HRC Loyalist Krugman slams Clinton's Gas Tax Cut "disappointing, pointless, giveaway to big oil"

[grantcart]

Paul Krugman, Clinton's loyal economic adviser, has slammed McCain's and Hillary's pandering to voters for a temporary gas tax cut as being "giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers".

He gives Obama high marks for resisting cheap ineffectual gimmicks:

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

Gas tax follies
I’ve been on the road (actually doing a public dialog with Barney Frank on financial reform), so I’m just catching up. Anyway, John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no.

Why doesn’t cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It’s Econ 101 tax incidence theory: 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.

Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.

Add: Just to be clear: I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach.




Well I guess it is a step in the right direction when the hometown team calls your proposal as 'pointless' but not 'evil'.

Looking forward to all of the Clinton supporters who regularly quote Krugman with such affection.

[rurallib]

1. So when did Krugman come out for Hillary?

Methinks your wrath is poorly positioned. I would say Krugman has problems and agreements with both.

[grantcart]

4. I have no wrath at all - Krugman has been carrying Clinton water for years.

I have no particular objection with that he is NY based and they have a long relationship.

The point of the OP is even Krugman can't stomach the pandering that the Clinton campaign has come to.


Almost makes you wish that Penn was back - atleast they didn't pander back then.

[rurallib]

5. Eh - I suuport Obama but feel Krugman has been

relatively fair in his criticism of both. I think to make him an enemy may cause you to miss some pretty intelligent writing. Lord knows there is not a lot of that in economics, especially today.

[chimpymustgo]

55. You got a link for that lie? Please show us where Krugman has announced his support or advisory

role for HRC.

Please.

[grantcart]

77. look at the OP in a matter concerning energy policy at the end he goes back to

the question of health mandates. If he was neutral then he would have made a statement that stands on its own without having to find another issue to "even up" his criticism of Clinton.

The only reason he did this is because it is being laughed at by all economists and he had to respond - even gave a reason why he was so slow to do so.

If you want to think that Krugman is an idependent player fine - wasn't really the point of the OP


In any case Krugman (the independent analyst - lol) says that Clinton's gas plan is pandering and will help gas companies.

[flpoljunkie]

63. Has Krugman not been silent re Sen. Schumer's saying universal healthcare was out of the question?

And, there was not enough money for it--a position with which I strongly disagree. We need to work toward universal health care, and I believe Barack Obama's plan does exactly that.

[rinsd]

71. Ummm BS. Krugman preferred Edwards and Edwards health plan (which is similar to

Here's Krugman takes her to task for not admitting her mistake on the IWR as Edwards had

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Here's Krugman arguing Edwards superior substance (at the time)

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html

Here's Krugman criticizing Hillary's corporate support and calling for her to adopt an Edwards approach

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html

That was just a quick browsing before the Obama campaign and Krugam got into a public tussle in Nov

[grantcart]

79. Your right that he preferred Edwards but he has a long bias towards

Clinton that has been cited in the thread.


Look at the OP he is making a statement about Clinton's stupid oil tax suggestion and feels the need to return at the end to find an area where he thinks Clinton is better in order to "balance out" his criticism so that it doesn't hurt Hillary too much. If he was an independent analyst then he wouldn't care to try and balance out a criticism in one area with one in another.


But if we accept your assertion that Krugman is independent the point of the OP is the same. He thinks that the gas tax is pandering and will help the oil companies.

[rinsd]

80. His long bias towards Clinton has been cited sans evidence.

Maybe you believe that a lie repeated becomes truth but that's not how it shoudl work.

[grantcart]

86. If Krugman is simply giving an independent view of policies why does he feel

compelled to balance his criticism of Hillary's atrocious pandering with the gas tax holiday by finding something positive to 'balance' balance his criticism. Can you site another instance where he criticised Obama and then felt compelled to come back and change the subject to offer a compliement to Obama on another subject.


He is a clear apologist for Clinton and there is no criticism of him for it - but to try and push his independence when his own writing above clearly shows that he feels he has to balance any criticism with some positive remarks on another subject is laughable.

[booley]

84. I think you are reading more then there is

Krugman is doing what he's always done.

He's analyzing policies in regards to economics.

Fact is, there are some good policies on the Clinton side.

And there are some bad policies on the Obama side

And just for the record, I am supporting Obama.

But only a blind fool (or a republican) gives his support blindly.

[grantcart]

85. read Krugman's memo he goes from criticizing the gas tax holiday and then

at the end of his column feels compelled to come back and 'balance' his criticism of Clinton by saying positive things about her health plan which has nothing to do with the subject. It is clearly the work of an apologist. There is not doubt about that given his own statement nor do I think that there is any harm in being an advocate.

The real point of the OP is that even those that support Hillary are calling her out on her pandering.

[booley]

87. OR MAYBE

It had to do with how he's disapointed in Clinton pushing a bad policy when she had policies he does like.

I doubt many people are going to vote for Obama or Hillary based on their position on the gas tax as opposed to their policies over all.

Sorry but I am just not seeing the bias you claim.

[grantcart]

8. Here is the media commenting on how Krugman altered his view on Obama's health plan after

Obama became a much greater threat to Clinton:



But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate.

The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not.



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/490207.aspx


And here is a Washington Post column titled Krugman vs Krugman documenting how Krugman opposes the same parts of Obama's health care plan that he in fact had earlier been espousing:

Somebody should introduce Paul Krugman to . . . Paul Krugman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001651_pf.html

[rinsd]

67. The tone change came after the Obama campaign decided to attack Krugman.

[Johnny__Motown]

2. Great post thanks... Also.. I would love to see the candidates try to restore the tax just as the

GE heats up..


gimme a break



This is a Repug trick. McCain would argue to eliminate the tax. This would leave the Dem to argue for a "tax hike" in restoring it.



Pretty clear repug GE land mine. Obama is smart enough to stay clear of it. Clinton on the other hand....

[anigbrowl]

12. Yep. Smooth move, ex-lax.

Can you believe she is on the air in Indiana complaining that Obama opposes a gas tax holiday? Perhaps she thinks Indiana should take a road and bridge maintenance holiday as well while we rearrange the furniture in Congress.

[nsd]

3. I'm a little surprised.

I thought Krugman had leapt off the deep end, never to be heard from again. Somehow he had fallen under the (unfathomable to me) Hillary spell.

Of course, I can't give him too much credit. His postscript sniping at Obama's health care plan spoils it.

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. Sickening.

Krugman, Olbermann, and others have remained true to their core principles throughout. These principles have driven them to support different candidates. Olbermann is a civil liberties crusader; Krugman champions the poor and the sick.

Obama's health care plan is disappointing, and his chronic dishonesty about it is, in a word, evil. "If you ask for coverage, you will receive coverage," he says (or something very close to that), but what he really means is, "if you pay for coverage, you will receive coverage."

If you cannot see that Obama's health care plan is inferior -- designed to help fewer people, and give less assistance to the needy, than those of his Democratic rivals, then you don't know a thing about his plan. If you think someone who criticizes Obama's weak stance and abhorrent, fear-mongering rhetoric on the health care issue is discredited, as you suggest -- if you think that "snipping" at a plan to disenfranchise the weakest members of our society is a bad thing, why don't you vote Republican? You're already showing a degree of ignorance and a lack of compassion that would make you welcome on freerepublic.

[MISSDem]

16. No, no, no he is just saying he won't FORCE everyone to have

insurance. Some rich, really rich, people don't need it. Why would you try to force them to get insurance? That's just silly.

[ThatPoetGuy]

24. No, he's been on the attack

he's sent out round after round of vicious mailers, attacking Hillary's plan because it signs people up by default. It also provides twice as much financial assistance to the poor for health coverage as his does.

Krugman refers to Obama "poisoning the water" against universal coverage. The phrase is accurate.

There are 46 million poor people without health coverage in America; if they have any health problem, if they get pneumonia or get hit by a car, they will lose their homes, their families, transportation, livelihood. All these people on the edge of catastrophe. Can you count to 46 million? Hillary's plan, and Edwards' plan, and Kucinich's plan, and Biden's plan, would all have helped them. Obama, for all his positives, has done an awful thing by spreading right-wing propaganda about universal coverage.

[grantcart]

38. Your just making it up as you go.

your inventing criticisms that Krugman does not share as has been well documented in the replies upthread.

[ThatPoetGuy]

65. "Well-documented"

About as well documented as the allegations that John Kerry was a flip flopper who shot himself in the leg.

Taking Krugman's comments out of context and pretending to find a contradiction there? It's just swiftboating. It's just lying and character assassination. It's just Obama.

Krugman had some mild praise for Obama's plan. He also thinks it's much weaker than Edwards' plan or Hillary's -- and he thinks those plans would be weaker than a single-payer system. Only in the self-deceiving world of Obama supporters is someone being dishonest because he says X is pretty good but Y is better.

[grantcart]

25. Really?

But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/490207.aspx

Obama's lack of a mandate is not giving "less assistance to the needy" and no analyst Krugman included has ever said that it does.

Obama's plan offers health care for all that want it and assistance for those that can't afford it and without the mandates is a more likely survivor of congressional realities. Even Clinton has only criticized the single issue of mandates. Your allegation that it doesn't cover the needy is pure fiction or perhaps poetry.


The above citation shows that Krugman does not agree with your statement and his only exception to the Obama plan is mandates which is a strategic argument not one of values. Anyone who needs and wants health insurance will get it. Real interested in a link that shows Krugman or anyother noted economist in agreement with your baseless allegations.

In any case Krugman is calling Hillary's latest ploy a gift to the oil companies.

[ThatPoetGuy]

64. Obama's plan is praiseworthy

but less so than any of the other plans put forward by Democrats this year.

Yes, Obama's plan will provide money to help poor people get health coverage. Hillary's plan provides a lot more money. Yes, Krugman has pointed this out.

Obama supporters have this all-or-nothing mentality, where they can't hear a simple statement like "Obama's plan is pretty good, but Hillary's is much better" without thinking they're hearing an attack.

My major issue with Obama on health care isn't his plan, which fails to go far enough. Like Krugman my issue is with Obama's constant attacks on universal health care, which he dishonestly refers to as "mandates." He's sent out reams of these vile, fearmongering flyers, suggesting that poor people will be burdened by universal health care. This has been a thing of evil.

[JimGinPA]

6. Krugman Is Dead To Me Now!

:rofl:


K&R

[PM7nj]

7. Nice to see he still has some credibility left...

Hillary on the other hand...

[asjr]

10. Krugman does not play favorites.

He just tells it like it is.

[grantcart]

27. Here commentators note how Krugman has politicized his opinions

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/490207.aspx

I don't really think it is a controversial position that Krugman has been favoring Clinton - and I am not criticizing him for it but not many observers see him as not having a dog in this fight.

[anigbrowl]

11. This comes as a surprise

I thought he was all Clinton, all the time (relax folks, it's a metaphor). And I'm certainly not the only one that has questioned his objectivity in recent months. Perhaps this latest assault on economic common sense by Clinton (I think her interest rate freeze proposal is outright dangerous) was too much for him to ignore. He'd become a laughing stock in his profession if he endorsed this gas tax nonsense.

I see he couldn't resist slipping in a crack about health care though. Perhaps one of these days he'll explain to his readers how that mandate in Massachussetts is working out (hint: only 50% participation, running way over budget already).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802326.html

[last1standing]

13. I'm a big fan of Krugman, despite his obvious bias toward Clinton.

He's usually a very good economist who has been proved right more often than not in the last seven years.

However, I have to call him out on this one. How can he make a blanket statement about a tax holiday on gas not being able to pass congress but then turn around and suggest that either Clinton's or Obama's health plans will? The gas tax holiday would fly through a congress that's afraid of the wrath of the voters and the oil companies, but the health plans of both candidates will have a very hard time for the same reasons.

I understand having a bias, but Krugman shouldn't let his usual good judgment slip so obviously.

[Boz]

14. You want to lower the cost of gas at the pump, RASIE IT FOR THE SUMMER

It will do much more for the economy than some reverse raffle tax lowering that is going to raise the price of gas in the fall when it normally falls.

This is corporatist carpet bagging at its worst and what makes it so much worse is a Democrat is in on it, because the washington long time club knows, the American people don't get supply and demand.

Put a 3 dollar tax on gas, it will drive use down exponentially and pay for road and infrastructure repair, then lower it back down in the fall and habits will take much longer to return to abusive overuse.

A Tax holiday is going to do just the opposite and drive up profits for the oil companies in the fall, when they typically elasticise until heating oil kicks in and it will take money away from fixing things like bridges that are collapsing and killing people.

No wonder politicians think America is stupid, if they fall for bait and switch BS like this, they deserve it.

[onehandle]

15. "HRC Loyalist Krugman" Funny how he was a hero around here until recently.

Funny that.

[trumad]

17. Um...he's still my hero...

but if you don't think he favors Hillary, then you're an idiot.

[onehandle]

31. I think he favors what he thinks is best.

That's the way he is. He's an honest, and fucking brilliant, economist.

My only point is that the OP started with an insult. If he "favored" Obama, he would known here as a honest, and fucking brilliant, economist.

Wait...



A reminder that I don't favor either candidate.

[grantcart]

36. calling a person a 'loyalist' is not an insult. It does identify his point of view.

JED report says it best:

Clearly, Krugman is still clinging to his support for Hillary Clinton, but this is the first major crack in his anti-Obama armor. I'm hoping he begins to see just how much of Clinton's alleged superiority on issues is really a result of pandering on her part. Remember, Krugman favored Edwards, not Clinton. I doubt he comes around before Obama gets the nomination, but this was a pretty big concession, and a welcome one at that. Krugman is definitely a guy we want in our corner this fall -- and I think he'll be there.



The insult is on Clinton's tax plan which is cheap pandering.

[rinsd]

78. "Remember, Krugman favored Edwards, not Clinton."

Contrary to your delusion of him being a Hillary "loyalist"

[last1standing]

19. Your post not only skirts the discussion topic but introduces a strawman.

Krugman has been very supportive of Clinton during this primary and anyone who has read his columns knows this. That doesn't make him a bad economist but it does mean he's shown loyalties to a specific candidate, much like nearly every other political columnist. It's not a difficult concept, really, is it?

Now what do you think of his actual comments? Or was this just an attempt to change the subject because you can't handle the fact that your candidate is obviously pandering to win votes?

[onehandle]

32. Read my signature. nt

[grantcart]

22. Neither a hero or a demon but he has been shading towards Clinton the whole campaign

He came out highly critical of Obama's health plan even though it resembled points that he had previously advocated.

I don't fault him for having his point of view or favoring Clinton but a lot of people don't think he has been an impartial actor this campaign.

[scheming daemons]

18. What? No Hillary supporters trumpeting a Krugman column? Can it be?

[aquart]

52. What I like about Hillary is that she CAN be criticized.

I don't ever want to see another rubber stamp Congress. I tend to agree with Krugman and I hope she listens to him.

[BootinUp]

20. I am not an economist

in this instance I am not sure whether to agree with him or not. He proposes that the price will increase to make up for the tax portion. Could be I guess.

[grantcart]

28. I agree - the question is the price being determined by the cost (tax)

or the demand? If you reduce the tax the price will still be determined by the demand and the increased profits will go to the gas companies and then Hillary wants to tax them to pay for the reduction.

[bigbrother05]

21. Grantcart thanks for posting

If this is any indication of how Hillary would fix the economy, we are in for deep do do

[grantcart]

34. It is not an indication of how she will fix anything, only how she will pander

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Krugman, he lives in New York? No?

He's probably for Hillary, for the same reason that Florida was glad there was a Bush in office. It means his state will get a lot of TLC.

[grantcart]

29. I think it is an old association predating Clinton's move to NY

[zulchzulu]

26. Good for Krugman to show some validity n/t

[Forkboy]

30. Krugman is cool. I said it when he supported Hillary and I still say it.

:thumbsup:

[grantcart]

33. Don't disagree

funny how some Clinton supporters try to deny that he is supporting her. Uh now for the question - do you agree that

Hillary's gas tax vacation is 'pointless' and basic pandering?

[Forkboy]

35. I sure do.

And it wont make a damn bit of a difference in everyday people's life.

[rinsd]

69. He supporteed her health care plan and her approach to Social Security.

The only candidate he has spoken about in glowing terms is Edwards.

He didn't like Obama's right wing attack on mandates and when he said so the Obama campaign and then a bunch of Obama nutjobs (in comments) attacked him.

Is it right for a opinion columnist to be affected such attacks? Perhaps not.

But rest assured Krugman being anti-Obama had more to do with Obama supporters than with any love he had for Hillary.

[booley]

88. I''m denying it

Because what i am seeing is the knee jerk reaction ON BOTH SIDES it seems, to make someone persona non grata whenever they say anything critical of the listener's candidate.

It's getting old and only helps the Republicans.

And I support Obama.

[aquart]

53. Me, too.

[scarletwoman]

37. "Pointless, but not evil" -- sounds almost innocuous until you think about it.

Because it's NOT the motive that matters, it's the result of the action you took. It doesn't matter if you never meant to put little Tommy's eye out with your BB gun, if you put little Tommy's eye out the consequences are the same as they would be if you did it on purpose.

Bad consequences are bad consequences regardless of motive or good intentions. If McCain's plan is "evil", then Clinton's plan is perforce JUST as "evil" because they both have the same end result.

I absolutely despise this kind of thinking -- "Yes, 1000,000 are dead -- but we meant well!"

By their fruits ye shall know them, man...

sw

[grantcart]

39. some would say that 'pointless' pandering is an evil in that it undermines a thoughtful campaign

especially while there are young men and women dying in a needless war.

[scarletwoman]

43. Well, hell. Electoral politics in this country has been "pointless" for a damn long time.

That's what *I* would say.

:D
sw

[Cha]

41. I agree and I think it is

evil..so there, krugman.

[scarletwoman]

44. Makes you wonder if he never heard of that old saying about "the road to hell" and what paves it.

Just sayin'...

:hi:
sw

[Cha]

49. Who knows what that economist is

thinking?

:hi:

[JoFerret]

40. Krugman back in favor now?

lol

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. Even someone like Krugman and you can be right once in a while

Krugman is OK on economics but on politics he is not a star.

Now, when have you ever been right except with your ferret like opinions.?

[JoFerret]

50. Krugman is usually right.

What sort of opinions do ferrets usually have? In your view?

[grantcart]

58. I also think its a little bit of preparing for the ultimate change of loyalty

[rinsd]

73. "on politics he is not a star." Yeah too bad he doesn't like Obama

Apparently that wipes out 8 years of criticism of the Bush administration with some idiots.

:eyes:

[madrchsod]

42. well duh..

...just change your air filter.proper inflation of tires,and drive slower will save more mpg than some pennies off the price of gasoline.

hillary can`t eliminate the gas tax or sign a windfall profit tax...

[Condem]

45. grantcart

I read the times every day. It's not the place to go for Pro-Obama news right now. The editorialists: Gail Collins- Clinton hack & anti-caucus. Dowd-her pulitzer has gone to her head. Krugman- asshole. Herbert-has doubts. Brooks & Kristol-Stalwarts of fair journalism. The beat reporters suck. No place for Obama. Then, again, they endorsed her.

[grantcart]

46. well they have also come back and spanked her and so has Krugman

I would say that they are getting the lifeboats ready

[Condem]

48. A phase, grantcart.

Seven weeks since MISS. Winning cures everything. He needs NC. Keep IN close.

[davidpdx]

51. I've read Krugman's columns and one of his books

He has been leaning toward Clinton. However, on this topic, he nailed her.

[catgirl]

54. K & R

[high density]

56. Hilarious "pay no attention to the (wo)man behind the screen" postscript at the end there

"Clinton sucks on this one issue, but remember how much Barack Obama sucks on healtchare."

Sorry but I ain't buying it, Krugman. Clinton's proposal of this "tax holiday" gives us an insight into how she'd run the economy, and that glimpse we've had isn't good. Yes, as Krugman said, it's obvious that cutting an 18 cent tax will do nothing but give another 18 cents a gallon in profit to the oil companies. It also shows how massively out of touch HRC is, if she feels she can get a windfall profits tax passed to make up the difference. That's just not going to happen politically, and it could be argued that the oil companies would just charge us for it anyway.

[Hope And Change]

57. K & R!

:kick:

[joeybee12]

59. Hmmm...loyalist...yeah, see him standing behind her at all the rallies...

...mainly you're saying that because he has dissected Obama's worthless healthcare proposal over and over...

[grantcart]

61. Avoiding the point of the OP altogether

As has been widely noted in the press http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/490207.aspx

He was for those very same Obama proposals before it became a partisan affair.

Of course you are welcome to post any links that show commentators calling Krugman impartial. Like the other post and runners upthread no one has been able to do so despite many to the contrary.


Now do you have an opinion on 'independent Krugman's' lambasting of Clinton's gas plan as a 'give away to big oil'?

[TragedyandHope]

60. It should be obvious that if McCain's for it, it must be fatally flawed

I guess she's going after more of the soundbite believers and headlines-only crowd who can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs.

[grantcart]

66. Or more to the point if the oil companies are for it

actually heard a oil guy on NPR say it isn't a good idea I think that they are worried that when it just adds to their bottom line people will get angry at them.

[chill_wind]

62. Good to see he stopped holding out for Hillary on this. Sent this to the Obama Campaign.

Would be great if they could find some way to make these bites immediately useful in their emailings, ad campaign or somewhere.

[Leo 9]

68. All Economists Despise 'Gas Tax Holiday', What With Its Hilarious Lack Of Logic

All Economists Despise 'Gas Tax Holiday', What With Its Hilarious Lack Of Logic



Many of you may be aware that gas prices are rising about 20 cents a week, causing much despair among Average Americans. John McCain found the perfect anti-solution for this energy Depression, in which the price of crude oil is reaching $120 a barrel, in his hilarious tax plan (the other aspects of which include slashing corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, eliminating the alternative minimum tax entirely thus re-opening old loopholes for the wealthy, and making the Bush tax cuts permanent — all of which will be balanced by the elimination of like $200 million in earmarks). McCain proposes a "gas tax holiday" — a break from the current 18.4-cent gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day — and Hillary Clinton has announced she is all for it as well. Barack Obama isn't. Every. Single. Economist. Agrees with Barack Obama — even the conservatives and Hillary's favorite Paul Krugman!

While the "tax holiday" looks nice to the Average American, because it is both a vacation AND an elimination of taxes, it is completely void of any economic sense. At least supply-side theory pretends to have a logic behind it. Even former Bushies hate the tax holiday, it being such a comical insult to their profession:

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."


And it's not just that 18 cents/gallon off of your fill-up is insignificant. It's that THERE WILL BE NO 18 CENTS/GALLON OFF OF YOUR GAS BILL AT ALL, but, uh, oil corporations — already making record profits — will have one less tax to pay. Tell them, Hillary Clinton economist Paul Krugman:


Why doesn't cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It's Econ 101 tax incidence theory: 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. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

snip

http://wonkette.com/385781/all-economists-despise-gas-tax-holiday-what-with-its-hilarious-lack-of-logic





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5753984&mesg_id=5753984

[Eurobabe]

70. I'm shocked, shocked that you just don't get it

:rofl: :rofl:

Miracles will never cease. Krugman not pandering to Hilly, wow.

[grantcart]

72. No he's still pandering on an issue that was about energy policy he still had to

add a snark in about 'mandates'. He simply sent this out to save his reputation as every economist in the country is savaging the McCain/Clinton give away to oil companies.

[rinsd]

76. His reputation is fine with everyone but mindless Obama "supporters".

[grantcart]

83. No you again miss the point entirely - even though he has a bias for Clinton

and by itself that is not a point of criticism - he absolutely deplores her pandering and pointless gas tax suspension suggestion.

[Eurobabe]

81. I see.

Krugman is dead to me right now. He should be trashing the BUSH administration. :mad:

[anonymous171]

74. SRSLY? Wow. Even he knows it's stupid.

I've always maintained my respect for him, even when he was being a total shill for Hillary.

[me b zola]

75. Just like Hillary's campaign==>> pointless, and disappointing.

[Bake]

82. I'm an HRC supporter here, but I agree with Krugman.

The gas tax cut is a stupid idea. Capital punishment for oil execs ... now that's a possibility ...

Bake

[barack the house]

89. Krugmen is starting to get it give him time. If walks like a duck...