-like decisions that are very, very unpopular, but get the job done in the long term. With this stunt, Clinton has revealed what I have expected for a long time --- she is not that leader.

Posted by Walker | April 30, 2008 5:38 PM

It's a reminder that Bill Clinton, who certainly stands out among presidents for his wonkishness and interest in policy detail, also wound up gravitating toward a political strategy that leaned heavily on what you might call "policy gimmicks" rather than a serious effort to grapple with national problems.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, anyone? Bullseye Matt.

Posted by Jake | April 30, 2008 5:41 PM

Obama has a new ad running in North Carolina and Indiana called "Truth", where he pretty much sums up why this idea is not going to fool anyone:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/barack-obama-re.html

Posted by Ella in NM | April 30, 2008 5:48 PM

Obama has a new ad running in North Carolina and Indiana called "Truth", where he pretty much sums up why this idea is not going to fool anyone:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/barack-obama-re.html

Posted by Ella in NM | April 30, 2008 5:50 PM

1) The voters don't give a hairy rat's ass what the policy wonks or the economists think. And rightfully so.

2) This is NOT a question of energy policy or economics. THis issue is SIMPLE: WHich of the THREE candidates cares enough about the people to do something to help them with high gas prices?

3) Hillary and John McCain have been in national politics for 25 years. They are DIRECTLY responsible for the situation we find ourselves in.

But Obama is too proud to point that out to the voters. Because he's playing the role of being above politics -- a bad way to wage a campaign. Because sometimes the voters decide that a lofty philosopher king is a coward too afraid to stand up and fight for what he thinks is right and for what should be done. Especially if he doesn't SAY what should be done.

4) Hillary and John McCain are only making cheap token gestures that won't really help the people.

But Obama is too proud to point that out. Also too proud to make any gesture that would indicate he recognizes peoples' difficulty and he gives a shit.

5) The voters handle things in a simple fashion. They decide that if someone is too timid to fight Hillary, then he will probably be too timid to fight our nation's enemies.

They decide that if someone can't run a political campaign then he probably can't run the country.

That if he shows no sign of giving a shit about them before the election, then things won't improve after the election.

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 5:50 PM

policy gimmicks?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hillary only come out for the "holiday" after Obama came out against it? If so, then I don't think this is so much a policy gimmick as just another example of Clinton's opportunistic attack campaign. These days, if Obama expressed support for apple pie, Hillary would make a big deal about dessert being bad for people. In other words, while I'll agree it's a gimmick, I don't think it has anything to do with policy....

Posted by j.e.b. | April 30, 2008 5:51 PM

"policy gimmicks" - Matt

I guess one person's gimmick is another person's really awful Republican legislation, like Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Communications Decency Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Omnibus Crime Bill (only half evil, I admit), Desert Fox, and extraordinary renditions. I know, Clinton did some good stuff with tax credits for low income workers; but overall, he did more bad than good and made this place worse.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 30, 2008 5:55 PM

I think the reason for the Clintons' rep as "policy wonks" lies in the phrase "dazzle them with bullshit."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 6:02 PM

I think Matt's criticism of the Clinton administration is spot on. I'm thinking of all of the tiny little tax credits for this or that tiny little targeted group. The sad thing is, Bill did not start out this way. His 1992 campaign was all about three things: 1) a national health care plan, 2) allowing gays in the military, and 3) fixing the wrecked economy.

When #1 was defeated by a pathetic Democratic congress and #3 was very nearly defeated by that very same congress, and #2 was blown out of the water by a full scale attack by military dickheads like Colin Powell, well, he completely lost his way and the rest of his administration became about winning reelection and keeping his poll numbers up. Well, that and keeping a partisan investigation/coup attempt at bay.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 30, 2008 6:05 PM

With this stunt, Clinton has revealed what I have expected for a long time --- she is not that leader.

What did you think being a part of the DLC means?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 30, 2008 6:05 PM

Hillary Clinton is managing to undermine the perception [...] that she's the candidate of substance, the earnest policy wonk type who really knows how to fix America's problems.

I hope you're right, but that's only if the media cover the issue accurately, which doesn't seem like a good bet. More likely she winds up yet again reinforcing one of John McCain's messages and making him seem more moderate because "even Hillary Clinton" agrees with him. She really should be getting a salary from his campaign at this point.

Posted by KCinDC | April 30, 2008 6:17 PM

It's pretty obvious Hillary knows it's a bad idea too. She's attached impossible conditions to her support (make up the tax some where else) so she can say she supports McCain's limo subsidy without fear that it will actually pass in the form she wants.

I'm in favor of doing away with all income taxes and tariffs if we find magic beans.

Posted by MikeJ | April 30, 2008 6:23 PM

Haven't you been watching Matt? She has been running around reciting a laundry list of things she will do for people including clean their teeth and mop their kitchen floors.

Of course she has been a non-serious panderer for a long, long time in this campaign. Anyone that ever thought she was serious is not paying attention.

Posted by Bubba | April 30, 2008 6:36 PM

In order to have a "serious effort to grapple national problems" one needs to have public support.

The best way to cut consumption in the long-run is to drive up the price of gasoline and home heating fuel even further. Rebates could be given to low-income earners to make sure they could continue to subsist. The same goes for electricity consumption. The problem with this kind of solution is two-fold: 1) It is incredibly regressive, and it allow the affluent to continue their high consumption of energy at their discretion, and 2) It would provoke a huge backlash among the majority of the population, who are middle income earners who can neither afford high prices or qualify for government assistance.

Clinton's gas tax holiday may not amount to very many dollars in the typical family's pocket, but at least it is an acknowledgment of the financial challenges facing middle to lower income families and is revenue neutral. Clinton has a comprehensive, long-term energy plan that includes investments in "green" technologies and "green-collar" jobs.... ultimately it is technological change that will be required to close the gap between consumer and producer.

The middle class wants a president who recognizes their challenges and is prepared to help, even in small ways that may seem insignificant to Barack Obama. An extra $30 means something in the hands of a mom trying to raise children, by the way... it's not nothing. And thirty bucks is better than zero dollars, which is the nothing Obama offers on this issue.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 6:36 PM

An extra $30 means something in the hands of a mom trying to raise children

Perfect. Then send her $30. Why bother with all these phony gas-tax-gimmicks, which are just going to get recaptures by the gas wholesalers and retailers?

Posted by Tyro | April 30, 2008 6:39 PM

If Hillary thinks the Tax Gas Holiday is such a great idea, why has she not submitted legislation to the senate... oh that's right, she would rather pander to the common folk than take action on a stupid idea.

Posted by Dan Rugn | April 30, 2008 6:42 PM

Tyro:

What you call a "tax gimmick" I call a sincere acknowledgment of the hardship facing ordinary Americans as they try to pay the fuel they need to go to work, take their kids to school, and live their daily lives. In addition, it happens to put a few extra dollars in the hands of Americans. Although, considering the oil companies would be paying for it out of their profits, I don't see it as a case of Big Oil recapturing anything.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 6:46 PM

It's a reminder that Bill Clinton, who certainly stands out among presidents for his wonkishness and interest in policy detail, also wound up gravitating toward a political strategy that leaned heavily on what you might call "policy gimmicks" rather than a serious effort to grapple with national problems.

Yes, exactly, yes.

All the more teeth-gnashing today, when we're at a potentially historic political moment where a majority of the American people appear willing to be led on some very large issues like global warming.

But the Clintons don't lead...they follow in front.

Posted by Mike | April 30, 2008 6:46 PM

Tim K, empirical experience with these ideas indicates I'm right and you're wrong. You still haven't explained why simply sending that mother a $30 check isn't a better idea. If it means so much to her, why do you want to deny her the cash-in-the-hand that could put food on her family?

Posted by Tyro | April 30, 2008 6:52 PM

Ahhh yes Matt I well remember the disastrous Clinton years!
Thousands of Americans died in undeclared wars, the economy was in the toilet, unemployment reached an all time low along with shitty job creation...
Oh wait! It wasn't like that at all! In fact most Americans of either sex would gladly blow Bill to bring back those halcyon days.
But nooooo, not you "progressives". He wasn't near bold enough! What a #$%^&* Bill was right?!
Forget that he had a totally uncooperative Dem Congress and that the coup attempt began before he was sworn in and that he did what no other recent President has done, bring down the national debt while keeping most Americans happy campers.
What do you think Obama will accomplish? Of course he won't get elected but if he did?
Do you think Congress is going to raise taxes on the middle class like you want? Do you think he will actually get American troops out of Iraq? Ha ha ha! The war will go on with all its costs.
He will have no money for all your airy fairy social engineering.
Sure Americans want national health care but they don't want to pay for it and Congress won't raise the revenue. They will want to be reelected in 2010.
Obama will be lucky to make Clintonian small policy adjustments. And a obstreperous Dem Congress will force him to rule from the center just like that fool Clinton. Sheesh!
So say it again: there is no money for your grandiose plans.
Obama can afford to be Black and serve Hope soup.
That is it. Period.
To pretend otherwise is either a lie or gross stupidity.
And when the American public realizes that raising taxes on the middle class is at the heart of the "progressive" nanny state the voters will flush you guys faster than you can say Hussein.

And PS I got a million bones to pick with Clinton. Rwanda alone...
But American democracy is at its best incremental in making change. In that sense we are a profoundly conservative nation. Obama knows that, just watch how quickly he pivots to the center once he wins the nomination.
Don't Ask Don't Tell for all its many horrors is a necessary mid step to openly serving gay and lesbians.
Same with dope.
Clinton made it OK for any future president to have a drug history. Say thank you Obama... and Matt.

Posted by JTHB | April 30, 2008 6:57 PM

Right. Okay. If Obama doesn't support a stupid, meaningless, and supposedly temporary gas tax "holiday" (and what sort of anti-American doesn't like holidays) it means that not only he but anyone else (of any income category) who doesn't support this absurd pathetic gesture somehow can't feel the pain of the workin' men and gals and is yet another sign of our awful, calloused elitism, along with their willingness to eat arugula and failure to support the flag pin industry.

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 6:57 PM

Tyro:

"...put food on her family." Cute.

How would sending people $30 (or whatever the amount) make people feel the government is acknowledging fuel prices? Hello! *knock knock* Anybody in there? This is politics and Clinton is clearly trying to get resonance on an issue of public concern, which is what campaigning is all about.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 7:02 PM

John McCain mostly reenforces one's impression of him as someone who doesn't have real ideas, principles, interest in, etc. domestic policy issues.

Also: someone who thinks money is what other people use to pay for things.

considering the oil companies would be paying for it out of their profits, I don't see it as a case of Big Oil recapturing anything.

Yes, because that bit of any tax holiday legislation would certainly find its way out of the Senate, given the bipartisan comity shown by Mitch McConnell since 2007.

It's okay to be stunningly naive, Tim K; not so much to prop up the poor working mom with your naivety.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 30, 2008 7:05 PM

"It's a reminder that Bill Clinton, who certainly stands out among presidents for his wonkishness and interest in policy detail, also wound up gravitating toward a political strategy that leaned heavily on what you might call 'policy gimmicks' rather than a serious effort to grapple with national problems."

Go on lying.

Posted by Jennifer | April 30, 2008 7:08 PM

Shorter Tim K:

"Pandering pols are awesome 'cause it feels so good to be the panderee"

Posted by Brautigan | April 30, 2008 7:11 PM

Tim K, you were the one who was saying that $30 was really important to a mother raising a family. If you're so concerned about her, then tell me what will mean more to her: $30 in the hand, or some fraction of $2/week over the summer that she might save if there's a tax holiday that is split between the consumer and the retailer? It's unlikely that there will be a significant decrease in gas prices due to the tax holiday, which retailers and wholesalers will try to recapture, and even the full amount will be less significant to a struggling single mother than a $30 check given to her right now.

Now, if you're talking about the political value of using this as a campaign gambit without actually passing the idea, fine, but then you have to account for the possibility that Obama might simply outwit her by portraying her as just another devious, cynical politician.

Posted by Tyro | April 30, 2008 7:12 PM

Pseudo:

If a very modest piece of gas holiday legislation can't make it out of the Senate (and I take your point) then do you envision how Obama is going to "change how business is done in Washington."

Unless you plan on taking Obama to task for his fairy princess snake oil promises to change politics as we know it, you have no credibility calling me naive for anything.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 7:13 PM

Also, excuse me for being one of those hardened extremists who is really, really tired of Republicans f***ing around with awesome "tax breaks" that end up screwing me over far worse than the microscopic short-term benefit I supposedly get thanks to the damages done to some process of governance I really need a lot more than their tax games.

But, then, apparently this is about "politics" and making knuckleheads "feel" that Big Candidate Really Cares About Them In Truly Minor Ways.

As one of these actually struggling working Americans, please let me say that they can take their cruddy, pathetic baksheesh substitute for real economic assistance and shove it up their actually elite a**es.

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 7:13 PM

Re El Cid's comment "If Obama doesn't support a stupid, meaningless, and supposedly temporary gas tax "holiday" (and what sort of anti-American doesn't like holidays) it means that not only he but anyone else (of any income category) who doesn't support this absurd pathetic gesture somehow can't feel the pain of the workin' men and gals and is yet another sign of our awful, calloused elitism, along with their willingness to eat arugula and failure to support the flag pin industry "
---------------
Well, you don't have to make the same pathetic gesture as Hillary but DO SOMETHING.

Leading an angry mob in stringing Dick Cheney up from a lamppost would, of course, be wrong.

But it would be fair to point out that we're in this deep shit after being led for 7 years by a Republican President and a Republican Congress. And that John McCain --YOO HOO!!!-- is a fucking Republican.

I'm starting to wonder if Obama has a fucking spine. You see the people of this country suffering greatly from past actions of the Republican and instead of stinging criticism of the Republicans, we hear nothing but this Kumbaya bullshit.

It's one thing to appeal to our fellow countrymen --the common citizens -- who are disappointed Republicans. They have been screwed by Bush/Cheney as well.

But its something else to have anything but the deepest contempt for the Republican political leadership. And for traitors in our midst like Hillary (and Joe Lieberman) who sleep with the enemy.

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 7:18 PM

Another great way to get elected president: calling average Americans "knuckleheads."

No, you aren't elitist at all. What would ever give you that idea?

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 7:23 PM

Don Williams for President!

...Barack Obama for Hawaiian prep school headmaster!

Posted by RKU | April 30, 2008 7:25 PM

I'm starting to wonder if Obama has a fucking spine. You see the people of this country suffering greatly from past actions of the Republican and instead of stinging criticism of the Republicans, we hear nothing but this Kumbaya bullshit.

Yes, because angry black man will play really well on CNN, MSNBC and especially Faux. We haven't seen any instances of that in, oh, 24 hours.

Posted by Ready for change | April 30, 2008 7:27 PM

Aren't you getting tired of carrying all that Republican water, Timmeh?

Isn't it getting a little heavy, even for you?

Posted by southpaw | April 30, 2008 7:30 PM

Damn, the MY pushback on this issue is impressive after his slipping up the other day and realizing the good politics of her proposal.

Which indicates to me the Obama camp actually thinks it will work and they are desperate to play catch-up, realizing that she completely outplayed his campaign on the issue. Or Matt's fellow wonks refused to share any more recipes or come by the frat house until Matt repudiated his deeply irresponsible post.

But this is the best:

MY: "It's a reminder that Bill Clinton, who certainly stands out among presidents for his wonkishness and interest in policy detail, also wound up gravitating toward a political strategy that leaned heavily on what you might call 'policy gimmicks' rather than a serious effort to grapple with national problems."

Yeah, that budget surplus he left the nation with when he left office was no big whoop, just like the V-Chip, right? No "serious" effort involved there with any "national" problems.

Posted by Andruw | April 30, 2008 7:30 PM

Re El Cid's comment "As one of these actually struggling working Americans, please let me say that they can take their cruddy, pathetic baksheesh substitute for real economic assistance and shove it up their actually elite a**es."
---------------
If we save 50,000 votes in North Carolina and Indiana, we don't need your single vote.

I , of course, don't favor pandering as problem solving or even as a common practice. But when you are a week away from two decisive primaries, you can't let Hillary get away with this bullshit.

The people who SUFFER from the Democratic Party's endemic Political Malpractice are the Democratic constituents, NOT the politicans.

Obama will never have to worry about where his next meal is coming from. Some of the people he claims to be leading will --if he loses.

John Kerry could afford to goof off in 2004 -- he has Teresa to support him. Many of his Democratic constituents were not so fortunate.

Obama and every other Democratic leader should get up in the morning, look in the bathroom mirror and say "It's not about ME!"

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 7:31 PM

southpaw:

Right, because anyone who doesn't support the coming of the ObaMessiah is a Republican.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 7:33 PM

The V-chip was a big whoop?

Posted by southpaw | April 30, 2008 7:33 PM

Obama and every other Democratic leader should get up in the morning, look in the bathroom mirror and say "It's not about ME!"

"This election is not about me, its not about Sen. Clinton, it’s not about John McCain, it’s about you.”

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/obama_its_about_you.php

Posted by Ready for change | April 30, 2008 7:37 PM

southpaw:

Right, because anyone who doesn't support the coming of the ObaMessiah is a Republican.

Well, no, and I didn't call you a Republican. When you mock a baseline literacy in the economics of taxation as elitist, you're carrying Republican water.

Posted by southpaw | April 30, 2008 7:39 PM

I was sarcastically comparing something along the lines of what MY was talking about (V-Chip, could have used other 'small-bore' issues of the day), with Clinton's achievement on the deficit, since MY claimed Clinton didn't make a "serious" effort on significant "national" issues, and when I read his post the surplus Clinton left Bush immediately jumped to mind

Posted by Andruw | April 30, 2008 7:42 PM

Tim K:

I'm not elitist because I'm willing to call some of my fellow Americans knuckleheads. I'm not running for public office, I'm not campaigning to be a public intellectual who can bring us all together, and I'm not asking anyone to let me lead their church in a healing prayer.

I perhaps am elitist because I think better arguments are better than worse arguments. I think stupid arguments are stupid. I think people who make stupid statements and stupid arguments may just be stupid.

I know, I know: 'gosh, well I hope you Obamabots spread this everywhere so everyone who sees it knows what elitists you all are' blah blah blah blah blah.

Hey, also, if you don't believe in evolution and you think an invisible magic dude created Adam and Eve with his magic wand, you're an idiot! How 'bout that? Elitist? Tim K decides!

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 7:42 PM

Don Williams: I don't agree that the gas tax proposal actually would capture large numbers of votes, but that's an empirically addressable question, and maybe I've missed some polling which would address the topic. So far the people I've talked to, who are admittedly just a non-random sample of people I work with at quite un-elite jobs, pretty much just rolled their eyes at the suggestion. That isn't to say that it might not bring in votes.

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 7:46 PM

Ah, apologies Andruw.

I think that's about right. Clinton's administration had one big economic whoop that we generally liked (save NAFTA for some folks) tied to a big number of small cultural whoops that we didn't.

Posted by southpaw | April 30, 2008 7:49 PM

El Cid, I'm not even that much in favor of the gas tax cut. I agree the oil companies would just jack up the prices.

But it is a political IMPERATIVE that if Hillary makes a gesture to helping the voters --even if the gesture is utter bullshit -- then Obama has to respond in kind.

Offer a $75 check in the mail.

Then wait for John McCain to raise the ante to 40 acres and a mule.

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 7:52 PM

Why am I not shocked that Tim K has no grasp of fundamental microeconomics?

Posted by Andy | April 30, 2008 7:53 PM

it is a political IMPERATIVE that if Hillary makes a gesture to helping the voters --even if the gesture is utter bullshit -- then Obama has to respond in kind

Why? Most people already believe she is dishonest. His latest ad ("Truth") highlights the gimmicky nature of the gas tax holiday. Why try to out-pander? Don't you think voters will value not being taken for idiots more than the $3/week savings they'd get over 12 weeks? And remember, he's running in the GE against the "Straight Talk Express" (and its accompanying media lovefest). He needs to convince voters he's actually the one that will lead, not just pander.

Posted by Ready for change | April 30, 2008 8:01 PM

Yeah, that budget surplus he left the nation with when he left office was no big whoop, just like the V-Chip, right? No "serious" effort involved there with any "national" problems.

Go study up on the meaning of the "unified budget". There was no surplus if you disregard the social security trust fund. And now we are talking about cutting benefits because we have spent all that money elsewhere.

Clinton is responsible for a lot of economic lies we have to deal with today --- like the change in CPI and change in unemployment measurements. The didn't bite him in the ass because the economy was actually pretty good in the late 90s. But it has come home to roost now. The positive GDP that we got today is because Clinton's version of the CPI says inflation is on 2.5%.

If you go back to the measurements from the early years of Reagan, then you will see that inflation now is greater than it was in 1981. You have Clinton to thank for the reason that no one realizes this.

Posted by Walker | April 30, 2008 8:05 PM

When the facts are bad for McCain, pound McCain. When the facts are bad for Hillary, pound Hillary!

And when the facts are bad for Obama, pound McCain!

Posted by Klug | April 30, 2008 8:06 PM

Hmmm. I just got an email from someone in the Obama Campaign named David Plouffe (probably a generic broadcast mail):

-------------
"Donald --

Thanks to you, we're putting a new ad on the air in Indiana and North Carolina responding to Senator Clinton's attacks ahead of next Tuesday's primary.

It's only possible because of the outpouring of support we received from supporters like you before tonight's financial reporting deadline.

The topic is a pressing issue in the race right now: how to solve the energy crisis and get gas prices under control.

The ad shows Barack at his best, cutting through the Washington gimmicks and talking about real solutions.

I hope you take a look now:

http://my.barackobama.com/gasprices

Both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton have demanded that we suspend the gas tax, which would not lower gas prices -- experts say it's likely to increase the amount that oil companies charge for gas.

Economists on both the Democratic and Republican sides have called the McCain-Clinton proposal a "gimmick" and "pointless." Clinton aides even bragged to the Washington Post that the plan is just a political ploy to help their candidate sound like she's against Big Oil.

Watch the ad that you helped air and see how Barack addresses this important issue:"
------------

I liked the "$1000 Middle Class Tax Cut" bullet at the end of the TV ad. That's my kind of pandering.

Going once. Going twice...

Posted by Don Williams | April 30, 2008 8:24 PM

Wouldn't it be great if, during one of the Devil Monster's gas pumping stunts, a spark of static electricity caused a huge fireball, sending her straight to hell?

We can only hope and pray.

Posted by hillaryisthedevil | April 30, 2008 8:27 PM

To me, its a reminder that Bill Clinton knew how not to get stuck on the wrong side of a popular but ultimately meaningless political issue.

Obama's "eat your spinach" approach goes over well with the wankosphere but most real people hear him saying, "McCain thinks you actually care about saving $25 to $30 this summer" and respond, well, yeah, that would be great.

Posted by pj | April 30, 2008 8:32 PM

Re Don Williams

Gee, Mr. Williams is less then happy with his hero, Senator Obama. I know how the good Senator can make Mr. Williams jump back on the bus again. All he has to do is to say that, if he is elected, he will immediately order that Hiam Saban be arrested and sent to Guantanamo.

Posted by SLC | April 30, 2008 8:37 PM

To me, its a reminder that Bill Clinton knew how not to get stuck on the wrong side of a popular but ultimately meaningless political issue.

I actually agree and I think that Hillary's pivoting on the issue wasn't bad. I'm simply irritated that she's using the issue to bash Obama over the head with it, because that hurts the party's brand when she actually triangulates on an issue and then uses her triangulated stand to bash another Democrat (the same goes for Obama's Harry-and-Louise-style ads).

In short, I don't mind Hillary's position on the matter as long as she uses the stance to deflect and shut down talk of the issue altogether. It's bad when she takes the position for the purpose of continuing to talk about it, because it's inherently a bad idea.

Plus, frankly, I'd prefer that the government send me a $25-$50 check. (Tim K, why does that single mother not deserve a $30 check?)

Posted by Tyro | April 30, 2008 8:39 PM

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Andrew Sullivan
Matthew Yglesias
Ross Douthat
Megan McArdle
Marc Ambinder
James Fallows
Jeffrey Goldberg
Clive Crook

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed James Fallows is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

Sigh. I would subscribe to a magazine with James Fallows in it, but you'd have to pay me to take a magazine with as much toxic stupidity that the rest of you clowns provide.

The Atlantic: It's a clown car, not a vagina.

Posted by anon | April 30, 2008 8:46 PM

Hey pj, it's not an "eat your spinach" approach. It's dude they're playing three card monty and you're gonna get taken.

Posted by bjd | April 30, 2008 8:57 PM

I get the sense that there are a lot of commenters here who think that they can have the debate over whether or not people are going to be fooled by what everyone admits is a dumbass proposal without any of the supposed rubes actually catching on that it's a universally admitted dumbass proposal.

It's about $2.50 a week. Less than a gallon of gas. It does nothing to stop the long-term rise in gas prices. It does nothing to reduce consumption. It also promotes additional consumption, meaning that any potential savings would likely be offset...by additional spending on gas.

Most "real people" (i.e., the ones you don't make up) have the ability to look at the moving picture box or the fancy word page and realize that they've been promised Not Very Much for a Very Long Time.

Stop presuming the endless stupidity of the American people, please.

Posted by Starscream | April 30, 2008 8:58 PM

Starscream makes me laugh!

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 9:09 PM

Hey anon,

Fallows agrees with Matthew.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Posted by br | April 30, 2008 10:03 PM

TimK, you can tell Clinton really screwed this one up when even Petey doesn't drag his knuckles into the room to defend her. Didn't that tell you something? Hint, hint....

PS. It's the economics, stupid!

Posted by kass | April 30, 2008 10:05 PM

Believe it or not, Starscream AND hillaryisthedevil make me laugh, though I do worry the Secret Service may be closing in on hillaryisthedevil's whereabouts very soon.

Posted by Andruw | April 30, 2008 10:21 PM

kass: "TimK, you can tell Clinton really screwed this one up when even Petey doesn't drag his knuckles into the room to defend her."

Clearly kass has been following these series of posts very closely...

To get back to the actual substance, I really doubt the oil companies would raise their prices in response, and thus make any consumer savings meaningless. They're not that dumb, something that brazen would lead to calls to nationalize the damn industry! They would wait until 11/5 to jack them up.

BTW, I'm not in favor of suspending or lowering any taxes, but that may not be an electoral winner.

Posted by Andruw | April 30, 2008 10:33 PM

Yeah, and Obama's ethanol whoring makes him a paragon of good government. Yippee.

Posted by Will Allen | April 30, 2008 10:38 PM

This has nothing to do with the fundamental microeconomics at play. Critics can not on the one hand claim that is not significant enough to make a difference for families, but on the other hand is significant because it was further drive up demand and prices. It is either significant or it is not: make up your minds and come up with a coherent stance!

Absolutely no one is claiming a gas tax holiday is a solution to the energy crisis. Neither, however, is lecturing people about driving their cars less. If a revenue-neutral temporary gas tax holiday is the part of a comprehensive energy solution that sweetens the pot for the typical family, then it's well worth indulging in a bit of gimmickry.

Maybe if Obama came up with his own ideas we could compare and contrast them, but nothing he has said until now is really any different than what Clinton says, except he seems indifferent to high gas prices in the short-term.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 10:57 PM

I will make gasoline free for all Americans, especially those who drive cars that get less than 15 mpg.

Vote for me! Gas is free!

Posted by Pedro | April 30, 2008 11:08 PM

Once again, Andruw buys into Petey's lies and makes them his own. Why are you such a liar, Andruw? Or are you just stupid? Could be both, I guess.

Posted by Seitz | April 30, 2008 11:15 PM

When Rev. Wright's book comes out later this year, Matt will put up 427 consecutive posts on the gas tax.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 30, 2008 11:47 PM

Dear Steve Sailer,

Fuck you, you racist prick.

Somebody had to say it.

Posted by br | April 30, 2008 11:54 PM

Dear Steve Sailer,

Any comments on the proposed gas tax holiday? In fact do you have any comments on anything that does not involve race?

Just curious...

Posted by DJ | May 1, 2008 12:14 AM

He's not even worth your scorn, br. Sailer is worthy of pity. It's sad that racists like Sailer even bother to show up in public.

Posted by Seitz | May 1, 2008 12:15 AM

Steve Sailer,

To quell your critics, please make (for once) a clear economic argument on some issue that does not involve race.

Please use your highly evolved, well-honed caucasian brain to show that you are far superior to Matt.

Please...

[snark]

Posted by DJ | May 1, 2008 12:25 AM

Maybe if Obama came up with his own ideas we could compare and contrast them.

Right here.

I do wish the recurring "Obama only gives pretty speeches" meme had some grounding in reality.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 1, 2008 1:21 AM

I should have been more specific. Maybe if Obama came up with some ideas that were any different than Senator Clinton's. Both have long-term solutions on the energy issue, but only she is speaking to voters current problems.

Posted by Tim K | May 1, 2008 1:50 AM

If you want to speak with Steve Sailer personally, just put an ad up on Craigslist - any state or city - saying you have first edition Sambo books for sale. You'll hear from him within 24 hours.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 1, 2008 2:27 AM

Both have long-term solutions on the energy issue, but only she is speaking to voters current problems.

Actually, Hillary's problem is that her argument on this issue only feeds in McCain's campaign and the Republicans' empty promises rather than helping in a tangible way. She originally chose a policy pivot that allow her to shut down discussion of the gas holiday idea while advocating a combination tax holiday/windfall tax that would never get passed. Good! She then proceeded to pretend this was a good idea and popularize the idea and feed it, only giving strength to the concept of a gas tax holiday to begin with, strengthening McCain's position and that of those who were advocating a gas tax holiday. Bad!

She's not speaking to voters' problems, she's compounding them by making the race more about Republican issues.

Posted by Tyro | May 1, 2008 3:18 AM

For those who think that a temporary waiver of the gas tax would be "meaningless", consider this: You're going to fill your car up with gas. There are two gas stations on in close proximity. One is charging 18 cents less per gallon than the other. Would you go to the one charging 18 cents more because you considered that difference "meaningless"? Of course not. You'd fill up for 18 cents less per gallon and feel like you just got a deal. That 18 cent tax break will give Americans a small measure of relief during a weak economic period coinciding with the most expensive season of the year to buy gas.

There is a stubbornness among many lefties that causes them to reject any incremental steps to ameliorate a situation*; thus for ten years we've heard that drilling in ANWR would be "meaningless" because it would "only" fulfill 5% of our domestic oil demand. Of course we could have used that additional supply right now to lessen high oil prices. But in the short term there are a few other incremental measures that can be done to reduce the cost of gas during the summer driving season:

1) We can stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the summer.

2) We can start selling some percentage of the SPR over the summer (e.g., 5%).

3) We can suspend federal regulations requiring more expensive summer gasoline blends.

4) The federal government can encourage states to lower their taxes on gas over the summer as well. Dems in Congress have been asking for federal aid to the states as part of a stimulus, so why not give grants to the states for, say, up to 18 cents per gallon of gas sold over the summer if those states lower their taxes on gas by up to 18 cents per gallon.

5) We can temporarily suspend the 54 cent tariff on Brazilian sugarcane-derived ethanol. Replacing domestic ethanol with Brazilian ethanol, would knock about another 22 cents per gallon off the cost of gas on the East Coast.

*Some lefties of course want energy to be a lot more expensive for Americans, so they don't care about ameliorating anything. Other lefties think we are in the middle of a Peak Oil/Malthusian/end-of-times increase in oil prices, not realizing that a significant component of the current high prices (20%?) is due to a speculative bubble which will pop within the next several months. Hence, these lefties are loathe to give any temporary relief to working Americans because in their fever-dreams we are doomed anyway, do Joe Six-Pack might as well start suffering now or get his fat ass on a bike like a hip blogger.

Posted by Fred | May 1, 2008 3:25 AM

MY: "Hillary Clinton is managing to undermine the perception -- something she'd embedded in even a lot of people who aren't hugely sympathetic to her campaign -- that she's the candidate of substance, the earnest policy wonk type who really knows how to fix America's problems."

Makes sense. But when MY said that Hillary's gas tax tomfoolery was kind of cool, was he undermining his recent attempts to portray himself as a policy wonk type, or is he not of late trying to portray himself in that way at all? If it's the latter I'm wondering what the point is of criticizing HRC's rhetoric on the merits.

Tim K: "If a revenue-neutral temporary gas tax holiday is the part of a comprehensive energy solution that sweetens the pot for the typical family, then it's well worth indulging in a bit of gimmickry."

Except that it's not and it won't be. The solution to the problem of gas prices for the typical family is creating alternatives to driving the old Blazer to work everyday. Shameless wealthy people in Hummers will complain about gas prices forever, but we shouldn't listen to them. Middle class people who want to get to and from work are now starting to buy more efficient cars, car pool, demand more mass transit, move closer to work, etc. The market, together with targeted taxation intended to encourage efficiency, is working. So how is screwing around with those mechanisms a part of Hillary's comprehensive energy plans?

Posted by Colatina | May 1, 2008 3:26 AM

"If a very modest piece of gas holiday legislation can't make it out of the Senate (and I take your point) then do you envision how Obama is going to "change how business is done in Washington."

Unless you plan on taking Obama to task for his fairy princess snake oil promises to change politics as we know it, you have no credibility calling me naive for anything.

Posted by Tim K | April 30, 2008 7:13 PM"

Once someone challenges you on substance, you go for the strawman and assume whomever you are debating is stupid. That's why people think you're a douche. Then again, it also may have to do with thinking Israel is more important than the US. At least Will Allen brings up the valid point that Obama's embrace of ethanol subsidies is stupid as well.

The idea that Clinton's politics on this micro-initiative will work relies on assuming the stupidity of the American people. Assuming Americans are stupid is rather elitist. They will notice if gas prices are the same after the holiday as before. Check out the checks for tax rebates. There is a "memo" line that says something like "tax relief for working Americans." The memo line on a lump $30 check could say "tax relief for Americans paying high gas prices," which would be acknowledging directly the pains of dealing with higher gas prices.

"To get back to the actual substance, I really doubt the oil companies would raise their prices in response, and thus make any consumer savings meaningless. They're not that dumb, something that brazen would lead to calls to nationalize the damn industry! They would wait until 11/5 to jack them up.

BTW, I'm not in favor of suspending or lowering any taxes, but that may not be an electoral winner.

Posted by Andruw | April 30, 2008 10:33 PM"

The idea that we would ever get close to nationalizing the oil industry in this country is silly. They are simply too powerful and doing so would trigger the American fear of socialism. For one thing, it would likely be unconstitutional. After all, if Truman couldn't nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War on constitutional grounds, I doubt a Supreme Court packed with Republican appointees is going to let DC take over major Republican backers. There is also no real free market in oil because a small number of companies control supply and distribution, so no company would have the incentive to not raise prices to counteract the tax. If in the middle of an oil glut they aren't lowering prices, why would they all of a sudden lower prices in response to a small drop in a tax? This tax isn't what has been driving high gas prices, but the economic decisions of oil companies coupled with higher worldwide demand. Meanwhile, implementing this tax "relief" would end up seeing less money going towards maintaining our infrastructure in the middle of the summer.

Posted by Reality Man | May 1, 2008 3:38 AM

"For those who think that a temporary waiver of the gas tax would be "meaningless", consider this: You're going to fill your car up with gas. There are two gas stations on in close proximity. One is charging 18 cents less per gallon than the other. Would you go to the one charging 18 cents more because you considered that difference "meaningless"? Of course not. You'd fill up for 18 cents less per gallon and feel like you just got a deal. That 18 cent tax break will give Americans a small measure of relief during a weak economic period coinciding with the most expensive season of the year to buy gas."

Fred, this assumes that oil companies will lower prices in response to this. They have no real incentive to lower them $0.18 per gallon. I would bet they wouldn't lower them more than 2 cents a gallon, if at all. I have to agree with you on lowering the tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports though.

Posted by Reality Man | May 1, 2008 3:44 AM

"Fred, this assumes that oil companies will lower prices in response to this. They have no real incentive to lower them $0.18 per gallon."

Their incentive would be competition from other companies. The companies that are both refiners/sellers of gasoline as well as oil producers (e.g., ExxonMobil) would also have an incentive to avoid political heat from pocketing any of the difference. The pure-play refiners (i.e., the ones that just refine and sell gasoline, but don't produce their own oil) probably wouldn't be able to lower prices as much, because they have been getting crushed as the high crude prices have squeezed their crack spreads (the spread between crude and the products refined from it).

Posted by Fred | May 1, 2008 4:10 AM

"Their incentive would be competition from other companies. The companies that are both refiners/sellers of gasoline as well as oil producers (e.g., ExxonMobil) would also have an incentive to avoid political heat from pocketing any of the difference. The pure-play refiners (i.e., the ones that just refine and sell gasoline, but don't produce their own oil) probably wouldn't be able to lower prices as much, because they have been getting crushed as the high crude prices have squeezed their crack spreads (the spread between crude and the products refined from it).

Posted by Fred | May 1, 2008 4:10 AM"

This assumes a free market in oil, which really doesn't exist because we have a market controlled by a handful of giants. When have we ever seen a race to the bottom in terms of prices in gas? In addition, there is always political heat against the oil companies. Every few years a handful of oil execs have to go before Congress, the same members of Congress say the same platitudes, the oil execs say the prices are just the market at work and nothing changes.

Posted by Reality Man | May 1, 2008 4:45 AM

Re: Fred, this assumes that oil companies will lower prices in response to this.

???
Why would oil companies have to lower their prices? Cut the tax and gas is immediately $.18 cheaper-- the oil companies have no say on that. And no, they would not raise the price $.18 a gallon-- they have no reason to; cutting the tax does not affect their bottom line in any way. A couple years ago Florida had a gas tax holiday for several weeks in late summer. That cut $.10 a gallon off the price, and no, the oil companies did not raise the price by $.10 a gallon.
This isn't to say I think this would be a good idea, but opposition to it should be based on sounder pronciples than some of what I am seeing here.

Posted by JonF | May 1, 2008 6:23 AM

Where I live gas prices are about double what they are in the States, and the median income is about half that of the US. People are still paying.

I'm okay with $6 per gallon gas, but I think they ought to do it with a Federal tax increase labeled the Iraq Surcharge.

The argument here as I understand it is, "who can maximize the political benefits of this bullshit in this election cycle." I think Don Williams is overly pessimistic about the viability of Obama's position, although I agree with him on strategy in general vis a vis spreading panic among the middle class. It's a Demo Classic.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 1, 2008 6:28 AM

"Why would oil companies have to lower their prices? Cut the tax and gas is immediately $.18 cheaper-- the oil companies have no say on that. And no, they would not raise the price $.18 a gallon-- they have no reason to; cutting the tax does not affect their bottom line in any way. A couple years ago Florida had a gas tax holiday for several weeks in late summer. That cut $.10 a gallon off the price, and no, the oil companies did not raise the price by $.10 a gallon.
This isn't to say I think this would be a good idea, but opposition to it should be based on sounder pronciples than some of what I am seeing here.

Posted by JonF | May 1, 2008 6:23 AM"

I have no idea how the Florida tax operated. However, the tax under consideration here is levied on oil companies, not directly on the consumption of gas. As such, they pass the cost of paying the tax onto consumers so they don't have to pay it directly. Consumers have shown they are willing to pay the price that comes with the tax. Keeping prices the same even with this tax relief means more profit for the oil companies. More profit is, after all, what the oil companies are after.

Posted by Reality Man | May 1, 2008 6:55 AM

"Critics can not on the one hand claim that is not significant enough to make a difference for families, but on the other hand is significant because it was further drive up demand and prices. It is either significant or it is not: make up your minds and come up with a coherent stance!"

You ever been to a department store?

Situation A: "That's $40. It's too much."

Situation B: "There's a 33% off sale! That $60 thing is $40! I should get it while it's on sale!"

If we have everyone telling us that a commodity is cheaper and that purchasing it now as opposed to later will give us financial relief when it actually doesn't, all it does is encourage more consumption and therefore (particularly in this inelastic case) ultimately higher prices.

Posted by Starscream | May 1, 2008 7:17 AM

"Critics can not on the one hand claim that is not significant enough to make a difference for families, but on the other hand is significant because it was further drive up demand and prices. It is either significant or it is not: make up your minds and come up with a coherent stance!"

Has it not occurred to you that these are, in fact, two separate questions which can simultaneously be true?

Are there not all sorts of minor short term cost savings I can choose or receive which may have longer term cost rises or detrimental effects?

What, are we all now supposed to be 2 years old and caring about nothing but playing with the pretty $10 bill?

I seem to recall hearing something on the news about certain forms of mortgages which offered short term savings but which opened the risk of dramatic price increases later on. But since the example is not exactly and 100% the identical twin of this situation, nothing can be learned, and any policy which doesn't prioritize putting about 2 hours' worth of pay in my pocket over the course of a few months, no matter what consequences may follow, must be the right and proletarian thing to do.

I would wager, though, that had John Edwards still been in the race, this would have been an opportune moment to introduce a new, dramatic, and yet actually rationally justified policy for a much more serious intervention into the problem faced by working people on their fuel costs -- more than likely something that had been in the works for a while anyway. But he isn't, and maybe that's just what I would do.

Posted by El Cid | May 1, 2008 7:37 AM

Starscream:

As you just acknowledged, demand and supply of gasoline is highly inelastic in most cases, unlike most department store items that rely on discretionary spending. People tend to buy gas for a purpose, not because it is cheaper... a lot like food.

Reality Man:

I wouldn't assume anyone is stupid who didn't continue to make stupid arguments. Since you continue to do so on a regular basis, and substitute sound arguments with invective, I won't have much regard for your opinions at all.

A gas tax holiday is not a big deal. It's not going to solve the energy crisis, nor is it going to ruin America.

When Obama talks about how no good public policy is going to happen until he changes "how business is done in Washington" I cannot help but be reminded about how he has hoodwinked so many of his supporters into thinking that's even possible, let alone likely.

Posted by Tim K | May 1, 2008 8:56 AM

"I wouldn't assume anyone is stupid who didn't continue to make stupid arguments. Since you continue to do so on a regular basis, and substitute sound arguments with invective, I won't have much regard for your opinions at all.

A gas tax holiday is not a big deal. It's not going to solve the energy crisis, nor is it going to ruin America."

Did I claim that it would solve the energy crisis or ruin America? Nope. Nice strawman. I just pointed out the economics of Clinton's proposal don't add up. You're the one arguing in favor of bad economics. Good job having your argument fold in on yourself.

"When Obama talks about how no good public policy is going to happen until he changes "how business is done in Washington" I cannot help but be reminded about how he has hoodwinked so many of his supporters into thinking that's even possible, let alone likely.

Posted by Tim K | May 1, 2008 8:56 AM"

What is with your obsession of aesthetics? When people call bullshit on your fact-free assertions, you just jump to more strawmen. It's pretty clear you don't know anything besides who is more willing to sell out American security policy to the Likud Party, which you seem to support.

Posted by Reality Man | May 1, 2008 9:24 AM

Shorter Tim K:

Obama has claimed that he will change politics and in the long run get us better policies as a result. Clinton has demonstrated that she won't even bother trying to get us better politics, and as a result we likely won't get better policies either. Therefore, Clinton is the better choice because when politics remains the same and none of our problems are solved, we won't be disappointed, since with Clinton we could never hope for anything else.

Even shorter Tim K:

Vote Clinton, because with your expectations for her so low, you won't be disappointed!

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 9:36 AM

By the way, people have actually studied past consumer tax holidays, including some gas holidays. Those studies have indicated that companies do in fact tend to pocket most of the benefit, passing very little on to consumers. That is part of why it is hard to find a neutral tax economist who thinks this is a good idea, although there are also other reasons (e.g., increasing the cost of administering and complying with this more complex tax scheme, encouraging stockpiling, and so on).

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 9:44 AM

I never post here, but I read a lot and as I see it and hopefully someone will admit, our current energy policy is untenable and needs to be structured more closely to security policy. I have no interest in supporting the Saudi Wahhabism and yet every time I fill up my tank, that is what I am doing. Plus, even at current prices, the cost of gas is truly government subsidized. Real price per gallon when factoring environmental damage and military costs to secure that gas should be more like 7.00/gallon...

And if the price per gallon did go up to even 5.00 per gallon, America might experience some short term pain, but in the end, this would foster innovation. To me, this is why Obama is more promising in dealing with macro and micro economic policy.

But I guess that is the problem, we have become a society unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good, unwilling to understand that we are in this together and unwilling to see how a transparent tax system can actually help build a better society through infrastructure and education.

I am not upset with our leaders, or corrupt and vapid media, or the people of the US, I just care about some of the larger issues and they are really being shoved under the rug and replaced with flag pin bullshit...

Posted by ksamiami | May 1, 2008 9:46 AM

Re ksamiami's comment "as I see it and hopefully someone will admit, our current energy policy is untenable and needs to be structured more closely to security policy "
----------------
1) I very much concur. In fact, I think that if you calculate the full costs of our Middle East military control, gasoline from the Middle East is costing us more like $40! per gallon.

2) I been noting for years that Big Oil's Republican clients undermine the free market --by keeping the price signal of gas absurdly low at the pump and then collecting the rest of the cost via the income tax. They spend huge sums on killing people on the other side of the world --but basically NOTHING on research to develop alternative energy sources. Nothing on research in advanced physics.

3) The problem however, is that Barack Obama can do nothing to fix this if he loses the election due to poor campaigning. Some of his major blunders:

a) Failing to yell to the rooftops that Hillary and John McCain are DIRECTLY Responsiable for this problem.

How can McCain and Hillary enjoy all the fame of being national politicans for DECADES but are NOT held accountable for failing to deal with the USA's energy problem?

Who are the fucking morons running Obama's campaign? "Washington" is not responsible for high gas prices, Obama's FUCKING OPPONENTS are Responsible!!!

But the voters are busy and won't recognize that because the idiots running Obama's campaign are TOO FUCKING STUPID to point it out.

b) Just as they are too stupid to point out the REAL costs of Hillary/McCain's energy policy.
4000 lives, thousands more crippled for life, and military spending that's close to $1 Trillion PER YEAR if you include Veterans Administration and other charges covered up by the Republicans.

c) Finally, Voters want help NOW. Not in the far distant future. How can Obama have a TV ad with the PRIMARY ARGUMENT ($1000 Tax Cut for the Middle Class ) BURIED IN the last , fading frame?

4) My anger is because I've spent an aggregate of months knocking on doors --and calling voters from phone banks -- since 2000. I've seen many other volunteers doing the same.

And the same damm thing always happens -- the stupid morons running the campaigns --"The consultants" -- fuck up and all the work is for naught. I've also seen what happens to poor Democratic constituents when the stupid little shits in campaign HQ screw the pooch and lose the election.

I don't know if it is fatique or bad management , but the Obama campaign is starting to slip into the John Kerry mode. In which attacks are not answered and the primary points are not being made in the message.

Posted by Don Williams | May 1, 2008 10:24 AM

When Mc Cain brilliantly proposed a gas tax holiday to a highly volatile electorate he did so weeks after the tax rebate idea also went through.
Hillary brilliantly countered, sure lets do it as long as we answer with revenue so that our debt doesn't get bigger and we can still put people to work all summer on the roads.
Obama idiotically says it is just politics.

When republicans produce crowd pleasing ideas that are actually bad for us we need a democratic leader who can ammeliorate the bad idea without just shedding support for our candidates or our policy goals.

Hillary won this round. The third party crazies (on this site (the same ones who kept saying last month that they agreed with Wright!) are again playing to lose here with this crazy ass argument on a gas tax.

When Mccain sends a crazy pawn across the board to get your king or queen you can't just say its a stupid idea or bad chess the way obama has done, you still have to stop or kill the pawn.
And Hillary has done that. She is not against the gas tax holiday and doesn't lose votes on it but dopey niave obama loses again with every body but you guys.
anyone here arguing that we just don't understand economics forgets that these days ability to vote is not based on the depth of your supposed understanding of economics.
Those of you who say they want someone who doesn't play games forget that your on line all fucking day playing this ridiculas gotcha game.
you really are self-defeating third party crazies.

Posted by Michael C. | May 1, 2008 10:53 AM

When Mc Cain brilliantly proposed a gas tax holiday to a highly volatile electorate he did so weeks after the tax rebate idea also went through.
Hillary brilliantly countered, sure lets do it as long as we answer with revenue so that our debt doesn't get bigger and we can still put people to work all summer on the roads.
Obama idiotically says it is just politics.

When republicans produce crowd pleasing ideas that are actually bad for us we need a democratic leader who can ammeliorate the bad idea without just shedding support for our candidates or our policy goals.

Hillary won this round. The third party crazies (on this site (the same ones who kept saying last month that they agreed with Wright!) are again playing to lose here with this crazy ass argument on a gas tax.

When Mccain sends a crazy pawn across the board to get your king or queen you can't just say its a stupid idea or bad chess the way obama has done, you still have to stop or kill the pawn.
And Hillary has done that. She is not against the gas tax holiday and doesn't lose votes on it but dopey niave obama loses again with every body but you guys.
anyone here arguing that we just don't understand economics forgets that these days ability to vote is not based on the depth of your supposed understanding of economics.
Those of you who say they want someone who doesn't play games forget that you're on line all fucking day playing this ridiculas gotcha game.
you really are self-defeating third party crazies.

Posted by Michael C. | May 1, 2008 10:54 AM

DTM:

The fact is if your expectations are too high you will be disappointed. That's just part of life. Big policy changes can and do happen, but they usually happen for one of two reasons: 1) One president, and his party and allied interests, are able to divide and out-wit their political and legislative opponents, or 2) Bipartisan compromise is reached due to mutual political self-interest. Bipartisanship does not come for its own sake due to a change in approach or attitude. Simply demanding more from our politics will not change anything in and of itself.

Organized interests aren't going anywhere either, no matter what Obama has to say. And that's not a straw man since he talks about disempowering special interests all the time. It is one of the paradoxes of American politics that although interest groups are largely seen as being illegitimate, they grow and prosper nonetheless. The reason is that people only think other people's interests are illegitimate, not their own. It's only a a special interest group when it's lobbying for somebody else's benefit, not when it is standing up for your "rights".

Posted by Tim K | May 1, 2008 11:12 AM

I didn't see a comment about the fact that a gas tax holiday reduces the money available for highway repairs. Here in Minn, our legislature just passed a gas tax increase, over a veto, because of the obvious need for additional road repair.
Reducing our Federal Government's income weakens the dollar, which increases the cost of oil. I understand the cost of oil would be 2/3rds of what it was, if the dollar was worth what it was just three years ago.
Slowing down will save way more money than an 18 cent reduction will. I was on the freeway yesterday and didn't see anyone doing that.
our energy problems are serious and need to be adressed as such. Pandering to "common people"'s emotions divert's attention from adressing them.
This approach may get Hillary elected but then, how would she govern? By taking the "high road', Obama retains his credibility. As president, he coulds adress the nation directly explaing the issues and his proposals. His ablity to give a rousing speach is such an asset, and in this manner he could bring tremendous popular pressure on Congress. FDR similarly sold the "new deal" in radio "fireside chats", over the resistance of an entrenched conservative congress, supreme Court etc. Anyway, the above senerio is our only hope in my opinion.

Posted by tom A | May 1, 2008 11:18 AM

Michael C, you would be right, were it not for this week when Hillary teamed up with McCain to bash Obama over the issue. If Obama's stance was idiotic, Hillary should have just let him sink. Unfortunately, Hillary created a situation where McCain's stupid ideas became more likely to be implemented.

Actually, this sounds a lot like Hillary's poor maneuvering during the Iraq war vote, too.

Hillary's political skills are *way* overrated. I wouldn't have said that 6-9 months ago, but at this point it seems pretty clear.

Posted by Tyro | May 1, 2008 11:36 AM

Hillary's political skills are *way* overrated.

True dat.

Posted by tinisoli | May 1, 2008 11:42 AM

Tim K,

Actually, historically big changes in domestic policy have tended to come about when one party seized the White House and large majorities in both houses of Congress for a significant length of time. That is not an accident: our Constitution was specifically designed to prevent major changes in policy unless those changes were supported by large majorities selected in a variety of different ways. And what you apparently do not understand is that Obama is attempting to rebrand the Democratic Party such that it can achieve exactly that sort of sweeping takeover of power in the federal government.

Now, I know that you (and Clinton) have the firm conviction that the Democratic Party is fundamentally unpopular, and therefore that the Democrats can only hope to achieve very small and transitory electoral victories, at which point they will only be able to negotiate very small policy gains, with lots of compromising. But Obama apparently does not share your belief that the Democratic Party is necessarily unpopular. Rather, he appears to think that the Democratic Party's recent difficulties in achieving large and non-transitory national electoral victories can be attributed to poor branding, and in general poor political strategies.

So that is the realpolitik version of Obama's message: he is setting out to transform the Democratic Party into a party that can achieve crushing electoral victories, at which point the Party will be able to dictate surrender terms to the remaining Republicans and oppositional interest groups. Again, I get that you think that all this is impossible for the Democratic Party to achieve, but it is what history suggests is necessary if the members of the Democratic Party do indeed want to achieve significant policy changes.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 11:50 AM

People were always a little overeager to attribute superior political skills to Hillary. The basic problem is that early on, people (including Hillary) talked about "the Clintons" as a political unit, and attributed to Hillary a share in all of Bill's political success.

Well, the problem is that Bill's political success was largely dependent on his personal characteristics. Indeed, as I tried pointing out to people back at the beginning of this contest, tactically Bill was never a great politician, and he often made situations worse by saying stupid things (ranging from "But I didn't inhale" to "I did not have sex with that woman"). But he was able to get by on his personal charm--although not without losing a lot of his ability to achieve lasting policy goals along the way.

Anyway, Hillary lacks those personal attributes that made Bill a success. And without Bill's personal attributes and also without a firm grasp of the sorts of political tactics that would work without those attributes to rely on, that leaves her as a pretty poor politician.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 11:58 AM

DTM:

What somebody says he is attempting to do doesn't really interest me. I prefer the "New Democrat" Clintonian brand of Democratic politics that sought to rescue the party from cultural pariah status in Middle America. I fear Obama is unwittingly moving in the opposite direction. If that happens, he may win this election due to public dissatisfaction with the status quo, but the Republicans will have little trouble seizing the counter-wave 2-4 years hence.

The left-wing activists at Daily Kos and MoveOn seem to be under some impression that the Democratic party has never tried to run a culturally liberal, economically populist campaign, and if only they would do so unabashedly they would win. Well that was McGovern-Shriver 1972, and it failed miserably. When Democrats have told truth to power, like when Mondale promised to raise taxes (as Reagan essentially did with the pay-roll tax) they have failed. When Democrats have been perceived as culturally out-of-touch with mainstream values, they have failed: Dukakis and Kerry.

If the Democratic party is fundamentally popular why have only two men been elected president on the party's ticket in over forty years? One (Carter's) was a narrow victory taking place at the tail-end of Watergate. The only Democrat in a generation to be twice elected president did so on a centrist platform that violated Democratic party sacred cows on crime, welfare and trade. The self-styled "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic party cannot stand that the DLC, in effect, succeed where they had failed for more than a decade, and have been on the hunt ever since.

Posted by Tim K | May 1, 2008 12:24 PM

Tim K,

As we have discussed before, I think your analogy between McGovern and Obama is inaccurate. I also think Hillary Clinton's political approach places her in the same line of electoral losers from Mondale in 1984 to Dukakis in 1988 to Gore in 2000 to Kerry in 2004. Meanwhile, I think you are wrong about why Bill Clinton won in 1992, and also why he held on in 1996, and that indeed the factors you cite are why the Democrats were getting crushed in the congressional elections during that time. Rather, Bill was a success not for ideological reasons, but rather because on a personal level people believed he cared about them, was optimistic about America, and in general would try to do the right thing when it came to governance. In that sense, Obama has done much more to learn from Bill's success than Hillary.

So to answer your question, the basic reason Democrats keep losing is that for far too many recent elections, they have listened to the poor political advice of people like you. Indeed, you are just repeating the same arguments that all those previous losers had used to justify their nominations, the same arguments they have been using ever since Reagan crushed Carter in 1980.

In any event, it doesn't really matter. Clinton's brand of politics--your preferred brand of politics--wasn't enough to win the Democratic Party's nomination this year. So, Obama will get the chance to test his theories about what is politically possible for the Party.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 12:38 PM

DTM:

Well if there was ever an example by you of willful blindness and convenient self-deception, that was it.

Gore lost. Kerry lost. Dukakis lost. Mondale lost. Carter lost in 1980. Clinton WON: that's the difference.

Right now the Clinton brand you claim is so tarnished holds up quite well in the electorate. Today's extensive Quinnipiac surveys in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida show that Hillary Clinton is outperforming Obama by statistically significant margins in all three states. The polls have her beating McCain in all three (while Obama loses Ohio and Florida) and is her best result in any Quinnipiac poll in those states.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1173&What=&strArea=;&strTime=120

As the primary season unfolds we are once again bearing witness to the Clinton political skill of adapting to changing circumstances and rising to the occasion politically, while Obama clumsily meanders about from controversy to controversy ( Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Bittergate) and can only fall back on some general appeal for positive change in Washington... which begins to ring hallow after the 10,000th time it's said.

Posted by Tim K | May 1, 2008 12:49 PM

Tim K, Hillary Clinton is Mondale-- the candidate who's trying to offer "more of the same" at a time when something different might be required. I think DTM has this essentially correct: Hillary is running from the premise that Democratic party policies are unpopular.

Clinton's presidency was reasonably successful, but it left us two legacies: the Republican takeover of Congress and the complete and utter collapse of the Democratic congress in 2002 during the midterm elections and leadup to the Iraq war. The people, consultants, and operatives behind those botched moves are the ones in the Clinton corner right now.

Don't get me wrong: Hillary is running the best campaign of the 20th century. The problem for Clinton is that things are different now, and running a campaign on the basis of triangulating with McCain's stupid ideas isn't going to work. Unlike Bill, Hillary lacks the ability to figure out how to "take them off the table" and instead just reinforces them.

Posted by Tyro | May 1, 2008 12:59 PM

"The only Democrat in a generation to be twice elected president did so on a centrist platform that violated Democratic party sacred cows on crime, welfare and trade."

And even then, he didn't won without a popular vote majority in both cases, with a third party candidate drawing away more GOP votes. His reelection was also against arguably the most ineffective campaigner of any general election candidate. This country is not like Europe: it's a right-of-center country. Americans are more entrepreneurial and more culturally conservative than the Democratic Party. Dems have a great opportunity this year only because of the cyclical economic downturn due to the real estate bust and the continued unpopularity with the Iraq War.

Posted by Fred | May 1, 2008 1:02 PM

Tim K,

Right, Bill Clinton won, both the nomination and the election. Hillary Clinton isn't even going to win the nomination. And that is in part because she, like you, learned the wrong lessons from Bill's success.

And even if Hillary had won the nomination, she would likely have lost the general election--McCain would have beated her in Florida, and even if Clinton had won Ohio and Pennsylvania (a dubious proposition, once the GOP actually started campaiging against her), she would lose some other combination of the many close Kerry states that you like to ignore in your analysis (e.g., Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon). Again, that is a demonstration of how she, like you, learned the wrong lessons from the failed strategies of Gore and Kerry.

But as I noted, it doesn't matter. Because her (and your) brand of politics can't even get her the nomination, her (and your) Kerry + 1 strategy will not be put to the test. Instead, Obama's much broader and more ambitious strategy will be tested. And at this point, there is nothing Clinton (or you) can do to change that.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 1:06 PM

Hillary is your girl if you're a cynical and/or hopeless Democrat.
- If you're not a racist but you're convinced that all of your neighbors are, then you'll vote for Hillary.
- If you know that her BS about a gas tax holiday is pure, pandering BS, but you are convinced that the rest of America is too dumb to realize it, then you'll vote for Hillary.
- If you believe that the virulent politics of the 90s are the only kind that can be practiced, and there's no hope of ever going above and beyond it, then you'll vote for Hillary.
- If you believe that the legacy of Karl Rove is that every politician from hereon out must adopt his tactics, then you'll vote for Hillary.
- If you think it's only fair game for her to say that "as far as she knows" Obama is not a Muslim, then you'll vote for Hillary.
- If you think that any candidate who speaks in hopeful, optimistic tones and charts a somewhat-idealistic future for America is naive or phony, whereas the candidate who does shots of Crown Royal and cites four different states as her home state is just practicing clever political phoniness like her predecessors, then you'll vote for Hillary.
And on and on and on.

Posted by tinisoli | May 1, 2008 1:10 PM

Very easy to excoriate Clinton for a gas ntax holiday. Of course its not going to do anything positive long-term at all. Thing is, IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT EITHER, to give everyone the equivilent of, say, a free tank of gas this summer. The highway trust fund will remain filled if there is some kind of replacement oil company tax.

It might, however, make Hillary a little bit more appealing to the type of voter that she would need to win in the fall. Once again, she shows herself to be a candidate who has thought about what might take to win in the general election. Something I'm not convinced Obama has thought about much at all.

Posted by white cornerback | May 1, 2008 2:20 PM

white cornerback,

Oh, but a temporary tax "holiday" does indeed "hurt", even if you somehow just take the money right back from the oil companies.

For example, introducing such a temporary tax measure increases the costs of administering and complying with the tax scheme (twice-over if you institute a temporary tax on oil companies to make up for the lost revenues). It also creates additional cost uncertainty for producers and consumers, which leads to ineffcient planning. It also promotes stockpiling, potentially during a peak usage period (which maximizes the economic harm of stockpiling). And so on.

All this and more is why tax economists tend to strongly disfavor temporary tax measures (they are costly, create uncertainty, distort behavior in inefficient ways, and so on). So with no likely benefit to consumers, it just becomes a bad tax plan.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 2:57 PM

Pathetic. Hillary is GTH Hillary "Gas Tax Holiday Hillary."

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 1, 2008 4:43 PM

It is a strawman to claim that Obama's supporters think he's the messiah or something. However, the personality of a person who is in charge of an organization or institution does have an effect on how that structure operates. The differences between Wolfosohn and Wolfowitz in attitude affected how the World Bank's bureaucracy operated differently under them. Those changes do matter.

Tim K, you're using Boomer paradigms to describe a country that is increasingly post-Boomer. In addition, how was a pot-smoking draft-dodger who wrote papers at Oxford on how much he hated the US military and pardoned FALN and Weather Underground members able to convince people he was more in touch with the average American than veterans of WWII (McGovern) and Vietnam (Kerry)? Through charisma, charm and eloquence. Clinton lacks all of those. Her opponent has them.

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2008 6:03 AM

I think Tim K. is exactly right about the Demo losing streak, but in my view Obama is more likely to get the support of the sorts of people who supported Bill than Hillary will. This is not going to be about policy details. Normal people found Bill normal and likeable, and seem to feel the same way about Obama. Hillary is neither.

Moreover, Hillary talks a lot more like the old class-struggle Democrats who went in a few years from controlling almost everything to controlling almost nothing--Walter Mondale in a skirt.

As Fred accurately points out, this is a right-of-center nation. Voters are simply not going to buy the kind of warmed over socialism still doggedly advocated by the losers faction of the party. Obama has the ability to speak to people who don't believe that the Republicans they actually know, who tend to be the local doctor, car dealer, pharmacist, etc., are part of an international cabal of plutocratic war mongers, and that we should punish the business owners upon whom they depend for jobs.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 2, 2008 7:16 AM

Gosh: does anyone else get tired of someone calling himself reality man (like a superhero) calling everyone's argument a strawman?

It's comically dumb. and old.

Tyro: Hillary's political skills are not over-rated in this instance: mcCain does the usual crowd pleasing thing and offers voters in an election year a phoney rebate/vacation from taxes: not much different from a kickback for votes.
Hillary counters by linking this specific kickback tax vacation from the incendiary topic of gas prices to having to pay as you go for any reduction in revenue resulting.
It's the second time in a month McCain has sought to give tax money back to electorate (tax rebate)
and hillary this second time links it to deficit spending and to crucial jobs from highway projects and to our crumbling roads and highways. That paints Hillary as the wise one who isn't just giving away money and paints hillary as the one who saves those summer highway projects and jobs.
Obama stands on the side saying it isn't fiscally responsible BUT hillary's already made that point by linking the holiday to gas company taxes and profits AND she killed a bad idea that isn't revenue neutral.

Hillary isn't Mondale.

Posted by Michael c. | May 2, 2008 9:13 AM

Solutions, Not Speeches

Comments (113)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories