About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS


Shea-Porter, Hodes Come Out Strong Against Gas Tax Holiday

by: Dean Barker

Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:30:00 AM EDT


On Sunday our Reps were hinting that they weren't fans of the McCain-Clinton gas tax holiday, but now there's no question they are dead set against it.

Reps. Shea-Porter and Hodes are among 28 Congresscritters who have signed on to George Mitchell's statement. An excerpt:

Oil companies have no history of passing their own savings on to the consumer and we don't believe they would do so now. The gas tax has remained stable for fifteen years, yet gas prices have steadily increased: clearly, the $0.18/gallon gas tax has little to do with the unusually high price at the pump. Waiving the federal gas tax will merely add to the already enormous profits of the oil industry while undermining our ability to invest in safer roads, cleaner fuels, and increased public transportation options.

Full statement below the fold.

Dean Barker :: Shea-Porter, Hodes Come Out Strong Against Gas Tax Holiday
Statement by Members of Congress on the Proposal to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax this Summer

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- 5/6/08 -- Members of Congress are being asked to state whether or not they support a temporary suspension of the federal tax on gasoline as a response to soaring gas prices. Below is a statement by 28 members of the House of Representatives unequivocally rejecting the idea. The Democratic lawmakers signing this statement are: Reps. George Miller (CA), Xavier Becerra (CA), Lois Capps (CA), Anna Eshoo (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Fortney Pete Stark (CA), Rosa DeLauro (CT), John Larson (CT), Hank Johnson (GA), Neil Abercrombie (HI), David Loebsack (IA), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Michael Capuano (MA), Wm. Lacy Clay (MO), Paul Hodes (NH), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Melvin Watt (NC), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Peter DeFazio (OR), David WU (OR), Steve Cohen (TN), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Lloyd Doggett (TX), Robert Scott (VA), Ron Kind (WI), Gwen Moore (WI), and Nick Rahall (WV).

"The Bush administration's oil and gas policies have been disastrous for our economy, the environment and hard working Americans. Since January 2001, oil prices have skyrocketed to $120 per barrel - up more than 250%. The increased price at the pump, coupled with the White House's failure to end America's addiction to oil, has hurt American families and weakened our economy. Meanwhile, the major oil and gas companies are reporting record profits and America's dependence on foreign oil has never been higher.

"In response to this serious and long-term policy challenge, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have proposed suspending the $0.18/gallon federal gas tax for the summer. We are strongly opposed to this short-term and counterproductive response, for several reasons.

"First, their proposal will bankrupt the federal Highway Trust Fund, leading to deep cuts to transit investments and to critical safety and congestion-relief funding. While our constituents would like to pay less at the pump, they don't want to see the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, worsened rush hour traffic, and increasingly dangerous road conditions.

"Secondly, the fiscal damage to the Highway Trust Fund would not actually lead to a savings for families. Oil companies have no history of passing their own savings on to the consumer and we don't believe they would do so now. The gas tax has remained stable for fifteen years, yet gas prices have steadily increased: clearly, the $0.18/gallon gas tax has little to do with the unusually high price at the pump. Waiving the federal gas tax will merely add to the already enormous profits of the oil industry while undermining our ability to invest in safer roads, cleaner fuels, and increased public transportation options.

"Third, Congress has begun to chart a new direction in energy policy - reducing demand for oil, improving the efficiency of cars and trucks, increasing our use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, and investing in a cleaner transportation infrastructure. These are the steps that we must take to reduce demand for oil, bring down the real cost of gasoline, and benefit consumers and the long-term health of our economy."

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This seems to be aimed at the McCain proposal (0.00 / 0)
He would simply not collect the roughly $8 billion. That would indeed drain the highway fund and let the oil companies raises prices by at least a fraction of the 18.4 cents / gallon.

The Clinton plan includes a tax on the oil companies to make up the difference. That tax keeps the highway fund whole and keeps the oil companies paying the same $8 billion.

I don't support her plan - but it is better than McCain's, especially in those two areas.


I'd agree (4.00 / 2)
Both gas tax holiday plans are bad. But Clinton's is merely pointless, and McCain's is harmful.

I'm glad to see our Reps. take a stand against this -- I do believe supporting the gas-tax holiday is a shameful piece of pandering, and it takes courage to stand up against it.

However, I notice in your post you use this "Clinton-McCain" Gas Tax Holiday formulation. That's a piece of propaganda which conflates the harmless with the dangerous. Clinton's bill includes an excess profits tax which is why it is merely pointless -- Mobil will pass that tax onto the consumer, but will not make a profit off the tax holiday, and the government will not be out a dime. Clinton's plan is a shell game, but that's all.

McCain's plan is a giveaway to the oil companies -- no excess profits tax is included.

So this formulation that's been floating around -- calling the holiday a "Clinton-McCain" plan, as if there was a single bill they had coauthored, is really an unfair conflation, and I'd really encourage people not to use it. The Mike Caulfield style guide says you can call Clinton's plan "a shameless bit of economic shell-gaming" -- but calling it the "Clinton-McCain" holiday is out of bounds.



[ Parent ]
The test of the Clinton plan: (4.00 / 1)
If shifting the tax to the oil company bottom line instead of the pump really works - bringing in the same revenue but reducing consumer prices - why have it expire in September?

But I guess we'd need to listen to those elite economists to get a handle on that...


[ Parent ]
It is the Clinton-McCain plan; she stole the idea from him and then made it sound populist. (0.00 / 0)
And she's promised to spend the windfall profits tax revenue several different ways.

All of this is moot, though; Congress won't act on this soon enough for it to happen, and more importantly, George W. Bush (who, apparently, is still President--I was shocked too) is against it.

--
"President-Elect Barack Obama" -- Nope, I'm not getting tired of hearing it.


[ Parent ]
No, it isn't. (0.00 / 0)
It cannot be "the McCain-Clinton plan" for one simple reason:
There are two different plans.

[ Parent ]
The Clinton-McCain "proposal"/"idea"/"pander" then. (0.00 / 0)


--
"President-Elect Barack Obama" -- Nope, I'm not getting tired of hearing it.


[ Parent ]
"Clinton-McCain" formulation hurts general election position (4.00 / 1)
It's worth noting that by calling it the "Clinton-McCain" bill/plan it hurts our general election position.

In a few weeks, Clinton will be out of the race. Obama will be the accepted nominee, and McCain will use this proposal against him.

The last thing we need is for McCain to claim that his irresponsible proposal was the same as the one accepted by prominent Democrats.

Much better for Clinton to go after McCain at that point and be able to say "My plan paid for the break via the oil companies...McCain's simply gave the money to them..." Let's lay the groundwork for that.

(I know this comment may start a cacophony of "well, THEY started it...")



[ Parent ]
That's fair, (0.00 / 0)
and I'm not as up on the difference between the two as I should be.

The conflation for me was nothing other than shorthand for where the statement was standing:

"In response to this serious and long-term policy challenge, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have proposed suspending the $0.18/gallon federal gas tax for the summer. We are strongly opposed to this short-term and counterproductive response, for several reasons.


Sununu's Fired Now - Yes We Did!

[ Parent ]
Good For Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes... (4.00 / 1)
...I do find the Hillary Clinton - John McCain (let's hope not to use those two names too often back-to-back) "gas tax holiday" plan to be election time pandering, and not for the best.

Even if a windfall tax is assessed, the oil companies are so greedy they will just slip their prices up to make up for any tax "savings."  

Barack Obama's new discussion about the nuclear option is also a bit of pandering.  What we need is a major "green" effort for alternative renewable sources of energy, plus some serious conservation.  We can live well by using less.  We can live BETTER by using less.


Obama has never dismissed nuclear. (0.00 / 0)
To sum up: Someday, but not today.

"Clean coal" mailer in KY and WV is as close to pandering as you'll get on energy. Though we must consider that these position have been his since the summer of '07.

Pulling pages from his policy book is not pandering. Some issues just "have their time."

The giant finds its game face.

No Regrets.  


[ Parent ]
nucular (0.00 / 0)
Last summer when Obama spoke in Conway, he was asked a direct question about nuclear power. After some tapdancing around the issues, he finally admitted that "all options were on the table."  

[ Parent ]
Pandering of the worst sort (0.00 / 0)
Hillary has to know that Bush would veto such a bill in a heartbeat. Only hope for passage is a new president and that doesn't happen until January when we are freezing to death because we can't heat our homes. Thanks and kudos to Shea-Porter and Hodes for their reality check. Better plan would be government regulation of the oil companies, but again, not before January when the oil companies are out of the White House.

Beachcombings Jewelry

I was shocked to learn that the federal gas tax is a flat amount per gallon... (0.00 / 0)
I was shocked to learn that the federal gas tax is a flat amount per gallon... and not that high an amount at that.  Ten years ago, 18 cents/gallon was a significant percentage, but now it's less than 5% of the retail price.  (I feel silly that I didn't know this.)

Raising the gas tax to a more realistic amount is politically undoable... but MIGHT it be possible to make it a percentage of the price, so revenue doesn't actually go down as prices go up?

I don't like paying taxes more than anyone else, but it is unfortunate that we have forgotten that our government (imperfect though it is) is Us.  The government isn't some alien entity which puts money on Saturn V rockets and blasts it into deep space: it actually uses our taxes (oftentimes inefficiently or foolishly, to be sure) to do the people's work... such as maintaining our highways.

(I suppose any attempt to raise the gas tax will  be blamed on another alien entity... "The Politicians"... who will be taking the People's money and giving it to The Government.)


Powered by: SoapBlox