Gassy
What Jonathan Alter said about the gas tax. Beyond that, though, it’s worth saying that real harm is done to people’s lives by this sort of gimmickry. It’s not at all clear to me that ordinary voters understand that the underlying supply and demand trends make it overwhelmingly likely that the cost of gasoline will continue, on the whole, to move upwards in the future. But that’s the reality — the market will fluctuate and it’s possible that policy choices about the SPR can influence those fluctuations, but we’re not finding new sources of cheap oil at the same rate that global economic growth is making people want to burn more oil.
Both as a country, and as individuals, we need to plan accordingly. Not everyone will agree with my preferred policy prescriptions, which tend toward denser land use and more transit, but we need some long-term policy response. And people need to respond in their own lives when they make decisions about which car to buy and where to live. But when national leaders act as if they believe current fuel costs are a passing phenomenon to be weathered with short-term measures, then at least some voters are going to believe them and make bad personal and political decisions that we can ill afford. A lot of electoral gambits are nonsense without being actually harmful, but McCain and Clinton are making problems worse just with their rhetoric.
52 Responses to “Gassy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Any time someone says “ordinary voters,” I always mentally replace it with “retards.” It fits almost every time.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“Beyond that, though, it’s worth saying that real harm is done to people’s lives by this sort of gimmickry.”
So, why did you endorse this gimmickry three days ago?
Why does Matthew want to do real harm to people’s lives?
April 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Newbie here with an observation. That Petey guy sure is a fucking asshole, ain’t he?
April 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Don’t know why I waste my time since Petey’s wankery will continue, but for any others reading:
What Matt endorsed was Clinton using the political jujitsu of appearing to endorse the plan while setting impossible conditions on it actually passing as a way to negate the issue and make it go away. He didn’t endorse her making it a major talking point and running TV ads about it and attacking Obama about it.
For those not seeing things through Clinton colored glasses see the distinction?
April 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Excellent post Matt. Also like Alter’s. Wonder if the next post on this should highlight the MSM as willing accomplice in this dirty little game. Every reporter knows this proposal is stupid yet they don’t say that – they portray Clinton as giving support to hard-hit middle-income families facing higher gas bills when actually her proposal is bad for them.
And you were right about Petey…
April 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Matt writes: “It’s not at all clear to me that ordinary voters understand…”
Actually Matt, it is clear. Eric R.A.N. Smith’s book “Energy, the Environment, and Public Opinion” showed pretty definitely that the public doesn’t understand much if anything about energy policy on its own. Why that book isn’t more widely read I will never understand…
April 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Wow, what Petey said.
That is quite a backtrack, in substance, and big-time in tone.
The ‘bots must have flooded his in-box with threats to never read the blog again if he said something remotely favorable about HRC and her campaign.
Or are the tactics genius when used in press releases, but a raping of our democracy and discourse when used in an ad?
Just trying to get my anti-Clinton moral outrage meter set correctly.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Why is Petey intent on lying about what Matthew has endorsed?
April 30th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
No better way to put it.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
You guys are still making arguments that will win the votes of maybe 200 economics students in North Carolina -Indiana , but which will cost Obama big time — and over a trifling sum/proposal that is too trivial to even argue about.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
So, why did you endorse this gimmickry three days ago?
I don’t think Matthew believed that Clinton’s position was going to be turned into an ad and get mentioned at the presidential press conference, etc. I think he believed it would be a meaningless, soon forgotten bit of political posturing and was fine with it as such.
That said, I don’t think Matt was right to praise Clinton’s position at first, and that Petey’s got a valid argument that Matt flip-flopped.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think Clinton gave Obama a tremendous opening and I hope he uses it. Just point out that just about every economist and environmental scientist thinks the gas tax holiday is a terrible idea, then tie her in with McCain and Republicans as being on the wrong side of this issue (along with Iraq, Iran, etc….). I know he doesn’t want to go negative, but I hope he beats her over the head with this.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Why is Petey intent on lying about what Matthew has endorsed
He makes up stuff on regular basis so it’s not surprising. Earlier he randomly posted a photo of Hunter S. Thompson, so maybe he’s delusional because of excessive drug intake.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Why is Petey intent on lying about what Matthew has endorsed
He makes up stuff on a regular basis so it’s not surprising. Earlier he randomly posted a photo of Hunter S. Thompson, so maybe he’s delusional because of excessive drug intake.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I think Clinton gave Obama a tremendous opening and I hope he uses it. Just point out that just about every economist and environmental scientist thinks the gas tax holiday is a terrible idea, then tie her in with McCain and Republicans as being on the wrong side of this issue (along with Iraq, Iran, etc….). I know he doesn’t want to go negative, but I hope he beats her over the head with this.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Here’s a picture of Clinton … or McCain.
but which will cost Obama big time — and over a trifling sum/proposal that is too trivial to even argue about.
$9 billion in lost highway funds (and an estimate of 300,000 lost jobs) is now “too trivial to even argue about”? Wow. I guess I have to buy myself a new Jade-o-meter ™.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Matt -
Think of it as economic natural selection. Those folks who think that gas price increases are a passing fad will continue to buy their Hummers and Ford F-250’s. The smart folks will start looking to alternative energy and fuel efficiency.
Sooner rather than later, one group will find their wallets a whole lot thinner than the other group. Blame it on partisan politics if you like, but I blame it on the education system. (Which in turn can probably be blamed on partisan politics…)
April 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
What happens when you give a gasoline tax holiday is: Gasoline dealers raise their prices to make more money instead of passing the tax break on to consumers.
See Florida, c. 2004.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Matt endorsed it as a gimmick for shutting down a potential wedge issue Republicans might otherwise use against Democrats, not as one for opening up a new division among Democrats. The ethics of intra-party campaigning should, I think, be stricter than the ethics of inter-party combat. But of course Clinton doesn’t think so and Petey certainly doesn’t think so — indeed, the chance to attack fellow Democrats with blatantly cynical arguments is what gets him up in the morning.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I think Roman’s on to something. According to Newsweek and others, Clinton and McCain’s tax-holiday proposal will cost 300,000 jobs, fund terrorists, increase oil company profits, degrade the environment, increase the long-term cost of a gallon of gas and cost us more in taxes than it saves us at the pump.
Seems like some smart consultant could turn that into a 30 second ad that might do some damage. (I see dead baby polar bears.)
April 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Re LFC’s comments “$9 billion in lost highway funds (and an estimate of 300,000 lost jobs) is now “too trivial to even argue about”? Wow. I guess I have to buy myself a new Jade-o-meter ™.”
———-
The next President will –in the course of his 4 year term — control the spending of over $12 TRILLION. He will decide whether we piss away $4 Trillion more on military operations/spending or whether we increase our pitiful, chickenshit research budget and develop alternative energy sources. Whether we continue to bankrupt this country with stupid shit decisions or whether we invest –in education, in healthcare, in mass transit.
So yes, losing primaries or the general election over a few $Billion is the act of a damm idiot.
Maybe you brainiacs would understand that if any of you ever had to meet a payroll, make a profit, sell a product, or run an organization. Maybe then you would understand that a LEADER has responsibilities to his CONSTITUENTS and does what is necessary.
But obviously, you all prefer to go the Al Gore route.
LOSE an election because you were too chickenshit to destroy one of the most pathetic politicans we’ve had in the last 50 years.
Then enjoy your Nobel Prize while 10 of MILLIONS of your poorest constituents and followers endure 8 years of misery and despair under the Bush administration.
Some of them being sodomized in prison. SOme of them in the morgue. Others dying years before their time because of no healthcare. Others , highly brilliant, facing a life of bonegrinding menial, labor because they never had a chance to develop the exceptional minds they have.
It is deeply responsible to promise the poor and downtrodden that you will act on their behalf — and then sell them down the river on a whim.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Nothing says “helping out low-middle income households” like continuing to enourage gasoline demand in the face of an increasingly constrained supply.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Wow, I thought Petey was the biggest idiot on the site, but I chalked that up to delusional ranting in the wake of Edwards’ crash and burn. But Andruw comes in and steals the title right out from under him. Well done, Andruw. The only people stupider than Petey are the people that agree with him.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
1) A lot of people are on the margin of existence out there — and they want some indication that their elected leaders will give a SHIT.
2) Hillary and McCain are deeply deceitful in making token gestures that won’t help that much. But at least they make SOME gesture. That’s a hell of a lot better than admiring yourself in the mirror or giving professorial lectures on economics whose underlying message is that you don’t give a shit. Because you make no attempt to help.
IF some elderly woman falls into a river, you don’t lean over from the bank and advise her that she will be better off “in the long run” if she learned how to swim and lost some weight. You pull her out of the fucking river.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“Any time someone says “ordinary voters,” I always mentally replace it with “retards.” It fits almost every time.”
ur an elitist lol
April 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Any time someone says “ordinary voters,” I always mentally replace it with “retards.” It fits almost every time.”
ur a 31337ist lol
April 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Wow, I thought Petey was the biggest idiot on the site, but I chalked that up to delusional ranting in the wake of Edwards’ crash and burn. But Andruw comes in and steals the title right out from under him. Well done, Andruw. The only people stupider than Petey are the people that agree with him.
I’m thinking Andruw is Petey’s sock puppet. Which is sad.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
On the plus side, it is a very short-term measure. Let’s say Bush enacts a the summer gas-tax holiday as a favor to McCain.
So now it’s August, and gas is over $4/gallon anyway, and voters can’t help but conclude, “Hmmm… John McCain’s Big Idea to Help Me Out was a total flop. It really seems as though this guy has no idea what he’s talking about.”
April 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Of course I am not…just another example of the ‘bots feeling the heat surrounding their collapsing candidate.
You would think ‘bots could handle more than one or two dissenting views in a blog postcomment section with nearly 30 entries without attributing it to sock-puppets, but then again, in the ‘bots worlds, “eveyone I know voted for Obama.”
April 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Dissenting views are fine. Lying about Matt’s position isn’t. Petey’s a liar, Andruw, and you’re a willing dupe. Sad really.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
So now it’s August, and gas is over $4/gallon anyway, and voters can’t help but conclude, “Hmmm… John McCain’s Big Idea to Help Me Out was a total flop.
You aren’t nearly cynical enough. The oil companies will cut prices in the months leading up to the election (just as they did in 2004) in order to shore up the GOP and undercut Democrats. McCain proposes this horse-hockey, Bush enacts it, and the price of gas magically goes down right before November.
In fact, I’d guess that part of the reason for the massive run up in gas prices now is to allow them to give back, say, 30 cents a gallon toward the end of summer in order to help McCain.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:32 am
“…are making problems worse just with their rhetoric.”
Exactly Matt. It’s almost as bad as the rhetoric which suggests we can just “end the war”.
Or that the whole thing was just an aberration cooked up by a gang of deviants in the White House–one might say, “a passing phenomenon to be weathered with short-term measures”.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
Of course I am not…just another example of the ‘bots feeling the heat surrounding their collapsing candidate.
You would think ‘bots could handle more than one or two dissenting views in a blog postcomment section with nearly 30 entries without attributing it to sock-puppets, but then again, in the ‘bots worlds, “eveyone I know voted for Obama.”
I’ve noticed that Hillary-supporters use name-calling a lot. Sign of character, I guess.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
What should be done is to call Hillary “Hillary Clinton, gas-tax holiday panderer”. Make it an epithet, hang it on her name. Because it’s true.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
“I’ve noticed that Hillary-supporters use name-calling a lot. Sign of character, I guess.”
Yeah a common trait of Petey and “Andruw.” Why the socket puppet charge works is because Petey is so deranged he just might do that sortof thing and Andruw’s signature doesn’t contain a verifiable blog address or e-mail. So it’s plausible. And Andruw’s arguments aren’t any more convincing than Petey’s. Just more trolling insults.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
thanks
March 1st, 2009 at 5:24 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Thanks for the review! viagra