-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/in-2000-bill-clinton-opposed-hillarys.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/sout...
SF is next.
OPEC was increasing production in 2000, it is not now. Hilary's proposal includes a windfall profit tax on oil companies, which was not on the table in 2000.
In 2008, every political candidate, including Senators Clinton, Edwards and Obama, as well as Republican President Bush, came out with economic stimulus packages to put money in the hands of voters/ consumers. All such stimulus packages, including those from the Senators, were dismissed by economists as election year political gimmicks.
So, if you want to play the "gotcha" game, why was Senator Obama in favor of election year tax give-aways derided by economists before he was against them? Yes, it's a stupid question -- but it is the level at which this posting is playing.
Are you saying that all the candidates were in favor of this gas tax holiday, because this is the issue. And while we were not in a recession in 2000 I furnished, just a couple of days ago, senate hearings on energy and high gas prices in the year 2000. It was a major issue then and continues to be a major issue.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/07/midwestgas.htm
So my question to you is, after the major Senate hearings on energy in 2000, what has Clinton done to reverse the findings? What has she done to bring these oil companies in line? Why is it just now before the elections that she wants do something for the little guy?
Clearly, I am not saying that all of the candidates were in favor of this gas tax holiday. Clearly, high energy and gas prices have been an issue since 2000 and beyond.
As for the concern that Hilary Clinton has ignored the situation until now, a quick google yielded this statement. To my eye, this speaks to a remarkable consistency of message on the part of Senator Clinton.
October 27, 2005
Statement by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Record Oil Company Profits
Clinton Challenges Oil Companies to Reinvest Profits in Strategic Energy Fund
Washington, DC
Today, in response to earnings reports announced this week by several oil companies, Senator Clinton issued the following statement:
“Today’s news of record profits by our nation’s oil companies further proves the point that it is time for them to step up to the plate and use the huge benefits they are reaping to become part of our nation’s energy solution. Now is the perfect time for oil companies, flush with cash, to transform themselves into energy companies and invest in technologies that will increase America’s energy independence. My proposal to establish a Strategic Energy Fund will do just that while helping consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promoting adoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies; and stimulating research.
“As Americans struggle to pay for gas at the pumps and heat for their homes, the oil companies have a responsibility to reinvest their soaring profits into strategies that help consumers and lessen our oil dependence. I find it outrageous that as the Republicans in Congress vote down the heating assistance that we know low income families will need this winter, their oil company cronies are sitting on record profits. It’s time for a new national energy strategy if we are to truly change our energy future. We need to become the world’s major supplier of new energy technologies, not just the world’s major consumer of oil.”
(Labels: gas, hillary clinton, lies)
However, this logic creates a policy diconnect and begs another question; namely, why increase taxes on oil companies (windfall profits tax or whatever you want to call it) at all if the comaies will pass the increased tax cvosts on to the consumers? The problem is the oil companies, with the help of government inaction on the alterative fules front over time, have the consumers by the balls. The government and oil companies just work behid closed doors to determine who gets the "profits" and who gets the "taxes".
I guess the latter.
So when Clinton says she wants to suspend the gas tax, she is saying she wants to give the oil companies a tax break. She HOPES the oil companies will pass the savings on to customers. No chance of that since supply is inelastic and demand is high.
---
of course he did... he knew that there was no indication that a 'tax-free gas holiday' would be passed on to the consumers.
the oil companies would love it though... just imagine, speculation pushes a barrel of oil to $140. $$$$
See also Hillary Clinton in 2000 strongly supporting the gas tax in a debate with Rick Lazio:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transp...
I am not surprised you are confused. A lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are confused, and that is what Clinton is counting on. Here's the explanation of the tax from the CRS:
Again, Clinton's hope is that when the oil companies dont have to pay the tax, they will pass the savings on to the customer. As Bill Clinton pointed out in 2000, and as all economists now say, they do not believe that is likely to happen. The oil companies will simply pocket the difference.
oil companies PASS the tax on to the consumers, which was my point, and
EVEN IF there was a temporary suspension of the tax for the summer the
price of a gallon of gas WOULD NOT decrease, they'd simply take the
bonus 18 cents/gallon or whatever it is, and stuff it in their fat
pockets... and continue to jack up the price.
Not trying to be argumentative but I ask you what has she done, as in trying effectively to change the energy policies, specifically the oil companies, since she has been a Senator? Her words sounded good in that 2005 statement she issued but it doesn't say what she has done since that time to make changes. She has over and over repeated that speeches and rhetoric are fine but that is all they are just words.
In that 2005 statement she sounds good and she smacks the Republicans for refusing to vote for the winter heating bill but what did she do about it? Has she, since 2005, introduced or initiated legislation that addresses energy issues for the long term? I really would like to know because I know that she has voted very favorably on many issues but how has she performed in this area? I would think that she or for that matter, anyone, should have been addressing these gas issues a year ago when the oil companies began their historic profits.
The other issue I have is that this program is going to cost real dollars, real money, and real setbacks in immediate road repairs to the nation as a whole. This is where I think she is pandering, ignoring the real problems to garner votes.