Clinton Camp Panicking on Gas Tax Holiday?

The focal point of the Democratic Primary race this week has been the debate over a proposed "gas tax holiday," with Senator John McCain first to propose lifting the gas tax for the summer, and then with Hillary Clinton proposing a windfall profits tax to offset the lost revenue from the tax reprieve. Senator Barack Obama has opposed both measures, citing near-unanimous agreement among economic experts that such a measure would result in little or no decrease in gas prices while wreaking havoc on construction jobs.

When asked on Thursday to produce even one policy expert who agreed with the measure, the Clinton campaign was unable to, responding instead:

Phil Singer: There are times when a President will take a position when a broad concensus of "experts" will agree and there are times when a President will do something that a group of "experts" does not agree with and this is something that Senator Clinton believes is the right policy... Presidents listen to advice and then act and that is what Senator Clinton is doing.

The rest of the call didn't go any better, as Singer, Wolfson, and Geoff Garin fielded a withering barrage of questions about the proposed gas tax holiday. Senator Clinton herself echoed the sentiment on This Week.

Senator Clinton's campaign has formed a narrative that their candidate is rock-solid on policy, while her rival is less so and more adept at empty rhetoric, but this issue has the potential to stand that idea on its head. The campaign finds itself on the wrong side of a policy battlefield, and is fighting hard to get voters to ignore the experts and rally behind Senator Clinton's plan. Behind the scenes, the campaign seems to be locking down its message, most recently in response to this ad.




There have been several unusual occurrences over the past several days which may indicate a siege mentality on this gas tax issue. At the end of Thursday's call, Singer invited follow-up questions via phone or email, yet immediately after the call, and for several days thereafter, the Clinton press office's phones went straight to voicemail. Staff members on the voter's hotline were unable to explain this. I emailed my follow-up question to the general mailbox, and to each spokesperson individually, and received no response.

On Friday, the campaign held another conference call, but only took about 10 minutes worth of questions from a limited roster of journalists, whereas a typical call is 45-60 minutes in duration.

On Saturday, the Obama campaign held a conference call in which Senator Claire McCaskill seemed to question the sincerity of Senator Clinton's position:

Tommy Christopher: (In reference to Singer's response on the experts)Do you think there's something to that, that a leader has to do the right thing sometimes, even if the experts disagree?

Senator McCaskill: It's important, when you're making policy decisions that have broad implications to America's families, it would be pretty important to have somebody who agreed with you, who knew something about economics. I think it would show a lack of judgment, frankly, to move forward with a policy...unless you didn't really mean it, unless you were just doing it for an election ploy...if you didn't have any intention of the policy ever really going into effect, but you were just trying to get votes, then perhaps it wouldn't be as important to not have any experts agree with you.

Then, Sunday, Singer and Wolfson held a conference call in which they responded to Senator Obama's ad but took no questions, another unusual move. They also released a transcript of the call within an hour of completing it, a first since I have been covering this campaign.

On that call, they made the curious argument that their position, unanimously opposed by subject matter experts, is the substantive one:

Wolfson: This is a good substantive debate; we welcome the debate. It's unfortunate that Senator Obama has taking the position that he has but we are debating substance here. We are debating a substantive point that allows voters to draw a larger conclusion about these two candidates, about their priorities and about what they would really do to help hard-pressed, working class and middle class Americans.

Singer goes on to make a razor-thin point about the wording of the ad, but in the process draws attention to the similarities between Senators Clinton and McCain.

I am referring specifically to the line in this latest attack ad that they are putting out called "Boost," where the announcer says, "Experts say it will just boost oil industry profits," and it refers to a column in the New York Times of April 28th. In fact, the column that they are referring to is one written by Paul Krugman, where he writes, "The impression that Mr. McCain's tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday, a measure that would in fact do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits."

It is a fair point, but diminished by the fact that it is followed by a quote from Jonathan Alter in a column that does address Senator Clinton's windfall tax:

If the federal excise tax were lifted, oil companies would simply raise prices and pocket most of the difference. Clinton's proposal to recover the money with a windfall profits tax on oil companies sounds nice but won't happen. That tax was easily blocked by the Senate in December and would likely be blocked again.

It is hubris for Wolfson and Singer to think that they could ask reporters to take a closer look at Senator Obama's ad, and then think that we wouldn't actually take a closer look at the ad.

Of course, journalists and economists aren't the target audience here, anyway.

The behavior of the Clinton campaign over the past several days indicates a possible desire to control that message, to be able to speak to the voters without facing barrage after barrage of questions that pull back the curtain on this gas tax holiday. We will know very soon to whom the voters listened.