Clinton may be misleading voters about the gas tax holiday

[democrattotheend]

The other night on Countdown, one of the commentators pointed out that Hillary had already proposed a windfall profits tax, and had proposed using that money to pay for her plan to develop alternative fuels (as has Obama). So the commentator (it may have been Howard Fineman) said that she was proposing using the same money to cover the gas tax holiday, and hoping voters would not notice. MSNBC does not have the transcript up yet, so I can't check who said that, but I looked at http://hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasfuture.pdf">Clinton's energy plan on her website, and here is what I found:

The total federal cost of the tax incentives and investments in Hillary Clinton’s plan is approximately $15 billion per year—or $150 billion over ten years. This includes $5 billion per year from the Strategic Energy Fund, which is financed internally by a windfall profits fee and removing special tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Hillary will finance the remaining $10 billion per year without increasing the deficit by dedicating $2.5 billion in additional savings from closing loopholes for oil and gas companies and dedicating a portion (about $7.5 billion) of revenue from the cap and trade auction.



So from what I can see, it looks like she had already proposed closing loopholes for oil and gas companies and taxing windfall profits in order to finance investment in her Strategic Energy Fund. So if she is going to finance a gas tax holiday using that same money, does that mean she no longer wants to use that money to finance her energy plan?

Like Keith's guest (maybe Howard Fineman) said, voters probably won't notice. But I wish someone would ask her that question...if she takes the money she was going to use for the development of alternative fuels to finance a gas tax holiday, does that mean she is abandoning or delaying implementation of her long term energy plan?

[Deja Q]

1. In due justification,

it is possible we need a short term buoy to float on until the long-term fixes come into place.

[democrattotheend]

2. Sure, she could make a case for that

But she hasn't been called on to make that case, because nobody has called her on her duplicity. If she wants to make the case for delaying investment in long term solutions in order to provide a short term fix, let her do it, but I wish someone would call her on it.

[Vinca]

3. $30 0ver the course of the summer is nothing more than pandering. nt

[suston96]

4. There is another advantage to a gas tax holiday......

...the federal taxes normally wasted by the highway fund won't be wasted. Gee, the highway fund will have to just waste the rest of what it collects.

Don't believe that there is waste? Go for a 20 mile drive on an interstate and check the road surfaces and bridges and the rest. You will see what I am saying. Where are all those taxes going?

[OHdem10]

5. The American Peole realize because Hillary told them--this

is simply a wish to give some relief for the summer.

Going into all these wonkish discussions about what is wrong
about this idea---only, makes people look as elites who think
30--100 dollars is nothing. In others this is pocket change.

When a person filling up their tank each week they would rather
pay 18 to 50cents less per gallon. Some states are passing Gas
Tax Holidays and add the two it can be 50cents or more off on
a gallon of gas.

I admit it sounds like pandering. However, some types of pandering
works. You have to know when and what to pander.

Detractor s do not wish to be looked upon as elites. For a person
making 10 bucks an hr. they will take the relief in any shape or
form.