Check out the screencap from Carol Costello's CNN Newsroom segment of this morning on Hillary's gas-tax holiday plan. Costello's message: Clinton's proposal isn't just bad economics. It's not simply Santa Claus politics. No, it could . . . put your life in danger.
CAROL COSTELLO: For cash-strapped consumers, any reduction in gas prices would be like, well, like Santa coming into town early—or so it seemed on the stump.
View video here.
Cut to clip of Hillary and McCain discussing their her gas-tax holiday proposals.
COSTELLO: Ah, that sounds nice. But, Santa aside, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Those federal highway taxes pay for things like road construction and bridge repair, something that was really important just last year, when the I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, killing 13 people [Hint, hint]. Politicians were singing a different tune, then.
Cut to clip of Hillary at that time, saying she wants to make modernizing infrastructure a priority.
COSTELLO: Clinton now suggests taxing oil companies to make up for the money lost to her proposed holiday gas tax. But would that make up the shortfall? According to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, both Clinton and McCain's idea would drain the federal highway fund by $3 billion per month, creating a $12 billion shortfall. Not only that, but it would put at risk 310,750 highway construction jobs. Many experts think it's all just politics.
Cut to clip of Steve Buckstein of the Cascade Policy Institute.
STEVE BUCKSTEIN: In this case, I think it's unfortunately more of a political gimmick. It won't really lower the cost to drivers significantly. It will increase the deficit in the highway trust fund and just lead to more politicizing of highway funding.
COSTELLO: Buckstein agrees with the only presidential candidate not in favor of a gas tax holiday—Barack Obama.
Cut to clip of Obama.
BARACK OBAMA: It's an idea that some economists think might actually raise gas prices, because folks will start using more gas and demand will go up.
COSTELLO: One more thing: to institute the holiday, a bill would have to pass through both house and Senate at lightning speed. Something not likely to happen by Memorial Day. And experts say there are a number of ways to save money on gas. An example? Change the traffic patterns to ease congestion. But that's not as sexy as a holiday gas tax.
Costello made no attempt to balance her report with comments from any supporter of Clinton's plan. All that was missing was the tag line: "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."
Stylistic aside: someone might mention to Costello that it's possible to overdo the use of spoken italics. Check the video and note the frequency with which Carol stresses a word for dramatic effect.
Note: Since posting this item, I've learned that the segment in question was not new, but to the contrary has been in use by CNN for . . . five days! NewsBuster Matt Balan blogged on it last week. Isn't news supposed to be . . . new? Take it as a sign of how devoted CNN is to campaigning on Barack's behalf.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I love how the Obamacans chuckle
May 5, 2008 - 13:10 ET by sam.i.amat the thought of the gas tax holiday only saving $28 for the average American.
Here's a question for you:
Why can't the government make due with that much less revenue?
I mean, if it's so insignificant, then make due with less, tax maggots!
Guess what? One of the ONLY legitimate functions of the federal government is to maintain highways. And the "transportation fund" consumes only 1% of the federal budget. Cut some spending. Make due with less, maggots!
There, I feel better now. . .
And how many years have they
May 5, 2008 - 13:19 ET by motherbeltAnd how many years have they been collecting that tax and NOT using it repair roads and bridges? Had they been doing the job, the Minneapolis bridge collapse would not have happened. It wasn't for lack of money; it was poor stewardship. So now they not only arent' willing to take a little cut for a couple of months, they actually talked, after the collapse, about increasing the tax....to do the work they haven't done up until now!
The roads and such are
May 5, 2008 - 13:46 ET by Dan The Man 2The roads and such are actually maintained and built by state agencies usually the DOT. like TXDOT for where I live. Like all government politicians want to spend more than they have so they plan for it and the budget grows short, so maintainence is skimped. So the Feds give the money back in grants, but the state decides how to spend it. Ohh and some of the money goes towards programs like AMTRAK which ahve nothing to do with cars or roads.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Part of the gas tax is a
May 5, 2008 - 14:18 ET by motherbeltPart of the gas tax is a state tax; part is federal. I thought the federal tax part was supposed to be used on the Interstate Roads, like I 95 etc. and the state money for state roads.
But, however it gets there, Dan, we have been told for years that the gasoline tax pays for road and bridge repairs. I'm not disputing the Amtrak thing, but they were supposed to be doing maintenance, not talking about increasing it after there's been a tragedy.
So if only $28 saving with $0.18 tax gone, then when gas up $0.1
May 5, 2008 - 15:01 ET by PawpawNSo if only $28 saving with $0.18 tax gone, then when gas went up $0.18 then only $28 increase, but that is DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE AMERICAN FAMILY, whereas the reverse is only a POLITICAL SHAM! Now I get it!
The problem is that $0.18 is
May 5, 2008 - 22:48 ET by jay_1975The problem is that $0.18 is all that they can cut as far as federal taxes but the increases do not stop. If the increase was only $0.18 and stopped then it would not be a big deal, but we have rising costs weekly it seems.
It doen't have to end with a Tax Hiloday
May 5, 2008 - 23:08 ET by CobraManAlong with the federal “tax holiday,“ the government could subsidize the refineries for every gallon of gasoline produced, just like they do with ethanol. That subsidy could be twice what the normal gas tax would be, that would add up to a price reduction of over .50 cents a gallon. That would help a lot, wouldn't it? Or they could subsidize every barrel of oil purchased on the global market. That would help reduce the overall costs, which would, in theory, reduce the final sales price. It would also stop the speculators from panicking some mush and help reduce the oil future’s market prices. That type of subsidy has been done before in the past, just not for oil.
As it is, I really don't think that any "tax holiday" is really going to happen. That's just normal campaign rhetoric.
What a sham
May 5, 2008 - 13:12 ET by jay_1975This "Tax Holiday" is a sham. McCain and Clinton are wrong on this (that is not to say that Obama is right on anything). I have heard that the gas tax is $0.18 a gallon. If that's correct, then for every ten gallons of gas you would save $1.80. Whoa, time to fill up then. The only solutions to gas prices are long term, not immediate. Anyone who is in favor of this plan is just blindly supporting their candidate and not the facts.
And yet that same 18 cents
May 5, 2008 - 14:45 ET by ckc1227And yet that same 18 cents a gallon is bankrupting Americans so much so that they have to choose between food and gas. Go figure.
Do the math
May 5, 2008 - 22:46 ET by jay_1975So if you get 20 gallons a week and have to spend that extra $3.60 a week ($14.40 a month or a total of $172.80 a year) that will bankrupt or starve a family? That's double of what Obama said would be saved. Big deal. When there is a plan to cut gas by a dollar or more, then I will listen. Until then it is pandering, nothing more.
The federal government could
May 5, 2008 - 13:19 ET by Chris NormanThe federal government could be set an example for the states - who get a lot of money from a gallon of gas - although they have become very dependent on this money - as it's a "hidden" tax.
In the meantime both Obama
May 5, 2008 - 13:19 ET by dscottIn the meantime both Obama and Clinton fiddle while Rome burns, in this case Somalia: 3.5 million people on the verge of starvation.
This underlines the pettiness of squabbling over a suspension of the federal gas tax. What about the people you are causing to starve to death with your foolish ethanol mandates and subsidies???? You want a reduction in the price of gas, repeal the ethanol mandates and subsidies now. Making excuses and blaming the Chinese or Indians for eating more is ridiculous, crops for fuel is your policy, you're the ones who promoted it.
All three Senators have the ability to introduce legislation that immediately could resolve the problem except they can't summon the political courage to do the ethical thing. You morons in Congress caused the problem, you morons are responsible to undo your stupidity.
If you didn't intend people to starve then get off your lazy butts and strap on a pair. On the other hand, if you meant to cull the world's population so you can have your ethanol run limos then by all means let them starve. Your failure to repeal the ethanol mandates and subsidies means you intended genocide of the world's poor, NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
And what makes you think
May 5, 2008 - 14:34 ET by goldbarAnd what makes you think starving people in Somalia is our problem? We don't even care about starving people or high food prices in our own country let alone Africa or Korea. I'd also add maiming Iraqi children isn't our problem either. They shouldn't be getting in the way of our bombs
Wow, what an idiot!
May 5, 2008 - 14:40 ET by Mica the MagnificentWhat a fantastic collection of ignorance in one post.
Thanks Goldbar!
You think I struck a
May 5, 2008 - 14:50 ET by dscottYou think I struck a nerve?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Do you really care about
May 5, 2008 - 15:01 ET by goldbarDo you really care about people starving in Somalia?
Wouldn't it just wonderful
May 5, 2008 - 15:20 ET by dscottWouldn't it just wonderful for you if I would say NO, your confirmation bias of conservatives as unfeeling monsters would be fulfilled, now wouldn't it? Your's was a self serving rhetorical question Goldbar. I don't mind your contempt for people like me it's par for the course, but for once see past your politics and see the real people who are suffering due to political correctness.
So are you prepared to undo the damage to the poor, the victims of bad government policy, by joining with me in demanding Congress repeal the ethanol mandates and subsidies??? This shouldn't be a partisan issue, however because Dems in Congress are quietly trying to sidestep their responsibility are making it that way. Why else do ALL 3 (includes McCain) candidates refuse to speak up for the poor who they caused to suffer by the silly talk of gas tax? The choice is yours Goldbar, rise above the pettiness of politics and join with me to save millions of people from starvation or sit there in self righteousness defending a green policy while millions are on the verge of starvation.
You can cast all the false moral equavilence you want about bombs in Iraq, you can blame all Repubs and Conservatives for those innocent people who died, but Goldbar are you really prepared to accept the blame for literally millions of people starving to DEATH when you had a chance to prevent it?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
So I'll take that as a yes.
May 5, 2008 - 15:29 ET by goldbarSo I'll take that as a yes. Welcome to the democratic fold my friend.
So, will you join with me
May 5, 2008 - 15:37 ET by dscottSo, will you join with me and demand an end to the Ethanol mandates and subsidies that are starving the poor of the world?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Goldbar, you caring person!
May 5, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe democratic fold, which Goldbar refers to, means you only care the starving ends in Somalia. That's all that is required.
I'm already there.
May 5, 2008 - 15:44 ET by goldbarI'm already there.
So I assume your answer
May 5, 2008 - 15:52 ET by dscottSo I assume your answer means, you do support the repeal of the Ethanol mandates and subsidies in spite of AGW. Welcome to the bipartisan fold my friend. Tell us what the DU and Daily Kos think about the repeal of the Ethanol mandates and subsidies. Are they on board?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I have no problem repealing
May 5, 2008 - 16:01 ET by goldbarI have no problem repealing the mandates. If this government had a brain, we'd all be driving electric cars and the entire economy of the Middle East would implode. Watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" and you'll agree, regardless of who you think "killed" the technology.
I agree about the electric
May 5, 2008 - 16:09 ET by dscottI agree about the electric car, I have been watching the Tesla ( www.teslamotors.com ) for a while, if the government did have a brain, we wouldn't have the current crop of morons in Congress but I digress.
Goldbar if you believe a consensus of the Daily Kos and DU will support this position, then all of us at this point can go to our respective Senators and Reps to pressure an immediate change to avert this catastrophy. What do they say?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I'm a pretty MOR democrat.
May 5, 2008 - 17:19 ET by goldbarI'm a pretty MOR democrat. Am I against the Iraq war? Of course! Am I for national health care? For people who can't afford it and small business owners, it would be good thing. I have a great insurance plan so I don't need it and I don't need the government giving it to me. I'm a gun owner so I'm pro second amendment. I'm against government waste like we currently have with all the private contractors who get wealthy off of our tax dollar and ditto for private armies like Blackwater. I don't always fall in line with Kos or Huff, although they make sense more often than not. As far as alternative energy goes, I say stick it to the Saudi's. They're are enemies and are the ones who attacked us on 9/11. Why the republicans don't realize this amazes me.
Now, are you prepared to
May 5, 2008 - 17:06 ET by NL207Now, are you prepared to accept as fact that Government interference in free markets is an undesireable event? Most ceratinly, the Governments misguided application of political force to compel the use of ethanol as a fuel and fuel additive has had disastrous consequences for the poorest people.
The notion that these consequences were unintended is not even viable. It is almost a certainty that the corporate fat cats who supported this measure when it was originally enacted by the Democratic Congress in 1994 knew full well what effect it was to have on food prices and positioned themselves to profit from this. This myopic and just plain stupid move was entirely the product of the Democratic Party, which controlled both Houses and the Presidency at the time it was enacted.
Get with the program here, Gopldbar. Liberals are just plain wrong about all these government mandates on free markets.
I would agree NL with most
May 5, 2008 - 17:19 ET by dscottI would agree NL with most of what you said here, except, if Goldbar and the rest of the libs stand up with us against the Ethanol mandates and subsidies, they will prove that they really didn't intend to murder all those poor people. I don't believe people like Goldbar set out to commit genocide, but having said that, the "failure" to act in a preventable situation does mean a person condons the consequences.
It may fit our confirmation bias to believe libs wouldn't mind callously culling the poor to achieve the green goal, but just like Goldbar's question to me if I cared about the poor in Somalia, it is rhetorical grandstanding. I believe all of us are willing to put aside our mutual distrust of one another to save millions of people from starvation. Let us all, both left and right rise up with one voice and say NO!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
This "tax holiday" issue is
May 5, 2008 - 13:21 ET by KillgraveThis "tax holiday" issue is killing me. It's an incredibly stupid gimmick that doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
But the liberals are making a lot of hay out of it. They are reinforcing their contention that tax money belongs to the government, and not the people. And this will envigorate their efforts to destroy the middle class via a thousand taxes (tax "such and such" are ONLY PENNIES on a dollar).
Thanks, John McCain.
Legitimate attributes and/or
May 5, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Chris NormanLegitimate attributes and/or drawbacks aside, isn't it interesting how the media can always come up with several reasons why any proposed tax decrease is a bad idea, while almost never coming up with even one argument against tax increases? Fascinating...
They would have a legitamate argument
May 5, 2008 - 13:55 ET by c5thenIf the National Highway Transportation Trust fund did in fact exist as an entity and was a completely seperate financial entity. However, it is treated just like the Social Security Trust Fund and all it's "assets" are really just IOUs after they've all been spent on the general budget. So, in reality the Federal Gasoline tax is just another tax that is "supposed" to be dedicated to something, but in reality is just part of the general budget, except on paper that is.
I'm going to do my part to move this country toward an independant and sustainable energy starategy. It seems that as long as there is cheap oil, we won't move in the direction necessary, so I am going to do my best to use up as much oil, while it is still relatively cheap, as I can. Then maybe in a few years the choices won't be so hard to make and we can move forward in a logical manner rather than the emotional one that we are being forced into now.
We need to drill everywhere it seems economically feasible and build as many nuclear power plants as we can along with other economicly feasible and sustainable options. We need to concentrate on the ones where we get more energy or $$ out of them after all the costs are added up to produce the energy. Not the false hopes like hydrogen where it costs twice the amount of energy and 3x the $$ to make the hydrogen and transport it and store it then it's possible to get out of it. That is the definition of UNSUSTAINABLE.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
While I agree the gas tax
May 5, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Free ThinkerWhile I agree the gas tax holiday is a political gimmick in an election year, the thing that bothers me most is Hillary's contention that she would"pay for it" by taxing oil companies because they made "record" profits (7-9% is now considered a windfall by the way). This answer never goes challenged and really speaks to how uninformed she is about basic economics.
Check this out.
May 5, 2008 - 15:00 ET by LCT688Then try to tell me that it's the oil companies 7 or 8 cents of profit a gallon is who's screwing us at the pump.
Add to this the 35% Federal Income Tax and the state Income Taxes
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/GAS_TAX_MAP_JANUARY_2008-2.pdf
Take out all the imbeded taxes in the price at the pump and it would be somewhere well below $2.00 a gallon.
"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."
Alexander Hamilton
But Santa Claus is coming to town, isn't he?
May 5, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Gary HallBut Santa Claus is coming to town, isn't he?
After these folks - who certainly must not be seen as promoting political gimmics - are promising:
- Health insurance for everyone - even the illegals.
- Cheaper gasoline.
- Peace and bliss in Iraq - after pulling out the troops.
- Hope
- Change
Dave Barry
May 5, 2008 - 16:21 ET by viluzionI thought y'all might enjoy this article about highway construction:
http://www.miamihera...
gas jumped over 8 yrs
May 5, 2008 - 18:53 ET by neo0071I am not a big gas user maybe 8 gallons a week. My bill over the last 8 years has risen from $370 a year to $1830, this is riduclous. How is avg. cut of $28 a year going to help?
What is the gross increase?
Neo, so 416 gallons per year, started 8 years ago at $0.88 9/10
May 5, 2008 - 23:37 ET by PawpawNNeo, so 416 gallons per year, started 8 years ago at $0.88 9/10 per gallon and now you pay $4.39 9/10 per gallon. This chart states otherwise: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/pswrgvwreg.xls#'Data 1'!A1
In 2000 cost was approx $1.56 per gallon[416 gallons X $1.56 = $648.96], now $3.56 per gallon[416 X $3.56 = $1480.96]. $2 increase per gallon so difference is $832 during 8 year period.