Tag: biden agenda
Wrong Turn: A Gas Tax Holiday Would Frustrate Biden's Critical Goals

Wrong Turn: A Gas Tax Holiday Would Frustrate Biden's Critical Goals

In politics, there are proposals that are so sensible they are bound to become law. There are ideas so awful that they are quickly discarded and forgotten. Then there are the ones that have no chance of being enacted but keep coming back.

They are the zombies of public policy: not exactly alive, but never quite dead. A prime example is the gas tax holiday. Several Democratic senators have signed on to a bill to suspend the 18.4-cents-per gallon federal levy to reduce the cost of fuel and combat inflation.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), argues that lifting the gas tax would be "something that directly helps people right now when they need it." Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says, "It's one of the many things that we're looking at in terms of reducing costs." The White House declines to rule it out.

No one likes paying taxes or feeling gouged at the pump, which explains the appeal to politicians. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake regards it as "a great populist issue because people are always mad at gas prices and gas taxes."

Democrats would do well to recall the example of Barack Obama. During his 2008 presidential campaign, he had to contend with two rivals, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain, who proposed the same thing. Obama had the backbone to deride it as "a gimmick that would save you (the cost of) half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something." He found an unlikely ally in George W. Bush.

It's a lousy idea, for reasons that should be most obvious to Democrats. They united to help pass Joe Biden's $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which will be financed partly with revenue from the federal gas tax. As the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes, a gas tax holiday would deprive the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for roads, bridges and mass transit, of $20 billion a year.

If that weren't bad enough, the trust fund has been spending more than it takes in, putting it on schedule to go broke by 2027. Suspending the gas tax would move that date up by a year.

It would also contradict another core Democratic goal: reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. High gas prices, as it happens, are a good way to encourage conservation, enhance the appeal of electric vehicles and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Larry Summers, who was director of Obama's National Economic Council, said last summer, "There's no more important price to increase in the American economy than the price of carbon-based fuels.

"Summers was rebuking Biden for urging oil-producing nations to boost output to lower prices — even though the more oil they produce and the world consumes, the faster the planet will heat up. "On the surface, it seems like an irony," Biden acknowledged. Actually, a better term would be "self-contradiction."

That wasn't Biden's only divergence from sensible methods of combating climate change. In November, he released 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The White House explanation: "Oil supply has not kept up with demand as the global economy emerges from the pandemic." Never mind the obvious way to balance demand and supply: letting prices rise.

Contrast these efforts with what Biden said in canceling the Keystone pipeline from Canada: "The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory."

Not that Republicans are any more honest or consistent. As prices were rising in 1996, presidential nominee Bob Dole advocated not merely suspending but abolishing the federal gasoline tax. He and GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich said it was "the least we can do for hard-working Americans whose pocketbooks are taking a major hit." McCain said similar things in 2008.

Both parties are prone to irresponsible pandering, and each has found occasions to target the gas tax for political exploitation. But it's never energized public support, most likely because most people don't see 18.4 cents per gallon as that big a deal.

The consolation is that each time the idea emerges, cooler and smarter heads make sure it goes nowhere. It will probably go nowhere this time. But only after we've had our intelligence insulted.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Alabama Republican Voted No, But Praises Himself For Local Highway Funding

Alabama Republican Voted No, But Praises Himself For Local Highway Funding

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) on Monday night touted "critical funding" that President Joe Biden's infrastructure bill provided for a highway in his district — even though he voted against the funding.

Palmer bragged about $369 million his district will receive from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the $1.2 billion infrastructure bill Biden signed into law on Monday.

Palmer wants credit for funding the bill provides for the Birmingham Northern Beltline, described on its official website as "a 52-mile, six lane corridor," which is under construction in his district."Funding the Northern Beltline has consistently been one of my top priorities," Palmer said in a statement Monday night, after Biden signed the bill. "Birmingham is currently one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country without a complete beltline around it. Completing the Northern Beltline will benefit the entire region and enhance economic development and employment opportunities."

But Palmer did not vote for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which, aside from providing funding for highway projects such as the Birmingham Northern Beltline, also includes funding to improve aging bridges and roads, expand public transportation, and replace water pipes contaminated by lead.

When the bill passed on November 6, Palmer tweeted, "The Democrats' recklessly expensive infrastructure bill finally passed tonight after weeks of disarray among their caucus."

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has caused an uproar within the House GOP.

While nearly every House Republican voted against the bill, 13 GOP lawmakers voted for it, and that's angered a group of right-wing House Republicans who want to punish the 13 by stripping them of their committee assignments.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) had been saying since long before the vote on the bill that she would help fund primary challenges against any Republicans who voted in favor of it. Afterward, she made public the phone numbers of Republicans who had voted in favor and defended the move as they started to receive threats: "The calls will continue and primaries will ensue. Republicans in the House and the Senate need to learn a lesson."

Those among the 13 who say they have received threats include Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), who shared on CNN a voicemail he'd received that said, "I hope you f—king die, I hope your family f—king dies, I hope everyone in your f—king staff dies."

Politicoreported that one of the 13 lawmakers who voted for the bill was getting so many angry calls that they redirected them to Greene's office.

Former President Donald Trump has also vowed to endorse primary challengers against them. On November 15, he endorsed John Gibbs, a challenger to Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI) with a history of making offensive comments against Muslims, LGBTQ people, and others and promoting QAnon and other conspiracy theories.

Palmer's bragging about obtaining funding provided in a bill he voted against is not unprecedented.

Republicans have also bragged about funding included in the COVID-19 relief package enacted in March that they tried to block.

And on November 8, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he couldn't guarantee that GOP lawmakers who voted against the infrastructure bill wouldn't tout the good provisions within it.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

House Republicans Savaging Each Other Over Infrastructure Vote

House Republicans Savaging Each Other Over Infrastructure Vote

Shortly after 13 House Republicans joined 215 Democrats last week to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, GOP lawmakers went to war with each other.

Some House radicals—who are apparently the dominant force in the GOP caucus—labeled the measure "socialist" and called their 13 colleagues "traitors." Presumably, that went for Senate Republicans, too, after they helped negotiate the bill and about 40 percent of their caucus voted for it.

The pettiest man alive, Donald Trump, groused that "Old Crow" Mitch McConnell had voted for it while being "incapable" of delivering a similar bill during Trump's tenure. McConnell, in turn, called the Biden bill a "godsend" to his state.

Republicans are still warring over the bill even as a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 63 percent of Americans support the bill while just 32 percent oppose it.

The survey question was very simple: Do you support or oppose the federal government spending one trillion dollars on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure?

And yes, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they did support the trillion-dollar investment in roads, bridges, rural broadband, and more, while a fringey 32 percent opposed the spending.

The poll—entirely in line with polling of the bipartisan measure over the last several months—highlights that while the American people still broadly support infrastructure investments to benefit everyone, congressional Republicans have become so extreme, they are inciting death threats against their own members for giving the voters what they want.

In the Republican Party, you can no longer do broadly popular things if it in any way benefits your opponents. Passing good things for your constituents is treasonous if it also helps the other party and their constituency. In other words, backing anything that benefits everyone is an act of treason.

Republicans are still at each others' throats over the passage of the popular legislation. During a House GOP conference meeting Monday, Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina filed a resolution to strip Rep. John Katko of New York of being the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee.

But that was relatively mild compared to the screaming match that broke out between Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, according to CNN reporter Melanie Zanona.

Roy was lamenting that he'll be on the hook to explain to voters in his district why they should support Republicans when GOP representatives just handed Democrats a big infrastructure win.

"McCarthy then got up and shot back that he's had to explain to voters many times votes that Roy has taken," according to Zanona.

As Zanona put it: "House Republicans are more angry at the GOP lawmakers who voted for infrastructure than at Paul Gosar for posting a video depicting violence against Dems." Gosar's video depicted him executing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, to be exact.

But, yes, exactly. In today's GOP, bipartisanship is more unforgivable than fomenting violence against your opponents.