According to the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the gas tax holiday proposed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton would destroy 23,107 jobs in California alone.
UPDATE: Steve's got a point. The ARTBA report only criticizes McCain's proposal, because McCain proposes no replacement for the lost revenue. I should have looked more closely at the source report before passing this along.
That said, this doesn't get Clinton off the hook. She's proposing a gas tax holiday for this summer. This summer, Bush will be president and Republicans will have Congressional veto power. A new tax on oil companies will not pass -- indeed, has been tried, and failed, two (three?) times this session. It just won't happen. So your choices are, gas-tax holiday with lost revenue, or no gas-tax holiday. Clinton can say she'd replace the revenue with pixie dust if she wants. But insofar as this policy enters the real world, it does so without the tax that would replace the revenue.
And finally, this is all a bit silly. How much effort should one expend being scrupulously fair in one's criticism of a crass pander that the campaign itself admits will never come to anything? It's a monumentally stupid idea even if it goes down exactly the way Clinton envisions.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
Corey McKrill Posted 4:46 am
06 May 2008
Meanwhile, Washington state would lose 4,371 jobs, and we'd be $126 million further away from all those desperately needed transportation projects.
Hallelujah!
Find out how much you'd save here.
Frequently asked technical questions about Grist's newsletters and website.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 5:50 am
06 May 2008
Note e.g. this from Paul Krugman yesterday (emphasis added):
"Is Obama misrepresenting what I said?
"I don't have a link to the ad itself, but apparently there's an Obama ad citing something I said about McCain's gas tax holiday as a way to attack Hillary Clinton.
"I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.
"The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn't wipe out all of the tax cut.
"I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn't think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain's, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they're being deliberately dishonest."
But that's OK, Dave, you probably cost Clinton a few votes with this, and of course any correction will be too late to undo the damage.
Permalink
JoshS Posted 6:29 am
06 May 2008
And?!
Hmm, less funds for highways, maybe less extraction of resources for asphalt and concrete, maybe less roads repaired, maybe less driving...
We gotta do better than "Jobs, jobs, jobs!!"...unless you had a different assumption underlying that post.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:42 am
06 May 2008
(Also, McCain hasn't said where the revenue will come from at all -- but then, that's true of all his gargantuan tax cuts.)
Josh, are you against infrastructure spending in the U.S.? Are you OK with hundreds of jobs being lost in the name of a political gimmick? If you're trying to reduce driving, reducing the cost of gas while allowing roads and bridges to crumble is an odd way to go about it.
grist.org
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 7:00 am
06 May 2008
Re your response, clearly Clinton is proposing the tax cut only if linked with a windfall profits tax. To attack her for the effects of a de-linked proposal is just weird unless you're going to do another post about the effects of a windfall profits tax without the gas tax cut.
Anyway, own up and do the correction.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:48 am
06 May 2008
grist.org
Permalink