Friends Don't Let Friends Support Hillary Rodham Clinton Over Barack Obama

Fortunately for the Democratic Party--but unfortunately for the country--John McCain is worse. Outsourced to Charles Dodgson:

Through the Looking Glass: And now, my disappointments with Hillary:

This morning, George Stephanopoulos began his televised interview with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by asking if she could name a single economist who supported her plan for a gas-tax suspension.

Mrs. Clinton did not. “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists,” she said on the ABC program “This Week.” A few moments later, she added, “Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.”

Look. This isn't hard. The supply of gas over the summer is basically fixed; refineries are running flat out, and can't quickly add capacity. Retailers won't respond to more demand by selling more gas --- because they can't. So, what does happen? They keep raising the price of the stuff they have until they can no longer sell it all. So, for lack of any other rationing system, the free market effectively rations the stuff by willingness to pay. And, as Paul Krugman explains:

... if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. [Emphasis added.] Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount.

The plan won't save ordinary folks a dime. And some of them aren't fooled:

Stephanopoulos turned the mike over to a woman who said she supported Obama and said she makes less than $25,000 a year.

"I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax," the woman said, adding: "Call me crazy but I actually listen to economists because I think they know what they've studied."

So, what of Hillary herself? She's touting a plan that's nonsense the way Dubya's war plans were nonsense; the reasons it can't work are widely acknowledged facts which aren't seriously disputed by anyone with relevant knowledge.

Perhaps, after days of publicly touting this proposal, she still doesn't know she's selling snake oil. Or maybe she knows, but doesn't care. Either way, she has left the reality based community.

Comments

[David Martin]

Has anyone suggested an income tax credit for buying a new pickup truck?

[Martin]

So why does Krugman think this is a minor issue?

[christofay]

Well, she's more of a Rockerfeller republican anyways.

Stephanopoulos proving that we are Devo used to be in government (I'm here to help) and now is full bore blather.

[anne]

"Friends Don't Let Friends Support Hillary Rodham Clinton Over Barack Obama"

I will vote in the way I wish to vote.

[anne]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLPqTxd4Fe7e5EymHU-kTUgweRDQD90BPHC01

April 29, 2008

Obama says rivals Clinton, McCain pandering on gas tax
By MIKE GLOVER and BETH FOUHY – Associated Press

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." ...

[CMike]

Hillary Clinton is addressing two political issues.

First, Clinton's proposal is a response to John McCain's proposal to cut gas taxes. Clinton has figured out a way to offer the same tax cut to working class voters that McCain is offering while preventing a shortfall in highway funding and a windfall for oil companies.

Second, Clinton is explicitly calling for a tax increase on oil companies, a baby step away from Reagan-Bushism.

Look, there's a certain class of liberal folks who, regardless of what they say out loud, think engaging in democratic politics is contemptible. They are among the people who can't stand Clinton and see her as a lowly pandering politician taking a corrupt position on this gas tax issue. They are also among the people who admire Barack Obama and see him as an agent of "change we can believe in" taking the enlightened position on this gas tax issue.

Hillary Clinton "has left the reality based community" says creative class spokesman Charles Dodgson. That would be true if the reality based community were only to be found on the campuses of elite universities and in the affluent neighborhoods of the most creative of our creative class.

[anne]

Hillary Clinton is addressing two political issues.

First, Clinton's proposal is a response to John McCain's proposal to cut gas taxes. Clinton has figured out a way to offer the same tax cut to working class voters that McCain is offering while preventing a shortfall in highway funding and a windfall for oil companies.

Second, Clinton is explicitly calling for a tax increase on oil companies, a baby step away from Reagan-Bushism.

Look, there's a certain class of liberal folks who, regardless of what they say out loud, think engaging in democratic politics is contemptible. They are among the people who can't stand Clinton and see her as a lowly pandering politician taking a corrupt position on this gas tax issue. They are also among the people who admire Barack Obama and see him as an agent of "change we can believe in" taking the enlightened position on this gas tax issue.

-- C Mike

[vtcodger]

There's (probably) nothing wrong with your economic theory, but it's not clear to me that you folks really understand the gasoline market. There are now, and almost certainly will be come Summer, large inventories of refined gasoline on hand -- about a three week supply. The normal process is to draw them down around 10% over the course of a Summer to make up for the fact that Americans typically burn gasoline a bit faster than the refineries can produce it. While "they" surely can't draw the inventories down to zero or anywhere close to zero without huge problems, I believe that there is probably considerably more flexibility in gasoline supply than you guys are telling each other.

Current inventories are normal and they are not expected to drop below normal. There are not (so far as I know) that many more drivers this year than last. Americans may well be driving less (inventories soared earlier this year purportedly because of less driving due to high gasoline prices). I think you ought to consider the possibility that "additional" gasoline would materialize from inventory to cover any (very modest I expect) increase in demand from a gas tax holiday.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

BTW, I'm against the tax holiday (McCain)/shift (Clinton). It's too much like smuggling chocolate bars to an obese friend who has just had a heart attack at the age of 37. I don't think America's condition is terminal at this point, and I'm against further efforts, however modest, to make it so.

[mof]

Hillary might have a point. Japan just had a brief one month holiday from a gas tax. I do not know the exact amount of the surplus that consumers captured but it seems to be a lot more than economists in the US predict. Below is an article from the Nikkei which shows the rebound in prices suggesting that they fell by almost as much as the tax.

Why don't economists study this real life example? Is it because they might not like the answer which does not fit models?

Reimposed Surcharge Pushes Up Retail Gas Prices By Y30 Per Liter

TOKYO (Nikkei)--With provisional gasoline and other road-related tax surcharges reimposed on Thursday, a number of gasoline stations around the country have raised their prices by around 30 yen per liter in a bid to offset the additional 25.1 yen in taxes and higher crude oil costs.

Service stations affiliated with oil refiner TonenGeneral Sekiyu KK (5012) along the Kanjo 8-gosen road in Tokyo hiked the price of regular gasoline to 156 yen per liter, up 32 yen from the previous day. Competitors nearby made similar moves, displaying prices of 156-159 yen.

In the Kansai region, Kakuno Sekiyu raised the retail price of gasoline by 30 yen to 167 yen a liter. "The jump in price is a heavy burden, but it can't be helped," said a customer in his 40s.

Related Story:
• Japan Gas Tax Still Lower Than In Many Other Countries

Inventories of gasoline purchased from refineries at lower prices have declined sharply as drivers swarmed service stations nationwide until midnight on Wednesday to fill up their tanks before the expected price hikes. Outlets are rushing to raise prices to recoup the losses incurred in the price competition that broke out in early April when the surcharges expired.

In contrast to the bustling crowds the day before, there were not many customers at gas stations early on Thursday. An outlet in Nagoya that is open 24 hours a day serviced only about 20 cars as of 8:30 a.m., roughly one-quarter the average number it handled in the same time period last month.

At a service station along National Route No. 3 near Fukuoka Airport in Fukuoka Prefecture, where traffic is heavy, only a handful of customers came in during the first 90 minutes after it opened.

Meanwhile, some gas stations have decided to leave their prices unchanged for now. Outlets of major oil distributor Nippon Oil Corp. (5001) along the Kanjo 7-gosen road in Tokyo are attracting many more customers than usual by continuing to sell regular gasoline for 125 yen per liter.

[David Mullings]

While Clinton is proposing a "windfall profits tax", sensible people know that this has ZERO chance of passing with this administration so the highway fund WILL have a shortfall.

Last year Clinton said that the nation's infrastructure would be a major issue for the election - What is her backup plan when a windfall profits tax bill fails?

Last we forget that a windfall profits tax failed with Carter (we could design a better tax than that of course).

Most importantly, Clinton has proven that she would rather play politics to score votes rather than tell Americans the truth - that they NEED to reduce their consumption.

I agree with the smuggling chocolate comment - do not help to increase the demand for gas by making it cheaper.

Lastly, I am sure she will gladly quote economists when it fits her goals. All those years of "experience" and this is the garbage policy idea we get? Maybe she needs different "experience".

[anne]

"Most importantly, Clinton has proven that she would rather play politics to score votes rather than tell the truth - that they NEED to reduce their consumption."

Especially poorer Americans. Not me though.

[Q the Enchanter]

"[HRC is] touting a plan that's nonsense the way Dubya's war plans were nonsense.... [S]he has left the reality based community...."

Let's get reality-based. Hillary's nonsense will have approximately zero effect. Dubya's nonsense just in the short term has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives; long-term cost TBD, but probably grave.

These two kinds of nonsense are not analogous.

[Raskolnikov]

I think a key element of Hillary's plan is being ignored - she plans to finance this pander with a windfall profits tax on oil companies - exactly the people who profit from a cut in the gas tax. She is robbing Peter to pay Peter.

My read is that she thinks making the economic case against the gas tax is too hard, so she is resorted to outflanking McCain. Support the tax, neutralizing it as an issue, but push for the profits tax which mostly cancels its effects if successful, and most likely kills its actual chances of passing into law.

Its cynical and useless, but politically savvy and not particularly malevolent.

I personally think this dustup highlights the essentials of all three candidates:

McCain: pandering tool of right wing economic interests, with media savvy.
Clinton: cynical but politically smart, minimizing the harm of the pander.
Obama: Honest and putting his trust in his ability to make the case for doing the right thing. Possibly naive, or possibly heroic.

[Dave]

All you intellectuals with your fancy "knowledge".

Well, Just because an idea is stupid and counterproductive doesn't mean you shouldn't speak in favor of it.

Oh wait... Yes it does. Sorry, my mistake.

[Blissex]

«Perhaps, after days of publicly touting this proposal, she still doesn't know she's selling snake oil. Or maybe she knows, but doesn't care. Either way, she has left the reality based community.» «Most importantly, Clinton has proven that she would rather play politics to score votes rather than tell Americans the truth» Well, tell that to Gore and Kerry. If only the Usians were willing to elect people who tell the truth and were part of the reality based community. So far "noble" liars who create their own realities have done pretty well. As BDL is fond of saying, the cossacks work the the czar, and the czar is the majority of voters. «that they NEED to reduce their consumption.» Somebody need to reduce their consumption, not necessarily the median Usian voter, and even if they do, not before November.

[DeanMan]

The Gas Tax Holiday is to energy policy what a candy bar is to physical fitness - something that will, at best, provide the nation with a very short term "sugar" high, but leave us more tired and out-of-shape in the long-term.

American consumers would be much better served by addtional gasoline taxes that would fund public transportation and R&D investment in affordable plug-in hybrids and electric cars.

We should exclude Diesel from any gasoline tax increase, however, and could consider a decrease to help struggling truck drivers. Individual can cut back on driving or but smaller vehicles. Gasoline consumption by commercial truck transportation cannot be reduced without a negative impact on the price of food and other goods.

[Charles]

MOF, there's an interesting feature of the gas tax: its proceeds are given to drivers in the form of the Highway Trust Fund. So, if we have a gas tax holiday, we are also having a highway repair holiday. At best, this shifts consumption into the present at the cost of future consumption.

By the way, this is a general weakness in the theory of tax incidence, since taxes don't vanish from producer and consumer. They get spent on behalf of both.

[anne]

"Perhaps, after days of publicly touting this proposal, she still doesn't know she's selling snake oil. Or maybe she knows, but doesn't care. Either way, she has left the reality based community."

Rubbish; but excitingly so.

[anne]

"American consumers would be much better served by addtional gasoline taxes that would fund public transportation and R&D investment in affordable plug-in hybrids and electric cars."

Punish me, Bernie.

[Denis Drew]

I've got an idea -- I usually do :-] : since the price of gas wont be affected by LOWERING the federal tax, maybe the price of gas wont affected by RAISING the gas tax either. If we add a dollar to the tax maybe the gas companies will be forced to lower their price a dollar to get rid of all the supply on hand. So, with allowance for a fair return for the refineries, whenever they are running full out maybe we could up the price of gas a dollar or so in order to take back much of the excess price for taxpayers.

Don't forget to vote for me. :-]

[Jay]

"The supply of gas over the summer is basically fixed; refineries are running flat out, and can't quickly add capacity"

Would you and Krugman please look at the data and quit printing such lies (some people treat what you write as the holy gospel). Capacity utilization has not broken through 86%. The last time it has been this low going into the summer driving season was 1992! There is plenty of unused refining capacity, the only problem is the crack spread is going to be the weakest it has been in sometime and therefore refiners are not ramping up production. If we see 90% capacity utilitization this summer it will not be long lived. Look at the trend for capacity utilization in 1991. You can superimpose it over 2008 and that is what you can expect from refiners in the near term.

[DeanMan]

Jay - I would be interested in source and attribution for your comment challenging Krugman on refinery capacity?

These days every claim needs to be fact-checked. Is your source objective, respected and peer-reviewd, or is it the arm of an industry group with a self-serving agenda? Do you include refineries closed for repairs in your definition of "idle" capacity? What is your hypothesis and what are the indepent variables influencing capacity and responsible for unused capacity?

[bigTom]

This is incorrect:
"Look. This isn't hard. The supply of gas over the summer is basically fixed; refineries are running flat out, and can't quickly add capacity. Retailers won't respond to more demand by selling more gas --- because they can't."
It's not the supply of refined product, but the floor on price which is set by the oil price. U.S. refineries are running well below historical utilization rates, with increased imports making up the balance. The reason refiners aren't keen to raise production, is that the market price of gasoline is too low relative to the cost of oil. The end result is similar however, there is no magic pixie dust solution.

[Jay]

Useful page number 1:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt

Long-term view:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wpuleus3w.htm

[donna]

As Hoff at Hoffmania simply put it:

Since the gas-tax holiday has become the cornerstone of McCain's and Clinton's campaigns (Clinton is flooding the airwaves with it), let's break it down to this extremely easy-to-fathom progression of events. Please feel free to pass it along to your friends who will be voting Tuesday.

Gas drops 18c a gallon (from the tax, not oil company profit).
People drive more.
People buy more gas.
Oil companies win.

Demand goes up.
Supplies go down.
Oil companies raise prices.
Oil companies win.

Summer ends.
Gas goes back up 18c a gallon.
People still have to drive to work.
Oil companies win.

Oh, and all summer long, American bridge and road maintenance crews will be unemployed.

If that's what you want, vote for McCain or Clinton.

[Jay]

Donna:

How about this progression. I put 1 gallon of gas in my car in the morning. I pay $X at the gas station. I drive to work and my employer pays me $Y s.t. Y >X. I drive home and my tank is empty. Rinse, lather, repeat Monday thru Friday.

I win!

[Sara]

Perhaps, after days of publicly touting this proposal, she still doesn't know she's selling snake oil. Or maybe she knows, but doesn't care. Either way, she has left the reality based community.

So you would agree that Obama hasn't been a member of that community since 2000?

[Maynard Handley]

"
"Most importantly, Clinton has proven that she would rather play politics to score votes rather than tell the truth - that they NEED to reduce their consumption."

Especially poorer Americans. Not me though.
"

Right Anne. Because the amount of oil in the ground, along with related issues like global warming, are social conventions that will change if we all think good feminist thoughts?

[bigTom]

DeanMan, does have a point about diesel. Because the (world) diesel/gasoline demand ratio is rising, and refining has little leeway to affect the ratio produced, gasoline is cheaper than it should be (given the price of inputs like oil and natural gas), and diesel is more expensive than it should be. As diesel is in effect subsidizing gasoline. It is truckers, and airlines who are suffering far more than consumers. If anyone deserves a break,shouldn't they should be put higher in the que than consumers. But of course that wouldn't motivate low information voters, so its a nonstarter.

The government, could help in curbing consumption. I read an article last week in sciencedaily (no I'm not going to try to find it in the archives), which examined the fuel saving of adding "skirts" to 18wheelers, documenting roughly a 15% reduction in wind resistance (maybe 10% fuel savings). They mentioned that a "boat shaped" fairing on the back of the truck could save an additional 30%, but wasn't considered because it would extend the truck beyond the legal size. So there may well be a combination of technical and legal tweaks which could dramatically help some groups reduce their consumption. Given that the cost of oil imports is now a major drag on our economy, government involvement in finding ways to reduce usage should be the first priority.

[anne]

"Because the amount of oil in the ground, along with related issues like global warming, are social conventions that will change if we all think good feminist thoughts?"

There it is; the problem is women, the problem is women of spunk, feminist sorts of women. Me, I take my oil raw; glub, glub.

[anne]

"Because the amount of oil in the ground, along with related issues like global warming, are social conventions that will change if we all think good feminist thoughts?"

Believe it; feminism thoughts forever.

[anne]

"Because the amount of oil in the ground, along with related issues like global warming, are social conventions that will change if we all think good feminist thoughts?"

Men are so cute.

[Bruce Garrett]

"She's touting a plan that's nonsense the way Dubya's war plans were nonsense..."

Worse...she's touting a plan that's nonsense the way Dubya's Social Security plan was nonsense. If I have to, voting for her in the general will be the hardest vote I've ever had to cast. I'll have to keep telling myself that a pandering triangulating Bill Clinton was still far better then what we've got now.

[Emma Anne]

I am not getting all the angst about this. A politician panders to the middle class, and the sun rises in the East. Is it because she dissed economists?

[save_the_rustbelt]

I heard Hillary on "Morning Joe" this morning, and although it was hardly friendly territory she acquitted herself quite well.

Obama's attitude toward the auto industry (all companies, but especially the Big 3) may make him vulnerable in Michigan and Ohio. Remember Kerry?

I can't vote for McCain. I can't vote for Obama. I just might be able to vote for Hillary.

[Colin Danby]

Possibly, just possibly, MH, we can have a discussion of oil prices without gratuitous feminist-baiting.

[Maynard Handley]

"Possibly, just possibly, MH, we can have a discussion of oil prices without gratuitous feminist-baiting."

The point of me stating that anne wants us all to think good feminist thoughts rather than ignore actual reality is that anne's support of HRC appears to be almost completely based on the fact that HRC is a woman. My rhetoric thus strikes me as a perfectly reasonable summary of anne's beliefs, a bashing of anne, not of feminism.

I will mock anyone who views the world through "my group right or wrong" glasses, even if I, for the most part, agree with their views. I think this is a stupid way to view the world, and I'm not going to apologize for that belief.

[Emma Anne]

Colin:"The point of me stating that anne wants us all to think good feminist thoughts rather than ignore actual reality is that anne's support of HRC appears to be almost completely based on the fact that HRC is a woman. "

I see. And does Brad support Obama because he is a man?

[Emma Anne]

Oops, Maynard

[Maynard Handley]

(1) I see no evidence that Brad supports Obama because he is a man. I see a pattern, through the reasons anne has given for her support of HRC, that her support is substantially based on HRC being a woman.
You'll note that Brad is not black.

(2) More importantly, I see no evidence that Brad's view of Obama is unconditional and based on "my group right or wrong" . Brad has been plenty willing to criticize individuals and organizations he mostly agrees with when he thinks they do something wrong, evil or stupid.
That was my essential point, and I took the care to make it CLEAR that it was my essential point, a point you then completely ignored. Go team Emma Anne! The flip side of "my group right or wrong" is, of course, to smear and complaint about the other group, even when they are in the right.

[George Hearn]

A few weeks ago, the Clinton campaign was channeling Spiro Agnew with their denunciations of Obama supporters as latte-sipping, Volvo-driving elitists. Now Senator Clinton appears to be channeling George Wallace and his diatribes against "pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals".

At this point, I shudder to think what they might resort to next, as they become more desperate.

[anne]

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bettemidler/imawoman.html

"I'm A Woman"

Well I can wash out forty four pairs of socks
And have 'em on the line.
You know I can starch and iron two dozen shirts
'fore you can count from one to nine.
I can slip up a great big dip up of lard
From a drippings can.
Throw it in the skillet, do my shopping,
And be back before it melts in the pan.

'Cause I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.
Let me tell ya again.
I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.

Well I can rub and scrub
'til this house shines just like a dime.
Feed the baby, grease the car,
Powder my nose at the same time.
You know I can get all dressed up,
Go out swinging with the M-A-N,
Jump in bed at five, sleep 'til 6,
And start all over again.

'Cause I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.
Let me tell ya again.
I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.

Well now if you come to me sick,
You know that I'm gonna make you well.
And if you come to me all hexed up,
You know I'm gonna break the spell.
And if you come to me hungry,
You know I'll feed ya full of my grits.
And if it's loving you want,
I can kiss you and give you the shivering fits.

'Cause I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.
I'll say it again.
I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.

Well, I got a twenty dollar gold fee
That says there's nothing that I can't do.
Well, I can make a dress out of feeding sacks,
And I can make a man out Of you.

'Cause I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.
I'll say it again.
I'm a woman...
W-O-M-A-N.

I'm a woman.
I'm a woman.
I'm a woman.
Yeah, I'm a woman.

[Colin Danby]

Launching broad attacks on why you think X *really* supports Y is one kind of trollery, MH. You have a problem with what you imagine to be feminism, fine -- but it's not clear that you've added value to a discussion of gas taxes and the politics of expertise.

[Colin Danby]

George: ah, that effete corps of impudent snobs -- how time flies! To add data, in addition to the Tomasky piece, which is good enough to relink
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/05/hillarys_right_turn.html
There's this interesting thing that Sullivan linked yesterday:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/063kvafy.asp?pg=2

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/gas-tax-hysterics/

May 6, 2008

Gas Tax Hysterics
By Paul Krugman

OK, this has gone overboard.

Hillary Clinton’s proposed gas tax holiday is not, in my view, a good idea. But the furor over what is, when all is said and done, a small and temporary policy proposal is entirely disproportionate. What’s going on?

Part of it, clearly, is the fact that many people in the media really, really want Obama to win and Clinton to lose — read Kurt Andersen * — and have seized on the gas tax as their latest proof that she is ee-ee-vil.

But there’s also something going on with economists, a phenomenon I recognize wearing my other hat: the tendency to place excessive weight on issues where professional judgment differs from lay opinion.

The classic example is free trade versus protectionism. Economists are justly proud of the close reasoning that produced the classical case for free trade, and love to skewer dumb protectionist arguments. I’ve done it myself.

But all too often, economists then become like the little boy with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail. Because protectionism is an issue on which they believe they have some special insight, they inflate its importance, and make free trade versus protectionism THE crucial issue in economic policy — which it isn’t. Trade barriers are a minor issue for the United States today; even small wrinkles in health care policy, like overpayment to Medicare Advantage plans, probably matter more to public welfare than all the trade restrictions now in place.

Yet economists talk much more about trade than they do about health care policy, because they think they know something about it in a way the laity don’t.

The gas tax holiday is in this category. Economists really do know something about tax incidence that the laity don’t. So when a presidential candidate says something that conflicts with economistic wisdom, it becomes THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER. Except, you know, it isn’t.

There’s a lot of troubling stuff in both Democrats’ proposals. Mandates aside, Obama is seriously low-balling the cost of health care reform, and promising way too much in middle-class tax cuts. Clinton’s numbers don’t quite add up either, though she’s probably closer to the mark — and both Dems are towering figures of responsibility compared with McCain. Amid all this, the gas tax holiday is a real issue, but a small one; don’t let economist’s tendency to overemphasize their areas of expertise distort your view.

* http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/46658

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/is-obama-misrepresenting-what-i-said/

May 5, 2008

Is Obama Misrepresenting What I Said?
By Paul Krugman

I don't have a link to the ad itself, but apparently there's an Obama ad * citing something I said about McCain's gas tax holiday as a way to attack Hillary Clinton.

I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.

The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn't wipe out all of the tax cut.

I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal ** that while I didn't think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain's, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they're being deliberately dishonest.

* http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7493

** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/