Web Watch: Gassed up?
The rising cost of fuel may have just replaced weather and baseball when it comes to innocuous water-cooler talk. “How about those gas prices?”
That’s because this is the epitome of consumer-level politics. The economy in general might be America’s most pressing concern, but gas prices — up to an average of $3.62 nationally, according to AAA — is the new symbol for that worry.
Simply put, filling up the tank has become a real pain in the wallet.
No surprise then that overnight it has become a big campaign issue, a proxy war for the larger battle at the intersection of economics and energy sources. Most major newspapers this morning reported the three-way sparring between Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. Clinton and McCain are both calling for a moratorium on federal fuel taxes for the summer driving season.
The feds charge 18 cents a gallon on gas; it’s estimed that the government road funs would lose about $10 billion if no alternative tax/fee were created. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that average family would save about $30 for the summer.
This is interesting because it’s a key tangible different between Clinton and Obama in this marathon primary. Their he said, she said:
- Obama: The gas tax lift sounds good, but it amounts to pandering on a hot-button issue.
- Clinton: Every little bit helps; people need whatever they can get.
- Obama: More permanent solutions are needed and meanwhile the government looses more revenue and faces more debt.
- Clinton: A windfall profits tax on oil companies could help pay the difference.
Two questions come to mind: First, realistically, how much would thirty dollars help? Second, given that today is May 1, is any of this likely?
Still, the issue is at a minimum campaign fodder and a study in thought process. Here’s some more detailed analysis of the debate. Both Clinton and Obama have ads up on the issue. See below.
Obama’s ad:
Clinton’s ad:
I am sure factcheck.org will have a more detailed rundown of the lies in the adds, but here is a starter:
Price gouging. All ready investigated, there is none going on.
Raising fuel efficiency standards wont save one damn drop of fuel.
Now some other questions, who defines “windfall” profits? Could you not say that the amount of tax revenue collected last year was “windfall”? It was at all time highs. And why single out oil companies? Why not say any company that makes over X% profit will be subject to “windfall” taxes. Now did I miss the part where they layed out their energy plans? I havent heard either of them talk about exploring for our own known oil, coal and natural gas reserves. The part where they talk about reducing the red tape to build refineries must have been cut out, as was the parts about nuclear energy.