Another Republican Attack On The Middle Class

I admire consistency, I really do. And so, I admire the Republican Party.

-on 6/10/08, killed a bill (by holding the Democrats to 60 votes, nine short of the number needed to prevent a potential filibuster) which would have (according to sfgate.com) "impose(d) a windfall profits tax of 25 percent on the major oil companies, the proceeds going to subsidize new renewable energy." It would have given government the leeway to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

-the same day, blocked by a 50-44 voted debate on a measure which would have extended tax credits for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, opposed by GOP senators because it would have raised taxes on hedge-fund managers to pay for the tax credits.

-on 7/24/08, blocked an effort by House Democrats to release 70 million barrels of (approximately 10% of the total) of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Although 268 voted in favor and only 157 against, the measure failed because it needed a two-thirds vote, as it was brought up under a rule which would exclude amendments. (Republicans wanted a vote on granting new offshore oil leases, presumably so our yet-unborn grandchildren could benefit from a surge in oil production.)

Skeptical of the value or prudence of withdrawing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? This is from the 7/23/08 testimony of Joseph Romm before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:

The fact is we can easily increase supply temporarily, ease costs, and perhaps disrupt any speculators’ expectation that oil prices are a safe bet for high returns. The United States sits on 705 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Since it is 97 percent full, we could sell a half million barrels of oil per day for a year without increasing our exposure to a catastrophic oil disruption. The SPR would still be at 75 percent capacity.

Increasing the oil supply would alter the current psychology that oil prices will continue to rise due to growing demand and fixed supply. Investors and speculators in oil contracts would see that betting on higher prices is no longer a sure thing and it could scare the quick-buck speculators out of the market.

This SPR oil sale would also generate significant funds for the federal government. The SPR oil was bought at an average price of about $28 per barrel. It could sell for the market price, which could be anything from $100 to $130 per barrel. If the average sale price is $115 per barrel, the SPR oil would generate nearly $58 million per day. These funds could provide a rebate to low-income households, finance clean energy technologies, or expand mass transit systems, which have begun to strain under record ridership.

The Repub energy agenda: don't bother OPEC; don't support research into renewable energy sources; don't release oil now which would promptly increase supply and probably curtail energy speculation, thereby lowering prices; grant leases for more offshore oil drilling, which would not increase supplies for several years but might alleviate pressure on the energy industry and the federal government to develop alternative sources of energy. Or more simply, keep demand up, supply down, prices up, profits for the oil industry ever-soaring, and the middle class ever-declining.

Attacking A Smear

By now you have probably heard of, and possibly seen, the dust-up between Cliff May and Ed Schultz on Anderson Cooper 360 on Thursday, July 3, 2008 in which May charges "some on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good." This is the relevant portion of the argument:


MAY: Yes. And I think also on some of the more left-wing blogs, Obama is taking some hits.

But this does move him to the center. And, look, I want to put -- I'm not a big fan of his, but I'm going to put the best spin on it, which is that he understands the situation fairly well, certainly better than the Daily Kos does and some of those on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good.

SCHULTZ: Whoa. Whoa.

That is absolutely outrageous. That is outrageous for you to say that people on the left want to lose in Iraq. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that. This is the Fourth of July. We are Americans. We don't believe in fighting in Iraq the way we are doing. We're depleting our resources. That's ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: Well, Ed, just tell me how you're going to win in Iraq if we have no troops there.

SCHULTZ: You don't even know what the definition of win is.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: Tell me the definition of win is. If I don't know it, you tell me.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: We don't have enough money doing this. We are absolutely hurting ourselves staying in Iraq. The Iraqi people need to step up. The real enemy here is in Afghanistan.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: And they are.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: For you to sit here and say that liberals don't want to defend this country is unconscionable.

MAY: I didn't say it of you.

(CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: That is absolutely outrageous.

MAY: There are those on the left who would think that a U.S. defeat in Iraq would be like a U.S. defeat in Vietnam, an object lesson for Americans about the use of force.

SCHULTZ: Listen, Mr. May, I don't know where you get your information, but I spoke to Barack Obama face to face today.

MAY: Congratulations to you.

Schultz did well in denouncing this scurrilous charge, not unique to Cliff May. However, in a race in which the presumptive Democratic candidate has promised "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," the Democratic side can do even better. Perhaps something like this: ".... now that the Republican Party is carrying water for OPEC and endorsing price-gouging middle-class Americans" or "the Republican Party, working to keep oil prices high." Hopefully, some strategist, consultant, or public relations firm can come up with something snappier but, given the action by the Senate GOP on June 10, 2008 in blocking a bill which would have "opened the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel" and "made energy price gouging a federal crime," the charge seems only fair.

The Senate GOP Makes Its Stand

As of June 10, 2008 we now know a little more about where the Repub Party (at least in the United States Senate) stands on the issue of the American consumer.

On that day, Senate Republicans blocked two measures proposed by Democrats. One, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, would have "impose(d) a windfall profits tax of 25 percent on the major oil companies, the proceeds going to subsidize new renewable energy." According to Raymond J. Learsy on yahoo.com, "it would have given government the leeway to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel (the forever oil lobby and administration stymied NOPEC legislation) and made energy price gouging a federal crime." It fell nine votes short (51 to 43) of the 60 votes which would have been needed to break a GOP filibuster.

The other bill failed on a 50-44 vote and would have extended tax credits for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. The tax credits would have been paid for by increased taxes on hedge-fund managers, and so offended Repub lawmakers.

We have, clearly, a Repub Party opposed to the American consumer and alternative energy. But the GOP, never a party to "gloom and doom" politics, is maintaining a positive outloook: it stands foursquare in favor of OPEC, high energy prices, and white collar crime.