Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
What are the chances 200 economists would know more about the gas-tax holiday proposals of John McCain and Hillary Clinton? Clinton and McCain would like to buy your vote for somewhere between $28 and $70, which is how much you would save if their idea ever happens... which it won't. If it does, I will eat an Exxon station.
The economists – including four Nobel Prize winners, advisers to past presidents and Republicans as well as Democrats (some of whom are Clinton supporters) – signed a letter rejecting the candidates' plans for the summertime tax relief.
They say it would simply generate major profits for oil companies, instead of significantly lowering prices for consumers. Also, they say it would encourage people to keep buying expensive imported oil, instead of conserving. Lastly, they believe such a tax holiday wouldn't provide much relief for families who feel squeezed by current economic conditions.
Barack Obama has said all along this is nothing more than a political "gimmick." Top House Democrats – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman of the Financial Services Committee Barney Frank – have also come out against these proposals.
But, Clinton and McCain don't seem to be paying much attention to the critics. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs is out with a report today that crude oil could rise to as much as $200 per barrel within the next 2 years. Where are Clinton and McCain on that? The answer is: nowhere. They're trying to buy your vote for 18 cents a gallon for three months.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when more than 200 economists say the McCain-Clinton gas-tax holiday is a bad idea?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Paul from Columbia, South Carolina writes:
Raise the gas tax to raise the funds to develop alternative energies and keep every cent raised out of the grubby hands of the politicians. Then, send the incumbents packing. Want real "change"? This is the way to get it started. Fire the whole damn bunch.
Greg from Oak Park, Illinois writes:
Well, sir, that depends. In Clintonland, it means Hillary is correct and she's facing a vast economics-wing conspiracy. In this reality, it means that it's an incredibly dumb idea that has no chance of passing and would lay off thousands of road construction workers who, in all probability, would prefer to stay employed and feed their families. But don't worry about it, Jack. In a month, she'll just say she misspoke.
Peter from Fairview, Texas writes:
Those over 200 economists must still be employed. They can afford to speculate on ideas and concepts and if they are wrong so what? No blood, no foul. I will take any help I can get and even if it is only .18 cents a gallon I will take it. Only a fool would deny .18 cents off at the pumps and I am willing to bet those same 200 economists will not refuse the discount when they pay for their gasoline either.
Randy from Woodstock, Illinois writes:
Most economists say it’s a bad idea because that’s what it is, a bad idea! In Illinois, where I am from, they tried it. They cut the gas tax and the price just went up!
Samantha writes:The weekend or summer tax-free gas proposals are only minor help. I want a candidate to come forward and say:
(1) we are too dependent on foreign countries and their prices
(2) we need more off-shore drilling off U.S. coasts, and
(3) what about immediately starting more oil refineries and implementing wind mill powered energy.
Brad from Chicago writes:
Jack, I completely agree with you, but I hope you’re wrong because watching you eat an Exxon station would be very entertaining.