Two segments that aired on two days straight on CNN underscored the network’s alignment with those who stand against a gasoline tax holiday during the summer driving season. First, Carol Costello’s segment on Wednesday’s "Newsroom" program used last year’s bridge collapse in Minneapolis to advance the idea that "things like road construction and bridge repair" would suffer as a result of the lost revenues. The following day, on Thursday’s "The Situation Room," host Wolf Blitzer pressed McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina, a former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, on McCain’s proposal, asking, "So when you say that he would take the money from reserves, in other words, we would go further into debt to pay for this tax break?" During the interview, a chyron or graphic on the screen claimed, "Saving on Gas Could Cost You: Whether to Suspend Fed Gas Taxes."
Costello’s segment, which aired 45 minutes into the 2 pm Eastern hour of Wednesday’s "Newsroom," began by comparing the tax holiday to a Christmas present. "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." An animated Santa with his sleigh and reindeer flashed across the screen during Costello’s voice-over. After giving a bit background on the tax holiday proposal and playing a clip of McCain touting how nice it would be to pay 18 cents less at the gas pump, Costello quipped almost sarcastically, "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."
In addition to this bit of fear-mongering, Costello quoted from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, that according to this panel, "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." But she conveniently left out the fact that, like all House committees, it is under Democratic control.
The next day, 14 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of Thursday’s "The Situation Room," Blitzer played for Fiorina a clip of Obama at a campaign rally railing against the "Clinton/McCain proposal," and he used the same basic argument that Costello used in her segment, that "it takes money out of the federal highway fund that goes to rebuilding roads and bridges. And without that money, you could have thousands of fewer jobs here in Indiana and our roads and bridges won't be safe."
Blitzer then asked Fiorina about Hillary Clinton’s version of the gas tax holiday. First, he brought up how "Clinton says she was would have a windfall profit tax on big oil to pay for the roads, for the bridges. How is Senator McCain going to pay for the roads and the bridges if this tax -- if this federal tax isn't included between Memorial Day and Labor Day?"
When Fiorina emphasized the savings of the American consumer and how Obama himself supported a gas tax holiday as an Illinois state senator, Blitzer then pressed her on the "windfall profit tax." "But what's wrong with a windfall profit tax? Exxon Mobil today announcing their first quarter profits almost $11 billion. They're raking it in right now.... What do you say? Why not do what Hillary Clinton says, tax them a little bit more? They can certainly afford it better than working-class people..." This began an exchange in which Blitzer hammered away at this point.
BLITZER: They're raking it in at a time when people are going to the gas tank and they're spending $3.50, almost $4 a gallon for unleaded regular. What do you say? Why not do what Hillary Clinton says, tax them a little bit more? They can certainly afford it better than working-class people in Indiana, North Carolina, or elsewhere around the country.
FIORINA: Yes. Well, let's just start with the basic idea that this started with -- give hard-working Americans a break at the pump. Let's go back to that fundamental.
BLITZER: But what's wrong with having it excise -- a windfall profit tax on ExxonMobil.
FIORINA: Probably because Hillary Clinton or Senator Obama would make that tax permanent. And that would distort markets.
BLITZER: Would Senator McCain support a temporary excise -- a temporary windfall...
FIORINA: I haven't had that conversation with him. But I think the most important thing...
BLITZER: Is it something -- as a corporate executive you understand this kind of stuff. What do you think?
FIORINA: I think taxing profits, particularly when the profits of that industry are not out of line, makes less sense right now than, for example, providing those same companies an incentive for, for example, refining.
In his final question on the topic, Blitzer talked strategy with Fiorina. "Are you worried though that politically this could be used to badger Senator McCain in a general election, that he's with big oil, they're against big oil?" In response, she stuck to her talking point, that "hard working Americans need a break. Let’s give them a break at the pump this summer."
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Barry
May 2, 2008 - 14:14 ET by iveseenitallAnd Barry's elitist "just $30" comment. "Liberals" are such hypocrites.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The same people who
May 2, 2008 - 16:10 ET by HypocriteHaterThe same people who complain that it's "only" $30 saved on gas are the same people who complain about the voter ID laws that require poor people to have to go out and get an ID.... that's FREE.
They're also the same
May 2, 2008 - 18:38 ET by ckc1227They're also the same people who say that $30 is breaking the backs of average Americans, but when you talk about letting them keep it, well, then it's only $30 and won't make that big a difference.
The Left hates this idea
May 2, 2008 - 14:44 ET by mattmThe Left hates this idea because, for one thing, it demonstrates the fact that the government profits from the oil industry more than the oil companies do.
"No Oil for Greenies"
CNN = Economic Illiteracy
May 2, 2008 - 14:46 ET by fitzfongCNN = Economic Illiteracy
But what's wrong with
May 2, 2008 - 15:06 ET by Free ThinkerBut what's wrong with having it excise -- a windfall profit tax on ExxonMobil.
Because it will drive up the price of gas moron. I hope he wasn't serious with that question. And since when did 9% qualify as "windfall profits"?
CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/CNBC
May 2, 2008 - 15:13 ET by geoff.galeThe alphbet-soup crowd just don't understand that under our current tax code, corporations just don't pay tax. They pass most of the cost of taxes on down to their customers and defray much of the rest through creative tax accounting.
Of course that story doesn't quite to fit the template.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
We don't need gas tax
May 2, 2008 - 15:13 ET by CrashWe don't need gas tax relief!
There I said it. Yes we need to lower taxation across the board, but, the gas tax charged at the pump is only a "feel good" political ploy. The taxes already imbedded before it reaches the consumer is the REAL tax. Paying more than 20% on income, what 16% SS, plus State and Local taxes is what needs to be fixed. But, please stop trying to bullshit us with a 9 cent a gallon bonus. Yipee now I'll have more change to buy an election!
So what's their excuse for
May 2, 2008 - 15:43 ET by motherbeltSo what's their excuse for the poor condition of that Minneapolis bridge that collapsed? What have they been spending the gas tax money on, until now?
They never worried about "replacing" the gas tax money when they took it and spent it on things other than road and bridge repairs!
But.... the tax on gas
May 2, 2008 - 16:00 ET by MidAmericaBut.... the tax on gas is the kind of tax that democrats are supposed to hate, it hurts the poorest the most. Gas is not a luxury but a necessity.
Regressive Tax- A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.
A tax holiday for federal gas taxes means nothing to the rich but is a tax reduction for the lowest incomes so wouldn't that mean anyone opposed to the tax holiday are pro-rich and anti-poor?
Absolutely correct.
May 2, 2008 - 16:09 ET by sarcasmoMuch like this totally-ignored but permanent-not-temporary tax relief proposal, which (in addition to being permanent tax relief for what looks to me like 0-rich people, instead of election year pandering...) only suffers from the fatal "not invented here" syndrome.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
After giving a bit
May 2, 2008 - 16:18 ET by HypocriteHaterAfter giving a bit background on the tax holiday proposal and playing a clip of McCain touting how nice it would be to pay 18 cents less at the gas pump, Costello quipped almost sarcastically, "Ah, that sounds nice. But Santa aside, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
So when taxes are taken aware, the MSM wags their collective fingers at us and says "there's no such thing as a free lunch", but when it comes to "Universal Healthcare" which would require the addition of taxes, there's no such wagging of the fingers at the politicians who try to sell it to the masses as free healthcare.
Windfall Profits Tax
May 2, 2008 - 18:15 ET by BlondeI would like to ask the economic illiterate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, exactly who she thinks will be paying the so-called "windfall profits" tax she is proposing. Is it:
(1) Consumers, to whom the "big oil" companies would pass on this tax; or
(2) Shareholders....people like my elderly mum?
Gee....we haven't had "windfall profits" on oil since the seventies. That worked out well, didn't it? Perhaps Her Highness ought to contemplate the term "malaise" at length. I experienced it once...no need to go there again.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
"BLITZER: But what's wrong
May 2, 2008 - 18:33 ET by ckc1227"BLITZER: But what's wrong with having it excise -- a windfall profit tax on ExxonMobil."
ExxonMobil will make about 40 billion this year. The federal government will make more than 3 TRILLION dollars this year by doing nothing to earn it. How about a windfall profits tax on them?
SECULAR SOCIALISTS DO WHAT SECULAR SOCIALISTS DO
May 2, 2008 - 23:02 ET by reelman46Their god is gov-ment and their religion modern liberalism... the thought gov-ment would ever do with a nickel less, be more efficient, justify megabillions every few years, stop 4-12% annual increases, sell some of its vast lands, reform the tax system or the Social Security system just never occurs to them... its like teaching Algebra to a dog trying to reach the modern liberal... the nagging national issues exist to campaign on and blame-shift, to promise reform that never comes and grow the almighty gov-ment until at least 60% of the voters are dependent on gov-ment and dutifully guarantee the liberals power to run every aspect of your life. We are so close now.)
Am I the only one here who thinks that many lefties are glad
May 2, 2008 - 23:08 ET by R D HelmAm I the only one here who thinks that many lefties are glad that oil prices are sky-high, and that they would be happier still if they were to go far higher?
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Of course not
May 2, 2008 - 23:19 ET by bigtimerOf course not RD.
Btw...did you read the link I put on OT a few minutes ago concerning oil and the candidates ect?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill