Never underestimate the traction that can be gained by a little bit of vote-buying.

I think McCain is only on board because he knew one of the Dems would support it and he didn't want to be seen in the usual Republican "you hate babies and working people" light.

God forbid Washington go with less of OUR money...

By that logic, shouldn't we then increase the tax on gasoline? then the same forces would shift the price back to what it is now, but with less money going to the oil companies.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

you should reword the first graph because it makes it sound like Obama is for the gas tax suspension when he isn't.

truly i hate that woman

politicians are all about the people they represent..... i'm saying this while trying to keep a straight face. you should try it. it's really hard.

@damnElantra: I can't really argue there.

See, the problem is, the funding to make up for this is supposed to come from taxing the oil companies.

Guess who's gonna pay for that? Not the stockholders, not the CEOs, the end-user.

You and me.

Idiotic idea. Yes, remove one-quarter of the funding for our already poor-condition roads and highways. This does not bode well for anyone. Do the math, it translates into a savings of $15 a month or so.

Following is a Danish perspective of our presidential candidates:

"We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer married to a lawyer. On the same side, you have a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a very large chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there really a contest here?"

BTW: Vote for the lawyer

I'm sold. Perino could convince me of anything, sadly.

Here's a novel idea: slowly raise the fuel taxes, spending the money on much-needed road improvements. Then drop vehicle licensing and registration fees! ... oh, i forgot, it seems most people like to bitch about the price of fuel more than they care about the ridiculous non-value-added cost of insurance, registration, parking, and so forth.

Look at it this way: if we can't escape death or taxes, then we should definitely support taxes on whatever removes the ugliest, fattest, most disgusting edifices of automobiledom off the road.

This is indeed a lousy idea, similar to the lousy idea of the "rebate" checks that are on their way.

As far as the candidates, I'm sorry to say, she's the only logical choice. I never trusted ex-military men because after their military careers, they become a bit too conservative as far as military usage (look back in history for Eisenhower, or Carter for examples). And as far as the Senator from Illinois, the far right wackos are going to be playing the same clips about his former pastor over and over and over again, while making sure you know his middle name is Hussein, and scaring you to vote for the ex war hero. Say what you will, she's a survivor, tough as nails, and quite possibly our Margaret Thatcher.

From everything I have heard (and I should note that most of my news comes from NPR, not Rush/Sean/Anne) is that there is little that the federal government can do to alleviate the current price gouging. Bush has said that the Saudis can't pump any more, which is a falsehood as the Saudis themselves have said that the 8.5 million BPD (barrels per day) that they are pumping is below the 9.5 million 8 months ago, and that they could pump as much as 11 million. I don't know why bush is trying to protect the Saudis, but there you go.
There was a most excellent interview with Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center regarding the McCain proposal. He basically said that it was worthless as the $0.18 lower gas price ($0.24 for diesel) would encourage people to drive more, increasing demand. Without a concurrent increase in supply - which doesn't look promising - the prices would be driven up to comparable levels. At the end of the "gas-tax holiday" prices would jump up considerably as the tax is re-implemented. Public outcry would drive many politicians (remember, this is an election year) to call for a permanent repeal of the tax, eliminating 10 billion dollars from our federal revenue. Calling for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to make up the difference, would only raise pump prices more, and worse, put that money in the hands of the oil companies, who have greater means to diminish their tax burden than we consumers do at the pump.
A bigger issue is that not only are we spending more at the pump, but that money is, in part, going to places like Russia and Iran, where it is being used to fund efforts that put U.S. Interests in harms way.
Another interview on NPR noted that it would have been better to raise the gas tax back before price gouging got bad and invest that revenue into alternative energy resources. It was also noted that any effort that encourages consumption is the wrong approach, and that no one is espousing conservation as the appropriate response to OPEC gouging.
I find the gas prices problematic, but feel that both we drive too much, and the public transportation alternatives are insufficient, at least in my community.

I have no problem paying taxes if some of the money goes to improving our roads.

I have no problem with oil companies making big profits if some of the money goes to new discoveries of crude oil and R&D of alternative fuel technologies.

I do have a problem with sacrificing one without directly benefiting the other. If I had a choice it would be, fix the roads now, the future will take care of itself.

@damnElantra: Here here.

Not a big fan of taxes and not a big fan of high gas prices, but this is a total cop-out that's not going to fix any of the forces that drive prices to where they are.

Unfortunately, it's the kind of pandering BS that's easy to spin and convince stupid people that you're looking out for them.

@UDMan: As far as I know, Margaret Thatcher never attempted to force millions of families into bankruptcy by forcing them to buy health insurance they don't want or can't afford. She'll never have my vote because of that.

@UDMan:

Luckily, our truly awesome Senator from IL has shown very little indication of a public support erosion as a result of the "Six Degrees of Separation from Somebody who is a Bit Crazy" game. Eventually, it will become old news and the media, who are the only people who seem to think it is important, will tire of it. Besides, he has already won the nomination. She cannot catch up. The math isn't there.

As to high gas prices. I say bring them. It will hurt and I won't like it, but how else to drive the Excursions off the road and get us some affordable green technology?

@UDMan: You don't think those same far right wackos will be harping on President Hill-Rod and Billy C about all the same shit they did for 8 years? Shoot, Obama is practically pure as a mountain stream comparatively.

The gas tax is probably the most logical tax we have. Those funds are directly piped into highway maintenance. The more you drive, the more you use the roads, the more gas you burn, the more tax you pay.

Building roads ain't cheap. Our infrastructure is already marginal at best, and this is only going to make things worse.

I hoped Jalopnik would be safe from the horrors of politics. I see now that my trust had been misplaced.

Heck, I wouldn't object to a dollar tax on gas if that revenue went straight to funding research and implementation of renewable alternatives. We're way behind where we need to be on this and going the wrong way. I'd gladly pay that extra dollar to feel better about the future for once. Unfortunately this would disproportionately affect low-income families, but there must be a way around this (some sort of gas foodstamp maybe for those who can prove true need).

I think the supply and demand argument holds some weight, but I think the better argument is that oil companies already know that they can charge $3.50+ a gallon and they're doing everything they can to keep prices high (like taking refineries offline etc) and a little tax break like this would affect prices for about 4 hours before Exxon just slapped another $0.18 on their wholesale price. It's like cigarettes; when the state governments started taxing the hell out of cigarettes, tobacco companies actually lowered the price per pack so that people could stay addicted. And now they run two-fer pack deals all the time to get around the taxes. Maybe if we want gas prices to go down taxes should go up... or maybe I've just been reading too much Freakonomics...

Anyway, it's good to see so many people at a car enthusiast site, who (myself included) generally ogle cars with single-digit mileage, see this as a thinly veiled credit for oil companies and not a boon to the working man. And kudos for Obama for not pandering.

Heck, Schwarzenegger got Californians to vote for him for a mere $200 a head (average cost to renew vehicle registration that he promised to waive). If McCain can do it for $60 ($15 a month in gas taxes for four months), he will have shaved the cost of buying votes by 70 percent. Now THAT'S effective governance.

Just to clarify, I'm not a Republican, nor do I think the gas-tax-cut is a good idea, I'm just showing how cheaply American votes can be bought. Frankly, it would take Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich to volunteer up their wives in a Caligula-like orgy to buy my vote. Oh, and McCain's wife can bring the beer.

.@UDMan:

Thatcher was a public servant. Hillary is a public nuisance.
God only knows what Obama is.

@graverobber- Same great taste, new low price!:

"I don't know why bush is trying to protect the Saudis, but there you go.
"

Google the Carlyle Group and you will have part of your answer.

I heard the same interview on NPR with Leonard Burman and I have to say, it was one of those things you listen to with utter astonishment.

How can people be so mindnumbingly stupid? $.18 off the price of a gallon gas takes it from $4 to......... hold your breath....... $3.82. And the Federal Govt. loses something insane like ten billion dollars of highway funds.

So for a 4.5% decrease in the cost of a gallon of gas, you'll accept falling bridges and potholes? Seriously?

I totally understand how tripe like "American Idol" gets 10 million viewers.

And it makes me sad.

@graverobber- Same great taste, new low price!: "I don't know why bush is trying to protect the Saudis"

Maybe this will jog your memory.

@superbad: Dude, is he frenching that guy in the Foster Grants? And then they're holding hands on a stroll through the garden? Tra la la. Geez, he's more progressive than I thought.

So what you're saying is that Bush is trading high-oil prices for mad monkey buttsecks with Sheik Yarbooty? That's just wrong.

@graverobber- Same great taste, new low price!: "So what you're saying is that Bush is trading high-oil prices for mad monkey buttsecks"

Well, sort of. See, they're getting the money, but we're taking it up the ass.

I have to say though, if I became president and found out that part of my job involved kissing skeezy Saudi dudes full on the lips, I'd quit and let the VP do it.

@superbad: I don't think that's the kind of close-quarter action Cheney is into. I think he's more keen on firearms.

I would like Clinton (why are prominent women often referred to by their first name, unlike men?) to catch up to, but not surpass, Obama. Then, with a deadlock at the convention, I'd like the party leaders to draft another Democrat for the nomination. Maybe Al Gore. (There, I said it.) A voter can dream, can't he?

As for fuel, how about rationing it? It was done during WWII.

@DannyBN: Margaret Thatcher didn't have to attempt "to force millions of families into bankruptcy by forcing them to buy health insurance they don't want or can't afford" because the UK has socialized medicine.

[Clears throat, shoots Jalopnik server a dirty look]

@graverobber- Same great taste, new low price!: There was--probably still is--a web site called "gaybushisms" that has a lot of photos and comments supporting that point of view.

I find the gas issue depressing--not because gas is expensive but because of all the BS that people are willing to accept. Record profits-Record prices--but there's no connection.
Right.

I recently read an article by Mr. Mankiw from 2004. In it he proposes that the taxes on gas should actually be higher than they currently are because Americans do not pay the full (economic) cost of driving their large automobiles. This higher tax would go towards better highway/road infrastructure while greatly decreasing the quantitative demand for gas.

Gas is a dear resource and it should be priced accordingly, as much as it hurts. Plus we can have all the awesome, fuel efficient cars of europe and not as many, well, you know...

Why on earth is diesel taxed heavier than gasoline in the first place? Diesel is the juice that keeps the trucks moving and the economy rolling. No cutbacks, INCREASE the gas tax to at least the same level as the diesel tax.

At this point, 6 cents here or there won't make a damn bit of difference in my budget. If that money could go into actual road construction it would benefit everyone, and state DOT's wouldn't have to keep coming up with plans for more toll roads.

So, if I understand correctly, the plan is to take the tax and shift it from consumers to oil companies ... who will then pass their increased cost of business along to consumers in form of higher gas prices.

Stunningly idiotic.

Why don't they just go full on with regulation on the oil industry? Cap their profits and one of two things will happen, either prices at the pump will plummet or the amount of money going into R&D will skyrocket. Stockholders will still make money because we're not price fixing (where they can only charge so much regardless of cost of production), we're profit fixing (where they can only make a reasonable profit, as apposed to continually setting new records). Everyone wins either way.

If prices plummet then we all win because gas doesn't cost so damn much.

If R&D budgets soar, then we're taking years off of the time it will take to develop alternatives to dino juice... or we find more dino juice... and we all win.

And the stock brokers will be able to accurately predict years into the future, making 401ks much more reliable... and it may help stabilize the economy.

@graverobber- Same great taste, new low price!: Thanks for the very insightful and intelligent comment. I totally agree with your opinion, and I'm glad this issue is being discussed on Jalopnik.

@clinto: Yes, it is terribly sad. And I believe American Idol got 45 million votes last night...

@my favorite car is a motorcycle: "we should definitely support taxes on whatever removes the ugliest, fattest, most disgusting edifices of automobiledom off the road."

The Honda Goldwing?

With our vehicle registration fees, gas tax, and income tax, there should be more than enough money to fill some potholes, no?

I smell...

NO-BID CENTERLINE PAINTING CONTRACTS!

@Novaload: You know, I wouldn't have any problem if he came out and said he was gay. I have an issue with him being a moron.

Mankiw wrote my Macroeconomics textbook!

@Novaload: Okay, now I'm deeply disturbed. Please don't tell me about a web site that espouses that kittens cause STDs.