New York States of Mind

Streetsblog notes that right along side Hillary Clinton, New York's senior senator Chuck Schumer has been another leading advocate of gas tax demagoguery. This is really a bizarre position for the Senators from New York, of all places, to be taking. After all, they represent the densest, most transit-intensive, least car-using major population cluster in the United States. If anyone statewide politicians ought to be in a position to resist political pressure to do something pointless, and to show the way to alternative transportation and lifestyle schemes, it ought to be them.

Clinton, of course, is only a very nominal New Yorker, but Schumer is an honest-to-God Brooklynite. Note that these are also people who, nominally, believe that catastrophic climate change is a real problem and that action ought to be taken against it. That's nice, but when you combine that conviction with the set of political beliefs they're operating under, you get the result that catastrophic climate change is a real problem that should be dealt with, but won't be due to sheer cowardice. It's something Al Gore might want to consider. Perhaps his own 2000-vintage SPR gambit would prevent him from speaking out on this controversy, but I think most of Gore's post-2000 career has been aimed at getting away from the style of political engagement that made his 2000 campaign such a hollow one.

Photo by Flickr user Aturkus used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Shouldn't we, in Schumer's case, think this is a mix of supporting Clinton in her stupid idea and pandering to up-staters who are both necessary for success in NY politics, much less urban, and much more conservative? I'd think that would explain it even though it's not a very edifying explanation.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | May 1, 2008 10:44 AM

Just another reminder why it is unwise to get between Schumer and a camera, especially when Chuck has some money to give away.

Chuck has seen way too many Crazy Eddie commercials.

Posted by calipygian | May 1, 2008 10:47 AM

Speaking as a New York native in exile- if you devoted your entire blog to describing instances of what an asshole Schumer is, it would take months for you to exhaust the material.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 1, 2008 10:52 AM

When she voted for the war, it wasn't clear whether she really believed it was right, or just thought it was the politically smart thing to do. Now she's willing to throw the whole climate change agenda under a bus to get elected. I think we have our answer.

The progressive community should be renouncing her en masse right now. Even if she were more electable, she's no longer worth electing.

Posted by BobN | May 1, 2008 10:53 AM

I just heard last night that the Republican party in New York wants to eliminate the state gas tax. (I don't know if it is a temporary repeal or not.)

If anyone wants a carbon tax or a cap and trade then how can they possibly want the equivalent of a NEGATIVE carbon tax?

Posted by neil wilson | May 1, 2008 11:03 AM

Shouldn't we, in Schumer's case, think this is a mix of supporting Clinton in her stupid idea

Yes, that probably is part of his reason to support Clinton. Which would mark at least the second instance recently (see - Mukasey confirmation) he has elevated personal loyalty over what he reasonably believes to be good for the country.

Posted by Ready for change | May 1, 2008 11:08 AM

Gas tax pandering? Please meet Indiana's Joe Andrew who writes this in a letter to uncommitted super-delegates:

>> I understand that, while wrong and pernicious, shallow victory can be achieved through division by semantics and obfuscation.

This is spot on concerning the gas tax pander.

Joe Andrew's letter is a pre-emptive strike concerning today's switch from Clinton to Obama and is said to be posted in full at Politico.

Posted by Bill White | May 1, 2008 11:11 AM

No Billy Joel references. Bad.

Posted by Jack | May 1, 2008 11:12 AM

The explanation is simple. Politicians want to give the people what they want, or address what's worrying or upsetting the people, because it's good politics. The catch is that they want to do these things in ways that are easy politically, i.e., that don't involve the people having to make tough choices. If that's not possible, then all you get is rhetoric.

Democrats love to spew rhetoric about the need to address climate change. Many don't really want DO ANYTHING about it, however, because that would be hard politics--people would have to make tough choices. And if their climate change rhetoric clashes with something that's slam-dunk easy politics like gas prices, then it's no contest.

Posted by Claudius | May 1, 2008 11:12 AM

Schumer and Clinton can take the NYC vote pretty much for granted. Long Island and upstate are very car dependent, and their votes are pretty much up for grabs.

Posted by DukeJ | May 1, 2008 11:23 AM

Just another reminder why it is unwise to get between Schumer and a camera, especially when Chuck has some money to give away.

Chuck has seen way too many Crazy Eddie commercials.

What ever happened to Crazy Eddie anyway? Those commercials were classics!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 1, 2008 11:28 AM

You're flat-out misrepresenting Schumer's position. The argument on gas taxes is that the incidence falls on oil company profits, not consumer prices, therefore cancelling gas taxes is mostly a subsidy to the oil companies. But Schumer has called for cancelling the gas tax and *replacing it with a tax on oil company profits*. This can only help consumers, without hurting government revenues at all. In fact, one could argue that economically its a pure wash.

As for the price of gas argument, given that gas prices have more than doubled over the last couple of years and are expected to keep rising this summer, if they're ten or twenty cents lower this summer that's hardly going to make a difference in conservation measures.

Finally, Schumer represents upstate NY, where people drive a whole lot.

You should rewrite this post or add an addendum, it's rather lazy in the way it ignores the details of the issue.

Posted by mq | May 1, 2008 11:31 AM

Schumer and Clinton can take the NYC vote pretty much for granted. Long Island and upstate are very car dependent, and their votes are pretty much up for grabs.

Exactly. Swing voters in NY drive a lot.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 11:34 AM

More people in New York State live outside of New York City than live in it. I guess those people's considerations shouldn't be taken into account by their elected state-wide politicians?

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 1, 2008 11:35 AM

"Democrats love to spew rhetoric about the need to address climate change. Many don't really want DO ANYTHING about it, however, because that would be hard politics--people would have to make tough choices. And if their climate change rhetoric clashes with something that's slam-dunk easy politics like gas prices, then it's no contest."

Voters say they "care" about the environment but that's only because they assume SOMEBODY ELSE will be made to do the heavy lifting. God forbid they should have to change their own ways.

Posted by kafka | May 1, 2008 12:13 PM

Speaking as a New York native in exile- if you devoted your entire blog to describing instances of what an asshole Schumer is, it would take months for you to exhaust the material.

Obviously behind on your Yglesias bio. If he were to do this it would presumably feature a large amount of original reporting.

What ever happened to Crazy Eddie anyway? Those commercials were classics!!

Went down for criminal and civil securities fraud in a series of complex litigations that lasted something on the order of a decade. I'd mention what country he fled to for awhile, but that'd probably provoke a numbered comment on Haim Saban's perfidy.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 1, 2008 12:18 PM

I agree with you, but it's worth pointing out that Schumer and Clinton aren't just senators from the city of New York. There is this rather large state that they also serve.

Posted by Erik | May 1, 2008 12:20 PM

But Schumer has called for cancelling the gas tax and *replacing it with a tax on oil company profits*. This can only help consumers, without hurting government revenues at all. In fact, one could argue that economically its a pure wash.

And in fact, most economists and anyone else not pandering to gas guzzler drivers has said exactly that: economically, it's a wash.

Posted by Mike | May 1, 2008 1:33 PM

What ever happened to Crazy Eddie anyway? Those commercials were classics!!

He went to jail.

Posted by Karin | May 1, 2008 2:16 PM

As those of us who live in NYC are constantly reminded, it is actually the New Yorkers outside the city who really call the shots -- we just supply the ka-ching. And, as we saw with the death of congestion pricing, God forbid you get between these folks and their cars, particularly when they want to drive into NYC to do something interesting.

Posted by Glenn | May 1, 2008 2:30 PM

is this the same chuck schumer that forcibly supported the nominations of Jay babybee (as in Baybee 'torture memo' and the current chimp we have for AG)? I'm just not surprised at anything my two senators do or dont do.

Posted by Anthony Mason | May 1, 2008 3:53 PM

"After all, they represent the densest, most transit-intensive, least car-using major population cluster in the United States."

This is wrong for two reasons.

1) It's easy to picture New York City as a city of pedestrians and subway riders. And that's true, NYC has enormous population density. But it also has more cars. It is the biggest car market in the USA, bar none. By a good margin. New York's Senators have more reason to pander than anyone because they represent more car owners than anyone.

2) Senators represent more than New York City. They represent the whole state. Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, etc. There are lots more drivers in the rest of the state, and not much density.

Posted by Muttrox | May 2, 2008 9:21 AM