from the Dept. of Anti-Pandering, #2
Read/Post Comments (0)
I need to stop reading about the so-called "gas tax holiday" debate. There was some Republican in one of this morning's papers who basically said that the facts weren't as important as keeping "the people" happy.
Saints and penny-foolishness, y'all. Abraham Lincoln is spinning in his grave.
This "gas tax holiday" is wrong, wrong, wrong - and I say this as someone who will be spending a freakload of time on the interstates over the next month and tending my mother's half-acre with her gas mower. I agonize over $.25 differences between brands and cut back on cooking green beans when they hit nearly $2 a pound last year. Would I like a $30 bonus? Sure. But to quote Gail Collins:
Collins also points out that McCain and Clinton's proposals for funding said holiday are wholly unrealistic.
It burns me to see realism characterized as "elitist." Being able to do math isn't freaking elitist, it's a survival skill. And so's the ability to weigh consequences and think long-term.
On another economic issue - the retirement crisis - Roger Lowenstein parses the major candidates' proposals and what they indicate about their views of human behavior. It's the best effort to explain the differences in plain language I've seen so far.
(To condense Lowenstein's summaries even further: McCain wants to discourage spending, Clinton wants to motivate people to save, and Obama wants to make it easier for them to save. Like most simplifications, these don't do justice to the specific proposals - never mind the whole boondoogle of enactability - but they're a place to start.)
Saints and penny-foolishness, y'all. Abraham Lincoln is spinning in his grave.
This "gas tax holiday" is wrong, wrong, wrong - and I say this as someone who will be spending a freakload of time on the interstates over the next month and tending my mother's half-acre with her gas mower. I agonize over $.25 differences between brands and cut back on cooking green beans when they hit nearly $2 a pound last year. Would I like a $30 bonus? Sure. But to quote Gail Collins:
In terms of rational policy-making, this is a little bit like announcing that you want to reduce tensions in the Middle East by drilling an enormous hole in Sweden.
Economists instantly pointed out that dropping the tax would cost the government around $9 billion, possibly add to the already obscene profits of the oil companies and do little or nothing to actually lower the price of fuel. Not to mention that it points us in the exact wrong direction on global warming and energy independence.
Collins also points out that McCain and Clinton's proposals for funding said holiday are wholly unrealistic.
It burns me to see realism characterized as "elitist." Being able to do math isn't freaking elitist, it's a survival skill. And so's the ability to weigh consequences and think long-term.
On another economic issue - the retirement crisis - Roger Lowenstein parses the major candidates' proposals and what they indicate about their views of human behavior. It's the best effort to explain the differences in plain language I've seen so far.
(To condense Lowenstein's summaries even further: McCain wants to discourage spending, Clinton wants to motivate people to save, and Obama wants to make it easier for them to save. Like most simplifications, these don't do justice to the specific proposals - never mind the whole boondoogle of enactability - but they're a place to start.)
Read/Post Comments (0)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
