"Gas Tax Holiday": Clinton is going backwards on Climate Change Policy

Note: this was cross posted at Bluemassgroup and had a lively discussion (60+ comments). Also various news stories and editorials came out in the following days agreeing that the Gas Tax Holiday is a bad idea. Friedman's is great.

Original Post:
Hillary Clinton recently argued for the suspension of the federal gasoline tax. A Clinton ad airing in Indiana says the following:

Hillary Clinton knows it's time to act, take some of the windfall profits of big oil to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer, investigate the oil giants for price gouging and collusion

This is basically agreeing with McCain's similar plan just a few weeks ago, calling for a gas tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Putting aside any kneejerk response to parroting the McCain campaign, this is bad climate change policy to the core. It is true gasoline costs are rising due to a variety of reasons including (continuing) Middle East regional instability, increased demand from China and India, and of course pathetic US efforts to conserve gasoline usage. Yet no candidate who wants to honestly claim to be a future leader in turning back the tides of climate change could offer a "Gas Tax Holiday".

Regardless of which candidate one supports, if we earnestly want to stave off climate change, then Clinton needs to be called out on being on the wrong side of this issue. In contrast, Obama has come out against the "Gas Tax Holiday", and stated:

The only way we're going to lower gas prices over the long term is if we start using less oil.

What is going on? It feels like Clinton is giving in to the notion that in order to win the midwest we have to ease their pocketbooks. That's a perfectly respectable goal. But in economics you want to tax things that you want to discourage. We desperately need to discourage fossil fuel consumption.

A much more effective way to accomplish both goals (easing pocketbooks and reducing carbon emissions) is to decrease federal income taxes by what the average household pays in gasoline taxes: basically redistribute the revenue from gasoline taxes back to the taxpayers as income tax decreases (or rebates, after all they are in vogue these days: call it the Thoreau Rebate or something catchy). And then let the people know: if you drive less than the average person, you'll get more money back. If you want to drive a Hummer, that's fine, you'll just pay more for your gas. Don't own a car? You'd make out quite well. And then this could lead to a five year program of gradual gasoline tax increases (with matching income tax rebates). If people knew gas taxes were going to steadily rise for five years, people would have a significant long-term incentive to choose more efficient vehicles whenever the need for purchasing a car came up. An issue is that current gas tax revenues are often assigned to road improvements etc. Of course the "Gas Tax Holiday" has the exact same problem.

Back to the kneejerk reaction of Clinton parroting McCain: Clinton is giving into the notion that to win as a Democrat, one needs to be more Republican-like. Didn't the Globe run a front page story today about how Republicans in Indiana are defecting from the Republican party?

Actually making a dent in climate change is going to take vision and leadership on a truly unprecedented scale. I've written previously here and here how Gore understands the magnitude of this issue and how the issue transcends politics. Obama recently confirmed that Gore would be part of his administration. To my great sadness, this primary campaign season has successfully vilified "hope". Yet, considering that we are already doing worse than the worst-case scenarios of just a few years ago for carbon dioxide emissions, I am cynical enough to wonder: are Obama and Gore our only hope?