Clinton’s proposal to alleviate the hardship imposed by high gas prices by not taxing gas is a joke, its basically a gift to the oil companies from taxpayers (and lets face it, they’ve been having a really hard time lately, haven’t they?).
The price of gas is limited only by how much people are willing to pay for it. If less of what they pay goes to the government, the beneficiary will be the oil producers and distributors because the pump price will simply increase to the point where consumers are paying what they otherwise would if the tax was still there.
The effect of removing the tax is that consumers pay the same, the treasury gets less tax money to fix our road infrastructure, and the oil companies make even more money than they already are. It really doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand this, little wonder that the Clinton surrogate most vocally arguing in favor of this is also a lobbyist for an oil company (but he’s not her pastor, so that’s ok).
So how does Clinton respond when economists point out this relatively obvious problem with her proposal? She dismisses them as “elites”. Its the same well-worn argument thats rolled out whenever a politician wants to do something that experts, you know, the people who know what they are talking about, think isn’t such a great idea. “Oh, don’t listen to them, they’re just geeks, look – I can do shots and drink beer!”.
Its unclear whether Clinton will get a bloody nose for this, after all, the media seems much more entertained by important issues like whether Obama wears a flag-pin.