Leigh Saavedra: Suspension of the Federal Gas Tax, Another Bridge to Sell You

I don't disagree with your premise that the gas tax holiday is a bad idea, and frankly, the point is moot - as it will never get through Congress. That being said, the explanations for your post are beyond weak, some ridiculously so.

1) So Obama's admission that he supported the holiday in Illinois but now charcterizes the tax holiday as "gimmicks" and "pandering" is admirable, because it shows he can admit when he's wrong? That's one explanation. Another is that he's looking for a way to differentiate himself from his opponents and draw attention from his recent troubles. Either way, you seem to suggest that he is above such "pandering." He wasn't eight years ago, and he's not now.

2) "It is GROSSLY unfair that Clinton, in today's speeches, tried to portray Obama as "FOR oil companies." - Don't know what speech you're talking about, and since the "quote" is only three words long, there's no context to determine what she meant. Assuming the quote is accurate, she may have been refering to his support for Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy bill. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213 . You know the one ... it was written by the energy lobbyists and attorneys. It gave away billions in tax breaks, royalty reductions and other benefits. You know, this one:

Thomas Friedman: 2005 Energy Bill Was 'The Sum of All Lobbies': "This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls 'the sum of all lobbies.'" [Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 8/5/05]

The Washington Post said, "…The energy bill, touted as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil or moderate gasoline prices, has been turned into a piñata of perks for energy industries." [Washington Post, 7/30/05]

For a more detailed explanation of how bad this bill is, see the Public Citizen report here - "The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill" http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980 .

So saying he is for "for the oil companies" is "GROSSLY unfair"? Hardly. Although, I guess you could just say he's "for the legislation written by the oil companies" ...... if that sounds better to you.

3) "Senator Clinton has already allocated income from windfall profits to go to work for renewable energy. That is CERTAINLY a worthy way (and necessary) to spend money, but because of that she canNOT use these same taxes to pay for the summer gas tax cut." - Talk about disingenuous - at least I hope so, for your sake. You mean it never occured to you that 8.5 billion of the windfall profit tax (the estimated cost of the tax holiday) could be allocated for the gas tax holiday, with the rest going to renewable energy research? So yes, it CAN be paid for with a windfall profits tax. "Insulting"? Only if you're trying to be insulted.

... about the Illinois' budget at the time, but the article doesn't seem to support the possibility of the tax holiday being an attempt to dump surplus money back to the public. It indicates that the holiday was prompted by a sharp increase in gas prices (almost $2.00/gallon - a lot at the time). It also indicates that, afterwards, many lawmakers opposed a permanent repeal of the tax because (in part) they "worried the tax break was pushing the state budget out of balance." Plus, Clinton's proposal is financed by a windfall profit tax on oil companies, not deficit spending.

Again, I don't think it's a good idea (regardless of the financing), but the double standard applied to Clinton and Obama is par for the Buzzflash course.