MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY OPPOSED IMPORTANT INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY
· McCain Opposed Legislation Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit; Recent Study Concluded More than 116,000 Jobs Could be Lost If the Tax Credit is Not Extended. In 2 006, John McCain voted against a proposal sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman that included a four year extension of the production tax credit. In addition, McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that sought to extend the production tax credit to 2011. While McCain missed the vote to on the bill, according to his staff he did, in fact, support the continuing the filibuster, which eventually killed the bill. A 2008 economic study by Navigant Consulting finds that “over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress, according to preliminary results released today by the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association.” [Vote 42, SCR 83, Rejected 46-52: R 3-52; D 42-2 (ND 39-1, SD 3-1); I 1-0, 3/14/06; HR 6, Vote 425, 12/13/07, Failed 59-40: R 9-39 D 48-1 I 2-0; Forbes, 12/13/07; U.S. News & World Report, 12/14/07; American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association press release, 2/4/08]
· McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Tax Credits For Renewable Energy Production. McCain voted against several amendments aimed at encouraging renewable energy production. [Vote #42, 3/14/06; Vote #158, 6/28/05; Vote #125, 5/21/01]
· McCain Opposed The Farm Bill That Contained $300 Million in Renewable Biofuels Funding. McCain said he would veto the farm bill that would have provided “$300 million in mandatory funding for payments to support production of advanced biofuels including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel." There is also "$250 million in grants and loan guarantees for renewable energy and energy efficiency systems for agriculture and rural small businesses." [WSJ, 6/2/08; McCain Prepared Remarks, 5/19/08; Reuters, 5/22/08]
· McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Renewable Energy Mandates And Said “I’m Not One Who Believes That We Need To Subsidize Things.” McCain has repeatedly voted against renewable energy mandates, including a measure to require that renewable sources be used to produce at least 10 percent of the electricity sold by electric utilities by 2020.McCain, when asked what his position is on subsidies for wind and solar, said “I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind in dustry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine.” [Vote 141, 6/16/05; Vote 50, 3/14/02; Vote 55, 3/21/02; Vote 50, 3/14/02; Grist, 10/1/07]
MCCAIN REPEATEDLY OPPOSED INCENTIVES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC AND HYBRIDS CARS
· McCain Opposed A Fiscal Stimulus Packag e That Included Up To $3,000 In Tax Rebates For Plug-In Hybrid or Fully Electric Vehicles. “By a single vote, Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an expansive fiscal stimulus package championed by Democrats, as partisan rancor engulfed the effort to inject a quick burst of spending into the slowing economy. … Aides to Mr. McCain said that he would have sided with the Republican leaders and that his vote was not needed.” According to Detroit News, the “measure included up to $3,000 in tax rebates for purchasers of plug-in hybrid vehicles or fully electric vehicles, providing about $993 million over 10 years in consumer tax credits for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles.” According to Congressional Quarterly, President Bush opposed the bill. [HR 5140, Vote 8, 2/6/08, Failed 58-41; New York Times, 2/7/08; Detroit News, 2/12/08]
· McCain Opposed Legislation That Included a $3,000 Tax Credit For The Purchase An Electric Plug-In Hybrid Cars. McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that would have stripped tax cuts for oil companies and instead fund tax incentives for renewable energy. While McCain missed the vote to on the bill, according to his staff he did, in fact, support the continuing the filibuster, which eventually killed the bill. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Consumers would have received a $3,000 tax credit for buying an electric plug-in hybrid and a tax credit of up to $4,000 for installing solar panels to power their homes. [HR 6, Congressional Quarterly Senate Vote 425, 12/13/07, Failed 59-40: R 9-39 D 48-1 I 2-0; Forbes, 12 /13/07; The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/14/07]
· McCain Called A $15 Million Earmark For Research For The Development Of An Electric Car “Egregious.” In a critique of earmarks in August 1995, McCain noted $15 million in research for electrical vehicle technology as an egregious provision worth mentioning. McCain claimed, “number of other provisions which bear mentioning, because they are so egregious… including another $15 million for research on electric vehicle technology.” [Congressional Record, 8/10/95]
MCCAIN HAS OPPOSED ENERGY SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD HURT THE OIL INDUSTRY AND HIS TAX PLAN WOULD GIVE BILLIONS AWAY TO BIG OIL
· The McCain Campaign Is “Guided By Lobbyists” That Includes 18 Campaign Advisers Who Have Lobbied For The 0il Industry. According to the Washington Post, the McCain campaign has “been guided by lobbyists.” In addition, 18 McCain campaign advisors or fundraisers have lobbied for the oil industry, including Chevron, Exxon, BP, The American Petroleum Institute, Shell, and Koch Industries. [Washington Post, 12/31/07; Federal Lobby Disclosure Reports]
· McCain Voted Against A Windfall Profits Tax On Big Oil to be Used to Help Families Cope With High Energy Prices.. [Vote 331, S. 2020, Motion rejected 35-64: R 0-55; D 34-9; I 1-0, 11/17/05]
· McCain Voted Against Immediate Tax20Refund Checks To Help Families Pay For Increased Gas Prices And Energy Bills. McCain voted against a Lieberman-Daschle amendment to provide immediate tax refund checks to help boost economy and help families pay for increased gas prices and energy bills; and modify reduction in the maximum marginal rate of tax. [HR 1836, Vote 139, 5/22/01, Rejected 43-56: R 0-49, D 43-7]
· McCain’s Tax Plan Will Cut Taxes For Oil Companies by Nearly $4 Billion – Including $1.2 Billion for Exxon. A study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund noted that the corporate tax rate cut included in the McCain tax plan “would deliver a $3.8 billion tax cut to the five largest American oil companies” – ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Ma rathon. According to their analysis of Exxon’s financial statements, the company would receive a tax savings of $1.2 billion under the McCain plan. [“The McCain Plan to Cut Oil Company Taxes by Nearly $4 Billion,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/27/08]
MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY OPPOSED EFFORTS TO INCREASE FUEL EFFIECIENCY TO HELP WEAN US OFF OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL
· McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Mandating Phased Increases In CAFE Standards. In 2005, McCain voted against mandating phased increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Passenger vehicles made before 2008 would have to average 25 miles per gallon. The standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2016. Non-passenger vehicles made before 2008 would have to average 17 miles per gallon. By model year 2016, the standard would rise to an average of 27.5 miles per gallon. In 2003, McCain voted increasing minimum fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles from 25 miles per gallon in model year 2006 to 40 miles per gallon in model year 2014 and from 17 miles per gallon in model year 2006 to 27.5 miles per gallon in model year 2014. In 2002, McCain voted against directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. [Vote 157, HR 6, Failed 28-67: R 5-48, D 22-19, I 1-0, 6/23/05; Vote #309, Failed 32-65, R 4-47, D 27-18, I 1-0, 7/29/03; HR 4, Vote 94, 4/25/02, Passed 88-11, R 45-3, D 42-8, I 1-0]
ANNCR: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.
MCCAIN ADMITS DOMESTIC DRILLI NG IS A “PSYCHOLOGICAL” BENEFIT THAT WON’T DELIVER ANY SHORT-TERM RELIEF; OFFSHORE DRILLING EXPECTED TO HAVE AN “INSIGNIFICANT” IMPACT ON GAS PRICES BEFORE 2030
· McCain Admitted His Offshore Drilling Proposal Would Have Mostly “Psychological” Benefits. “Yesterday, McCain admitted that his offshore drilling proposal would probably have mostly ‘psychological’ benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy reports. At a town hall in Fresno that primarily focused on energy issues, McCain was asked a question about the price of gas and the viability of various short-term solutions. ‘In the short term I'd like to give20you a little relief for the summer on the gas tax,’ McCain began, referring to his controversial proposal to temporarily suspend the federal tax on gasoline. But then he made a surprisingly candid admission: ‘I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.’” [MSNBC’s First Read, 6/24/08]
· McCain Adviser Holtz-Eakin Admitted That Increasing Domestic Oil Production Would Have No Immediate I mpact On Gas Prices. According to the Los Angeles Times, McCain’s senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters on a conference call that, “allowing new offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on supplies or gas prices. But, he said, ‘there is an important element in signaling to world oil markets that we are serious.’” [Los Angeles Times, 6/18/08]
· The Bush-McCain Plan To Allow Drilling Offshore Would Take, According To Experts, At Least Seven And Probably 10 Years "Before Any Benefits Were Apparent." "President Bush proposed Wednesday to allow drilling off U.S. coastlines as part of a plan to boost oil supplies, b ut his plan is likely to go nowhere because of a reluctant Democratic-majority Congress, which fears environmental costs. Even if U.S. coastal waters were opened to exploration, experts agree that it would take at least seven and probably 10 years before any benefits were apparent." [McClatchy, 6/18/08]
· Bush Administration, Department of Energy: Offshore Drilling Will Not Have a “Significant Impact” On Prices Before 2030 and Production Would Not Start Before 2017. The Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007, prepared last February by the Energy Information Administration found: “The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. … Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” [Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007, 2/07]
· New York Times: The Bush-McCain Offshore Drilling Plan “Will Not Bring Short-Term Relief From 4$-A-Gallon Gasoline, Nor Can=2 0It Play Much More Than A Marginal Role In Any Long-Term Strategy For Energy Independence.” The Bush-McCain offshore drilling plan "will not bring short-term relief from $4-a-gallon gasoline, nor can it play much more than a marginal role in any long-term strategy for energy independence." [Editorial, NYT, 7/15/08]
· Los Angeles Times: McCain’s Plan To End The Moratorium On Offshore Drilling Is A “Worthless Suggestion” And “The Destruction Of Our Coasts Is Too High A Price To Pay For A Negligible Decrease In Gas Prices That’s2020 Years Down The Road.” “President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain both recently proposed an end to the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling. What's really needed, though, is a moratorium on worthless suggestions from politicians for lowering gas prices. GOP leaders like Bush and McCain are rolling out their own nonsensical non-solutions to the energy crisis after the Senate this month beat back an equally ridiculous attempt at gas-pump pandering by Democrats. … Enter Bush, who on Wednesday said he would end his father's 1990 presidential moratorium on most coastal drilling if Congress would lift its own, separate ban. His reasoning was so contradictory that it's a wonder he could finish his news conference without cracking up. While conceding that the long-term solution to high oil prices is to pursue alternative energy sources, he argued that "in the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply." The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that even if oil companies are allowed to tap the 18 billion barrels under coastal waters that are currently off-limits, oil prices wouldn't be expected to fall until 2030. How is that a short-term solution? Coastal drilling isn't just opposed by a bunch of Prius-driving greenies from Santa Barbara. Existing moratoriums were put in place at the behest of tourism interests, fishermen , small businesses and coastal dwellers. That's because drilling in these waters benefits oil companies but causes direct economic harm to everyone else by trashing beaches, poisoning marine life and ruining views. … The destruction of our coasts is too high a price to pay for a negligible decrease in gas prices that's 20 years down the road.” [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 6/21/08]
· Gov. Schwarzenegger Said That Anyone Who Tells You That Ending The Ban On Offshore Drilling Will Lower Gas Prices “Anytime Soon Is Blowing Smoke.” “In a strong rebuke Thursday of lifting the b an on U.S. offshore oil drilling, California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger seemed to knock the standard-bearers of his party: President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Schwarzenegger, a long critic of his party of the environment, used surprisingly frank language to buck politicians who support lifting the 27-year-old ban of offshore drilling. He did not criticize anyone by name. ‘Politicians have been throwing around all kinds of ideas in response to the skyrocketing energy prices, from the rethinking of nuclear power to pushing biofuels and more renewables and ending the ban on offshore drilling, it goes on and on the list,’ Schwarzenegger said. … ‘But, anyone who tells you this will lower our gas prices anytime soon is blowing smoke.’” [ABC News, 6/26/08]
wispolitics.com
|
