Apparently Senator Clinton has reversed her prior stance and is now joining Senator McCain in calling for a federal gas tax “holiday” this summer. I guess this shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Nothing seems to get voter’s attention like high gasoline prices, and this is a quick “fix” to bring down prices. Furthermore, it’s the only easy “fix” that would have an immediate impact.
Overall, this is a bad idea. The strongest case you can make for it is to frame the proposal as an economic stimulus measure, similar to the rebate checks the government is currently mailing out. And even for that purpose it’s not a particularly efficient or equitable means of priming the economy (lots of people don’t use cars.)
What’s wrong with this plan? One problem is that it cuts off a major source of highway funding. Remember that bridge collapsing in Minneapolis last year? Apparently some politicians don’t. Or rather they don’t recall all the talk they made of beefing up our national infrastructure. How are we supposed to maintain crumbling bridges and highways while cutting off the money? It’s irresponsible financial management.
Moreover, a gas tax holiday sends the wrong message to consumers. The temporary duration of the plan suggests that the run-up in gas prices we’ve experienced is only a short-term phenomenon. In other words, once we weather this short-term shock, prices will then return to “normal.”
I can’t see the future, but my hunch is that the opposite is true. Global oil demand is growing, while production (since 2005) has remained flat. So, absent a world-wide economic recession, I think oil prices will likely be even higher next year.
This means we should be earnestly pursuing policies that reduce our consumption of gasoline. A tax rebate does the contrary by encouraging motorists to consume more gas. That’s bad policy.
If politicians are concerned that about the impact rising fuel prices are having on the economy, they should seek solutions which do not create an incentive for Americans to use more fossil fuels.

I’ve noticed, particularly when watching C-SPAN, that some people are already starting to play up the 200th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, despite the fact that we are nearly a year away from the event.
Not to diminish Lincoln–who is almost universally regarded as one of America’s greatest leaders–but I’ve never understood the fascination some people have with the 16th president. It’s one thing to have a healthy historical curiosity about the man. It’s another to collect memorabilia and attend annual conferences and acquire shelves full of books. That smacks more of deification.
There are a number of great figures in American history. Yet none of the other ones seem to have the obsessed following that Lincoln commands. I’ve never quite figured out why.

Via Fark, comes this nugget (emphasis added):

For many years now, Edgerton High School in Wisconsin has allowed students in its Spanish class to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish over the Intercom one day of the school year. It also invites foreign exchange students (the school now has three) to say it in their own language.
This year, when Spanish students recited the Pledge on March 11, it caused a ruckus.
Parents complained. They demanded that the Spanish teacher, the principal, and the superintendent be fired. And they intend to press the issue at the school board meeting on April 28.
The superintendent, Dr. Norman Fjelstad, has even been physically threatened.

By now I should probably be used to stories of people getting bent out of shape over what I consider to be trivial matters, but it still baffles me.
I’m not a parent, but if I was one, and I were to list concerns I had regarding my high school child, at the top of the list would be things such as grades, teacher performance, social interaction, drugs, sex, and things of that ilk. And somewhere near the bottom of the list would be the horror of having my precious snowflake exposed to a few seconds of Spanish over the school public address system one day a year.
And yet, according to this article, some parents think this warrants the school superintendent’s removal.
I think those parents would do themselves a favor by reviewing American history. Somehow, millions of immigrants who didn’t know English assimilated into this country. And we managed it without society collapsing.
If our flag was able to weather the storm of German, French, Italian, and more in earlier eras, I’d say it can withstand the test of Spanish class.

Recently I’ve read some chatter suggesting that the social acceptability of extravagant spending is on the decline. For instance, CBS news cites anecdotal evidence in a story “Is Cheap Now Chic?”, concluding

The new status…is not how much you spend, but how much you don’t.

A USAToday piece on teen spending reaches a similar conclusion:

It’s even becoming cool to be frugal.

Undoubtedly many consumers are cutting back on spending. Gas and food prices are up, the home equity ATM is drying up, and many people are up to their eyeballs in credit card debt.
But the question regarding this wave of frugality is, is it simply one of necessity? Or does it reflect a broader change in attitude toward spending?
I’m not yet convinced of the latter. In the near-term I don’t think you can tell–in a recessionary environment people aren’t spending because they don’t have a choice. Perhaps in the longer run, when the economic tide turns, we’ll have a better picture of whether or not people are consciously choosing to save rather than spend because its now “chic.”

Several of the more doomerish commenters on peak oil sites such as The Oil Drum have been predicting that rising gasoline costs will eventually lead to the abandonment of some of the outer residential developments surrounding major cities. Simply put, people won’t be able to afford to make a 30+ mile drive into work everyday.
Such forecasts may or may not turn out to be true, but there’s evidence we have started heading in that direction:

Economists say home prices are nowhere near hitting bottom. But even in regions that have taken a beating, some neighborhoods remain practically unscathed. And a pattern is emerging as to which neighborhoods those are.
The ones with short commutes are faring better than places with long drives into the city. Some analysts see a pause in what has long been inexorable — urban sprawl.

The story gives examples of price trends in and around Washington, D.C. House prices away from the city have been falling, while those closer to the city center, or near public transit lines, have been holding their value, or even increasing.

David Stiff, chief economist for the company that produces the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, saw the trend in other cities, as well — including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, San Diego, Miami and Boston.
Stiff recently matched home resale values against commute times and found that in most of these major metropolitan areas, the trend is the same. The longer the commute, the steeper the drop in prices.

It’s something to keep in mind if you are house shopping. Easy access to public transportation will likely command a growing premium.