Comparative Sinning

I think this element of Paul Krugman's grudging willingness to give Barack Obama credit on the gas tax issue deserves a response:

Just to be clear: I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen. 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.

I think that's wildly off-base. It's true that the health care plan Obama is attacking is, in fact, better than the plan he's proposing. But Obama's health care plan would, in fact, improve the situation. He's making the good the enemy of the better, which isn't admirable but it's not the worst thing in the world. Clinton is, by contrast, proposing to make things worse which isn't at all what you want to see your presidential candidates proposing. What's more, as Brad Plumer says this is hardly a "short-term" issue -- is Clinton really going to implement a cap-and-trade program if she thinks the correct policy response to rising gasoline prices is tax cuts? There's a big problem here.

Comments

Krugman doesn't think the Iraq war is a major issue in the Democratic race either, so there you go.

Posted by Jinchi | May 1, 2008 5:27 PM

I have no cache links to back this up, but I remember reading the original Krugman post a few days ago, seeing something on TPM or another blog a few hours later saying Obama people were sending it out to reporters, then going back to Krugman's blog, which then contained the addendum.

It certainly made me chuckle - maybe Krugman didn't want his words supporting Obama?

And again, in addition to the substantive topic of the gas tax, another "matter of principle" is Clinton's willingness to pander for votes on an undisputedly bad policy. This from the policy wonk candidate.

Posted by Ready for change | May 1, 2008 5:30 PM

I agree with Krugman that health care is much, much more important than the gas tax.
And I agree with Krugman that Hilary is better on health care. Why is Hilary's plan so much worse than Obama's?

Posted by Diana | May 1, 2008 5:34 PM

The problem is that Clinton gets the electorate, and John McCain, and the way to defeat him, in a way that Krugman and Yglesias do not.

Nor does Obama, in spite of his positives.

Posted by wobbly | May 1, 2008 5:39 PM

This is economically illiterate:

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

If this were true, gas prices would be the same across state lines. But gas prices are higher in states with higher gas taxes.

Posted by wellbasically | May 1, 2008 5:43 PM

Krugman is simply ass-backwards on this. Energy policy and environmental policy are way more important than health care policy - and I say this as someone who's uninsured, under poverty level, doesn't qualify for Medicaid and has multiple chronic medical conditions. Most people can survive with shitty health coverage - it's not pretty, but we can manage. A lot of people won't survive if we don't do something, very quickly, about global warming.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 1, 2008 5:45 PM

The problem is that Clinton gets the electorate, and John McCain, and the way to defeat him, in a way that Krugman and Yglesias do not. Nor does Obama, in spite of his positives.

Let me see if I understand this. Though economists agree repealing the gas tax is a counter-productive policy, it makes sense for policy wonk Hillary to advocate for it, because it will sell to the electorate.

But when Barack Obama points out that Hillary's health care plan will compel everyone to purchase insurance, regardless of their ability to actually pay for it - an argument that appeals to the electorate - it merits a loud "SHAME ON YOU!!!"

Posted by Ready for change | May 1, 2008 5:49 PM

Obama is right that the USA should not cut gas taxes, but it's because that tax cut will just drain the treasury and do virtually nothing to help the economy. Of course the same could have been said of the stimulus package.

We have a massive inflation of the dollar against gold. Oil has gone up as much as gold, but later. Gas taxes are based on a flat amount per gallon, which means that they are collecting half as much money as they did in 2004, when gold was $400/oz.

Posted by wellbasically | May 1, 2008 5:50 PM

And Matt, I feel genuinely bad that you've started writing stuff like this:

It's true that the health care plan Obama is attacking is, in fact, better than the plan he's proposing.

It's not true. I'm not a fan of Obama's plan - or Clinton's or Edwards's for that matter - but Obama's plan is better for lacking a mandate. Mandates were considered a right-wing policy alternative until fairly recently, when they became a fad among the American center-left, and for a very good reason: they're corporate giveaways, and they will hurt a non-trivial chunk of lower-middle-class Americans who can't afford to buy from private insurers.

You were right the first time around on this, and the self-proclaimed health care experts have done us all a massive disservice by selling this as the more liberal policy.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 1, 2008 5:55 PM

wellbasically,

First, gas retailers in different states are not in the same market, so I am not sure that sort of comparison is going to tell you much. Moreover, the economic incidence of a tax can differ over the short and long runs.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 5:55 PM

This is a wierd primary. Clinton is running to Obama's right in the Democratic primary, using Republican talking points.....and it seems to be working....in a Democratic primary. Is it because Obama is not willing to attack a fellow Democrat? Is this because the Republican dogma is so ingrained in national counscience that even Democrats fall for it? How would she run against McCain in the fall, keep saying me too? Just odd...

Posted by Roman | May 1, 2008 5:58 PM

I like Paul Krugman, but he's really got it in for Obama. I wonder if Barack kicked Krugman's dog or something. I feel like since at least October, Krugman has used one of his weekly columns to nail Obama for some real or imagined sin (yes, yes, I know that Rich hits Clinton often and Dowd is an equal opportunity defamer).

What's been curious to me about Krugman, though, is how he basically wrote a book about race being the determining factor in American politics since the middle of last century, yet there's been nary a peep from him on the Obama race speech, the various Bill Clinton explosions, Ferraro, hell, even Wright.

I mean it's clear that he prefers Hillary to Obama (and perhaps even Edwards to Hillary) and that's his right, but I don't know...something just seems odd to me about his radio silence on that front.

Posted by Mike P | May 1, 2008 6:01 PM

The comparative likelihoods of these two things happening -- a gas tax holiday and universal health care -- is exactly the opposite of what Krugman portrays them to be.

And to head off the inevitable 'Matt is flip-flopping' trolls -- he expressed admiration for the Clinton position as a matter of politics, as a way to make the issue go away, while noting that substantively it was bad. Now that Clinton is actually defending the substance, and making the issue not go away, Matt's reiterating the badness of it. Not a flip-flop.

Posted by Ryan | May 1, 2008 6:03 PM

I agree with Krugman that health care is much, much more important than the gas tax.
And I agree with Krugman that Hilary is better on health care. Why is Hilary's plan so much worse than Obama's?

I believe there's a missing clause in the post there. When Matt says,

He's making the good the enemy of the better, which isn't admirable but it's not the worst thing in the world. Clinton is, by contrast, proposing to make things worse

it should say

In the health care argument,[Obama]'s making the good the enemy of the better, which isn't admirable but it's not the worst thing in the world. With her gas tax plan, Clinton is, by contrast, proposing to make things worse

Posted by ResumeMan | May 1, 2008 6:13 PM

Eh, I think either of the original policy errors were tolerable, as they had left themselves weasel words to switch to the other's position once elections were over. The sin isn't the policy, it's how they decided to go after their opponent for having the correct yet unpopular policy.

I still think there's a difference, in that Obama only went "Harry and Louise" on Clinton after she'd been pounding on him for months as "not universal". With the gas tax holiday, Clinton seemed to be demagoguing on it right from the start.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 1, 2008 6:19 PM

wellbasically said: If this were true, gas prices would be the same across state lines. But gas prices are higher in states with higher gas taxes.

Clearly, I have too much time on my hands, but I actually ran the numbers, doing a linear regression of state gas tax vs. average gas price. You know what the correlation coefficient was? 0.083. Not particularly significant.

Posted by Milind | May 1, 2008 6:27 PM

I actually tried to comment on just this on Krugman's blog. It didn't get posted.

Posted by Mingpicket | May 1, 2008 6:28 PM

I still think there's a difference, in that Obama only went "Harry and Louise" on Clinton after she'd been pounding on him for months as "not universal". With the gas tax holiday, Clinton seemed to be demagoguing on it right from the start.

Ah yes. The "No fair. She started it!" defense. Popular on school playgrounds throughout the world.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 6:44 PM

The part that really burns me up here, is where he says "its a one time thing, not a matter of principle".

Krugman just doesn't get it.

This is more a matter of principle than the difference in health care policies. The principle is a commitment to good policy vs a commitment to populism. This difference speaks volumes about the difference between Obama and Clinton.

Posted by Domino | May 1, 2008 6:44 PM

The comparative likelihoods of these two things happening -- a gas tax holiday and universal health care -- is exactly the opposite of what Krugman portrays them to be.

The gas tax holiday is good politics and a distraction as policy. Even if it's bad policy, its effect is so small as to be basically irrelevant. Universal health care is probably bad policy and is probably not going to happen, regardless of who becomes president.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 6:49 PM

Unless a candidate is a super duper genius, and none is, then you have to be tricky when running against a trickster.

Win first, then do good stuff.

Posted by ferd | May 1, 2008 7:16 PM

How does Hillary's gas tax plan makes anything worse? (Note: I am taking her at her word that she would require the replacement of any lost revenues) At worst it's a political gimmick that would do very little at all since it would still leave gasoline prices higher than they were two months ago, providing very little financial relief to drivers, and thus doing no real damage to the environment etc.

Posted by JonF | May 1, 2008 7:23 PM

It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen.

Everyone knows that a tax-cut isn't going to happen? I'd give it better odds than anybody's health care plan passing.

What amazes me, is that Krugman knows that Clinton is pandering on the gas-tax, but he's absolutely certain that she's serious about universal health care.

Why does he think she isn't suckering him?

Posted by Jinchi | May 1, 2008 7:24 PM

Mike P:
Metaphotrically, Obama did kick Krugman's dog. Remember when both candidates first put out their health care plans? Remember how Krugman ripped Obama's because it lacked a mandate? Remember, as a result, Obama's campaign putting out some opposition research out about Krugman? So yeah, Krugman has a chip on his shoulder. He thinks the Obama made it personal, so he won't let up.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 1, 2008 7:26 PM

I usually agree with Krugman, but this post of his really bothered me. First, it IS a matter of principle--it's a question of principled policy vs. pandering. It's a question of whether the candidate is serious enough to take up the challenge of selling good policies, even if that means informing voters on issues where the population disagrees.

And the gas tax holiday might very well be enacted. It wouldn't have been enacted if Clinton hadn't jumped on the bandwagon, but with two of the 3 major presidential candidates out there touting the idea on the stump, senators and House members might feel some pressure to consider the idea. Also, these two people happen to be senators themselves, so they'd be voting for it. If Clinton had kept her mouth shut, it would have been dismissed as a dumb idea from policy-ignorant McCain. It wouldn't have gone anywhere in a Democratic Congress (who wouldn't be too keen on giving McCain a publicity gift in the presidential campaign). But Clinton has given it Democratic credibility.

Posted by Henry B. | May 1, 2008 7:29 PM

I usually agree with Krugman, but this post of his really bothered me. First, it IS a matter of principle--it's a question of principled policy vs. pandering. It's a question of whether the candidate is serious enough to take up the challenge of selling good policies, even if that means informing voters on issues where the population disagrees.

And the gas tax holiday might very well be enacted. It wouldn't have been enacted if Clinton hadn't jumped on the bandwagon, but with two of the 3 major presidential candidates out there touting the idea on the stump, senators and House members might feel some pressure to consider the idea. Also, these two people happen to be senators themselves, so they'd be voting for it. If Clinton had kept her mouth shut, it would have been dismissed as a dumb idea from policy-ignorant McCain. It wouldn't have gone anywhere in a Democratic Congress (who wouldn't be too keen on giving McCain a publicity gift in the presidential campaign). But Clinton has given it Democratic credibility.

Posted by Henry B. | May 1, 2008 7:30 PM

I just took a trip from New Jersey to Boston. Gas prices in order from lowest to highest were: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York.
The gas taxes in order from lowest to highest: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York.

Krugman is off his beam with this one, Obama is even dumber because he's formulating his answer off Krugman. The only sensible answer is that cutting the gas tax will increase the deficit for virtually no discernable benefit to the economy.

If only Obama had an answer on the economy he wouldn't be arguing over this ridiculous gas tax issue.

Posted by wellbasically | May 1, 2008 7:38 PM

Krugman is an asshole.

Posted by Econobuzz | May 1, 2008 7:52 PM

The first test of in-the-moment policy judgment -- pander for short-term gain or demand voter maturity even though it will hurt -- Obama wins hands-down. I'm very, very disappointed by Clinton's response. To me, it speaks volumes.

Posted by DNS | May 1, 2008 8:00 PM

It's not going "Harry and Louise" if the ads are true.

Hillary thinks that a mandate's gonna sweep in all of the rich young scofflaws (who, by the way, are at higher rates of getting in to accidents, ergo benefit from insurance). Obama's response is threefold. First, rich young scofflaws under 25 can be covered under their parents plans. Second, there's a good chance the people who won't buy in are those who can't afford it even with subsidies. And, thus, third, it's counterproductive to impose a mandate on those people, since it's both unfair and incurs enforcement costs. This is why Obama's plan is actually more expensive up-front, because his emphasis is on making health care AFFORDABLE. Universality is really a sub-point to affordabaility, anyway. The only argument for mandates that's somewhat justifiable is that they lower costs. But, if costs can be reduced in other ways, and if the people made better off by the mandate are not more benefitted than the people made worse off are hurt, it's a bad policy. (Also, why would increased demand lower premiums? Sure, it would lower costs to the system as a whole, but I'm not sanguine the mandate money wouldn't show up as CEO bonus cash.)

But, Krugman heard Obama saying nice things about Republicans one, proposes getting us out of this partisan rut, and then leaps to the conclusion that he's some sort of DLC type in a way that Mrs. William J. Clinton somehow is not.

At minimum, it's a close enough question on mandates where reasonable people can disagree, which is Matt's basic point about why this issue pales in comparison to the gas tax issue, where Clinton's position is utterly indefensible and, more to the point, she knows it. Krugman evidently feels that reasonable people cannot disagree about individual mandates. He must not be fun at parties.

Posted by David B. | May 1, 2008 8:06 PM

David B,

You've completely missed Krugman's point. It's not about whether there's room for reasonable disagreement, but about the importance of the issue. The gas tax thing just isn't a real issue. It won't affect people's lives much whether it passes or fails. A health care mandate, in contrast, is potentially of profound importance, which is why Obama's demagoguing is so inexcusable.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 8:18 PM

If this were true, gas prices would be the same across state lines. But gas prices are higher in states with higher gas taxes.

Your logic is flawed, though the issue is quite subtle. The state example is a static difference that applies to different population groups geographically, while the the tax holiday is a dynamic difference that applies to the same population over time.

Think of it this way. Gas prices are set by demand. But this demand can differ locally. Gas may not be as much in demand in South Carolina (which has the lowest gas prices I have ever seen), so the prices are lower there, while they are higher in New York, which is willing and capable of paying more. But no one is going to drive from New York to South Carolina to take advantage of this difference. So the lower price in South Carolina has no effect on demand in New York.

However, if you drop the prices nationally, then the population of New York (and South Carolina) can take advantage of the lower prices. So they can buy more with what they have. And with supplies constrained, that causes prices to go up. It may not go up as much as the gas tax is dropped, but it does go up. And then there is the cost of delayed maintenance on the roads because we are collecting less tax.

In summary: Difference between states -- no effect on demand, and hence no effect on price. Difference in price in same area -- increased demand and hence rise in price.

Posted by Walker | May 1, 2008 8:24 PM

With lightning speed, Krugman has transformed himself from perhaps the only true standard-bearer for the bloggy left in the establishment press to a total fucktard with a nasty, raging boner for Hillary.

What has he done for us lately? Not all that goddamn much.

Fuck him.

Posted by ethan salto | May 1, 2008 8:31 PM

The gas tax thing just isn't a real issue. It won't affect people's lives much whether it passes or fails

Consider the irony in this. Clinton and McCain are using this issue to paint Obama as out of touch:

"The long and the short of it is that people are hurting today, and when you say that it doesn't save much money, our calculation is that for the average driver it would save 70 dollars," said chief strategist Geoff Garin. Internal polling, he added, said that the position was resonating with Indianans.

"We're seeing in our polling that working people appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton understands the incredible economic strain they are facing," Garin said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/clinton-camp-gas-plan-she_n_99643.html

Posted by Ready for change | May 1, 2008 8:31 PM

Krugman doesn't think anything that Hillary does wrong is an important issue. Because he doesn't want it to be. He can't help but begrudge Obama any moral superiority, and he doesn't even try to deny it. I can understand being pro-Hillary if you're a pragmatist and want results, but to try to spin that her pandering here is ok pandering because because he doesn't think it's as important as health care is ridiculous. Basically what he's saying is, it's ok that she's lying to her uneducated base (who are most feelig the pinch at the pump and who unlike him don't realize she's promoting a policy she knows isn't going to happen anyway)on this issue because in the long run, if they vote for her based on this they're going to get the greater good of her health plan? Talk about elitist. Talk about cynical. What a jerk. When I read this article, my respect for this guy completely evaporated.

There is no such thing as moral relativism. Lying on a little issue is not ok in the service of a greater good. I know Hillary thinks otherwise, and apparently Krugman does as well, but unfortunately, as Hillary herself has demonstrated, once lying becomes a habit, all truth becomes relative. And then we begin to walk in some very very dangerous waters.

Posted by scire | May 1, 2008 8:37 PM

A health care mandate, in contrast, is potentially of profound importance, which is why Obama's demagoguing is so inexcusable.

Man, it's hilarious to see Mixner criticize the demagoguing of an issue of profound importance.

The individual mandate? Too important for gimmickry!

Torture? Demagogue away.

Posted by southpaw | May 1, 2008 8:42 PM

Consider the irony in this. Clinton and McCain are using this issue to paint Obama as out of touch

He is out of touch. It's not a matter of what effect the policy will have, but how it is perceived. If it doesn't pass, Hillary can say, "At least I tried to get you some relief from record-high gas prices. Obama did nothing." He's really shooting himself in the foot.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 8:54 PM

wellbasically, your particular experience in some northeastern states notwithstanding, it's simply a fact that there is almost no correlation between gas tax rates and average gas prices (as I mentioned above, the correlation coefficient is ~0.08). Walker very clearly summarized why this would be the case (the driving factor is demand, which varies per state).

Posted by Milind | May 1, 2008 8:54 PM

Clinton adopted a different version of McCain's gas tax relief proposal and took the issue off the table in terms of politics. Much like Obama has done with several proposals from Clinton and Edwards earlier in the process.

Posted by way back machine | May 1, 2008 9:11 PM

Clinton adopted a different version of McCain's gas tax relief proposal and took the issue off the table in terms of politics.

Excuse me let me wipe the beer from my nose.
No, Clinton is pandering to voters trying to make them think she's looking out for them, while advocating a policy she knows is wrong.

Posted by bjd | May 1, 2008 9:33 PM

From the Nation, this says it all:

Betsy Reed: How Hillary Clinton's campaign played the race card--and drove a wedge into the feminist movement.

“what is most troubling--and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right--in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country--seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. .. There were references by Clinton campaign officials to Obama's admission of past drug use; the tit-for-tat over Clinton's tone-deaf but historically accurate statement that Martin Luther King needed Lyndon Johnson for his civil rights dreams to be realized; and insinuations that Obama is a token, unqualified, overreaching--that he's all pretty words, "fairy tales"

More than any single thing, that moment with Bill Clinton in South Carolina represents the rupture that was coming,…when the former President compared Obama's landslide win, in which he received a major boost from African-American voters, to Jesse Jackson's victories there in 1984 and 1988. Because the former President offered the comparison unprompted, in response to a question that had nothing to do with Jackson or race, the statement was widely read as chalking up Obama's win to his blackness alone and thus attempting to marginalize him as a doomed minority candidate with limited appeal. Obama was now "the black candidate," in the words of one Clinton strategist quoted by the AP.

…The toxicity is further heightened in this post-9/11 atmosphere, in which an image of Obama in Somali dress is understood as a slur and e-mails claiming that he is a "secret Muslim" schooled in a madrassa spread virally, along with rumors that he took the oath of office on a Koran. The madrassa and Koran canards have been thoroughly debunked, but still they persist--and few have been willing to stand up and say, So what if he was a Muslim? For her part, Clinton, asked on 60 Minutes whether Obama was a Muslim, said, "There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
A mere three days after Obama spoke [a bout Wright], Bill Clinton made this statement in North Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged and as Clinton supporters vigorously denied, the timing of the remark made its meaning quite clear: controversies relating to Obama's race render him less fit than either Hillary or McCain to run for president as a patriotic American. A couple of weeks later, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went so far as to call on Obama to make another speech, modeled after John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1960 that, despite his Catholicism, he would respect the separation of church and state as President--as though Obama's blackness were a sign of allegiance to some entity, like the Vatican, other than the United States of America.

In the Democratic debates, enabled by the moderators, Hillary Clinton has increasingly deployed issues of race and patriotism as a wedge strategy against her opponent. First, in the debate in Cleveland on February 26, she pressed Obama not only to denounce but to reject Louis Farrakhan--to whom he was spuriously linked through Reverend Wright, who had taken a trip with the black nationalist leader in the 1980s. In style as well as content, that attack was a harbinger of things to come. In the most recent debate, ABC's George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson peppered Obama with questions such as, "Do you believe [Wright] is as patriotic as you are?" and, regarding former Weatherman Bill Ayers, a Chicago neighbor and Obama supporter, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Time after time, Clinton picked up the line and ran with it. "You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds. And so this is a legitimate area...for people to be exploring and trying to find answers," she said, seeming to abandon her argument that these issues are fair game now only because they will be raised by Republicans later and thus are relevant to an evaluation of Obama's electability.
The Wright, Farrakhan and Ayers controversies have been fueled by a craven media, and ABC's performance in the debate has rightly been condemned. But given that Clinton is the one who is running for President and who purports to represent liberal ideals, her complicity in such attempts to establish guilt by association is far more troubling. While she has dealt gingerly with the matter of Wright in the wake of his recent appearance at the National Press Club--accusing Republicans of politicizing the issue--she also took pains to remind reporters that she "would not have stayed in that church under those circumstances."

It's disappointing, to say the least, to see the first viable female contender for the presidency participate in attacks on her black opponent's patriotism, which exploit an anxious climate around national security that gives white men an edge both over women and people of color--who tend to be viewed, respectively, as weak and potentially traitorous. Says Paula Giddings, "This idea of nationalism and patriotism pulling at everyone has demanded hypermasculine men, more like McCain than the feline Obama, and demanded women whose role is to be maternal more than anything else."

Posted by ZANADO DO | May 1, 2008 9:34 PM

A gas tax holiday may not be as harmful as, say, starting a war in the Middle East with no exit strategy, but it is indeed harmful. And the basic problem is that if a person is willing to do something harmful on a more minor level for personal political gain, who is to say he or she won't do something harmful on a more major level for personal political gain?

Of course, with Clinton in particular there should be no doubt on the latter issue, seeing as how she supported the aforementioned war. But it is one of the interesting aspects of this contest that I think for each particular principle Clinton betrays for political gain, she does in fact end up alienating yet another slice of the Democratic electorate. In that sense, this stuff isn't just duplicative even though Clinton long ago established the basic pattern, I guess because different people prioritize different issues.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 9:46 PM

AP Fact Check--Obama voted 3 times for the same kind of gas tax holiday while in the IL Senate. -- http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gOA7kjIaEiPUNTGf6aXuekaDrp_AD90CDUV02

Posted by amberglow | May 1, 2008 10:01 PM

DTM,

A gas tax holiday may not be as harmful as, say, starting a war in the Middle East with no exit strategy, but it is indeed harmful. And the basic problem is that if a person is willing to do something harmful on a more minor level for personal political gain, who is to say he or she won't do something harmful on a more major level for personal political gain?

In that case, since Obama himself voted for a gas tax holiday when he was in the Illinois Senate, then "who is to say Obama won't do something harmful on a more major level for personal political gain?"

It's always fun watching you paint yourself into a corner.

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

amberglow,

Obama has explained that subsequent studies found little evidence that the gas tax holiday he supported in Illinois actually benefited consumers.

Mixner,

Ditto.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 10:17 PM

It's amazing, Krugman, the mental contortions you must go through to defend the Clintons. A reformed Clintonite from the 90s, I welcome you aboard this ship. Acceptance is a vital step to conquering an addiction.

Posted by SpaceCat | May 1, 2008 10:17 PM

Clearly, I have too much time on my hands, but I actually ran the numbers, doing a linear regression of state gas tax vs. average gas price. You know what the correlation coefficient was? 0.083. Not particularly significant.

I'm even stupider because I did the same thing before I read down and saw it was redundant. I'll add another thing because I did all that work for nothing. You are talking about differences in tax rates for the most part within a few percentage points and they obviously don't correspond at all with the difference in price state to state.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 1, 2008 10:26 PM

By the way, how does that AP article constitute a "fact check"? It is true that Obama is criticizing the McCain/Clinton proposal on various grounds, but how does reporting that Obama previously supported a somewhat (but not entirely) similar proposal in Illinois provide a "check" of any of Obama's criticisms?

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 10:30 PM

Obama's presidential campaign says the lessons of that Illinois tax holiday influenced his decision to oppose a national tax holiday. The lack of clear results then make him dubious about suspending the national tax now.
He knows from experience it will not work, so he opposes it. Wow, there's a word for that, think, think, oh yea, it's called learning.
You would prefer he for advance legislation that he knows from empirical evidence will not work?

Posted by bjd | May 1, 2008 10:33 PM

Note: There is still wriggle room in Senator Clinton's view. She want to pay for the holiday I believe with a windfall profits tax that the republicans will oppose, so it's like "I'm in favor of a tax holidy, if we'll sell the wild ponies in Washington D.C. to get the money".

I don't understand Krugman's view of the politics of this. Let's say Senator Clinton becomes the nominee. Not to worry, because as nominee, she won't have enough clout to get this past a democratic congress. Thus, both McCain and Clinton agree, the democrats in congress are blocking effort to help average folks and that untargeted tax cuts are the way to fight recession. Good ad for the RNC. Ok, so despite that, Clinton gets elected and the congress remains democratic. Now, as President, somehow she now has enough clout to get something
risky like heath care reform past congress after messing with them in the election. Sure, maybe.

Posted by windshouter | May 1, 2008 10:39 PM

He knows from experience it will not work, so he opposes it. Wow, there's a word for that, think, think, oh yea, it's called learning.

Actually, I prefer sticking with 'experience'-- the irony is both light and delicious.

Posted by latts | May 1, 2008 10:46 PM

It's been clear for a while now that the clinton's only want you to think they care about alleviating the suffering of the working and middle classes. Thats why they offer these lame proposals that will never actually do anything. Thats because, in the end, they always serve the upper classes and corporate interests. Thats how they've always been, thats how they will always be.

Posted by Soullite | May 1, 2008 10:47 PM

DTM,

Obama has explained that subsequent studies found little evidence that the gas tax holiday he supported in Illinois actually benefited consumers.

So what? He voted for a policy that you just claimed is "indeed harmful," and asked "Who is to say he or she won't do something harmful on a more major level for personal political gain?"

At least you've now exposed your absurd double standard: If Clinton supports a gas tax holiday, it means she's pandering and untrustworthy. But if Obama supports a gas tax holiday, it doesn't mean anything about his character and trustworthiness. Got it.

The wonder is that you really seem to think you can pass yourself off as a rational observer, dispassionately evaluating the candidates, when it's blindingly obvious that you're just another mindless Obamabot.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 10:47 PM

mixner,

I think you know the difference between learning from experience and pandering. Get real.

Posted by Micheline | May 1, 2008 10:51 PM

My biggest problem with Krugman seems to be that he is just politically fucking stupid.

Who thinks not wanting mandates is risky from an HMO/health insurance industry point of view? They slaver over the prospect. It pulls into the pool a bunch generally healthy people who will fatten up their bottom line considerably. There is no real political downside to mandates.

He is assuming that Hillary intends or could get the rest of her agenda where she promises that she is going to subsidize this coverage for low-wage workers and that's not going to happen and honestly I don't think she'll try.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 1, 2008 10:52 PM

He knows from experience it will not work, so he opposes it. Wow, there's a word for that, think, think, oh yea, it's called learning.

No, that's called jumping to conclusions. Not a terribly attractive quality in someone seeking the most powerful political office in the world.

The idea that you can generalize from a single real-world instance to a general principle (It didn't work that time; therefore it won't work at all) is absurd. No relevant new economic principles or data have emerged since Obama cast his vote for a gas tax holiday that would permit him the excuse of arguing that his support was justified then but Hillary's support is not justified now.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 10:57 PM

Funny, that we should be debating Clinton's attempt to bribe the electorate as if it were remotely credible policy. Basically this whole Clinton campaign boils down to "Sell me your vote for 20 bucks - oh, and did you know my opponent might be a scary black Muslim?" This from someone so out of touch she can't even work a coffee-machine!

Posted by kass | May 1, 2008 10:58 PM

Coupled with real world experience and the consensus of experts criticizing the idea, I think it is safe to say that it is not a good idea.

Posted by Micheline | May 1, 2008 11:01 PM

It seems that Mixner has taken over the tedious troll slot that used to be occupied by Petey. Truly, the stench of Clinton-panderers offends the nostrils of decent Americans.

Posted by starsandstripes | May 1, 2008 11:02 PM

Mixner,
Do you laugh when you type this crap? 'Cause we sure as hell are laughing at you when we read it.

Posted by bjd | May 1, 2008 11:05 PM

Fascinating: at last we know the value of Mixner's vote. Apparently for half a tank of gas, spread over a whole summer, Mixner is now available at the pollingbooth. Tell us, Mix, don't you feel a little cheapened by the ease with which Hillary bought you? Or is half a tank of gas more than you ever dreamed you might be worth? Personally, I'd hold out for a few free gummi bears on top....

Posted by morzer | May 1, 2008 11:11 PM

Mixner,

If I believed that Clinton honestly thought McCain's proposal was a good idea, I would agree the situation was similar to what happened with Obama in Illinois (i.e., I would believe she was mistaken, but in my view it wouldn't raise an issue as to her general trustworthiness).

But I don't believe that. So there you go.

By the way, of course some of the new data and analysis available today involves the results of the very program Obama originally supported, and obviously that was not available at the time he was supporting the proposal. For example, here is a 2006 paper relying in part on data from the Illinois program (and a similar program in Indiana in 2000):

Joseph J. Doyle and Krislert Samphantharak, “$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 12266 (May 2006).

Other recent data has come from Georgia (with a suspension in 2005) and Florida (2004).

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 11:15 PM

Coupled with real world experience and the consensus of experts criticizing the idea, I think it is safe to say that it is not a good idea.

Obama voted for a gas tax holiday as an Illinois Senator in 2000. When did the experts change their mind and decide this was bad policy rather than good policy?

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 11:19 PM

Mixner, it seems you just don't learn. You are defending a slimy little exercise in vote-buying by Hillary Clinton, and yet you prance around sanctimoniously condemning those who learned from the past. Tell me, as a true-pink Clintonite, are you afraid of discussing the past? Is there something in your candidate's history that just can't be mentioned?

Posted by maxij | May 1, 2008 11:25 PM

Mixner,

click here

Posted by bjd | May 1, 2008 11:31 PM

Mixner is displaying his usual fine common sense. In addition to the point that tax economists today do in fact have the benefit of the data from several recent gas tax holidays, I will also guess that this measure being considered in the Illinois Senate back in 2000 got a wee bit less attention from the nation's top economists than McCain's proposal.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 11:33 PM

I am Mixner. I reject your puny facts. We Clintonians are not of your kind. We are the overlords. We spit upon your human logic. You will have gas holidays. You will nominate Comrade Clinton. You have no choice. Mixner has spoken

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 11:36 PM

Bottom line.

Small issue (gas tax), she'll pander.

Gigantic issue (AUMF), she'll pander.

This is a person who's core principle is getting elected.

Posted by skip | May 1, 2008 11:38 PM

Mixner,

OK, so we now have a lot of evidence this issue had been fairly well-studied as of 2006, using data drawn from 2000 and after.

Now if you want to claim that all this had been established at an earlier date, one prior to Obama considering the Illinois proposal in 2000, then lets see your proof.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 11:39 PM

DTM,

For example, here is a 2006 paper relying in part on data from the Illinois program (and a similar program in Indiana in 2000).

The paper doesn't reach any general conclusions about the economic effects or policy merits of a gas tax moratorium, but the authors did find that gas prices fell, albeit modestly, after the suspension of the tax in Illinois and Indiana.

Still waiting for someone to point me to this "consensus of experts" that allegedly did not exist in 2000, when Obama voted for the gas tax holiday in Illinois.

In what I'm sure is a complete coincidence, Obama just happened to vote in favor of the gas tax holiday during his (unsuccessful) 2000 bid for the U.S. House of Representatives. But he couldn't possibly have been "pandering" to the voters, now could he?

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 11:43 PM

Well, I think we can simply note that Mixner, as usual, has no facts and offers only innuendo. So unusual in a Clinton cultist....

Posted by illinois | May 1, 2008 11:45 PM

The problem with Krugman is that the Clintons have promised him something he wants badly enough to jump through ANY hoop to get. Or -- less likely but possible -- they have threatened him with something he must avoid at all costs. It's the same difference, and it's how a tremendously intelligent man has been brought lower in his reasoning than a high school Young Republicans chapter treasurer.

What has happened to Paul Krugman since last October is among the very sad things about the Clinton campaign -- strong evidence that it fouls and turns everything it touches.

Posted by Elatia Harris | May 1, 2008 11:48 PM

"I believe it would be important to get every member of Congress on record. Do they stand with the hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the oil companies? That's a vote I'm going to try to get, because I want to know where people stand, and I want them to tell us - are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?"

Mixner, any comment on Hillary Clinton trying to go after the Democratically controlled Congress for her personal benefit? Just a little treacherous, eh? Mind you, anyone who looks at her sordid record knows that Clinton has always been a Republican at heart.

Posted by drozz | May 1, 2008 11:50 PM

Oh, Mixner, you're such a riot.

Suppose Obama did pander in 2000 or whenever the fuck you're throwing a hissy fit over, even though there's no evidence of that. How does that justify Clinton doing her thing now? Do you even have a coherent point, or is this all just an attempt to dodge the policy discussion where Clinton and McCain are both so flagrantly in the wrong?

Posted by Zephyrus | May 1, 2008 11:52 PM

Mixner,

You claimed above:

"No relevant new economic principles or data have emerged since Obama cast his vote for a gas tax holiday . . . ."

I and others have confirmed that relevant new data emerged since Obama cast his vote.

Again, though, if you have proof this was all redundant with respect to data published prior to 2000, let's see it.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 11:54 PM

DTM,

OK, so we now have a lot of evidence this issue had been fairly well-studied as of 2006, using data drawn from 2000 and after.

You have produced nothing indicating even a significant shift in expert opinion on the merits of a gas tax holiday since Obama voted in favor of it in 2000, let alone the formation of a consensus against the policy since that time. The one paper on the question you have mentioned concluded that: "The estimates here suggest that the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states" and does not reach any conclusions about the economic merits of the policy.

You're accusing Hillary of pandering while trying to excuse Obama for supporting the exact same policy. I'm still waiting for you to produce a shred of evidence that your double standard is justified. Of course, you have none, because you're just a mindless Obamabot.

Posted by Mixner | May 1, 2008 11:54 PM

Mixner,
You are the one making the accusation that means you are responsible for providing proof.

Posted by bjd | May 2, 2008 12:02 AM

Mixner,

Again, I don't even know if there was any sort of expert opinion on gas tax holidays published prior to 2000, such that it could be said that expert opinion on gas holidays changed by 2006. But let me know if you find any pre-2000 studies.

Incidentally, as usual you prove yourself to be less than accurate in reporting the findings of studies. The 2006 study in question did find a 3% drop in retail prices during the tax holidays it studied, but then a 4% increase in retail prices after they were over. So whether that adds up to a net benefit for the consumer is uncertain, which is the point Obama has since made.

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 12:04 AM

Is Mixner really a person? The posts suggest a logic-challenged 'bot that just doesn't understand how to discuss issues intelligently.

Posted by bratwurst | May 2, 2008 12:09 AM

Suppose Obama did pander in 2000 ...

So it's okay for Obama to pander, but not for Clinton to pander? Is that it?

Of course, given Obama's demagoguing on the health care issue, there isn't really any serious doubt that he will pander with the best of them if he thinks it will give him a political edge, which makes these attempts to pretend that he's somehow a paragon of integrity who would never support something he didn't believe in or say something he didn't believe was true even more ridiculous.

Posted by Mixner | May 2, 2008 12:10 AM

DTM,

Again, I don't even know if there was any sort of expert opinion on gas tax holidays published prior to 2000, such that it could be said that expert opinion on gas holidays changed by 2006.

Since you have no evidence that expert opinion has changed since Obama cast his vote in 2000, you have no basis for claiming that his vote was honest and responsible, rather than pandering to the voters for political gain. The latter is especially likely given that he was in the middle of a bid for the U.S. House at the time.

Posted by Mixner | May 2, 2008 12:20 AM

Suppose Mixner did avoid the question just now ...

So it's okay for Mixner to waffle, but not for DTM to cite facts? Is that it?

Of course, given Mixner's demagoguing on the gas holiday issue, there isn't really any serious doubt that he will waffle with the best of them if he thinks it will give him a rhetorical edge, which makes these attempts to pretend that he's somehow a paragon of integrity who would never support something he didn't believe in or say something he didn't believe was true even more ridiculous.

Posted by emilyg | May 2, 2008 12:20 AM

So it's okay for Mixner to waffle, but not for DTM to cite facts? Is that it?
DTM did cite facts. Now Mixner is asking others to prove his point.
He has made a claim and states we have to prove him wrong. Well no that's not how it works. It's his job to provide evidence.

Posted by bjd | May 2, 2008 12:49 AM

As if on cue, Krugman's Friday column is all about how Obama continues to adpot right wing frames on health care and Social Security.

So, let's see...Krugman is both a one trick pony (health care) and he's willing to overlook Clinton's obvious use of right wing frames and/or attacks that help Republicans (McCain's cleared the test to be C-in-C, Obama...not so much) this fall because he doesn't like the fact that Obama's health care plan doesn't have a mandate.

Ok. Paul...let's level. If Obama get the nomination but then goes down to defeat spurred in part by Republican ads featuring Hillary Clinton saying Obama's not ready, who will have done more harm then?

Oh, and to the person above who said Obama put out the oppo research on Krugman, has that ever actually been prove to be true? Last I heard, it seemed fairly sketchy.

Posted by Mike P | May 2, 2008 2:46 AM

Krugman is so off the reservation. Why do you continue to respond to him?

Posted by KathyF | May 2, 2008 3:25 AM

"Harry and Louise"

You missed the point of the Harry and Louise ad. Well, probably not, but you didn't make it conscious. The Harry and Louise ad wasn't designed (visually) to take down her current plan, it was designed to remind you that she's tried this once and failed. It's not an attack on her policy (which is usually pretty good), but on her ability to implement policy. It was a direct strike into the memory hole of anyone over 40.

That's why it tweaked her so strongly.

Posted by Martin | May 2, 2008 4:32 AM

From the link Amberglow posted about "Fact Check"....

"A government study could not determine how much of the savings was actually passed along to motorists. Many lawmakers said their constituents didn't seem to have benefited. They also worried the tax break was pushing the state budget out of balance.

At the end of Illinois' tax holiday, there was a failed push to eliminate the sales tax permanently. Obama was among those voting against eliminating the tax.

Obama's presidential campaign says the lessons of that Illinois tax holiday influenced his decision to oppose a national tax holiday. The lack of clear results then make him dubious about suspending the national tax now."

It then goes on to talk about how it only saved the average driver $28. Pretty much, Obama is arguing, "I cut taxes, and it didn't seem to do squat."

Response Mixner?

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 2, 2008 5:15 AM

Also, offtopic, but I wonder if Marc is ever going to grow a pair and allow comments on his page again.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 2, 2008 5:23 AM

It was wrong for Obama to support a bad policy back in 2000, notwithstanding whether or not the data was completely in yet. However, the truth of the matter is that he's not supporting it now and Clinton is.

It also doesn't help politically that when Clinton says anything, everyone outside of her base thinks she's just pandering. When people see her, they just think "politician" (or "commie"), just like how she failed to get any real traction on issues like flag burning and cracking down on violent video games. The whole point of pandering is defeated if everyone knows you're pandering while you're pandering. People think politicians lie about their plans about what they will do in office (for good reason), so when they see a politician so blatantly pandering, they don't buy that that politician will actually do what they say they will do. As such, the pandering becomes self-defeating.

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2008 6:20 AM

What has happened to Paul Krugman since last October is among the very sad things about the Clinton campaign -- strong evidence that it fouls and turns everything it touches.

Amen.