Why did Senator Obama support the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill?

[paulk]

It seems somewhat hypocritical of him to be criticizing Hillary Clinton's gas tax holiday as Washington "business as usual" in light of his support for this legislation.

I'm curious to hear what justifications Obama or his supporters have for the Senator's support of the Bush-Cheney energy policy...

[DJ13]

1. Hey, now thats a new question

6 months ago.

[Deep13]

3. So we aren't going to here about HC's 02 IWR vote anymore?

It's old news.

[Eric Condon]

25. Yeah, because the 2002 IWR vote was no big deal, right? nt

[rodeodance]

7. can you answer it or just snark??

[mahina]

11. Hi Rodeo, remember the last time we had this same conversation?

Same answer.

[paulk]

30. but it's never answered

it would seem to me that the proper vote for a progressive/liberal like Obama would have been "no".

Or is it that Obama isn't who he says he is?

Is it that he's actually a centrist, just like Hillary, and in fact, he's to the right of her on an important issue like energy?

[JuniperLea]

2. How about from a non-Obama supporter?

The way I understand it is this. He voted, the plan didn't pan out as presented, and he changed his mind about it. I would hope people still change their minds when they find they are wrong.

Hillary's gas plan is very flawed. And I agree with Obama on this one. It would indeed upset the supply and demand balance, creating a false increase in demand, and in the long run prices would go up for this reason. Seems logical BushCo would want a deal like this... McCain too.

[paulk]

21. of course people should change their mind when they are wrong

but doesn't this show bad judgement on his part?

I mean, he trusted the Republicans. He took them at their word.

It seems that the "judgement" issue is a cornerstone of his campaign. He has repeatedly attacked HRC for poor judgement, afterall - and pushed the idea that his judgement would be better than her's.

[msallied]

33. Yes, because all of us, especially politicians, should always be 100% infallible, right?

Give me a break. The idea is to take responsibility for your mistakes and admit you make them. If he attempted to work with Republicans in a Congress that was, at the time, controlled by Republicans, I'm not going to fault him for that. Look at every one of your Senators and Representatives voting records and you will find that you will be unhappy with some of their votes. That's politics.

[paulk]

37. but his main selling point is his superior judgement

it's not a matter of him making mistakes and admitting to them.

He's based a large part of his campaign around the idea that his judgement is better than his opponents.

Apparently that's not true - he got it wrong here and his opponent got it right. He criticizes her for being part of the status quo - for her "more of the same" Washington politics. Isn't that just what Obama has done here? Played the Washington quid pro quo/compromise game? Shouldn't he have taken a stand and said "no" to the Bush administration?

[democrattotheend]

4. My understanding

Was that the bill he voted for was a compromise bill that most Democrats voted for. I don't know all the particulars of it, but my understanding is that the bill was a mixed bag, some good, some bad. I think it resulted in a small net increase in the tax on oil companies.

[democracy1st]

5. Republicans always change legislation

[Muttocracy]

6. do you have the bill #? I get lost unless I can look at the real thing and voting records. nt

[jenmito]

8. He explained it MANY times already. It had lots of money for alternative energy in it

and although he tried to take out parts of the bill that should've been taken out, he couldn't. So he voted for it because it had more pros than cons.

[NatBurner]

23. what? he comprimised for the greater good?

how dare he?

[jenmito]

29. Yes. Imagine that!

:)

[paulk]

31. So, is this the "change" he's going to bring to Washington?

This is an end to the "status quo" I hear he's going to change?

Sounds like more of the same to me.

Sounds like just another midwestern Senator, selling out to the Bush administration for more ethanol subsidies.

[msallied]

34. You obviously know NOTHING about how legislation works.

[paulk]

38. since you've only been here a few weeks

I'll let that pass.

[Deep13]

9. It's because he's a...

[mahina]

10. That bill was supported by the Apollo Alliance too,

and celebrated when it passed. It did do a great deal for renewable suppliers. Like most bills, it was a compromise.

It's really disingenuous for Hillary supporters to claim this bill is a Bush-Cheney bill when groups lobbying for years for renewables supported it.

Sounds like something dragged out and dusted off and dressed up to look like something it isn't.

Check out the Apollo Alliance, they do great work. http://www.apolloalliance.org/

[paulk]

32. and more than half of our Democratic Senators

voted against it. I wonder why?

Was it the six billion dollar giveaway to the oil industry?

[Yossariant]

43. Even McCAIN voted against it. Barack sided with Lieberman, another mentor.

[Yossariant]

42. Nuclear is renewable:

"The $14.5 billion bill 'digs us deeper into a budget black hole,' said Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. 'It fails to decrease our dependence on foreign oil; it rolls back important consumer protections; and, finally, it undermines some of the fundamental environmental laws that our citizens rely upon.'

Feingold tried to block the bill...

Supporters defended the measure as a good way of encouraging more energy production from a broad-range of domestic energy sources. And they said it promotes renewable energy -- including nuclear power, increases energy efficiency, encourages the use of hybrid vehicles and supports the development of new technologies, such as clean-burning coal and hydrogen-fueled vehicles. In addition, it provides $1.3 billion for conservation in the public and residential sectors.

The compromise measure’s only major provision directly intended to make the U.S. economy less dependent on foreign oil calls for nearly doubling the use of corn- and waste-based ethanol in gasoline by 2012.

The bill would not increase existing automobile fuel-efficiency standards but instead would require a study of the effects of such a move on the auto industry, gasoline supply and air quality.

Environmental groups have said that a significant increase in fuel-efficiency standards would make a difference in efforts to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil because autos and light trucks are responsible for 40 percent of the oil consumed in the United States...

Two major provisions from the Senate bill were also removed. One would have required reducing U.S. oil consumption by 1 million gallons by 2015; the other would have obligated utilities to use more renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, to generate electricity.

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/July/20050728170643SAikceinawz0.400921.html

[Aloha Spirit]

12. Here you go... and why not do your own research next time/

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama Friday voted in favor of the comprehensive energy bill, saying it will help Illinois and start America down the path to energy independence by doubling ethanol use, greatly increasing the availability of E85 ethanol pumps, and investing in combination plug-in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, as well as clean-coal technology. However, he warned that bolder action is required if lawmakers are really serious about dealing with the high energy costs that are plaguing American consumers.

"This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," said Obama. "It requires that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be mixed with gasoline by 2012. That's 7.5 billion gallons of fuel that will be grown in the corn fields of Illinois, and not imported from the deserts of the Middle East. The bill will also help triple the number of E85 ethanol fueling stations in the next year by providing a tax credit for their construction. This will help the millions of people who already drive flexible-fuel vehicles to fill their tanks with fuel made from 85 percent ethanol that is 50 cents cheaper than regular gasoline."

"I am also pleased that the bill includes funding I requested for research into combination plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, as well as more investment into clean-coal technology."

The Energy bill will do the following:

- Create a Renewable Fuels Standard that will nearly double the amount of ethanol used by 2012.

- Provide up to a $30,000 tax credit for the construction of E85 ethanol fueling stations.

- Provide a $1.8 billion tax credit for investments in clean-coal facilities.

- Provide $85 million to Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels.

- Provide $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and E85 flexible fuel vehicles that have the potential to drive 500 miles per gallon of gasoline used.

- Provide incentives to promote biofuels from agricultural resources.

While voting for the bill, the Illinois Senator also said he believes that the legislation still falls short of what could and should be done to put America on the path to energy independence.

"Although this a step forward, it's not a very big step," said Obama. "The Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation says this bill will do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it won't reduce the price of gasoline paid by hardworking Americans. Even President Bush and supporters of the bill in Congress concede as much."

"We could have done more today, and we should do more in the future. We must accept and embrace the challenge of finding a solution to our dependence on foreign oil as one of the most pressing problems of our time. It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice, but we owe it to ourselves and to our children so that we can bring down gas prices, protect our environment, and strengthen our national security. This should be one of our top priorities in America."

"So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_obama_says_energy_bill_helps_/index.php

[depakid]

20. "nearly double the amount of ethanol used by 2012."

Now that's turning out to be a beauty, eh?

Neither of the current Dem candidates has a grasp of energy issues.

[Aloha Spirit]

27. agreed.

[paulk]

28. I generally don't consider the candidate's own websites

as a valid "research" tool. They tend to be rather one sided.

[Marie26]

13. Because he got big donations from Exelon. nt

[Tellurian]

14. A snap shot of Obama's defense team, should he be the nominee..

They are pretty good at beating up on Hillary supporters. But when the real War begins....bullocks!

[Tellurian]

15. The Bush/Cheney Energy Bill Obama voted for:

...looks like a disaster. I'll look for the original bill and post it here. Not surprising an excerpt would be taken from "the fox in the hen house's" site..

"The 1,725-page bill came after years of debate over a national energy plan, which has not been renewed for 10 years. Critics said the new measure would do nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption or dampen high energy prices. The average retail gasoline price per gallon in the U.S. was $2.289 on Monday, according to the Department of Energy.

Opponents also called the bill a boon to the energy industry.

"This bill is packed with royalty relief, tax breaks, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America, even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporations in the history of the United States," complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "It is politically and morally wrong."

"When it comes to solving America's pressing energy problems, this bill can only be classified as a miserable failure," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director of the U.S.Public Interest Research Group. "This bill fails to reduce America's dependence on oil, fails to address the threat of global warming, fails to make any new investments in clean energy, and by the president's own admission, fails to help consumers at the gas pump."

"The bill also paves the way for future drilling off currently protected coastlines and preempts states' rights in siting dangerous liquefied natural gas (search) facilities and transmission lines," Aurilio added.

The bill would funnel $2.7 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas industries and provide additional support in the form of royalty relief, including $500 million over 10 years for research into drilling in extremely deep areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill no longer includes a House-authored provision that would have permitted oil and gas development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (search). ANWR drilling may still be authorized during the fall's budget reconciliation process.

Lawmakers agreed to triple the amount of corn-based ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. That provision appeases farm state lawmakers as well as those looking for renewable fuel sources.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163960,00.html

[LSparkle]

16. So Obama voted for a bill that might have thrown some subsidies to IL

Which is worse: voting for an albeit flawed bill that may benefit your
state, or ASKING FOR BILLIONS IN EARMARKS? HRC's earmarks DWARF Obama's,
so I can forgive him this if he prefers to get advantages for his con-
stituents in forms other than outright PORK.

[Tellurian]

17. Subsidies to IL is hardly the issue..

read the analysis in my previous post..Obama voted for a disastrous Bill. Obama's depth of caring for the People is well demonstrated here.

[LSparkle]

19. If it was so "disastrous," I wonder why Apollo Alliance supported it

They have a reputation for doing good work on these issues.

[Tellurian]

22. The Independant organization who did the analysis

are a pro-citizens/energy/environmental group. Here is their website:

http://www.uspirg.org/

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. finally this is being brought to the voters attention...thank you!

[ShortnFiery]

24. You must have inadvertently missed jenmito's thoughtful explanation in Post #8 Above.

You're welcome. :-) :hi:

[zulchzulu]

26. All the tax cuts were taken out for oil companies and there was some green legislation

I know. Hillary keeps lying about "Dick Cheney's bill". She lies about the oil companies getting tax cuts. The tax cuts were taken out before it passed.

All that shit was taken out, hence a reason she probably voted against it.

As for the bill, there is legislation regarding increasing CAFE standards, finding new alternatives for energy and even a tax deduction for getting an efficient car. That's what I remember offhand. I could do some links to what I'm talking about...

[msallied]

35. This is what happens when you have Senators running for President.

They are both dogged by a history of voting records that have far too much nuance for the average person to understand. All regular people see is "yes" and "no," understanding very little of how a bill is put together, let alone the fine points in it. There were a lot of green measures in that bill that would have been tossed out the window with a "no" vote. A lot of times you have to compromise on these bills if you ever want to get anything done. Otherwise you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Was the legislation perfect? God no. Is ANY of it? Puhleaze. Government in this country is about as inefficient as a Model-T.

[blm]

36. Because Clintons spent the 90s protecting BushInc. There shouldn't BE a Bush or Cheney in WH

influencing ANY BILL.

[paulk]

39. the usual spam from you, I see

why don't you address the topic at hand?

Try to contribute to the discussion for once instead of obsessing.

[blm]

40. You asked a question and I gave you the answer that cuts through all the crap.

.

[paulk]

41. no, you posted the same crap you've been posting for the last

two years.

Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's all the Clinton's fault.

[blm]

44. Everything happening today IS Bill's fault for allowing BushInc to strengthen in the 90s instead

of doing the right thing for this nation and its historic record.

Are you insisting that things WOULDN'T be drastically different in our party, in this nation and in the world if BCCI matters had been given the APPROPRIATE attention and oval office cooperation for a continuing investigation in 1993 and 1994 and throughout the 90s as more matters came to light?

Because I insist that they would have made all the difference to this world, and I am CERTAIN I am right.