One of the most daunting challenges any new president faces is prioritizing all the programs that were promised as a candidate. Last night, despite all the grumblings about format, Tom Brokaw got in a very important follow up, when he asked the candidates to prioritize energy, healthcare, and entitlement reform.
Obama, who went second (after McCain argued that we can handle three of the largest issues in a generation at the same time) and made a choice:
We're going to have to prioritize, just like a family has to prioritize. Now, I've listed the things that I think have to be at the top of the list.
Energy we have to deal with today, because you're paying $3.80 here in Nashville for gasoline, and it could go up. And it's a strain on your family budget, but it's also bad for our national security, because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.
So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we're going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done. So that would be priority number one.
This debate had a tremendous amount of discussion on energy, which, Americans have realized, is at the center of almost every major issue of the day, from getting the country out of a recession to limiting the power of an emboldened Russia. The fact that Obama has made it clear that energy is his first priority is an extremely welcome sign, and the strong focus on energy policy last night is a watershed moment in Presidential politics.
As Simon pointed out, current proposals on how to reform energy policy illustrate that we may need to come to a much different understanding of the urgency of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and exactly how much that might cost. If one wants to put energy reform in the context of the Apollo project, it is worth noting that Apollo, in its peak year, represented 2.2% of the federal budget. The proposed $15 billion per year would be more like 0.005% (compared to the 2007 spending). If energy reform is to truly be a major national priority, it must be thought about in that context.
Today, U.S. Rep. John Dingell, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (D-MI) and U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality released a much anticipated 461 page discussion draft of their climate change legislation. From their statement to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
Politically, scientifically, legally, and morally, the question has been settled: regulation of greenhouse gasses in the United States in coming. We believe that elected and accountable representatives in the Congress, not the Executive Branch, should properly design that regulatory program. The only remaining question is what form that regulation will take.
Indeed, as we learned from the debate on Boxer-Lieberman-Warner in the Senate, the remaining question – what form the regulation will take – is the hardest one to answer. The Dingell-Boucher proposal is a welcome addition to the conversation that will occur in Congress next year.
With the economy in a recession, the political feasibility of passing climate legislation appears tougher now than just a few months ago. Maybe in a forum with presidential candidates, someone can ask a question about it. I believe there’s one coming up sometime soon….
With news coming that the Senate has loaded up the bailout bill with a number of tax provisions, including an AMT patch and crucial tax credits for renewable energy, the House vote on the proposal, should it pass the Senate, looks to be a defining moment for pay-go.
Pay-go has been the largest stumbling block in extending renewable energy tax credits – a package so popular that it recently passed the Senate with a vote of 93 to 2. Now, a bipartisan agreement by Leaders Reid and McConnell to include these provisions in the bailout bill, which is predicted to pass the Senate tonight, will only be derailed if some in the House continue to insist on pay-go.
NDN has long argued that pay-go creates far too much arbitrary, artificial rigidity in the legislative and governing processes, and this bailout serves as a perfect example. Should a bipartisan bill designed to rescue the economy on the order of $700 billion fail due to a pay-go fight over far less costly tax provisions that are partially offset, the legacy of pay-go, a provision that doubtless has limited life to it anyway, will go from murky to downright laughable.
As the economy slides into recession, one can only hope that the popularity and job creation benefits of the tax credits, especially those for renewable energy, will garner enough votes to more than offset the votes lost from pay-go proponents.
In yet another episode of the Sarah Palin-Katie Couric serial interview saga, Palin talked to the CBS anchorwoman about issues ranging from what newspapers she reads (she didn't name a specific one) to whether a 15-year-old girl raped by her father should have access to an abortion (she would encourage the child not to).
The interview aired last night and follows previous Palin-Couric interviews, which have been seen as disastrous for Palin, as she stumbled her way through them or just stopped talking and started smiling. I haven't yet been able to find the rumored segment of a portion of a Palin-Couric interview in which the Alaska governor can name only one U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roe V. Wade). If anyone unearths it, please let me know.
Notably, the Couric interviews have prompted criticism not only from Democrats, but also from prominent conservatives, including George Will.
One interesting tidbit: making small talk between different segments of the interview, Palin did make a candid admission to Couric that, "Sweat is my sanity." Seems moose hunting has taken a backseat for the time being.
With a few exceptions here and there (like not being able to name a single newspaper), Palin seems a bit surer of herself in this interview.
You can judge for yourself here:
Palin also found time to do a radio interview that involved decidedly more softballs (and decidely more six-packs).
According to ABC News:
In a radio interview with conservative blogger and columnist Hugh Hewitt, Palin says she’s not concerned by criticisms of her performance in recent network interviews with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, which many -- including some former conservative supporters -- have said showed her unprepared to be vice president.
"Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it," Palin told Hewitt.
Palin, who has complained this week about “gotcha journalism” on the campaign trail, told Hewitt that she invites the scrutiny, and that her recent media appearances have helped her better articulate her positions and prepare for her upcoming vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday.
“I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago,” Palin said when asked by Hewitt whether the Gibson and Couric interviews felt like “pop quizzes designed to embarrass” her. "I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that’s okay, those are good testing grounds. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don’t fight it. I invite it.”
And more from ABC News on Palin's new Joe Six-Pack gambit:
As the political world braces for Wednesday's Wall Street bailout vote in the U.S. Senate, Sarah Palin is stepping up her "Joe-Six Pack" pitch.
"It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it," Palin said Tuesday on the Hugh Hewitt show. "But it's motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe Six-Pack like me."
Last week, NDN Fellow and Green Project Director Michael Moynihan released an essay calling for an investment in new, clean infrastructure. Clean infrastructure investment, which includes electricity grid modernization, public transportation, renewable energy and efficiency, and a variety of other ideas, is crucial in both ensuring near-term economic growth and long-term prosperity, as we create a low-carbon economy.
Saturday in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman issued a similar call, arguing to "Green the Bailout."
The point is, we don’t just need a bailout. We need a buildup. We need to get back to making stuff, based on real engineering not just financial engineering. We need to get back to a world where people are able to realize the American Dream — a house with a yard — because they have built something with their hands, not because they got a "liar loan" from an underregulated bank with no money down and nothing to pay for two years. The American Dream is an aspiration, not an entitlement.
…
Indeed, when this bailout is over, we need the next president — this one is wasted — to launch an E.T., energy technology, revolution with the same urgency as this bailout. Otherwise, all we will have done is bought ourselves a respite, but not a future. The exciting thing about the energy technology revolution is that it spans the whole economy — from green-collar construction jobs to high-tech solar panel designing jobs. It could lift so many boats.
A national agenda focused on investing in new, clean infrastructure has the potential to begin to pull America out of the current economic downturn, enhance energy security, confront climate change, and ensure future prosperity through the creation of dynamic new 21st century, low-carbon economy. Stay tuned to the Green Project’s work on clean infrastructure moving forward.
This election cycle, many people have complained that the traditional media has not been doing its job all that well. The general complaint is that instead of giving voters the information they need to make informed and intelligent decisions, the ratings-driven mainstream media increasingly focuses on distractions and sound bites. Some have called for the reform of our traditional media; others have simply bypassed it.
We believe in engaging the non-traditional media. Here are a few of our new-media mentions from the past week:
Yesterday, NDN Globalization Initiative Chair Dr. Robert Shapiro and NDN President Simon Rosenberg released a compelling essay that provided further analysis of and additional recommendations for addressing the worsening financial crisis. In their essay, Shapiro and Rosenberg make it clear that stabilizing the housing sector and keeping people in their homes must be a top priority of any bailout plan.
In the midst of the contentious and historic debate on the financial crisis, Congress also has been considering the need for a second stimulus package. Today, NDN Fellow and Green Project Director Michael Moynihan challenges policymakers to jumpstart the economy in a manner that both creates jobs now and helps ensure America's future prosperity through investment in new, clean infrastructure. NDN applauds Congress for its substantial progress on tax credits for renewable energy and encourages policymakers to remain focused on creating a 21st century low-carbon economy through clean infrastructure investment. In an essay below, Michael offers six specific recommendations for a second stimulus package focused on clean infrastructure.
Such a stimulus package will begin the crucial task of accelerating our nation's development of a 21st century economy.
Accelerating the Development of a 21st Century Economy: Investing in Clean Infrastructure by Michael Moynihan
The debate now underway in the Congress on a financial bailout is not the only important piece of business before the Congress in its waning days. With a real economic recession now all but certain, Congress is considering a second stimulus package. But at this critical moment in our nation’s history, how Congress addresses the need to get our economy moving again may be as important as whether it passes a second package. Hindsight shows that the tax rebates provided in the first package were spent mainly on foreign oil and other imported goods. A second round of rebates will do little to jumpstart the economy. They will do even less to address America’s long-term economic challenges -- coping with higher energy and commodity prices and increasing the incomes of working families who have faced stagnating incomes for years. Fortunately, there is a way to stimulate short-term demand while investing in our future. Congress should move forward on a stimulus package that includes investments in new, clean infrastructure.
Infrastructure investments have an innate appeal as stimulus measures. America’s infrastructure needs are so great, and funding so scarce, that a long list of projects are teed up and ready to go, lacking only disbursements to begin stimulating our economy while creating the basis for future growth. Infrastructure spending stays at home and, for that reason, has a higher multiplier effect than money spent on imports. And, in general, construction jobs pay well, particularly for those who lack a college education. For these reasons, Speaker Pelosi and other leading Members of Congress have included infrastructure spending measures in the packages they have proposed.
The shock to our economy this summer from soaring energy prices showed that our infrastructure needs going forward are both greater and different than they appeared until recently. America’s physical plant, from the types and location of buildings to our transportation network to the electrical grid, was not built for $4 per gallon gasoline. As we look at higher energy prices -- not just for oil, but also natural gas and coal, whose prices have steadily risen as well -- and the challenge of climate change, we must also look at retiring our nation's outdated energy-inefficient infrastructure and replacing it with a new low-carbon, efficient infrastructure that is second to none.
Travelers to Asia and the Middle East leaving from New York’s Kennedy Airport may rightly wonder which part of the world is developed and which is developing. The state-of-the-art infrastructure that China displayed at the Olympics will power immense productivity improvements in coming decades. And while the headlines are still of pollution and dependence on dirty coal, China is moving rapidly ahead with building a smart electrical grid that automatically switches power to where it is needed, investing in biofuels and electric cars, building out solar infrastructure and creating a fast-growing, dynamic economic sector. In contrast, unless we put in place incentives to retrofit or replace it, will be a drag on productivity and growth in coming decades.
Below are six proposals NDN offers to accelerate the building of clean infrastructure now. Each of these will help get money onto the street quickly to stimulate demand, help American families solve problems related to high energy costs and build the clean infrastructure America needs to compete effectively in the 21st century. Congress should pass legislation to:
Fund the National Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal resources to fund worthy, approved clean infrastructure projects (which would not only increase funds available to infrastructure, but also represent a vast improvement over the earmark system).
Modernize the electrical grid through use of smart computer technology and more transmission capacity, both to manage demand and move America’s tremendous wealth of wind and solar power to where it is needed.
Provide tax credits for Americans to winterize their homes as the cold weather approaches.
Provide tax credits for the purchase of Energy Star appliances to reduce demand for electricity.
Provide aid to states and cities to expand mass transportation service and perform maintenance on overburdened systems.
Provide a tax credit to people who buy a new, fuel efficient car and take an old gas guzzling jalopy off the road, which has the added bonus of aiding the weakened automobile industry.
There are other ways for Congress to promote clean infrastructure going forward -- through funding rail, promoting green national building standards and updating our electricity regulation regime to promote distributed generation of renewable power, among other approaches. But these six proposals can help us move toward clean infrastructure now as we get the economy moving again.
Our nation now faces a critical choice: do we make 20th century investments or do we invest in a 21st century economy -- clean infrastructure, renewable energy and new skills for our workers? If Congress takes these steps, it can pass a stimulus measure that will not only create jobs and help our economy in the short term but also accelerate the creation of a prosperous 21st century economy.
Last night, the U.S. Senate passed tax credits for renewable energy, including extending crucial tax credits for solar and wind energy. NDN congratulates the Senate for mustering overwhelming bipartisan support for this legislation, and encourages the House to follow suit and deliver this legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Tuesday approved a package to extend $18 billion in tax credits for using renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal and also provide incentives to cut energy consumption.
The move, which alternative energy companies had been lobbying for all year, sent shares of solar power companies higher in after-hours trade. The delay in extending the tax credits had been a major damper on those stocks this year. The Senate was seen as the biggest roadblock after it shot down the extension eight times this year.
"Getting past what has been largely the deal-breaker in the past should be positive," Wedbush Morgan analyst Al Kaschalk said of the impact the vote would have on solar stocks.
Under the proposal, which will be part of a much bigger tax bill, the tax credit for producing electricity from wind would be extended for one year. The credit for other renewable sources, such as wave and ocean tide projects that generate power, would be extended for two years.
The residential and business tax breaks for solar energy would be extended for eight years.
"Solar is the winner here," Raymond James alternative energy analyst Pavel Molchanov said.
For more on the importance of solar energy to the American economy, read Solar Energy: The Case for Action, an extensive report released in August by NDN Green Project Director Michael Moynihan.
New York City -- What did it mean when oil prices today spiked by their largest amount in history, $16 in one day? It means something is seriously wrong with the oil price market. Analysts had no obvious explanation for the rise other than to say that it may have had something to do with the October contract expiring. But a price spike of this magnitude --oil prices have now traveled from lows in the $90s last week to $130 today --is alarming. And oil price volatility of this magnitude in the absence of any magic changes in supply or demand is frankly unacceptable over the long term for a commodity on which so much of our economy depends.
A hint into the source of this volatility was provided at the U.S. Senate's recent summit on energy. The fireworks commenced when Senators Bill Nelson of Florida and Maria Cantwell of Washington asked Goldman Sachs' COO, Gary Cohn, about the need to reign in speculation in the oil markets. The Senators cited a recent study by Michael Masters, manager of a hedge fund and a trader himself, blaming volatility on speculation on indices.
Northwestern CEO Doug Steeland echoed his belief that speculation was responsible for the bulk of volatility in the price of oil. Cohn answered that Goldman's position was that market prices were set by supply and demand and, in support, he cited a recent CFTC, trade by trade analsysis, that showed no outright market manipulation.
However, Cohn also noted that in setting up the index market, Goldman and others' goal was to create a buy side among pension funds and other long term investors for oil futures to balance the supply side of oil producers seeking money for exploration. And, indeed, pension and others have become large players in the index market as energy futures have become another investment "class."
Today's volatility showed signs of institututions or traders shifting large blocks of money into an asset class to balance chaos in other markets. This is not outright market manipulation. But the emergence of oil futures indices as an asset play for huge non-energy investors, chasing yield, may be responsible for the unacceptable volatility in these markets.
Congress and the CFTC should be examining whether this is the case and, if so, devise measures to reduce the the exposure of this nation-critical market to large shifts in money and what hedge fund traders like to call, cross market correlation.
The passage last night by the House of Democratic-sponsored legislation to extend renewable tax credits and impose a national renewble electricity standard in exchange for expanding drilling is good news. Crafted specifically to appeal to Republicans with the inclusion of generous drilling provisions, but also including incentives for renewables which ostensibly enjoy bi-partisan support, this comprehensive legislation should have garnered many Republican votes. Instead, only 15 Republicans voted for the legislation and President Bush has threatened to veto it. Given the reluctance of the Bush Administration to take yes for an answer, one has to ask, what exactly does it want?
The answer appears to be legislation entirely favorable to oil without support for renewables, or else, no legislation at all. While the legislation thus faces significant hurdles to eventual passage, it at least serves to call the Republican leadership out on their real view toward building a low carbon energy future.
Thoughts about our content? Suggestions for how we can improve our blog? Anything else on your mind that you want to share with us? Please, send it our way - shoot me an e-mail at dboscov-ellen@ndn.org. Thanks, and hope to hear from you!
