A White House spokesman answered questions at today’s press briefing about skyrocketing gas prices with reminders about President Obama’s victory lap in securing an extension of the payroll tax cut.
Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest filled in for Jay Carney at the noon briefing, explaining that Carney had a late night coming back with Obama from Florida.
“What is the president saying to OPEC?” one reporter asked Earnest. “And what are the conversations around here like as gas prices are rising? For instance, yesterday I was in California — in one day gas prices at a regular station went from $4.17 to $4.29 — and that’s in a day. They’re likely to see $5.00 quicker than many other parts of the country. What is this president doing and what’s the conversations like?”
“Well, the president, as he described yesterday, is certainly concerned about the impact that rising gas prices is having on family budgets all across the country,” Earnest responded. “…That’s certainly one reason why it’s so important that Congress passed a payroll tax cut extension that will put an average of $40 per paycheck back in the pockets of the average American family’s budget. That certainly is an important step to offering a little bit of a financial cushion to those families.”
He added that Obama has taken “a number of steps related to oil and gas production in this country,” including an exploration agreement with Mexico and additional drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
Earnest was pressed by another reporter on whether Obama was considering tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The spokesman said he wouldn’t speculate on those discussions. “But what I can tell you is that there are plenty of people involved in the political process who are willing to make phony promises about what they can do to address rising gas prices — that if — and I can tell you that they’re empty promises,” Earnest said. “That if there were a magic wand that you could wave, one of the previous presidents would have waved it. Right? This is something that this country has been dealing with for decades.”
“We’ve never seen $5,” the reporter said. “We’ve seen $4. Now we’re going into the possibility of $5.”
“Sure, but we’ve seen gas price spikes that have had a significant impact on our economy and have significantly stretched the budgets of middle-class families all across the country,” Earnest replied. “That’s not a new phenomenon.”
“A lot of middle-class families might feel it was in their best interest to have cheaper gas,” another reporter later noted.
“Well, that’s the point of this discussion, right?” the spokesman said. “…The key here to solving this problem over the long term and making sure that we don’t have to deal with these challenges moving forward, that we’re not susceptible to the spikes and declines in the global oil market, is to make the United States of America finally independent of foreign energy. And that’s the course that the president’s pursuing.”
“Sure, but why not in the short term, too?” the reporter asked.
“Well, as I pointed out, in the short term, what the president has pursued was a payroll tax cut that would put $40 in the pocket of every working — of the average American family every two weeks,” Earnest replied.
Earlier this week, Obama trotted out those who had submitted comments to the White House about what an extra $40 means to them.
Mr. Obama:
How, specifically, does that help the millions of Americans who have not been able to find work in your economy, including those that have just given up looking?
Please be very specific.
(signed)
A. Taxpayer
Half a tank of gas will not last 2 weeks. Oh wait, maybe it will if I just inflate my tires properly.
Two words: al gae. I know this will work because Obama said it…might. Someday. After the stars burn out.
I can’t wait – literally.
What I mean to say is I won’t live that long. How about something I can use today Mr. Obama – PLEASE. Like oil maybe?
I’m ready for $5 gas – I just bought a 400cc scooter that gets ~60mpg. Now I just need some friendly weather – and hope I don’t get ran over by a big SUV. Global warming too PLEASE.
Al gae? Is that an alias for Al Gore?
One’s green, sometimes poisonous, often problematic, but can potentially be used as fertilizer.
The other’s a plantlike organism.
Half a tank of gas lasts a long time when you don’t have to go anywhere because you don’t have a job!
Hope N Change, baby, Hope N Change!
– public transit.
Actually, the spokesman made the exact argument about why the payroll tax cut is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
This is as close to Obama becoming the Marie Antoinette of our time. It’s surprising that so many people are suckers for this behavior.
They’d be less likely to be suckers if the media was actually semi-evenhanded. At this point I’d settle for 90-10 D to R, down from 99.9 to .1.
I fully applaud President Obama’s realization of the importance of allowing Americans to keep more of their own money. I now expect him to fully implement this newfound philosophy by cut taxes in all forms. DOing away with the death tax, capital gains tax, and tax on dividend income would be a good first start.
Expectations are nothing less than a future form of resentment.
Wait for it…
This is where I always leave our side on this issue.
Why are we protecting the money of the wealthy? Why not raise taxes on the rich when most of the rich and wealthy are either committed Dems or progressives? This includes Hollyweird, Wall Street, most CEOs, the uber-rich like Buffett, Silicon Valley, internet-rich, MSM, college professors and administrators, entertainment (nfl,nba), and DC.
Why not have a wealth tax-surcharge-on assets over @10million? Only one exemption for owners of businesses with less than 50 employees. Why not tax the rich at 39%? Why not stick it to O’Really, and Buffett (tax him on his assets not on his distributiions) and tax his secretary. Why not tax union dues? Why not do away with 501c3 exempt status for political-read 527s-groups?
Isn’t it ironic that we on the right fight to protect the money for people who hate us-that being the money grubbing, elite left?
Because, left or right, the rich invest their money, which gives money to corporations, who then use it to create jobs.
There are very few multi-millionaires who keep their money in the mattress or in an underground vault. At the very least, they keep it in a bank; that bank then uses that money to loan to others. Most of them are also in the stock market, either directly or through mutual funds or other investments, and that funds corporations that create jobs.
When you raise taxes, rich people tend to either move the money offshore, where Uncle Sam can’t tax it, or move it into tax shelters that don’t invest as much in companies (some don’t even invest in other companies at all, such as government bonds), and thus that money comes out of the business world, so it can’t be used for job creation.
Rich people, therefore, if they’re allowed to invest to make money instead of to avoid taxes, are indirect but very strong job creators.
But you don’t have to listen to me, listen to what happened to Britain when they jacked up taxes on the rich:
The Heritage Foundation (at the same link as above) summarizes it thus:
In short, higher taxes = less jobs. If you want more people on the government dole, higher taxes are a wonderful way to achieve that. If, however, you want more people gainfully employed, lower taxes are the way to go.
CW: Obviously you did not read my comment. I said raise taxes on the wealthy with the exemption of those who employee less than 50 employees or some such number.
“When you raise taxes, rich people tend to either move the money offshore, where Uncle Sam can’t tax it, or move it into tax shelters that don’t invest as much in companies (some don’t even invest in other companies at all, such as government bonds), and thus that money comes out of the business world, so it can’t be used for job creation.”
Perposterous. Since they already do this with decent rates what is the point of NOT raising their rates on their dividends or distributions. Duh. Also you tax their assets so even if they have money parked off shore, it is still taxed. Hey Buffett said he wants to be taxed more so lets accomdate him.
If they want to make money they have to bring the money back here and invest. I’m sick of the off shore argument; there is $2trillion off shore. If they want to play this game then they place money over America so I say the hell with them.
I am not talking about taxing into oblivion employers but the wealthy who make their wealth off others-like Wall Streeters, Hollyweird, and those who “want to pay more in taxes.”
“In short, higher taxes = less jobs.”
Cite the study. Higher taxes has shown to decrease revenue but that was a general rise in all tax rates not just the truly wealthy.
“If you want more people on the government dole, higher taxes are a wonderful way to achieve that. If, however, you want more people gainfully employed, lower taxes are the way to go.”
Again cite a study for this. Tax rates are only a componet of job creation. I’d say that demand is more powerful motive for job creation.
Also the current tax rates even back into Bushes term prove otherwise. And again for the dense among us, I am only talking about the truly wealthy not overall rate increases for everybody. I would also like to see the 49% pay some tax as well. Spread the misery so to speak…
Tell me CW just how many jobs has Matt Damon created? NFL/NBA players? John Kerry? All these people profess wanting to pay more in taxes so why not tax them? Recall that I said this was ironic….
“Rich people, therefore, if they’re allowed to invest to make money instead of to avoid taxes, are indirect but very strong job creators.” Wait you just said they are investing off shore so which is it?
Clearly you didn’t read my piece.
I said that wealthy people are indirect job creators. That means that most of them probably don’t have 50 direct employees, but they still create jobs indirectly.
As for the rest of your rant, I showed you the study from the UK. You ignored it. Therefore, you’re so infused with lefty class-warfare that you’re unable to accept contrary evidence.
As such, you’re hardly worth responding to.
I’m having a hard time distinguishing between your concept of valid taxation policy and theft.
Sure, they can afford it and some are even willing to pay it. But when do you draw a line and say it’s not right for me to take this from you?
The Obama regime cannot be bothered by the little people.
– will pay for my gas; will pay for my mortgage; will pay for my kids’ college; will give us all jobs, etc.
Pay for your birth control.
– and a mule.
Do you know how much a bag of oats costs?
AGAIN, a perfect example of government intervention in commodity markets. See ETHANOL…
We should all be happy to get the $40. Obama can’t really give us anymore because he needs to give the Solyndra Execs. that bankrupted the company their bonuses. Obama has gotta go. He only wants a second term because otherwise he will be like Jimmy Carter, a failed president who can’t command $5.00 for a speaking engagement. What will he do for a job after that. I am hoping he will be in the unemployment line soon.
He’ll write another memoir titled, “I President!!!”
Well, $40 does buy you about 10 gallons of gas. Ten gallons will take the President’s limo about 50 miles. Maybe if we all chip in, he could afford to travel to another country and just stay there.
Obama Administration ” Here is your change serf’s, now vote again for your God Emperor Obama.”
Dan – The Solyndra Exec’s bundled heaps of donations together for Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campain. Remember No pay, no play. Bailout campain donor cronies and Wall Streeters – YES WE CAN.
I figure with my family of four’s additional $70,000 of debt accumulated under our beloved Dear Leader Obama, I’m only down $69,960 plus interest the last three plus years. Oh wait! -$69,920 since we got the “extension” two years.
Gawd, I love more government. Let’s give the government health care!
If they can do this for a family of four, just imagine what Dear Leader could do with 1/6 of the economy.
Is it just dense me or is anyone else having trouble embracing the concept of how that events, policies or trends considered “failures of leadership” during previous administrations are now considered upstanding and successful?
Apparently you haven’t had DoubleSpeak 101. What was once bad is now good. Take that course or risk reeducation camps if Obama gets reelected.
Be prepared.
it would be nice to see the reporters just walk out of these press conferences.
it is just bullsh!t
It would be even better if the press corps started shaking their heads, facepalming, and laughing hysterically! (I know, won’t happen!)
.
Let them eat cake, well, if they can afford it.