McCain calls for summer holiday from federal gas tax
Photo by Soggydan. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Here's an idea only a presidential candidate could love. The presumptive Republican nominee for president, John McCain, today proposed the federal government suspend U.S. gasoline taxes for the summer. On the face of it, I'll admit, there might be a lot of people who love this idea, but it certainly doesn't make a lot of long term sense, either for the economy (isn't our debt high enough already?) or for our efforts to break our addiction to oil.
First, here's the plan: McCain suggests a "gas-tax holiday" that would suspend the federal gas tax (currently set at 18.4 cents a gallon) and the diesel tax ( 24.4 cents) between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Second, let's put this in context and mention that today is when oil prices climbed up and over the $112-a-barrel price for the first time.
Look, it does hurt the wallet to fill up at the pump these days. And calling for relief is a sure way to get people to like you, something most politicians don't turn away from. But, if the tax were removed today, nation gas prices would be around $3.20 a gallon. Is that relief? The next few years (decades?) are going to be painful as we move from gasoline-powered personal transportation to the many and exciting alternatives. High gas prices will help us move to alternatives, as Center for Automotive Research chairman David Cole pointed out last year. Nobody wants to hear this, but it's the truth.
[Source: Associated Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tim 1:43PM (4/15/2008)
Oh great, more federal debt.
Reply
Dave 1:45PM (4/15/2008)
I hate McCain less than the other two idiots running. But what a stupid proposal. How 'bout fix the problem rather than making a PR move. Seriously.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:52PM (4/15/2008)
Now that's "cutting the deficit like Reagan did" (note, Reagan tripled the deficit).
Reply
MarcT 1:55PM (4/15/2008)
I have a new favorite blogger/poster/author/writer. I dont know what y'all are called. But your analysis of what is so completely wrong with this McCain scheme is spot on. But foolish, short-sighted people will eat it up.
This is why our bridges and levvies collapse, why we have to fight wars for oil, why Detroit has to charge an extra $1000 for each car to cover health care as we have no national plan like every other iundustrialized nation.
It is so glamorous, attractive, enticing, alluring to get these promises of tax cuts. It is the easiest decision a candidate can make. Need a bump in the polls-promise a tax cut. Want a screaming headline to lead off every news program-promise a tax cut. A candidate gets a whole lot more traction out of a tax cut plan than they do for making a plan to actually fix something. Well, it got the last guy elected. Shameless.
Is the $20-30 your family might save this summer worth the long-term costs of this hare-brained joke? I think not.
Reply
Nick 1:59PM (4/15/2008)
And use what money to pay for roads and bridges? I think the people in Minnesota have learned just how important it is to build good infrastructure with those gas taxes. If anything, its time we raised the gas tax.
Reply
1985 Gripen 2:02PM (4/15/2008)
Sebastian, your posts are so left-leaning and overtly-biased that I should just learn to stop coming to this site for "news". Could you have chosen a worse picture of McCain for your article?
Please consider in the future that SOME readers of this 'blog might be McCain supporters and not like your one-sided bashing and political rhetoric.
I'd be interested to hear some of Hillary's or Obama's proposed solutions, but I'm sure they're filled with "hope" and "change" rather than substance.
Reply
BoomBoom 2:06PM (4/15/2008)
McCain is pandering to the short-sighted electorate. If we had raised gas taxed ten years ago to that gas cost what it does now, we'd have transit everywhere, new roads, and probably have some left over for health care. $3 gas hurts but people will pay it. Everybody that drives anything bigger than a Chevy Aveo is proof of that. (I don't drive an Aveo, BTW...) Increasing gas taxes is a win-win. More money for transit/roads and more incentive to use less gas/pollute less. Lowering gas taxes, for the same reasons, if lose-lose.
Reply
david 2:11PM (4/15/2008)
So if I drive 10,000 miles this summer (which would be ridiculous to begin with) and my Car/Truck only gets 17mpg, I would save $108.24 this summer!!! Genius I tell ya!!!
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 2:46PM (4/15/2008)
Why don't we just declare free gas to everybody? Wouldn't that solve the whole problem with gas prices? Why go only part way?
Reply
Doug 2:56PM (4/15/2008)
I think you all are missing the point. The real question is, "Who's the hottie in the background?"
Thank you.
Reply
steven 3:07PM (4/15/2008)
Yeah, bad idea... (See I CAN agree with a ABG post after all.) However, as an registered Independent, I missed the rampant political slant. A bad idea is a bad idea, even if it comes from one's party of choice. Blindly accepting every piece of tripe spewed about by one's party of choice, even when it is wrong, just seems so un-American.
BTW: What is going to happen to funding for road projects that are based on fuel tax revenue when everyone is able to buy a 35mpg+ vehicle or EV? Most people are not going to be using the roads any less, just buying less gas. Same goes for those folks that make their our biodiesel. Oregon has already "seen the light" on this with the onslaught of hybrids in that state.
Reply
Szyszek 3:12PM (4/15/2008)
Let's see... I buy 50 gallons of gas a month, so I will save... wait for it... $10!!! 10 freaking dollars a month! That's an extra 3 gallons of gas I can buy, 3 gallons I will need to drive around to find a better road than the one filled with potholes which were not repaired because of McCain's tax cut. Doug is right, let's talk about the hootie, time better spent than talking about this moronic idea.
Reply
KarenRei 3:20PM (4/15/2008)
For those who asked what Obama and Clinton's proposals for dealing with gas prices are, from a quick google search:
Obama: Increased CAFE standards (wants CAFE standards to automatically get stricter each year), "healthcare for hybrids", and bio-fuels
Clinton: Release oil from the strategic reserve (what the...??), greater transparency in oil markets, oil companies pay for Strategic Energy Fund to invest in alternative energy sources (mostly electricity), biofuels, smart grids and PHEVs, and CAFE standards.
I agree with Obama's stance except for the bio-fuels part. I like how Clinton included smart grids and PHEVs in her statement (both have supported them, but Obama's statement didn't mention them) and didn't focus as much on biofuels, but releasing oil from the strategic reserve doesn't even make sense, and redirecting money from oil companies to research on alternative ways to make electricity can only serve to raise gas prices. Although to be fair, I believe Obama supports something similar, and it's not actually a bad idea.
Either way, McCain's plan is just plain dumb.
Reply
mike 4:06PM (4/15/2008)
McCain isn't using his Noggin to it's max capacity.
What happens when you cut this 18 cent tax? Exxon/Mobile will just ADD 18 CENTS to the ARISTOCRATIC RIPOFF TAX. Gas Prices will rise 18 cents to feed our Insane Overlords, who are getting pretty pissed that they are having a harder time raising prices because people are starting to buy more fuel efficient cars!
Reply
Chad 4:39PM (4/15/2008)
Clinton wants to release oil from the strategic reserve and put it on the market?
How about directly selling some of the oil in the strategic reserve to another country and use the money to fund alternative energy?
Just a thought.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 4:49PM (4/15/2008)
What are other people's solutions?
Get people to buy fewer gas-guzzlers. One thing that will cause this is higher gas prices.
Reply
1985 Gripen 5:12PM (4/15/2008)
I can't believe NONE of you got that this'll help commercial trucking the most and lower the price of food and other goods whose prices are spiraling out of control.
Most of you are so short sighted and ready to jump on anything the candidate from the "other" party proposes while your party's candidate proposes NOTHING.
Saving a few bucks a tankful on filling up your Prius isn't much but to the interstate trucking company and its customers that's some significant savings.
Sure, just tax more and we'll have a panacea of high-speed trains criss-crossing the country, light rail in suburban areas, monorails in our congested cities, right? You guys sure have a lot of faith in the effectiveness of how government manages OUR money. Do you know that most of the money government agencies spend is spent on administrative costs due to red tape?
Does your state have a lottery? That money's supposed to go to the schools or something, right? Yet in California everytime there's a statewide election we're passing a new multi-billion dollar bond measure referendum for money for the schools. The state is in a financial mess with its debt and we keep spending money we don't have. Where's all this multi-billion dollars going? What effect has the lottery money had?
The solution to everything is to give more money to the government to fix all our problems, huh? You guys are so freakin' elitist and forgetting that to some people a few bucks a tankful of gas really adds-up. High and mighty. Come down off your high horse.
What solution has Clinton (how is electing another Clinton into office so that it'll be Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and Clinton again for the last six presidential elections any kind of "change"?) or Barack Obama offered to the high price of gasoline? Let's tax it some more? That'll really help poor people in rural areas who are hit hard by $3.20 a gallon gas as it stands. Not everyone lives in San Francisco and has the BART system. Some people seem to forget that.
Reply
1985 Gripen 5:42PM (4/15/2008)
KarenRei: thanks for actually showing some facts here and telling BOTH sides of the issue, unlike Sebastian's piece here.
On Obama's plan: great. So he proposes to unilaterally change the CAFE mileage requirements and make them stricter each year. And there won't be any kind of resistance from Congress (and their auto industry benefactors) on this? Maybe he can sign an Executive Order to make it so?
What is healthcare for hybrids?
And what is "biofuels"? Does he mean that we should invest (subsidize) biofuels more heavily than we already do? Maybe he didn't read Time magazine and seemingly every other media outlet who are demonizing biofuels as being responsible for starving people around the world.
So, as I guessed Obama's plans amount to little more than soundbites that not a lot of people will object to and contain little substance or short-term help for families struggling with the price of fuel, food, and everything else delivered by trucks.
Clinton's plan: Release oil from the strategic oil reserve (and people were making fun of the small effect McCain's tax suspension would have on oil prices. Sheesh.). McCain advocated in the same economy speech (which ABG only felt like reporting the more sensational part) suspending putting oil into the strategic oil reserve.
What does "greater transparency in oil markets" mean? Does she think anyone can get multinational corporations and foreign governments to "open the books" for the U.S. to see all that goes on? I hope that's not what she's talking about or she lives in dream land.
She also advocates making oil companies pay to subsidize other industries which look to replace oil? Again, good luck with that. She does know that these oil companies do most of their business transactions outside of U.S. jurisdiction, right?
How does "supporting smart grids and PHEVs" do ANYTHING for the REAL problems people are facing? I mean, what is "support"? Throw taxpayer money at subsidizing them? So we're taking money from the people and giving them to select corporations?
So much of this is PR hype and when someone actually proposes REAL albeit small plans to help people he's attacked for not doing enough. Great is the enemy of good.
I think you'd find if you looked into it John McCain has gone on record as supporting the same clean technologies Clinton and Obama extol in their stump speeches. I specifically remember him naming them in the Republican Presidential Debates at the Reagan Library a few months ago (the one where Romney stated publicly he'd side with California against the federal EPA in allowing it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions while he was sitting in a debate in California in front of California's Governor, and then had his people issue a "correction" press release immediately after the debate stating the contrary).
Reply
1985 Gripen 5:43PM (4/15/2008)
Doug: I believe that's Senator Robert Byrd, but I could be mistaken. ;-)
Reply
zaedrus 6:15PM (4/15/2008)
Doug, you read my mind for my first thought.
Second thought: When did McCain learn 'the robot?'
Damn, he's got smooth moves.
Reply