Just like my last post I have two articles from Sam Stein’s blog that correspond with each other. Both of these blogs are based on Hilary Clinton’s idea for a Gas Tax Holiday sometime during the summer. Sam Stein’s blog seems to have created news itself, as one entry got a response from the Clinton Camp.
Expert Support for Gas Tax Holiday Appears Nonexistent:
Hilary Clinton and John McCain have come forth with a plan to have a Gas Tax Holiday sometime during the summer. This blog is a response to a futile attempt by Sam Stein to find experts who agree with this idea. This blog contains a great deal of quotes from political, economically and environmental experts who seem to all agree that the tax idea is not the correct answer to our gas problems.
Tom Friedman from the New York Times said that Clinton “has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year – an idea that could actually aid the terrorists.” In response to these quotes Stein attempted to get a response from Howard Wolfson, a Clinton adviser. They were not able to get a statement from Wolfson, but there was a response the next day which became another blog story.
Jerry Taylor from the Cato institute called the idea a holiday from reality and that the gas prices would not fall. Taylor said “service stations would just continue to charge what they are charging.” So, that would mean the profits would be very high for the oil companies and it would be tax free. Max Schulz called it “bad policy and political gimmicks.” Schulz continued “I have never seen the wisdom in playing gimmicks with the tax code.” This quote also reminds me of Tax Free days in Massachusetts which suspend the states 5 percent sales tax usually in August.
Environmentally Robert Shapiro commented that this tax would lower the cost of substances that raise greenhouse gases. So, the experts agree that the cost overweigh the benefit. The only question is how the Clinton camp will respond to the charge that this plan is a waste of time and money and potentially dangerous to the environment.
Clinton Camp Defends Gas Plan: She Doesn’t Have to Listen to Experts:
The next day the response from the Clinton Camp that Sam Stein wanted actually happened. This might not have been an actual response to the blog, but it might be because Stein commented that he attempted to get a statement from Wolfson. Wolfson said in a conference call that "Senator Clinton realizes there is a problem for consumers that requires both a short term and long term set of solutions. In the short term, she has laid out a plan to suspend the tax and have those resources or revenues paid by oil companies as well. In the long term, she has the boldest and most comprehensive plan that will increase fuel efficiency standards... help lawmakers retool their production facilities.”
Wolfson did not give a definitive answer whether or not Clinton would leave the campaign trail to push this legislation. Wolfson also responded to the critics of the tax plan by saying “we believe the presidency need leadership.” Basically Wolfson was saying that the president was the “decider” and would do whatever they want whether or not the experts agree with it or not.
Also, the blog has a piece of commodity news from 2000 showing that Clinton was not in favor of a Gas Tax Day while running for her senate seat. Clinton called a tax free day “a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies.” Clinton experts were quick to these potential flip-flop allegations by saying that her tax plan will be paid for by the oil companies. Clinton advisers note that the 2000 republican plan would have been paid for by using a highway trust fund. This idea of a highway trust fund was also noted in the first blog with Stein commenting that no trust funds would be used in the plan after he got a response about these funds by the American Trucking Association which said the “ATA appreciates the effort and supports the proposals. But we do have concerns that any fuel tax suspension proposal could damage the already ailing Highway Trust Fund. To the extent that McCain and Snowe's proposals use general revenue funds to offset the hit to the trust fund, that concern is addressed. ATA did not ask for this legislation. And we believe it is only a very short term answer that does not do anything to address the longer term issue of rising fuel prices. ATA recognizes that rising fuel costs have a disproportionate impact on small trucking companies where even a small savings can be the difference in their staying in business.”
In regards that the plan would be a waste of time and money Clinton adviser Geoff Garin disagreed. Garin said that “our calculation is that the average driver would save 70 dollars.” With upcoming votes in blue-collar states such as Indiana, could this idea sway the vote? As George W. Bush has proved these states love getting extra money no matter who pays for it in the end. This Tax Break idea reeks of republican politics, and how will that help Clinton during a democratic election? I don’t think it will help that much and it could do a great deal of damage.
No comments:
Post a Comment