If you didn't get to see, and you didn't if you weren't watching C-Span, here is the video of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. If you've never experienced him, you owe yourself the treat!
Isn't he a kick in the pants! I've loved this guy ever since I first started hearing him on the radio with Ed Schultz.
I was actually rather impressed that he only gave a glancing mention to coal degasification and carbon sequestration. He is a really big proponent of those technologies. Of course, Montana has some sizable coal reserves. He understands that the average American probably doesn't understand this stuff quite yet and now is not the time to get into a detailed explanation.
I was quite happy that that we actually did some McCain bashing in this speech also. Still not doing it enough or as consistently as I or James Carville or Paul Begala or Josh Marshall or even Pat Buchanan would like, but it's better.
As you can see, another good speech, during prime time, that the networks just plain aren't showing. Stupid.
Seriously, does Senator Barack Obama want the biggest differentiation between himself and Senator Hillary Clinton to be supported a "tax holiday" or not? You're really going to be the 'guy on the other side' of this issue:
Obama really needs to make this a non-issue by supporting ASAP, stupid or not, before it does real damage to his campaign.
Update: Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central says that Howard Wolfson just confirmed on a conference call that Sen. Clinton would be going forward with introducing legislation on the gas tax holiday. As he points out, it is unlikely to even come to a vote in the House with Nancy Pelosi opposing it, but can you really be sure she will still be opposing it next week? We'll see....
Senator Barack Obama is still trying to explain the truth to people:
While, as I have said, the truth is a great idea, putting money, even 25 or 30 bucks, in people's pockets is even better. Barack, we live in a short term society. 'Give me money now' is the mantra. It is why Wall St. works the way it does. Dozens of companies have gotten into trouble in the past because they maximized short term profits to the detriment of long term viability. Dozens more will in the future. They are a mirror of our society. Or, vice versa. Go argue about that in the comments.
But the political popularity of gas-price relief illustrates the uphill climb facing Sen. Obama. After making his plea Thursday at a retirement community in Columbia City, Ind., an older voter asked him why he couldn't support a gas-tax holiday that would be funded by a tax on oil companies, as Sen. Clinton has proposed, because it would offer some short-term relief. "A lot of us are short term," she quipped.
The New York Times reports Senator Hillary Clinton putting the full court press on Congress:
“Do they stand with hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the big oil companies?” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said. “That’s a vote I’m going to try to get, because I want to know where they stand, and I want them to tell us — are they with us or against us?” (Some Clinton supporters and superdelegates in Congress are among those who oppose a gas tax holiday.)
The same article quotes Senator John McCain in Iowa:
“You’d think that I was attacking Western civilization as we know it,” Mr. McCain replied. “The special interests, ‘Oh, my God. This will destroy our transportation system in America. This will have disastrous consequences.’ Look, all I think is we ought to give low-income Americans, in particular, a little relief.”
I guess the battle lines are drawn. I think that Senator Obama is finding himself on the wrong side.
A ray of hope? Over at First Read, Domenico Montanaro reports that:
Since a gas tax holiday doesn't look feasible, congressional Dems are pushing an alternative that could give some money back to consumers.
And:
“Democrats are likely to propose a temporary ‘windfall-profits tax,’ possibly of 25%, on major oil companies. Companies would be exempt from the tax if they invested profits in domestically produced renewable fuels or expanded refinery capacity or renewable electricity production. Democrats were discussing Thursday how the additional tax revenues might be used, with some advocating rebates for consumers and others backing additional investment in research and incentives for renewable energy."
Now, I am unsure, since I have not really seen it elsewhere, why a 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible. Nevertheless, the whole 'windfall-profits tax' thing would fall right into Obama's lap. While it wouldn't turn the issue around it would at least neutralize it.
Now, if you excuse me, I will continue to search, much like Obama, for why the 'gas tax holiday' would be unfeasible.
OK folks. As I said yesterday, this whole proposal of a gas tax holiday is stupid. We all know that. Barack Obama knows that. Hillary Clinton knows that. John McCain knows that. Have we settled that?
Apparently not. It will take an awful lot of energy to convince your average American that a gas tax "holiday" is smoke and mirrors but apparently, at least for now, the media has decided to see if they can support Senator Barack Obama in his quest.
The Chicago Tribune correctly pointed out in on Tuesday that Senator John McCain was the one who let the genie out of the bottle. A fact that is mentioned only in passing, while heaping abuse on Senator Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post today.
Now, please bear in mind that I too agree that the whole proposal is an exercise in futility. My reference to the genie in the bottle has a purpose. As I argued yesterday, there are just to many people who will find this idea appealing for it to merely 'go away.' McCain let the genie out and now it isn't going back in.
Senator Obama and, apparently, the media for the moment, are trying to patiently explain to this constituency why this is all a farce. The effectiveness of this strategy will be seen in the not too distant future.
Even the WaPo article has a caveat in it's criticism of the proposed holiday:
Political consultant Carter Eskew, a former Al Gore adviser, said that if he were advising Obama, he would have said: "If you want to oppose this . . . you're going to have to spend a lot of time and energy explaining.
"I don't think it's brilliant economics; unfortunately, it may be good politics. The smart people say 'It's stupid,' and the people who aren't as schooled say 'At least it will do something for me,' " he said. "I don't know that anyone connects the dots: that there have been a series of politically expedient decisions . . . that have added up to an economic picture that is not at all rosy and in fact fairly disastrous."
This explains, more concisely than I, why I don't think that the Clinton camp made a bad decision here. McCain brought it up. You aren't going to be able to keep quiet about it. Do you, if you are running for president in a close race, support or oppose such an idea? Duh! I think this was a no-brainer for the Clinton camp.
I applaud Senator Obama for his courageousness in trying to patiently explain to the American people that this is stupid. But, in the middle of an economic crisis, I still think the pocket book wins out over logic. He is wasting a lot of energy in a battle I think he will ultimately lose. Not a good idea when you are running for any office, much less president.
The whole gas tax "holiday" or "moratorium" or whatever we are calling it today may indeed be a "gimmick" as Sen. Obama says. It may also play well with the American public.
The Los Angeles Times has one column critical of the whole proposal. It even includes specific reasons that Sen. Obama may be hostile to the proposals of Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is refusing to play along with what he has called a gas-tax "scheme,” perhaps because he has learned from experience. When he was an Illinois state senator in 2000, he voted in favor of a six-month suspension of the state's sales tax on gasoline. A study later showed that the state lost $175 million in revenue, and consumers barely benefited -- gas prices simply rose to make up for the tax cut. Any economist could have predicted this: If you lower the price of gas without increasing the supply, it will only raise demand and thus boost prices.
Marc Ambinder has a post in The Atlantic that has reasoning from economist Jonah Gelbach on why all of this won't work.
Despite all of this, do you really think the idea of a "Gas Tax Holiday" is going to go away? Hell no! It sounds too good to too many Americans. It sounds good to conservatives and libertarians who hate taxes anyway. It sounds good to poor Americans who can't afford gas from week to week. It sounds good to middle class Americans who also can't afford gas from week to week.
Opposing the idea on the grounds that it is just a smoke screen is all well and good in and of itself but it won't matter to these people. A "Gas Tax Holiday" is going to be a popular idea. Senator Obama should get on board and shape it rather than oppose it. For instance, if Senator Clinton's plan goes forward, it will, allegedly, be revenue neutral while Senator McCain's plan will add to the deficit.
You aren't going to stop it. You might as well limit whatever damage might occur from all of this. Meanwhile, you are supporting a popular, if empty, position. Keyword: Popular. It may be stupid, but if it gets you votes than what the heck are you doing?! JMHO.
I am, on the one hand, glad that everyone seems to be finally understanding the implications of diverting such a large amount of our corn crop into ethanol production. The New York Times has a story about fertilizer shortages and the interconnected effect of that combined with the fact that money people in developing countries are eating beef (which needs a LOT of grain to be raised) and the use of corn for ethanol production.
The Washington Post has a story mainly concerned with the effect of diverting so much of our corn production to ethanol. The effects of this policy have been wonderful for the farmer. They have never seen such sustained prices for their crops. It is not so hot for the end user, however. It has raised prices on other grains (as farmers plant corn instead of wheat, soybeans, etc.), all types of meat (all of them need a great deal of grain to be produced) and as a result helped cause riots around the world as food prices rise as a result of the buffer our former overflow of grain being taken away.
Of course, mandating that ethanol production hit 15 billion gallons/year by 2015 was one of the more popular parts of the energy bill signed earlier this year. It was particularly popular with people such as Sen. Chuck Grassley(R-IA) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), in many subjects unlikely partners, but not in this. Anything that helps raise corn prices is in their constituents interest.
What is amazing is that ethanol has, at best, a net neutral effect, especially at low levels like the 10% mix that some stations use right now for standard production gasoline. Just check the GasBuddy forums on any of their local sites. These people know their MPG. They also know that their MPG drops when using an ethanol blend (it isn't as volatile as regular gas and therefore doesn't provide the same power per gallon.) Some actually claim this dip alone results in them burning more regular gasoline per mile when running an ethanol blend than when they run straight gas! (BTW, many small engines are incompatible with ethanol blends according to these boards, they will run fine for the season, but as they sit during the off-season, they corrode. Anecdotal, but I'm not taking a chance.)
Here's a snippet from the Washington Post article:
Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol "exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits." By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
So, read the articles. Draw your own conclusions. Then do what you think best. Me? I'll be avoiding ethanol, at least until they start using switchgrass to produce it instead of corn. Agree or Disagree, your comments are welcome.
