by D. Cupples | Sen. Barack Obama is chastising Hillary Clinton and John McCain for supporting a gas-tax holiday. McCain's proposal is a straight lifting of the tax. Hillary's proposal would include a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, meaning that oil companies would in theory pay for the gas-tax holiday. Of course, oil companies could just raise prices to offset the tax, which would make it a wash for consumers.
Still, Obama's criticism's are a tad hypocritical, given his own support for a gas-tax holiday back when he was an Illinois legislator. CBS News reports:
"Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.
"The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.
"During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, 'Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.'” (CBS)
Last night, an Obama-supporting friend told me that Obama opposes a gas-tax holiday NOW, because the one in Illinois didn't work and he learned from his mistake.
I doubt the accuracy of that interpretation, because I think Obama was as smart and analytical in 2000 as he is now.
We don't have to wait for McCain's proposal to become law (which is like the one Obama voted for in 2000) to know that it might do harm. Similarly, Obama didn't have to wait for the Illinois tax holiday to become law to anticipate that it wouldn't work.
And yet, Obama falsely tried to take credit for lowering gas prices from his constituents back in Illinois when the gas-tax holiday he supported became law.
In other words, Obama is now chastising other candidates for doing the same thing that he did to eight years ago in Illinois. Different standards, indeed.
To be clear, I don't support McCain's proposal, because it would likely do harm. I don't oppose Hillary's original proposal, because it likely wouldn't do much good.
Even Obama doesn't think Hillary's proposal would do financial harm to consumers; he just doesn't think it would do much good:
‘I'm here to tell you the truth,’ Sen. Obama says in a new 60-second ad running in North Carolina and Indiana ahead of Tuesday's primaries. ‘You're going to save about $25, $30, or half a tank of gas.’ (MSNBC)
Saving $25 may not be an overwhelming benefit to consumers, but it certainly wouldn't hurt them.
Let's get beyond the policy debate because, in reality, neither McCain's nor Hillary's proposal is likely to become law. Too few congressional Dems would support McCain's harmful proposal.
Oil-company-loving Senate Republicans would likely kill Hillary's proposal via filibuster, because it includes a tax on oil companies.
Moving on to the public-relations realm, we have McCain proposing a gas-tax holiday that would likely harm consumers, but the Republican machine wouldn't spin it that way. It would craft (and transmit incessantly) sound bytes like:
"Sen. McCain wants to cut your gas prices by reducing taxes -- and Dems are against this!"
When Hillary came up with a different proposal, she out-maneuvered McCain, by enabling creation of sound bytes like this one:
"We Dems want to cut your gas prices and make oil companies pay for it -- but McCain and the Republicans don't want big oil to lose money; we need to boot those Republicans out of Congress in November."
Are all three candidates politically posturing? You bet. And they aren't playing to avid readers of Paul Krugman or analytical bloggers who spend hours a week analyzing issues and comparing pundits' comments.
They're playing to people who are "informed" by sound bytes they hear on the car radio or by TV news they catch while they're fixing dinner. That's most of the electorate.
McCain started this ball rolling. Hillary came up with public-relations protection against Republicans in the form of a harmless proposal that likely won't ever become law anyway -- one that Dems could possibly use to slam McCain.
For that reason, I don't understand why anyone would demonize Hillary and (in the process) mis-characterize her proposal as "the same" as McCain's. Yet, some people -- like Rep. Mark Udall from Colorado -- are doing just that.
Even Obama is twisting facts during campaign statements, which isn't all that unusual. He said:
"'Now the two Washington candidates in the race have decided to do something different,” said Obama. 'John McCain started it, he made the proposal, and then Hillary Clinton said 'me too.”' (CBS)
As Obama darned well knows if he reads newspapers, Hillary did not say "me too," in that she didn't simply adopt McCain's plan. Hillary said, "Let's do it a different way" and came up with a counter-proposal.
There's a big difference, not that many people in sound-byte land will actually pick up on the differences.
Yes, silly season is in full swing.
It's certainly disappointing that Obama voted for that tax repeal in 2000. Granted, it was a 50-0-5 vote, so it's not as though his opposition would have accomplished much. Still, I'd be happier if he had pulled a Russ Feingold and been the lone voice of reason.
I agree he probably knew better at the time. That said, the Illinois experiment has been cited since then as a test case, which has shown that consumers at the pump only seem a percentage of the gas tax savings. Still, from a policy perspective this was an established bad idea in 2000.
Posted by: Adam | May 03, 2008 at 07:57 PM
Adam,
You know me: I get irritated over some of Obama's plays (i.e., the ones that make him look insincere or hypocritical).
And it would have been so easy for him on this particular proposal to just go along or add to Hill's proposal -- which would have protected him and other Dems (image wise, I mean).
It's not a real policy debate (in my mind), because it hasn't a hope in hell of passing.
Interestingly enough, I've heard some Hillary supporters say that she intends to somehow force the oil companies to pay a tax instead of passing it on to consumers.
I DON'T KNOW HOW that could happen, unless Hillary came out in favor of price controls, which I don't see her (or any candidate) doing at this point. It's just not politically feasible.
What do you think?
Posted by: D. Cupples | May 06, 2008 at 12:49 AM