Quote Of The Day: Who Wants To See Gas Under $2 Per Gallon? Edition
Who’s ready for some politics? With the presidential election still over 14 months away, recent Iowa straw poll winner Michelle Bachmann is upping the campaign promise ante by telling a Greenville, SC crowd
The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Look at what it is today. Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again. That will happen.
Without even taking a side in the muck of presidential politics, it’s plain to see how ridiculous this statement is. As Politico helpfully notes:
Bachmann didn’t detail how she would cut the price of gasoline, which is tied to the global price of oil. [Emphasis added]
Personally, I think gas should probably be taxed to a point where Americans pay about what the rest of the world does, in order to pay for the externalities of oil consumption. Most auto execs agree, arguing that America’s artificially low gas prices play hell with product planning. But even (or is that especially) if you’re a hard-core anti-tax free-market fundamentalist, Bachmann’s statement should be treated with scorn. After all, markets, not presidents, should be setting oil prices. But what’s principle (or even good practice) when compared to the need for political pandering?
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
aristurtle You have commented 13 times on this. You are suffocating us with your opinions. We all catch your drift - or have stopped reading you. You will not win this argument because no one wants to pay more for the exact same thing in order to pay for exciting new promises made by people who never keep their promises. Their credit rating isn't AAA. Or even AA+. To the average citizen, the Federal government's credit rating is zilch. No one believes that they can do anything anymore. Except you. We get it. Thanks.
Let's see here, canidate that would at least like to do SOMETHING about lowering the price of fuel vs canidates that either don't care or actually want it higher. Hmmm, what would the average voter choose? Also is it that much of a stretch to allow revenue that goes to things most voters don't really care about (bridges to nowhere, anti-smoking ads, etc.) to go to roads and bridges instead? Is it written in stone somewhere that the only taxation that goes to infrastructure must come from fuel taxes?
This bipartisan bickering is getting really ridiculous to us outsiders. Do you really think they aren't sides of the same coin? Whoever rules your congress, its held by the balls by lobby groups. Like AIPAC.
Some were nerved by one of the weekly newsprint mags (Newsweek?)recently putting a "crazy-eyes" photo of M.B. on its cover. Statements like this, however, don't do much to help her distance herself from that impression.