Forum: pol
Page 3107
Subject: Pandering?

  Posted by: Perm Dude - Dude [030792616] Sun, May 04, 2008, 21:33
Thought I'd just throw this out there. Both McCain and Clinton have strongly backed the "gas tax holiday. Clinton's plan would try to pay for the holiday through the use of a windfall tax (McCain has no plan that I'm aware of as to how to pay for the lost revenues).

According to Robert Reich's blog, Hilary Clinton's transformation from rich wife of rich ex-president Clinton to populist supporter now goes so far as to say, essentially, she doesn't listen to those brainy economists when suggesting economic policies like a gas tax.

Obama isn't buying it, saying this is pandering of the worst sort, a feel-good offer which, even if implicated, would actually cause more problems and might not even give gasoline buyers any break on the price.

Thoughts?
 
1Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sun, May 04, 2008, 21:42 		It's pandering. Obama is right; Hillary and McCain are predictiable political goofs, sadly. Obama will have to find some other issue to pander with - this one's taken.

One of the three will be the leeader of the free world. If I cared more I would worry. As it is, after 8 years of Bush, I'm of the opinion that there's only so much damage that can be done by a president, which gives me some solace.

Those are my thoughts.
 
2Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, May 04, 2008, 21:50 		Obama is correct. A gas tax holiday would be a terrible course of action. Lower gas prices would not deter consumption and would lessen the innovation of products that will one day wean us off of oil. I also believe that prices would not stay lower for long at all. Consumption would increase as a result of the lower prices thus driving prices up and then when the tax was reinstated people would really say WTF!

The people at large would also have a false sense of security for future summers or price spikes figuring that if the gov't did it once they'll do it again.

If any candidate is serious about the price of gas they have to implement a comprehensive energy policy that goes way beyond the simple act of filling up your gas tank and that encourages alternate sources of energy (to be used at the commercial, residential, and vehicular levels) and incentivize those involved to create reliable and large scale distribution networks so the products are readily available on the market.

It is pandering of the worst sort because it creates a false sense of hope and deters innovation at a time that we desperately need it.

I would personally like to see the 18 cent(?) gas tax be specifically earmarked for subsidies aimed at the solar power industry for residential and commercial implementations.
 
3walk
      ID: 83171517
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 06:17 		I agree with Box and MBJ. From what I have read, this suspension of the gas tax would do little and is really just pandering. Latest polls indicate the general public see this as well.

Polls
 
4Boldwin
      ID: 323592819
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 19:47 		Can't say I've ever run into anyone in real life who wouldn't be all for removing the completely regressive gas tax.
 
5biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 19:48 		Of course it's pandering.

MBJ- You think the damage Bush did is tolerable? Hundreds of thousands of not millions of lives ruined, ringing up debt to 10 Trillion, destroying the economy and gutting the government of competent leadership?

We had this discussion in 2004, when I admitted to holding my nose and voting for Kerry because of the damage I was pretty sure Bush would inflict on the country.

It turned out so much worse than even I could imagine, bringing our country to our knees, crippling us both economically and militarily to the point where I would no longer consider us the sole undisputed superpower we were when Bush took office, and twisting our global moral and ethical image until they rest of the world can not imagine a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, yet you seem to think it wasn't all that bad. Amazing.
 
6biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 19:49 		Boldy - the key is what would you replace it with?


 
7Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 20:07 		Boldwin: Can't say I've ever run into anyone in real life who wouldn't be all for removing the completely regressive gas tax.

If you're talking about complete and permanent removal, then I'm with you.

Biliruben: Boldy - the key is what would you replace it with?

I'll throw my answer out there. I'd replace it with reduced spending.
 
8Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 20:08 		The gax tax doesn't even cover the cost of the federal government building and maintaining roads, bridges, and tunnels in the United States. Baldwin: Have you ever met anyone who wants to government to get out of the road business entirely? I suspect many of the people who want to get rid of the federal gas tax have no clue as to how it is spent by the government. Chalk that up to Republican rule. "It is a tax, therefore it must be bad."
 
9Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 20:09 		bili - The Seattle city council's opinion of the US notwithstanding - the US is not "on its knees" and the rest of the world does not think we're scum.

Bush has done about as much damage as any President could (see, e.g. James Earl Carter), and we'll be fine.

The best part is that, for the first time since Ford, the next president is prolly going to wield less power over the country than the previous one....that's a good thing.
 
10Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 20:11 		The gas tax is one of the few taxes that even I am in favor of....hell, bili's even won me over to the wisdom of supporting a dramatic increase in it (once the economy levels a bit more.
 
11biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Mon, May 05, 2008, 20:31 		Hehe. Now we're getting somewhere.

I think the last time I mentioned the dramatic increase idea, gas was 2 dollars and I was recommending doubling it and throwing the money into R&D and infrastructure. I believe it was Nerve who was predicting the destruction the economy if the price of gas was $4. Huh.

Okay, that might be a bit of revisionist history, but I don't hear the howls of anguish as long as the energy companies are getting the cash and not the evil government.
 
12Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 09:46 		A few points ... First, the $30 per person per month citation from the CBO is a fabrication. link

An economist who supports Hillary's position ...

Other thoughts:
A) This would be more effective if implemented every summer. We can outbid other countries for gasoline, but it takes time to plan shipments. In addition to increased supply from other countries during the summer, the switch from winter to summer gasoline mixtures could be done earlier, stockpiling slightly greater supplies. Again, however, companies would have to know well ahead of time. This would increase the price of gasoline in February, smoothing the transition to higher summer prices.

Pretty much too late to do anything about this summer's prices, even if we wanted to.

B) We are essentially asked to choose between three panders, no?

McCain -- gas-tax holiday ...
Hillary -- gas-tax holiday + windfall profit tax
Obama -- windfall profit tax

If I had to choose, I'd choose the gas-tax holiday without the "windfall" profit tax. This would sadly decrease revenue to our infrastructure projects. But I don't see the point of doubling-down on penalties to energy companies ... we need greater supply in the future, not less ... the "windfall" these companies are enjoying accrue to 401k's and pensions, helping fund our retirement. Otherwise, of the choices, lowering taxes is likely to be the least damaging, as per Caplan's argument I linked to above.

Therefore, of the three, I think Hillary's is worst because it has 2 bad ideas thrown together. McCain's rates slightly better than Obama's, strictly because of my view of the relative damage done by the two taxes separately. But they aren't that far apart in badness on the issue.

It's a pretty crappy choice. Our politicians are failing us. Big surprise.
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 4643963
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 11:11 		ANWR
 
14Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 11:28 		Krugman is pissed that Obama is "misrepresenting" him on the gas tax. That's a kind way of putting it.

text of the ad ... video (which is necessary to the see the 4/28 Times reference) ... Krugman's statement ...

Talk the high road in your speeches, take the low road to get your votes.
 
15Perm Dude
      ID: 843768
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 11:35 		Krugman hates Obama. Doesn't take much to get him going. But I think he's right that the context of Clinton's proposal to how to pay for the thing through windfall taxes is missing from the ad. I think Obama's team is just trying to parse out the windfall tax portion of the proposal but they lose a wider context while doing so.

Krugman is also right that (at best) this is just chasing the money in a circle, while taxpayers cover the administrative costs of doing so. Assuming a windfall tax passes and works as proposed (two big question marks).

Still pandering, IMO, on Clinton's part. A mistake on Obama's. But I wouldn't read more into a single citation on a TV ad than his many speeches on the point.
 
16walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 11:43 		The windfall profits tax would never pass, so Clinton's proposal is not very tenable. I think the savings from lifting the federal tax would not be as meaningful to "non-elitists" as Hillary says it will, and I do see this proposal as pandering. Obama could have handled his response ad better though.
 
17Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 11:54 		Madman: If I had to choose...

What if you didn't? You're regarded by most around here (including me) as highly informed and highly intelligent. What would you do in this situation?
 
18boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 12:25 		Why are we doing anything? I mean in the short term removing the gas tax will help stimulate a overly dependent service economy, but in the long run we are just prolonging the inevitable. When gas reaches $5 a gallon is removing the tax even going to mean anything. It reminds me of how a local gas station has been giving out $1 off coupons on 8 gallons of gas for several years. i use to think this was such a great coupon back when gas was under $2 but now that it over $3.50 i always ask myself if it really makes a difference, should i even bother using the coupon.
 
19Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 13:02 		It's all posturing Boikin. The three people running for President don't really have an effective answer for the price of gas. IMHO, the only correct answers are to remove it as the primary source of fuel for automobiles and implement alternatives in other areas that increase the petroleum supply. The thing is that there is no answer that can be done in time for the election so they have to say something because it's a hot topic.

More BS and gov't pandering while people suffer. What else is new?
 
20walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 13:32 		Agreed, Box #19. I think Obama has come closest to conveying this sentiment, too.
 
21Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 13:48 		My buddy from Wales is paying $14 a gallon. Once Wal-mart start selling gas we may start saving a few cents per gallon.
 
22Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 13:51 		I think Obama has come closest to conveying this sentiment, too.

You're probably right. I don't think Obama gets the big picture on this though. Does he really think the oil companies will let a windfall profit tax slide without increasing the price of gas to compensate? Who gets hurt the most by that? The poor and middle class; a lot of the same folks that are voting for him.

Obama ought to drop the talk of a windfall profit tax and run with a medium / long range plan because that is what will work. He has the ability to speak to people so if any of the three candidates can convey the message that a short term solution does not exist, it's him. I think his followers would accept it too. If he does shut up about the tax or recant it he could gain more moderate voters also.
 
23Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:06 		I welcome any tax cut, anytime, anyplace, any amount.

 
24biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:10 		What government service are you willing to give up? Roads? Military? Schools? Police?
 
25Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:34 		What if you didn't? You're regarded by most around here (including me) as highly informed and highly intelligent. What would you do in this situation?

I didn't think anyone would be so fooled by my posts. ;)

I'm no energy expert, just someone who's opinionated.

First, you have to carefully define the problem. Is the problem expensive gasoline? Is it inefficient use of energy? Is it lack of access to energy? Is it pollution from energy? Is it "dependence" on foreign oil?

You can't solve all of those problems at the same time. In fact, solving some of those problems will make some of the rest of them worse.

So, what I would do is entirely dependent on what I view the problem to be. And I don't view the problem to be $4 a gallon gasoline. In my view, the two biggest problems are (a) inefficient use of energy, and (b) economic burden of transition away from oil (note: I'm not saying all fossil fuels, since I don't view the environmental issue of carbon as one of the pre-eminent problems I'd work to solve). To clarify (b), whenever you have change in society, the poorest tend to be the least able to adapt; they'll need some help transitioning.

Just a very quick outline, then ...
a) Remove all subsidies to all tech's ... gov't almost always guesses wrong. I'm betting that companies like Wal-mart (with a natural national distribution network) are going to hit on solutions faster and better than any elected politician can get a bill passed. Fundamental R&D excepted.
b) Leave the gas tax alone. Gradually increase it over time to help fund more R&D ... But I don't view this as the magic bullet. (1) Europe has had much higher gas prices for awhile, and that hasn't spun sufficient creativity, and (2) there's a limit on how far up you should drive the price of gas, because of the impact on lower-wage earners and households-in-transition. Plus, I don't think we're returning to cheap gas anytime soon, regardless.

Also, don't increase the gas tax so much that you'd have to offset income taxes. I don't want to establish federal spending targets based on revenues from what will, one day, be a declining sector of the economy.
c) Leave CAFE alone, or repeal entirely. Government regulations tend to drive up the price of autos, and CAFE tends to attack American manufacturers at the expense of all others. Again, this hits the poor and working classes disproportionately, both from a consumer and producer perspective. Gas prices, over time, are going to naturally go high enough to encourage people to drive fuel efficient vehicles. Especially with my (b). Stop increasing safety mandates.
d) work toward a world-wide solution to the access problem. Western oil companies are efficient and relatively environmentally friendly, IMO. Thugs and dictators disrepect the land and the future of their countries' oil supplies. See Russia, see Iraq under Saddam, etc. Drilling inefficiently is tragic. Incidentally, if there was greater access to oil fields, we'd know a lot more about whether there's a world-wide supply problem or not. As it is, I'm still not convinced that the perception of peak-oil isn't the result of humanity's political problems. Regardless, I doubt we can do a lot on this one.
e) I'd still support drilling in ANWAR, etc. Just don't see the reason why-not. Especially to ease a transition, if nothing else. It will give extra revenue to the government (especially if we don't subsidize ... see point 1). Essentially, I support this because I'm more concerned about the problem of economic transition to scarcer energy rather than the impact of energy usage on the environment. You have to prioritize the problems somehow. And our political mess arises because each of us prioritizes somewhat differently. Nothing wrong with that, but it does leave us with schizo's running for President.
f) Work toward an energy-conscious economy. It's been a fun run of virtually limitless free electricity, but we have to get away from it. Prices need to float with demand ... and we need to be able to see how much various activities are costing us, energy-wise. Don't know how to go from where we are now to where we need to be, however. Unfortunately, this may be the most important, especially if we end up with plug-in cars. Meters on all electric devices? De-regulation of public utilities? Can we really make household electricity production work??
g) Most viable alternative techs are likely to work through electric production, one way or another. Maintaining our electric grid infrastructure is critical. Consider ways to make it smarter and more reliable.
h) Re-regulate nuclear construction. Allow efficient dual-plant operations that process waste onsite. Still have the waste problem, but you at least get to recycle some of it. Nuclear isn't the answer alone, but I don't see a solution without nuclear. Again, notice that nuclear goes through the electric grid, reinforcing (g).

Dunno. No magic bullets. Easier to criticize than build. But I'm also not in the business of claiming I have the answers ... I'm perfectly happy to let markets sort most of this out. We're already moving to where we need to be ... US gas consumption is down this year ... It will take some time. Mainly, we just need to inject some flexibility and innovation ... mostly through removal of antiquated or misguided policies. IMHO. This is not a catastrophe, nor an emergency ... good thing, since if it was an emergency there isn't much we could do.
 
26Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:36 		Farm subsidies or any subsidies for that matter.
 
27Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:39 		My response was to Bili' 24, but I see Madman went more indepth as I was posting it.
 
28biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:40 		Agreed, Jag. Farm. Energy. Military-industrial.

I think we can get together and create a nice big banner. I'll bring the paint, you bring the sheet:

"Stop Corporate Welfare Now!"
 
29biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:50 		That doesn't sound unreasonable, Madman. Except ANWAR. I don't see that providing sufficient good, and a potentially large harm.

In order to off-set some costs, however, I'd add some sort of sales or licensing tax that has a significantly higher rate for vehicles

1) costing over 30K,
2) inversely proportional to some combination of weight and mpg. We could make the appropriate exemptions, which I believe are already in place, for work/farm vehicles, in order to minimize the impact on blue-collar workers. Fancy Hummers and Land Rovers need to pay for their higher impacts on roads and environment.
 
30Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 14:53 		K, but you bring all the banner supplies and I will bring the beer and food, I don't want to be stuck with Perrier and wheatgrass.
 
31biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 15:12 		Thanks, but I'll bring my own. The Silver Bullet corn dogs aren't my idea of a spread. Steak and a tasty, local IPA for me, thanks.
 
32Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 15:27 		Finally something we can agree on, there is nothing better than a medium well cooked porterhouse or t-bone.
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 843768
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 15:32 		Does he really think the oil companies will let a windfall profit tax slide without increasing the price of gas to compensate?

I don't agree with the windfall tax, but this scenerio in rebuttal simply wouldn't happen. Increasing the price of gas to make up for lost profit would simply increase the amount of windfall tax owed, because the oil companies would be making more money. It is like trying to get out of a high personal income tax rate by getting a big raise.

The windfall tax idea is unworkable, in my opinion. But it isn't unworkable because oil companies will find some way around it.
 
34Perm Dude
      ID: 843768
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 15:46 		Alex Knapp suggests we stop giving direct subsidies to oil companies instead of going to a windfall tax.
 
35Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 16:18 		PD: The windfall tax idea is unworkable, in my opinion. But it isn't unworkable because oil companies will find some way around it.

I don't agree. What they'll do is set their prices above their target and back into the # they were looking for after the tax is taken out.

Madman: Leave CAFE alone, or repeal entirely. Government regulations tend to drive up the price of autos, and CAFE tends to attack American manufacturers at the expense of all others. Again, this hits the poor and working classes disproportionately, both from a consumer and producer perspective. Gas prices, over time, are going to naturally go high enough to encourage people to drive fuel efficient vehicles. Especially with my (b). Stop increasing safety mandates.

The area that you and I seem to disagree on is CAFE standards. I agree, the poor and middle are the first to feel it in the form of more expensive vehicles and perhaps some job losses as car companies absorb the cost of producing these autos. I believe the real culprits here are the speculators and drastically raising CAFE standards would give them pause about future usage. Also, a decrease in usage would lead to an increase in supply (given that supply doesn't decrease as well) and could create an economic situation where prices don't rise as drastically or even decrease.
 
36Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 16:22 		2) inversely proportional to some combination of weight and mpg. We could make the appropriate exemptions, which I believe are already in place, for work/farm vehicles, in order to minimize the impact on blue-collar workers. Fancy Hummers and Land Rovers need to pay for their higher impacts on roads and environment.

On a related note, do you know of any research on semi's and their relative demands on the road versus taxes paid? I'd like to see a good study on explicit and implicit subsidies we give to various shipping methods.

I'm not opposed to a "progressive" vehicular tax like you suggest. to some extent, the gas tax works against fuel-efficient vehicles ... that's one reason I proposed incremental and measured increases in it. But I think there is a growing access-to-transportation problem that will continue as we transition to a peaked-oil economy ... Therefore, if you made the structure progressive by vehicle type ... cheap or free licensing for small, cheap cars offset by revenue from larger cars, I'd go for it.

Note, however, that this sort of thing is likely to be unpopular. The vehicular taxes are also state issues, primarily. Unless you are proposing a new federal tax of some sort. Don't know how any politician could say any of this.

On ANWAR ... I mentioned it because increased domestic production is consistent with solutions to my selected problems. ANWAR is simply one example of increased domestic production. If you selected or prioritized different problems, then you'd have different solutions. It's been our failure to be honest about the problems we're trying to solve that, IMO, has gotten into this schizo mess.
 
37biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 16:37 		Yeah - the state issue is a problem. Potentially a big one. It already exists to some extent, with sales tax-states (like Washington) who border states w/o a sales tax (like Oregon and Idaho). All the retail sits over the border.

Part of the downside of our republic in this day of the corporation is that the corps can play state against state, and the politicians play right into their hands. I think it would have to be a national tax, perhaps on the manufacturer, and passed on, at least partially, to the consumer that way. Probably not politically feasible, you're right. But it would get both the manufacturer and consumer thinking about both weight and MPG is constructive ways.

A correction: directly proportional to weight, inversely proportional to mpg, obviously.
 
38Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 16:40 		The area that you and I seem to disagree on is CAFE standards. Again, I'm not married to any particular there. I think it's first best to prioritize which problem we need to solve.

On CAFE standards in particular ... they tend to harm domestic manufacturing specifically ... European makers pay the fine and sell their cars at below standard efficiency. Japanese makers specialize in small vehicles and blow the standards away, so they are irrelevant to them, as well. This leaves the domestics ... there is political damage beyond the financial damage for non-compliance. Therefore, they tend to impact Domestic manufacturers exclusively.

In addition to that, the standards are riddled with political loopholes. The revised standards, to go in effect, were passed only by giving large-car concessions to the UAW ... the older standards were famous for the creation of the SUV to circumvent the car limits. The ultimate impact on our driving fleet is far from obvious ... not to mention the fact that more fuel efficiency leads to more driving which means consuming more gasoline.

Some of the runup in oil prices is perhaps due to speculators. But our refineries are running close to max capacity, and world oil production is slowing, as well. Speculators can play a good role in a transitioning society, because they are trying to acquire a scarce resource ... this drives the price up and actually helps to preserve the resource. I don't see that right now in our oil markets ... last I saw inventories were shrinking. Could be wrong. Regardless, my two problems -- helping solve market inefficiencies in energy efficiency and helping transition to a world of higher energy prices are likely to be problems regardless of current speculator activity.
 
39Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 16:51 		at this point, i don't know if this goes in the McCain folder, or it belongs here.

McCain Says Obama, Clinton Favor `Activist' Judges

it's sad. John McCain was probably a good man once.
 
40walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 16:53 		Politico: Back when Economists were a Good Thing

Bam!
 
41Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 17:36 		Walk -- I thought that Hillary's position was that her husband passed various international trade agreements over her advice ... then, out of the blue the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Government then tilted to the rich, leaving the working classes in the dust. 13 years of deterioration at the hands of Republicans ... those economists never stood a chance. That's why we need a fighter in the White House, not some pansy who listens to economists.
 
42Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 18:00 		Tree, that is not pandering, it is dealing with a serious subject, one that has many concerned. Activist judges can and do destroy our legal system.
 
43Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 18:05 		Activist judges can and do destroy our legal system.

I'll believe someone really means that when I see him oppose activist judges who issue rulings in favor of his own politics. In those cases the argument always changes to one about the outcome being more important than the process.
 
44Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 18:28 		I'll believe someone really means that when I see him oppose activist judges who issue rulings in favor of his own politics.

I'll put my hand up for this one. Enforce the laws on the books, don't create them on the bench. That's what the legislative branch is for. There is a court case I wouldn't mind see being overturned, but I want a law and not endless legal battles.
 
45Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 18:33 		Boxman didn't you want the courts to order the reinsertion of Teri Schiavo's feeding tube? Or do I remember that wrong?
 
46Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 18:35 		And where did you stand on Gore v Bush in 2000?
 
47Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 18:36 		Or the banning of abortions by state Supreme Courts?
 
48Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 19:00 		Bili

It already exists to some extent, with sales tax-states (like Washington) who border states w/o a sales tax (like Oregon and Idaho). All the retail sits over the border.

You know, I expected to see that down here in Longview. Cowlitz County has 100,000 people and a toll-free bridge over the Columbia into little Rainier, OR. There isn't a single store worth shopping in that crappy burg. The land is cheap. 8% sales tax isn't enough to drive the mile and a half, so no retail in Rainier.

The closest Costco is in Vancouver, WA. There is another Costco maybe 8-10 miles down the freeway just across the boarder in Portland. Haven't felt the urge to drive a little farther to save the tax. The Costco in Vancouver is doing just fine. Maybe if I were to buy a flat screen TV...

Back to the topic at hand. I have little knowledge regarding energy policy, but I am amazed that our country hasn't built a new oil refinery in 30 years. People have proposed releasing our Strategic Reserves in order to lower gasoline prices, or not buying any gas and let the reserves draw down to inch the market down. Has anyone thought of the federal government building two or three new refineries solely to create gas for the Strategic Reserves?

Yes, this would increase our use of oil, speeding us towards peak oil or, if we are already there, hurdling us down the backside of the slope. What of the argument that the sooner we realize that economically we cannot continue to use oil the better for the atmosphere and our international, geopolitical stability?

[CAFE] standards are riddled with political loopholes.

If we had some real foresight when we started the CAFE standards and rejected the loopholes, we would be in much better shape as a country. The state of our roads appall me. Stupid high school boys driving jacked up trucks getting 9 MPG are a big reason we are in this pickle.
 
49biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 19:09 		It was certainly true in Moscow/Pullman. All the shopping of significance with on the Idaho side.

Anecdotally, my ma looked at moving to Vancouver, but she was frustrated by the lack of retail amenities compared to Portland. She would have had to drive just about everywhere to get anything.
 
50Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 19:16 		my ma looked at moving to Vancouver, but she was frustrated by the lack of retail amenities compared to Portland.

Well, Vancouver is a soulless suburb where you have to drive to get anything, and what you get is corporate chain crap. Portland is a wonderful city. There's no comparison.
 
51Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 20:39 		Mith: You pepper more than a Tek-9 with an extended clip. You always try to paint me as something that I'm not. Interesting.

Boxman didn't you want the courts to order the reinsertion of Teri Schiavo's feeding tube? Or do I remember that wrong?

I don't recall if I was posting here when that was going down. Where I'm at with it now is that I believe the President should have signed an executive order to feed her until we found out her intent, not her husbands intent.

And where did you stand on Gore v Bush in 2000?

Remember Gore brought it to court. Anyway, I felt at the time (and still do) that if the state wasn't comfortable submitting their results then they need to recount until they are. Obviously not until the cows come home past Inauguration Day, but I think a sufficient recount could have been done in time.

Or the banning of abortions by state Supreme Courts?

Keep in mind that I'm really the only one here (Baldwin probably feels the same way but I don't know.) that constantly brings up the issue of state's rights. If IL wants to ban abortions, go right ahead. If WA wants to make it legal, go right ahead. Obviously you know what I'd prefer, but I am a proponent of state's rights. What I find odd is that few liberals will extend me the same courtesy that I would extend them via the state's rights discussion.

Legislatures legislate and judge's judge.
 
52Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 21:11 		I don't think I'm painting. I believed I'd seen you comment or agree that the courts failed Schiavo. If I'm mistaken that's fine - that's why I asked.

With regard to my other two examples, I'll admit I'm guilty of fishing. But I did hook something. What you call a states' rights issue is about state courts disregarding established constitutional law as affirmed by SCOTUS. You might argue that RvW was judicial activism as well but that's the law that's on the books.

An endorsement for other courts to find reason to change or disregard that law is the definition of judicial activism.
 
53Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 21:27 		MITH - With all due respect, I'm not clear by what you mean when you refer to an "activist" Court.

What would and "activist" or "non-activist" Court have to do with the Sciavo case anyway? That case always involved probate decisions always left to Courts to decide one way or the other. I can't imagine what "judicial acivism" had to do with that case. It was the legislature that started sticking its snout into the matter that was out of place.

I think that most people refer to an activist Court - they mean a Court that usurps the Legislative process or creates new law whole cloth - you know, exactly like Roe v. Wade, ( You might argue that RvW was judicial activism - gee, ya think?)

Deferring to State or Federal legislatures on matters of legislative authority would be the opposite of activism.

Your 3 supposed examples of "activist" Courts are anything but.
 
54Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 21:31 		An endorsement for other courts to find reason to change or disregard that law is the definition of judicial activism.

And since I am in favor of state's rights, the laws should be written in such a way at the federal and national level such that SCOTUS is there to judge based on the law. Judicial activism is a failure of both the legislative and judicial branches of gov't.

You asked where I stood on the issues not what the actual law is.
 
55Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 21:32 		Scratch "national" level and read that to say "state" level.
 
56Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 22:17 		MBJ
If my use of 'activist judges' is sloppy, its a reflection of how I see the term applied. For example gay marriage opponents frequently refer to the MA Supreme Court as an activist judiciary.

Boxman
I don't know whether a state court's disregard for established constitutional law fits under MBJ's definition for an activist judiciary but in response to your point, SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution in RvW to determine that a state ban on abortions in TX or anywhere else is unconstitutional. That interpretation is a clear establishment of federal law. The only way to change it is for SCOTUS to take up the issue in another case or to Amend the Constitution.

Also, I think it fair to challenge the status you've assumed as defender of states' rights. For a long time your focal issue here was the 2nd Amendment. So we're clear, I'm not painting you as anything - but I know you've specifically argued against allowing states and local governments the right to ban or restrict firearms. This, despite the fact that states have been restricting firearms for a century (not including pre-Emancipation laws prohibiting free blacks from owning guns) and municipalities since the earliest days in the country's history.
 
57Perm Dude
      ID: 843768
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 22:55 		Remember Gore brought it to court.

Actually, it was Baker who first filed in federal court on behalf of GWB.
 
58Tree
      ID: 4941619
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 23:15 		Where I'm at with it now is that I believe the President should have signed an executive order to feed her until we found out her intent, not her husbands intent.

good lord, no. we want the government meddling in our affairs to the point where THE PRESIDENT IS GETTING INVOLVED IN A MEDICAL CASE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM????

is that how much conservatives are willing to throw away individual freedoms?
 
59Boldwin
      ID: 522221114
      Wed, May 07, 2008, 05:31 		Boxman

I see the state's rights argument as an extention of keeping the federal government limited to dealing with only those things they are allowed involvement in by the constitution. An ever expanding federal government being by the nature of all unchecked power, tyranical.

I would hope the states were equally restrained.

Re: abortion...hopefully the prevention of murder is the just interest of all branches of government at all levels.

Re: Schiavo aka the conspiracy to enshrine nazi euthanazia into american case law...whether it be the president, the attn general, the national scotus, the federal government, they all have a role to play in preventing a nazi take-over of the american way of life, be it perhaps RICO pro
secution of the criminals in Pinellas county for an example, legislatures state and federal keeping it outlawed which they did not, scotus federal and state...holding 'Judge' Greer to ruling according to the law which they did not do...

MITH

I see nothing inconsistant with the states doing their job and the federal government upholding the constitution including the bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment to the constitution. If the states choose to violate the 2nd amendment then it is the federal government's role to constrain them from it as that is a legitimate constitutionally authorized role of the federal government.

Can you imagine the federal government allowing states the right to ban free speech or the freedom to worship? Why should they allow states to violate the 2nd amendment?

MBJ

Re: activist judiciary/Schiavo...had the federal scotus reviewed the case denovo as it should have in a case as egregious as this, it would have been unusual but not in any sense 'legislating from the bench' and thus not judicial activism.
 
60Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 07, 2008, 09:44 		Boldwin
No reason to send this thread any further off topic. I'll respond here.
 
61Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Wed, May 07, 2008, 09:46 		For example gay marriage opponents frequently refer to the MA Supreme Court as an activist judiciary.

Well, that's a great example of an activist court. They created previosuly unknown rights and tried to remove from the field a question that should have been before the legislature.
 
62Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 07, 2008, 12:43 		I don't know anything about MA's Constitution but the court found the state's marriage laws to be discriminatory under it's provisions. The issue of whether this is an example of your definition of activism sounds pretty subjective.
 
63Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:26 		I predict that the pandering will move to releasing oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve.

I doubt Bush would do it. Clinton did it when it went to $32. I read recently where they were topping them off....at $100. Good move Bill Jefferson. And he did it to help Gore get elected.

My congressman has been pushing this idea. Reminds me why I didn't vote for him.

 
64Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:38 		Bush has been critical in the past of the idea of using the SOR to lower prices. I doubt he would do it as well, and not because he's resistant to pandering. It is that he's right that the SOR is a drop in the bucket (though, oddly, perceptions about the SOR does seem to be enough to affect pricing). And he's an oil man--why would he want to lower oil prices?

I believe, however, that Clinton authorized the release of home heating oil, not crude oil for gasoline.