No Offshore Drilling: Yes, I mean Obama, too
Last Friday’s hot news of the day, spun for your listening and viewing pleasure, was the rather breathless report that Barack Obama had reversed his stance on offshore drilling, which was, of course, viewed as the proverbial flip-flop. I really wish that term would leave politics altogether. It gives the press and public alike permission to ignore nuance and complexity and boil things down to simplistic, jingoistic phrases that mean nothing, but get voters who look for these types of simple and mostly inaccurate phrases excited.
After reading more careful reports and expanded comments by Obama, I’m not seeing a flip-flop. What he said was what he’s been saying all along. If the choice is gridlock or progress, he’s willing to compromise to make progress. In his own words:
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in an interview with the Palm Beach Post. “If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
He has evidently praised, but not endorsed, a proposal for limited offshore drilling of existing leases off the coast of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. California coasts will be excluded. Obama rightly expresses skepticism that offshore drilling would solve any problems. He should hold onto that position, and not trade even limited access to coastlines for an alternative energy plan. I believe this is one battle that can be won on the facts, provided that he chooses to lead the way and Democrats, progressive and bluedog alike, make a decision to be creative, innovative, and communicate clearly.
I don’t support expansion of offshore drilling in any form. I am a Californian; hence, photos of California coastline, but consider these to be a protest of any drilling offshore, whether Florida, the Gulf Coast, Alaska or California. Unfortunately, the McCain camp and Republicans have figured out that the issue is big enough to push hard with the American public.
Here’s the spin, based on the cliche’ invented by Newt Gingrich. They call it “Drill Here, Drill Now.”, and they’ve figured out that there is enough traction around the idea that they can get away with it.
On Friday, Rep. John Culberson and his House colleagues staged a political grandstand play on Twitter and Qik, intending to leave the impression that the House Democrats would rather have gone on vacation than deal ways to ease the current gas prices.
When Nancy Pelosi adjourned Congress for the August break, Culberson and his colleagues staged a protest after the fact via social media, claiming that Pelosi was blocking an up or down vote on the “drill here, drill now” initiative. Purely political, the intent was to have a reason to shift the blame from the rightful shoulders of Bush, Cheney and the group that stonewalls all efforts to close the Enron loophole to the Democrats, ostensibly for blocking this vote.
Here’s something for the masses. Let’s call it “Use it or Lose it”. The oil companies are not exploring the leases they already have. I see no reason to reward them by adding billions of dollars of assets to their balance sheet by giving them rights to drill previously forbidden areas when they have not touched over 57 million acres of existing leases on public lands.
Simple enough, right? They can use those, or lose them. And while we’re at it, let’s also close that Enron loophole which will curb the rampant speculators driving prices up, and revise patent laws so that they cannot snap up the patents and stonewall alternative energy ideas, designs and sources to keep them from actually being implemented.
What Obama and the Democrats need to wrap their heads around is this: They are operating from a position of strength. They need to quit acting like whipped dogs and start really working toward shaping a policy with long-term and short-term implications. The windfall profits tax is definitely warranted. So too, the idea to shorten the expiration of unused patents, rather than allowing for ownership forever.
Offshore drilling is a Republican invention that they’re spoon-feeding the American public like the pablum we’ve gotten used to from the Bushes. Let’s change the political landscape, not the landscapes on our shores.
If you’re interested in more thoughts on offshore drilling, corporate profits, and use of social media as a tool for political grandstanding, listen to Friday’s NewsGang Live. I think it’s one of our best shows, and we spend the majority of it talking about these very issues.
Sphere: Related ContentFISA: Democrats Capitulate to the GOP – Where’s Obama?
Silent, that’s where. On a day where he announces (wisely) that he will decline public funding, the Democrats in Congress bow backwards to the GOP and say ‘put it right here’. Not only that, but they ‘compromise’ on FISA in such a way that telecoms will receive their immunity according to the bought-and-paid for agreement.
The agreement would settle one of the thorniest issues in dispute by providing immunity to the phone companies in the Sept. 11 program as long as a federal district court determines that they received legitimate requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.
With some AT&T and other telecommunications companies now facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”
“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence.
The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.
The White House immediately endorsed the proposal, which is likely to be voted on in the House on Friday and in the Senate next week.
They’re going to let impeachment die, they bow low and scrape before Lord Bush while selling us down the river for the price of a few lawsuits and the 4th amendment.
And Obama says…nothing? Time for some leadership. Especially if you want those grassroots contributors to keep contributing.
Is this a case of moving to the center? Triangulation? What happened to CHANGE?
I am perfectly willing to retract everything I’ve just written if someone — anyone — can offer me a reasonable explanation for this. I see several other alternatives including renewing the Protect America Act, not allowing telecom immunity, or tightening the provisions for requesting warrants, since it’s been PROVEN over and over again that there is a complete abuse of discretion in how these are requested.
C’mon, let’s have some transparency. Tell us why you feel compelled to subvert the US Constitution.
I’m waiting.
Sphere: Related ContentOrganizing for Obama: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Resolve
Four years ago I was sure there wasn’t another Democrat living in this city. It wasn’t an unreasonable thing to believe, given that our representative is a 5-term Republican who voted for the war, thinks we should wiretap whoever we want, and consistently votes for Bush policies with full confidence that he’ll be sent back to the House with the same 20-point spread he gets every time he runs for re-election. Hell, he doesn’t even run. Supporters put up a few signs and his name is at the top of the ballot, and that’s about it.
This district is just about as red as they come.
When I received the notice that there was going to be an organizing meeting for Obama tonight, I almost didn’t go. Not because I don’t want to support him, but because it would have been really depressing to walk into a room with 20 or so people and know that we didn’t stand a chance of changing many minds. At the same time, I knew not going would be giving up before I started. So I sent the RSVP a couple of weeks ago and added it to the calendar.
My husband is still in the Republican camp, though he has changed his party affiliation to Independent and voted for Obama in the primary. He’s not at all enthused about the political process and less enthused at the prospect of me becoming an activist some 20-odd years into our marriage. When I grabbed my keys to the Prius and gave him a half-hearted invitation to attend, he used the Laker game as an excuse and didn’t question me too closely about what exactly it was I was doing…it didn’t quite sink in that I was going to go beyond the occasional online donation and actually toss my name into a hat as a volunteer. I think he figured it out when I came home with the window sign and bumper sticker. (He’s still pissed about the MOMocrats sticker on the car…but it’s staying anyway).
Enough about me. Off I went to the meeting. After my GPS failed me twice, I finally found the place and was only 10 minutes late. I knew attendance was expected to be higher than originally assumed, but when I walked into the room I was unprepared for an utterly energized room of over 200 people to be on their feet applauding the District coordinator, Deborah Dent. The sound was like thunder and the ovation went on and didn’t stop there. I think we were on our feet or applauding for the majority of the meeting; that is, when I wasn’t twittering what was going on.
Energy. Light. Enthusiasm. People of all ages, from 14-80, men, women, boys, girls. People’s mothers, fathers, sons, daughters. Republicans, veterans, independent voters, Hillary supporters, lawyers and garbage collectors. All in one room for one purpose. Pure energy poured out of that room. Meet some of the people:
Graham is 17. He’s been homeschooled, is extremely passionate. He’s wearing a shirt his sister gave him that says “If I was old enough to vote, I’d vote for Barack Obama.” He’s attending Moorpark College, studying political science and international relations. He’s involved in political groups on campus and plans to campaign for Obama in swing states. He is articulate and intelligent, with a deep well of passion running underneath his calmer exterior.
Kathy is the mother of 5 children, all under the age of 10. She was raised a Republican in a Republican family. Her mother attends meetings at the Republican club in Simi Valley still, her husband is also Republican. She’s here to secure her children’s futures. She doesn’t believe the Republicans can do that, but she does believe Obama has the leadership and answers.
Cal is an older gentleman. He gets emotional when he speaks of his reasons for being there. He says he’s inspired, that he’s been giving money to the campaign, but believes it’s time now to get involved in more than giving.
Karen has never been very political, but thinks there is too much at stake not to be involved.
Another gentleman about my age (I didn’t catch his name), stands up and declares that he’s a lifelong Republican who has been proud of his country. And while he doesn’t want to say he’s not proud of his country, he is not proud of its leadership. His hope is that Barack Obama can restore the proud and strong leadership position that has made us proud before and can again.
Tom represents Veterans for Obama. He says that veterans have special moral authority in this campaign, because they can speak against McCain. While he respects McCain’s service, he does not believe McCain has the skill or the necessary authority to lead us out of the war and into better times. He will be traveling the country, speaking on behalf of the veterans who feel abandoned and pushed away by the current administration.
A Hillary supporter stands (I didn’t catch her name either). There are about 10 who raise their hands when asked if they were former Hillary supporters. She says she’s here because she wants change, and that change will come with Obama as president. She is less concerned with any identification with personality and more concerned that a Democrat be elected. She is here for the candidate. She’s energized.
Another Hillary supporter is a lawyer who says she really wants to want to get out of bed in the morning, something that she thinks is an effort right now.
Don is another older gentleman who, through tears, says that he supports Obama because we all need to get together and make change happen. He hasn’t seen anyone else who can do it. Don’s passion touches everyone in the room, including me.
The next speaker is a woman in her 60′s who says she worked for JFK’s campaign and then for RFK’s campaign, that her mother also worked for the RFK campaign and was there on the night in June when he was assassinated. She says she was so disillusioned that she drifted away from any political involvement, married, moved to Simi, raised kids, supported her husband’s career, and held a cynical view of politics and politicians. Until Obama. Her words: “I feel like a kid again!” I can tell she means it.
Dick Phillips is the final speaker. He is the president of the Camarillo Democrats Club and was supposed to be there to lead everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance. He is late because he was with a group picketing a Strickland event with Mitt Romney in Thousand Oaks where they were highlighting the Stricklands’ acceptance of the Big tobacco lobbyists’ money to fund their campaign. In the course of their picket, their group was assaulted — physically — by several Strickland supporters. He had to stay to give police reports. This is the politics of bedroom communities that are struggling to change from the old to the new. It’s not just here, it’s all over the nation.
The rest of the meeting is spent describing opportunities and upcoming needs for phonebanking, voter registration, house parties and the like. Despite the everydayness of the topic, there’s an underlying river of enthusiasm and creativity flowing. People have come from all over, as far away as Ojai, Simi Valley and as near as Camarillo. All of us have the sense that we are, as a collective whole, on the brink of doing something important, life-changing, even world-changing.
Though it’s understood that California is solidly Democrat and trending toward even more solid standing there, that doesn’t mean there isn’t work to do. People are planning already for trips to Nevada and Arizona, to other swing states where they will canvas and help organize other groups. This small group of people turned Santa Barbara blue, and thanks to the hard work they put in with voter registrations, for the first time in years, there are more Democrats registered than Republicans.
The work to be done, the ground being laid, isn’t just for Barack Obama. It’s the work of building this movement into a nation-changing groundswell where we send Representatives to Congress that won’t compromise on the FISA bill, aren’t afraid to stand up for the Constitution they pledged to defend, won’t waver on doing what’s right. There are at least 200 people fired up and ready to go to accomplish just that.
When you hear Barack Obama give his speech about how one person stood up in the room, and then the room stood up, and then the city, and then the state, and then the nation, believe it. Believe it with all your heart, because I saw it with my own eyes. Young, old, red, blue, veteran, housewife, worker, retiree…all standing for change in one room in a community where I hardly believed change was desired, much less possible.
Hope. All kinds of hope, bundled up in one room, focused on taking the hope out of the room, into the community, into the cities, into the states, and into the White House.
Believe it. Change is coming.
Sphere: Related ContentMcCain-Obama Tax Proposals, Crunched
Here’s a screen capture of the bottom line numbers, as crunched by CNN. The entire video is available on Mother Jones blog.
This further illustrates the point I was making in this post.
Sphere: Related ContentObama and McCain’s Tax Policies Compared
The Tax Policy Center has done an analysis of the tax plans put forth by Barack Obama and John McCain. The conclusions are interesting. From the abstract:
On “corporate welfare”:
Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate “corporate welfare.” Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don’t cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.
On the Bush Tax cuts:
Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.7 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush’s tax cuts, the true cost of McCain’s policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.1 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.
On the beneficiaries of tax cuts:
Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.
The full report is here (PDF).
What should voters take away from this? They have a clear-cut choice. The McCain plan offers benefits to high-income taxpayers; the Obama plan offers benefits to lower to middle income taxpayers.
Here’s the thing. People who are in those high-income brackets are able to put groceries on their tables and gas in their cars, even when the gas costs upwards of $4.50/gallon. Hypothetically, if it costs everyone $40K per year to live comfortably (let’s not make it the bare minimum to stay above the poverty line), then dollars earned above that comfort line that are taxed at a higher rate still represent extra dollars in the pockets of high earners.
When I hear someone say to me that they hit a windfall year income-wise and then object to paying tax on it, I get bugged. Really bugged. Because even after taxes, they’ve got 50% of a windfall in their pocket. The guy making 40K a year is lucky to put away something for retirement, and only dreams of a windfall.
There are many, many more of the 40K earners than the windfall folks, which is why it seems easier to implement the McCain plan; e.g., a little from many adds up to a lot. The problem is that those who are not at that 40K minimum comfort level stand less of a chance of ever moving past the minimum. If economic hard times hit, like they are right now, Joe Windfall will still have half of the windfall, while John MiddleClass will be trying to figure out how to stay in the same place that he was a year ago.
For most of us, we are not in the same place we were a year ago. That small cushion that we had has been deflated by rising food, fuel and utility prices, all necessities. In the meantime we’re losing homes, and the country as a whole has a 3 trillion dollar war debt to deal with.
To me, it seems clear that it’s time to give the John MiddleClass a break. If that means a piece of Joe Windfall’s windfall has to be paid in tax, so be it.
Sphere: Related ContentObama Resigns from Trinity – Are we happy now?
He was left with little choice, but it makes me sad. Churches should not become political footballs.
