“We’ve Replaced His John McCain With Some Fred Thompson. Let’s See If He Notices.”

So I have my problems with the Honorable Gentleman from Arizona — amnesty, Gang of 14, class warfare rhetoric in opposing Bush’s tax cuts, Gitmo idiocy, that execrable McCain-Feingold, etc. — but something strange is afoot. See, I somehow got onto his direct email list and some rather funny things have been slipping through the past few days, such as a little ditty on Tax Day that included the following:

I believe today, as I have always believed, in small government, fiscal discipline and low taxes. I believe that tax cuts work best when accompanied by lower spending. And I make the promise to you that if elected president, I plan to make the present tax cuts permanent, lower corporate rates from 35% to 25% and end the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will affect millions of middle class families.

Then I got this beauty this morning:

My Friends,
This week, I laid out an economic plan aimed at providing immediate and long-term relief for all American families. One of the key components of this plan is a suspension of the federal gas tax on gasoline from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year.
The effect of this “gas tax holiday” will be an immediate economic stimulus – taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time you fill up. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging and just about everything else, this immediate step will spread economic relief to every family in America.

Both of these proposals are remarkably similar to policies that (my original choice for Pres.) Fred! D. Thompson was talking up, back before his implosion. Seems I’m not the only one thinking that way, either.
So who replaced my cranky candidate with a shiny happy person, anyways?

Ref. this for concept, below for image (previously mentioned):

15 responses to ““We’ve Replaced His John McCain With Some Fred Thompson. Let’s See If He Notices.””

  1. Nobrainer Avatar

    I think the gas tax holiday is nothing short of idiotic.
    As I said elsewhere, it’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

  2. Winghunter Avatar

    Attempting to take pressure off the price of gas at the pump should remain to keep the attention of voters in beginning to drill where we already know our resources are AND finally enlarging our capacity to refine it that we’ve stalled for what…30+ years?
    Snivelers have been allowed to steer us down the wrong path long enough. It’s time for the adults to take over.

  3. Doug Avatar

    Not quite sure how eliminating a federal tax (as long as there’s no “make-up” period that follows) is a bad idea. Why not knock $0.38 off the top of each gallon of gas?

  4. Winghunter Avatar

    No arguments from me Doug but, will we merely be driving more on pot-holed roads because we have the gas without the money for repair?…I’ld have to research it.

  5. Agent:Orange Avatar

    Is he not just trying to salvage the conservative vote before he has to waffle with the democrats in the debates once one of them is sloughed off in a few months? I have to wonder…..

  6. Winghunter Avatar

    I’ld say that’s more than a possibility Agent Orange;
    “I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy.”—John McCain
    John “Juan” McCain

  7. Nobrainer Avatar

    Sorry for the delay:
    First to Winghunter: Ok, actually I’m not even sure what you tried to say at first. It doesn’t exactly make sense. But you suffer from a common misperception about refining in the US. The number of refineries has contracted or stayed the same, but refining capacity has increased as the current refineries have been expanded.
    Now to Doug: You’ve got the federal gas tax wrong. It’s 18.4 cents/gal. A “make up” of some type is almost certain unless you actually believe that someone, some how will make good cuts elsewhere offset the lost revenue. Beyond that, however, the entire oil price situation is an ugly mess, and a phony-baloney tax-holiday (yay! it’s just like a wonderful vacation!) doesn’t do jack to encourage change to the underlying fundamentals of the problem. In fact, such a tax plan pretty much will encourage behavior that worsens the underlying problem in that, roughly speaking, we’ll use more oil (and thereby drive increased prices, easily cutting into the initial savings), AND/OR the federal government will respond to the tax shortfalls by printing more money, further weakening the dollar, and therefore increasing the cost of crude.

  8. Doug Avatar

    Nobrainer: Gotcha.
    Should we investigate shooting the speculators driving the insanity instead?

  9. Winghunter Avatar

    That’s not my information Nobrainer but, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been misinformed. Here, give a look;
    Refineries are the temples where crude oil gets Bar Mitzvah’d into gas. Shifts in the refining world over the past two decades have helped ratchet up the price of gas. In the early 80’s, there were over 350 refineries, mostly owned by the oil companies. The oil companies didn’t see refining as a place to generate profit, but as an integral part of a larger operation.
    By 2002, there were only 153 refineries, and most of them were no longer controlled by the oil companies. Refineries are now held privately and independently, and as with any independent businesses, profit is key. It is in the refiner’s interests to supply only as much gas as is absolutely needed to stay on the profitable side of the supply and demand curve.”
    Where does this go wrong??

  10. Nobrainer Avatar

    Well, Winghunter, your reference doesn’t provide any useful information.. That is unless the concept of operating to make money is a new one.
    Be that as it may, you are right and I am wrong. The amount of refining capacity is not greatly different now than it was 30 years ago. [pertinent EIA information here].
    Even then, I don’t see refining as a major source of increased costs, nor do I see it as an area where significant investment is going to drive down prices.

  11. Winghunter Avatar

    You’re quite the arrogant prick and if that denial is all you have to offer you should have been smart enough to keep it to yourself…but, you’re not, are you.

  12. Doug Avatar

    Whoa whoa whoa there, fellas. My house is open for civil discussion, but if you’re going to [virtually/rhetorically] start punching each other in the face, knocking over vases and stepping on my dog’s tail, well, you’re going to need to take it outside.
    (In other words, keep it civil, or I’ll do it for you.)

  13. Doug Avatar

    And, Nobrainer, just so we’re clear, the US Congress is a bunch of Saudi-bought quasi-Socialist price-fixers more concerned with protecting their Middle Eastern petro dollars than, you know, helping out their constituents by working to raise petroleum supply quickly and efficiently.
    My fists are clenched in pitiful, impotent balls of rage just thinking about it. Makes it hard to type, I assure you.

  14. Nobrainer Avatar

    I do agree that our national energy policies are, well, pretty bad in almost every regard.
    Let me explain my position on refining: It’s not the major driver of costs. There’s some minimum cost per gallon that has to be dedicated to refining. It’s probably in the range of 25 cents per gallon (I believe that this costs increases with fuel costs since refineries have to use some energy in the refining process itself). Beyond that there’s an additional 18 cent per gallon premium, on average, over the last ~ 3 1/2 years. Going back to the start of 2005, 43 cents of every gallon has gone to refining. That’s 17% of the cost of gasoline over that period. Crude oil, by comparison, contributed 3.4x more the cost of gasoline.