U.S. Sen. John McCain’s new ad on the economy is interesting mostly because of its frighteningly weak economic fundamentals. It is similarly weak on truth – nothing new from the McCain camp, but these lies, some recycled and some fresh out of wherever they come up with this stuff, come in the policy field and not, as most of the others have been, in the personal.
The ad is called "Crisis." Take a look:
The ad promises three actions the McCain campaign would deliver on to improve the economy. The first is "Tougher rules on Wall Street." The credibility of this promise is low, as it comes from a campaign advised by Phil Gramm, who authored much of the deregulation of Wall Street that got us here to begin with, and from a man who, as the New York Times points out, "has consistently characterized himself as fundamentally a deregulator and he has no history prior to the presidential campaign of advocating steps to tighten standards on investment firms."
The second promise is "Lower taxes to create new jobs." Now, John McCain probably honestly believes that lower taxes do create new jobs, and, functioning under the rule of Costanza, "It's not a lie, if you believe it," then perhaps McCain is not a liar. Under any other standard, however, the cause – effect relationship he posits between lower taxes and new jobs simply isn't true. One doesn't need to look into ancient economic history for proof: Under the Bush administration’s tax cuts, job growth has been far, far slower than the Clinton years of relatively higher taxes.
Finally, McCain promises, "Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices." Things get especially un-truthy for the senior Senator from Arizona here. Granting expanded leases for offshore drilling will not provide a meaningful reduction in gas prices for Americans any time soon. Period. That’s it. This flat out lie has been debunked time and time again, but McCain continues to present a cause and effect relationship that just is not true as a central plank in the rationale for his presidency. Hopefully someone asks him about it soon. (For example, in a presidential debate in 10 days.)
The lies the McCain campaign has been throwing around about everything from kindergarten, to pigs, to pigs in kindergarten have certainly caught the media's attention. But isn’t lying to the American people about what one's governing agenda will do for them even worse?
Last night, House Leadership came together on a package that dramatically expands both offshore drilling and renewable energy. The bill is designed, as NDN Green Project Director Michael Moynihan writes, to be palatable to Republicans, as it gives them almost all of what they want on drilling.
The comprehensive package, as described by the E&E Daily (subscription required):
The drilling provisions are part of a broad package that includes a repeal of oil industry tax breaks for major companies, new renewable energy mandates and investments, a new fund to speed deployment of carbon control technology, and many other measures.
Have no doubts, this is a moment of truth for Republicans in the House. (Next week, Republicans in the Senate will likely get a similar opportunity.) If Republicans truly are for an "all of the above" energy solution, this package is their chance to vote for one.
If Republicans continue their obstructionism on actually achieving anything on energy by nitpicking at this legislation, they, and not the Democratic Congress, will be responsible for failing to lower energy prices, failing to break America’s dependence on foreign energy, failing to confront climate change, and failing to harness the clean energy economic opportunity.
Keith Johnson, of the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog, has a solid summary of where the media narrative on drilling sits: Republicans are winning the battle. This narrative is backed by a new Rasmussen poll that has 64 percent of Americans supporting offshore drilling, and 42 percent seeing it as the "best way to reduce oil prices." Rasmussen also tells us that Americans believe McCain wants to find more sources of energy, while they believe that Obama cares more for limiting energy use. Unsurprisingly then, Americans two-thirds of Americans side with McCain’s approach.
The New Republic’seditors make some interesting but debatable points today about how the narrative has gotten to this point, arguing that blaming speculators and going after oil companies may not have been the best plan of attack. TNR also argues that the Obama and Pelosi shift toward allowing more offshore drilling in a compromise bill that would also include support for renewables and efficiency was the second losing move in this argument, and that Democrats’ inability to debunk the drilling idea in the minds of voters was troubling.
As I argued yesterday, the shift on drilling will not be a big deal, and will likely remove drilling as a wedge issue into the fall. The more important voter perception is that Americans believe that Obama cares about energy austerity while McCain wants to do everything he can to increase production. (His actions don’t bear this out, but perception is what matters.)
Whether drilling specifically will be a voting issue is unknown, and this is likely a case where Republicans are winning the battle on drilling but setting themselves up to lose the war on energy as a whole. However, being portrayed as promoting austere energy use is extremely dangerous for Democrats. Obama has already begun to recast the debate on energy about investing in a clean energy economy, which is forward looking, as opposed to the McCain Republican petro-economy of the past, one that, as Michael Moynihan notes, continues to have dangerous ramifications in foreign policy.
At the end of the day, the most important argument to make and win is that energy policy is central to the economy: energy to power the economy, energy impacting American households and families through gas, home heating, and overall prices, and energy jobs and investment allowing average Americans to enjoy the broad-based prosperity they knew in the 1990’s, but that disappeared in the Bush administration. Transitioning to a clean energy economy will not be simple or easy, but, done responsibly, it is a key to future prosperity. Americans already feel austerity in their pocketbooks; being perceived as asking them to feel it in their energy use is not in Democrats' interests, especially when the better option of investing in a clean energy economy exists.
In the surprise of the 110th Congress, it turns out that the pro-drilling position taken by many Congressional Republicans and their presumptive nominee for President may actually have been – gasp – election year politics. The 'Gang of 10,' a group of five Democrat and five Republican Senators, has offered a compromise proposal that would contain both incentives for energy efficiency provisions and a limited expansion of offshore drilling. Barack Obama has said that he would support such an expansion as part of a broader energy bill, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she may allow a vote as long as a bill includes renewable energy and environmental safeguard provisions, but many Congressional Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are opposed to the bill.
Republicans have used the offshore-drilling issue to paint Democrats as out of touch with ordinary Americans and beholden to environmental groups that oppose any relaxation of the current drilling ban. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican's likely presidential nominee, has made Sen. Obama's opposition to offshore drilling a feature in recent ads critical of his Democratic rival.
But the drilling issue could lose its power as an electoral wedge if both parties agree to the concept put forward by a group of Republicans and Democrats. Their proposal would open additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida's western coast to drilling, and also allow Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to "opt in" to drilling off their shores if their legislatures approve.
The plan would also raise billions of dollars for conservation and energy-efficiency programs partly by making oil companies no longer eligible for a manufacturing tax credit and repealing other tax breaks. Some estimates have put the potential savings from such a move at $13 billion over 10 years.
Some conservatives worry that a deal would remove party differences on what they otherwise see as one of the Republicans' best issues for winning over voters in the November election. Conservative radio-show host Rush Limbaugh has accused the Republicans who favor the compromise of giving a "gift" to Sen. Obama and other Democrats seeking election this fall.
Among many Republicans, "there's a desire to not solve this problem" of gridlock over energy policy, said one of the Republicans supporting the compromise, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. Sen. Corker added that "many people in the Republican Party are missing the point that this is a strong pro-[oil] production bill" and that Republican leaders "made a mistake" by not immediately endorsing it.
This proposal epitomizes the 'all of the above' solution that John McCain and his Republican allies in the Senate claim they support – expanding drilling and investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Sadly, only five have actually acted.
McConnell’s line about "objections to the proposal to eliminate the oil companies' eligibility for a tax credit" is part of his growing charade of election year intransigence. The oil industry receives tremendous direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government; meanwhile McConnell refuses to allow for a straight up or down vote for much smaller tax credits on renewables.
McCain, too, has said that he could not support the bill because it "would raise taxes;" he has since changed to a more 'wait and see' approach. For someone running for president on a supposed record of bucking his party on energy policy, this is certainly not the type of proactive leadership one would expect. (Thomas Freidman calls out McCain today for his lack of action on energy and quotes Suntech America President Roger Efird, one of NDN's panelists from our August 1 event on "Energy and the American Way of Life.")
There is only one conclusion to draw: McCain and Republican opposition to this proposal – which should serve as an important bipartisan step toward some sort of action on energy policy – is nothing more than an attempt to maintain a loosening grasp on drilling as a wedge issue in an election year. By refusing to lend his support to this compromise, McCain and his Republican Party owe America an explanation of what energy reform they are actually for, because behind the pretty windmills in McCain’s ads, there’s no substance.
NDN's Green Project has been incredibly active since its launch earlier this year.
Most recently, we held a series of events addressing climate change, energy and the economy. On July 9, U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, addressed the NDN community on the case for Cap and Trade; later that month, NDN's Globilization Initiative Chair Dr. Robert Shapiro released a paper on a carbon/payroll tax shift; at the end of July, we urged Congress to support a package of renewable tax credits; and on August 1, Assistant U.S. Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin's delivered an important policy speech on the Green Economic Opportunity.
Today we are releasing a major new report which argues that solar power must become a top U.S. economic priority. To read the full report, click here.
The paper, which is summarized in a news release below, makes a compelling case as to why solar power will help address high fuel prices, combat climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. While it may seem that all anyone talks about these days is offshore drilling, read this fact-filled report to find out why looking up instead of drilling down may be just what we need to do when it comes to creating a clean energy policy that will power our economy in the 21st century.
Accelerating the rollout of solar power must become a top policy priority of the United States if our nation is to address high fuel prices, combat climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. So argues a new report entitled, “Solar Energy: The Case for Action," released today by NDN's Green Project and authored by Michael Moynihan, a former Clinton Administration official who now directs the Green Project.
As a growing global population and higher standards of living increase demand for energy, the report argues that energy has entered a new phase in its history.
NDN believes that solar will play a key role in creating green jobs while building the new, low-carbon economy of the 21st century and that promoting leadership in solar technologies to take advantage of this immense new opportunity must be a major policy priority of the United States.
"As recently as last week, the inability of Congress to extend the Solar Investment Tax Credit, at a time when American families are struggling with high energy prices and industries as diverse as autos and airlines are losing billions of dollars, shows that this issue requires far more attention than it has received,” Moynihan said.
Moynihan continued, "Our political leaders have been treating solar energy and other renewables as an interesting but sideline issue. In fact, the development of renewable energy sources is a vital economic priority of the United States. We cannot afford to sit idly by as higher energy prices continue to shift wealth from American families and businesses to energy producers overseas. We have the know-how and ingenuity and are missing only the determination to build a new, clean energy economy to power American prosperity."
To unleash the power of solar energy, the report makes the following recommendations:
Congress should extend the Investment Tax Credit for eight years, remove the cap on residential installations and extend the tax credit to utilities.
Congress should pass a renewable electricity standard with a solar set-aside.
Congress should step up funding for energy R&D.
Congress, regulators and stakeholders should carry out limited power industry reform that, among other goals, requires decoupling of power profits from production.
Congress should require net metering and so-called net billing for electricity.
Congress and state and local governments should create incentives for homebuyers to more easily finance homes that have solar power or install solar power.
Because renewable power will require better switching and efficiency to move power to where it is needed, government, utilities and other stakeholders should work together to modernize the grid.
NDN’s Green Project is a program of the Globalization Initiative that seeks to develop a legislative, regulatory and advocacy framework to address climate change, enhance energy security and accelerate the development of green technologies to promote economic growth. This initiative is designed to serve as a bridge between key stakeholders in the new clean technology community and public leaders to build the low-carbon economy of tomorrow.
On July 25, I wrote about U.S. Sen. John McCain's newfound ability to raise massive amounts of money from some folks who hadn't been giving him the time of day -- or much money, for that matter -- before he found religion and reversed his long-held position against offshore drilling.
And BOOM! McCain hit a gusher, which I touched on here.
According to a report from The Washington Post:
Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.
McCain and his Republican buddies haven't let up since. They believe they've found their holy grail in convincing the American people -- frustrated and burdened by $4 a gallon gas prices -- that offshore drilling will immediately lower those skyhigh prices. There's just one little problem: it's just not true. McCain has admitted it. Even the American Petroleum Institute has admitted it. So why does McCain keep talking about offshore drilling as the solution to all of our nation's problems?
A few more follow-the-money details have emerged:
In a witty (but all-too-familiar) article in today's Los Angeles Times, reporter Dan Morain writes:
DEPARTMENT OF COINCIDENCES
Oilman greases skids for McCain campaign
Among the donors from John B. Hess' company are an office manager and her husband, who pony up $57,000.
August 5, 2008
On June 10, John B. Hess, a top executive at the oil company with his family name, summoned friends to the 21 Club, a former speakeasy in Manhattan, and delivered $285,000 to John McCain and the Republican National Committee.
A week later, McCain traveled to Texas and announced his support for offshore oil drilling.
Hess Corp. is an East Coast gasoline retailer with major refining and exploration operations, some of which happen to be offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hess was one of half a dozen hosts who tapped friends for the maximum $28,500 donation to the GOP. Others included investor Henry Kravis and hedge fund mogul Paul E. Singer.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said there was no link between the money and McCain's stand. "Mr. Hess was fundraising before Sen. McCain made the announcement," he said.
Most Hess donors were company attorneys, vice presidents or, like John Hess, board members. But one, Alice Rocchio, listed her job as office manager, and she gave $28,500, as did her husband, Amtrak foreman Pasquale Rocchio.
The information emerged in a Campaign Money Watch report last week, followed by an item Monday on Talking Points Memo, which wondered how they could afford to give $57,000 to a political campaign. Alice Rocchio told TPM that McCain was her favorite candidate and the money was the Rocchios' to give.
The Rocchios also gave $4,600 in February, when Hess employees -- one of whom listed his occupation as "driver" -- delivered $23,000 to McCain. The couple have not given to any other federal campaign for at least the last decade, according to Federal Election Commission records.
But records suggest that the Rocchios are not without resources. The couple listed an address in Flushing, N.Y., and also have an Arizona home.
And this from the Houston Chronicle:
August 05, 2008
McCain's contributions from energy interests spike
John McCain received prolonged applause from the oil executives who gathered June 17 in Houston to hear the Republican presidential candidate's speech on energy policy.
Now it appears that McCain received something else: Lots of campaign contributions.
John McCain's contributions from energy industry interests happened to spike right around his Houston speech (and a fundraising tour of Texas).
Is it a coincidence, the result of aggressive Texas outreach -- or is it a show of gratitude? Let us know what you think.
Chronicle photo
John McCain greets well-wishers after his June 17 energy speech in Houston.
Here's the list:
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENERGY INTERESTS
DATE.....................AMOUNT
April......................$40,000
May.......................$96,950
June 1-15.............$219,550
June 16-17...........$303,400
June 18-30...........$313,950
For the complete text of McCain's Houston speech, click here.
To read the Houston Chronicle's story on McCain's June 17 speech, click here.
Oh, and there may be just a few more reasons why McCain supports offshore drilling. Maybe it has something to do with all the people who work on or advise his campaign and also lobby for the oil industry? Watch this new ad here:
Last week, I wrote about U.S. Sen. John McCain's attempts to paint himself as a great champion of the American consumer who has been plagued by skyrocketing gas prices. And just how will McCain help bring relief? He has embraced offshore drilling, despite the fact that experts -- and even he -- have admitted that such drilling won't produce any tangible relief, if any, for a very long time.
Maybe McCain has a different sort of relief in sight -- relief for his fundraising efforts that lag far behind those of his rival, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. According to this very telling report in today's Washington Post's by Matthew Mosk, McCain just may have hit a gusher of his own -- the green kind, not the black kind -- when he reversed his position on offshore drilling earlier this summer. Acoording to the Post article:
Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.
McCain said the policy reversal came as a response to rising voter anger over soaring energy prices. At the time, about three-quarters of voters responding to a Washington Post-ABC News poll said prices at the pump were causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.
Opening vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration would help America eliminate its dependence on foreign oil, McCain said.
"We have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production," he said. "It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."
McCain delivered the speech before heading to Texas for a series of fundraisers with energy industry executives, and the day after the speech he raised $1.3 million at a private luncheon and reception at the San Antonio Country Club, according to local news accounts.
"The timing was significant," said David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group that conducted the analysis of McCain's oil industry contributions. "This is a case study of how a candidate can change a policy position in the interest of raising money."
To find out more about who gives how much to whom, check out OpenSecrets.org at the Center for Responsive Politics.
If politicians and their pollsters want to look hard enough for a statistic to prove a point, they can find it. The most recent example of this old trick is the offshore drilling debate. Depending who you believe, Democrats are either getting beat badly on the issue, or voters aren’t buying Republican talking points. Let’s take a look at the question from a recent Quinnipiac poll of some battleground states (Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin):
To help solve the energy crisis and make America less dependent on foreign oil, do you support or oppose - Drilling for new oil supplies in currently protected areas off shore?
Unsurprisingly, Quinnipiac reports that:
By margins of 22 to 31 percentage points, voters in each state support offshore oil drilling.
The issue is, as NDN has discussed here, here, here, here, and here, the argument that offshore drilling will help solve the energy crisis and make America less dependent on foreign oil in a meaningful way is a completely untrue. So, if the issue is discussed in a different way, say in a Belden Russonello and Stewart poll released yesterday, one sees a very different answer.
Looking to the future, which one of the following do you think should be a more important priority for government: Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles; or expanding exploration and drilling for more oil?
INVEST IN NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
76%
EXPAND EXPLORATION AND DRILLING
19
DK/REF
5
Do you think that allowing oil companies to drill in public lands and offshore areas that are currently off limits to drilling will result in lower gas prices for American consumers or not?
YES
40%
NO
54
DK/REF
6
Now, there's nothing to say that these two polls are mutually exclusive, but it's very doubtful that voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are buying the offshore drilling talking points at a rate that different from the rest of the country. These polls tell us that in order to win on energy, Democrats need to reframe the debate away from drilling versus not. When asked, Americans express a viewpoint sympathetic to Democratic arguments. The moral of this story is that the side that picks the question wins, and there's no such thing as a good answer to a bad question.
A new ad out today from the McCain campaign seeks to blame Barack Obama for rising gas prices. Take a look at "Pump," and the interesting imagery:
The overall narrative that the McCain camp is trying to pin on Obama through the first half of this ad and its dark imagery is evident: a figure we don’t know much about who is a pop sensation built only on false hopes and making our lives worse. The image of Obama floating in front of spinning gas prices while crowds chant his name is especially pointed.
The ad continues to be over the top by being almost entirely intellectually dishonest. Note the wording of the blame that McCain puts on Obama: "Some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." The ad uses the word "still" because McCain changed his view on drilling about a month ago, and, even if he had his policy, gas prices would not be any lower.
McCain also tries to have it both ways, as his campaign generally tries to point out Obama’s inexperience, but then goes back and holds Obama responsible for three decades of American energy policy, while giving himself a free pass. In fact, courtesy of Politico'sBen Smith, a recent quote from a McCain speech, that works more as a self-indictment than anything else:
"Let me give you a little bit of straight talk on energy. Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long term about the future of the country."
McCain looked to be gaining momentum on energy security and offshore drilling, at least as being able to point to a specific plan on energy prices (even an ineffective one). This ad has a desperate feel, and is so easily debunked and ironic, that it seems like McCain has decided to just run against Hope.
