Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Triangulating on Drilling and Energy

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 18:08

Two months ago, Bill Beutler asked if offshore drilling was "the next gun control" - i.e., an issue on which Democrats find the popular tide turning against them and realize they have to reorient.   It's pretty clear the public favors drilling, but will the progressives acknowledge it and clear the way for Democratic politicians to respond? 

I think a recent Moveon.org email should answer that question.

That's remarkable.  They're not even bothering to argue with the polling data - they're just admitting that the public disagrees. 

So, what happens next?  Two things:

Matt Stoller says Obama is "making a huge bet on running against big oil".   Based on his recent ads, it looks like Obama is trying to delegitimize any pro-drilling policies from McCain by suggesting a corrupt motivation.  This is very dangerous territory for Obama, due to his extensive ties with the ethanol industry.  This doesn't leave him on very firm ground to argue that McCain's energy policy positions are somehow corrupt.  We'll see how far they get with that.

Matt Stoller says their other angle of attack is.....triangulation.   They'll cave, because they have to.  But they'll exact their pound of flesh.

[Nancy Pelosi] is saying that a vote for drilling is possible, but only if it includes renewable energy standards, wind, solar, and biofuel incentives.  And in all likelihood, the vote will include removing the subsidies for oil companies, which McCain will not do (he calls it raising taxes).

So basically Obama and Pelosi are going to try to put McCain and the Republicans in a box.  They can have their drilling, but only if oil company subsidies are removed to pay for renewable energy programs for the long-term.

This is pretty incoherent, for two reasons...

  • First, 'removing subsidies' is, in fact, 'raising taxes' on the oil companies.  In fact, the most recent energy bill actually raised taxes on oil companies more than it cut them.

  • Second, what do you suppose those 'subsidies' are?  According to Factcheck.org, the "vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research."  

 However, as pure demagoguery, this may work.   It seems to me this is a fight we don't have to lose, but I'm not sure what the strategy is for fighting back against a "we'll give you drilling if you give us pork."

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Make It Drilling Or Nothing

Submitted by Jeff Roberts on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 18:38.

From what I understand, the ban on offshore drilling expires if it isn't renewed at the end of September.  Why not just focus on that, and ignore all the compromises behind the scene. 

Either the ban is renewed or not, and those votes will be on the record.  If the Democrat Congress renews the ban, Republicans will have a great issue to campaign on.  If the ban is not renewed, the American people win, and we begin the first step to energy independence. Obama will then have to take a stand against lifting the ban on offshore drilling.

This is one of those issues where we gain nothing by compromising.  Any compromise would only confuse this winning issue, and throw the Democrats a life-preserver.

It's a win-win, unless some "Maverick" Republicans hungry to get praise from the mainstream-media cut a deal with the Democrats behind the scenes. 

I completely agree

Submitted by lagomorph on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 19:27.

Capitulation on certain issues doesn't cause me the level of heartburn that this one does.  I'm fairly center/moderate compared to many of my very conservative colleagues, and any compromise on this issue on the part of either the Gang of 10 or John McCain would be the one thing that could ever make me seriously consider voting for Chuck, Bob, or writing in Ronald Reagan.  If what most people probably think of as a "liberal" Republican like myself would get that pissed off about this issue, I can only imagine how much it would infuriate the conservative base.  Don't do it, boys.  Just say no.  Srsly. 

The Democrat plan is very simple

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 19:31.

They will permit "drilling" but with so many caveats ( local approval, tighter EPA review, including the Endangered Species Act; and "windfall profits tax" ) that no responsible corporate executive will front the billions needed to go forward. The Nancy-staters will then turn around and claim this proves they were "right all along" and that  "drilling doesn't work" and therefore, we can only ration our way out of the oil shortage.

The Democrats are trying to save face to go ahead and stop energy production after the election. So, when your opponent is running around buck naked on an issue, why in Wicca's name do "responsible Republicans" want to give them a fig leaf?

real facts on oil industry

Submitted by matt.dybwad on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 20:48.

Isn't one of the fundamental problems here that people do not understand the need for the oil industry to have tax breaks in the first place?  I can't imagine anyone involved with the environment or the left ever getting on board with the notion that we need to keep subsidies in place for companies with record profits when Americans are being squeezed at the pump.

Instead of partisan rhetoric and political cat and mouse, it seems to me what we really need is an educational PR campaign on behalf of companies willing to front the money to drill holes in the earth 2 miles deep.  Not a warm and fuzzy topic to be sure, but if we humanize the people and the process of producing energy domestically, wouldn't it be more difficult to villainize the faceless "Big Oil" companies?

"Every Time You Fill Your Tank, Big Oil Fills Their Coffers!"

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 08/16/2008 - 12:48.

This is the meme of the Obama propaganda, which I personally feel is actually the Pelosi propaganda against "Big Oil".  No one examines the profit margin - which is in reality around 8% - they simply discuss the record profits and conveniently avoid the record expenditures.  Rush Limbaugh mentioned a very effective way to counter this crap:

"Every time you fill your belly, BIG FOOD fills their coffers!"

"Every time you fill your closet, BIG CLOTHING fills their coffers!"

"Every time you fill your dog's food bowl, BIG DOGFOOD fills their coffers!"

'Nuff said there.  This approach is patently ridiculous to anyone with critical thinking skills, but that does require a little more thought than most people are going to put into accepting propaganda that's spoon fed to them daily by the mainstream media. 

Drilling and Energy

Submitted by stl on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 21:25.

Ok, so let's have McCain cut an Ad that says that Obama/Dems want to cut investments in nuke, energy efficient cars and renewable energy. 

The true shame on America is that the voters have allowed themselves to be stupidly manipulated against oil and capitalism and so many things that have made America strong.
 
I'd love to have a agi-prop campaign against the mindlessness of the nutroots and "community activists" and the whole array of "progressive" idiots that could well nudge the US over the tipping point into decline.
 

 

Subsidies

Submitted by JayPe on Tue, 08/12/2008 - 23:00.

Interesting to see the Democrats starting to move on this issue. We'll see how it plays out.

Just one criticism though. You say that cutting subsidiies is the same as raising taxes. This is daft talk. Subsidies are anti-free trade. They promote inefficiency's by interfering with the free market. Just like taxes, in fact.

So subsidies are bad, and cutting them is hardly a bad thing. Certainly not equivalent to raising taxes.

yes to triangulation and conservation

Submitted by mnmod on Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:22.

triangulation works for me. What's wrong with cutting into big oil profits for some renewable energy pork? Have you heard the global climate is changing? this wapo column seems to be good reality check to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081202825.html

bottum line is high cost energy is here to stay and conservation is the most sensible part of a multi faceted energy plan.

 

"Subsidy" is a poor word for it

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 08/13/2008 - 11:38.

Just one criticism though. You say that cutting subsidiies is the same as raising taxes. This is daft talk. Subsidies are anti-free trade. They promote inefficiency's by interfering with the free market. Just like taxes, in fact.

It really depends on the nature of the tax cut.  While I'd love to see a very broad, flat tax that doesn't allow for a lot of distortive and unpredictable tax behavior, these tax cuts are about not taxing investment/research spending.  I mean, I'm all for a flat tax, but do you really want to disincentivize that kind of behavior?   It's not just corporations, either.  Individuals get tax cuts for investment spending (e.g., education). 

A subsidy would be if we were giving them new money.  These tax cuts simply remove part of their income from taxation, because it is being spent on, e.g., alternative energy research.  It just fundamentally doesn't make sense to have government tax them so that the government can spend an equivalent amount of money on the same research.

are repubs serious about an "all of the above"

Submitted by mnmod on Wed, 08/13/2008 - 11:47.

energy policy . According to this WSJ story maybe not. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121859070476735473.html

Are they willing to compromise now before the election?