What Industries Will Benefit From An Obama Victory? A McCain Victory?

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER | November 2, 2008 10:39 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

WASHINGTON — Battered by the financial meltdown, America's business community is anxiously calculating how Tuesday's presidential election will affect it.

Energy, pharmaceutical and telecommunications companies could face tax and other policy changes no matter who wins the White House. The outcome also could determine how well alternative energy developers, generic biotechnology companies, stem cell researchers and others fare.

Labor unions put major resources behind Democrat Barack Obama and could wind up a big winner if he takes the White House. Nuclear power and the coal industry would get a boost if Republican John McCain prevails. Obama promises to raise corporate tax rates and income taxes on families making over $250,000; McCain promises to cut corporate taxes and extend all of President Bush's tax cuts.

A look at how some could fare:

UNIONS

With Obama in office and an expected stronger Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, unions could achieve their top goal of making it easier for workers to organize. Labor wants to winning passage of a measure that would require companies to recognize unions once a majority of employees sign cards expressing support.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill. Steven Law, the group's general counsel, said the elimination of secret ballot votes "creates tremendous incentives for intimidation and harassment." But Bill Samuel, director of government affairs at the AFL-CIO, says, "We see (it) as a way to strengthen the middle class" by enabling more workers to push for higher wages and benefits.

Obama has endorsed the measure; McCain opposes it.

Story continues below
advertisement

___

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND NUCLEAR POWER

Both candidates back expanded use of alternative energy such as solar and wind power _ through greater spending in Obama' case and tax credits in McCain's.

Obama proposes spending $150 billion over 10 years to speed the development of plug-in hybrid cars and "commercial-scale" renewable energy, among other goals.

McCain favors the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and spending $2 billion annually in support of "clean coal."

While McCain has been a critic of government support for ethanol, most analysts think congressional support for the alternative fuel would enable it to survive under a McCain administration.

___

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Few sectors have more to gain on Election Day than the nation's fledgling stem cell companies, which long have bemoaned the administration's policy limiting federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Bush believes the research is immoral because the process of culling the stem cells kills the embryo.

Both Obama and McCain support federal spending on stem cell research and could move to overturn current restrictions.

Industry executives say the policy change would shore up investor confidence in stem cell developers.

"It will relieve a lot of uncertainty among the investment community that we are going to become an outlaw industry," said Richard Garr, chief executive of Neuralstem.

___

BIOTECH GENERICS

Both candidates have endorsed creating a pathway for generic biotech drugs, a long-sought goal for generic drug companies such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Mylan Inc.

Unlike traditional chemical drugs, biotech companies such as Amgen Inc. and Genentech Inc. face no generic competition in the U.S. because the Food and Drug Administration lacks authority to approve copies of biotech medicines. That is because biotech drugs, which are made from living cells or bacteria, are more complicated to manufacture than chemical drugs.

Both campaigns have praised generic drugs as a tool to lower health care costs.

"We know that expanding the use of generics and eliminating barriers to that goal must be a centerpoint of any health reform effort," said Dora Hughes, a health care adviser for Obama, at a recent industry conference.

In politics, of course, not everyone is a winner. Some possible losers include:

OIL COMPANIES

Companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. are likely to face higher taxes under a President Obama, who supports a windfall profits tax.

The two companies did not help their cause by reporting record profits in late October. Still, as oil prices fall, profits are likely to follow suit.

Even if a windfall profit tax is not imposed, at least eight different taxes and fees could be slapped on the cash-rich industry by a Democratic Congress looking for extra revenue, said Kevin Book, an energy analyst at FBR Capital Markets.

They include adopting a surtax on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico and eliminating a 2 percent tax cut included in recent legislation, Book said.

On the other hand, oil companies could profit if McCain wins since he is a big champion of offshore drilling.

___

PHARMACEUTICALS

No matter which candidate wins the White House, the largest drugmakers, such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. Inc., will struggle to defend lucrative government programs. That includes the Medicare drug benefit, which pays for medications taken by 47 million older people and which provided much-needed revenue to the drug industry last year.

Dozens of insurers now separately negotiate prices with pharmaceutical makers; the government reimburses insurers for the final cost. Though the program has come in under budget, most Democrats say greater savings could be had by letting the government directly negotiate prices with drugmakers.

Obama has pledged to take up the effort, arguing that savings could total up to $30 billion. McCain also supports giving the government power to negotiate prices, but only at the request of individual insurers.

___

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Big telecommunications carriers have forged many deals in the past eight years, such as Verizon Wireless' $28 billion purchase of Alltel Corp., approved with conditions by the Justice Department Thursday.

Such deals will likely face tougher antitrust scrutiny under either an Obama or McCain administration, analysts say.

In fact, some of the more contentious industry deals in recent years _ including the merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, and Google Inc.'s acquisition of DoubleClick _ might not have been approved under either candidate, says Paul Gallant, a telecom analyst at Stanford Washington Research Group.

___

DEFENSE CONTRACTORS

After years of record Pentagon budgets, defense companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. face the prospect of slowing military spending.

Big budget deficits are projected to worsen due in part to the financial bailout package approved by Congress. Defense spending will become a prime target for cuts. That could mean trouble for over-budget programs such as the Army's $200 billion Future Combat Systems, which aims to outfit units with high-tech weapons and communications tools.

Both candidates also want to overhaul the contracting process, especially after some high-profile flops such as the Air Force's attempt to award a $35 billion contract for new aerial refueling planes over the past seven years.

McCain has promoted his role in spiking an earlier Boeing Co. contract for the planes. Obama, meanwhile, has suggested that the Pentagon's effort to build a missile defense shield for the United States and its allies could be scaled back.

__

Associated Press writers Matthew Perrone, John Porretto, Joelle Tessler and Stephen Manning contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Battered by the financial meltdown, America's business community is anxiously calculating how Tuesday's presidential election will affect it. Energy, pharmaceutical and telecommuni...
WASHINGTON — Battered by the financial meltdown, America's business community is anxiously calculating how Tuesday's presidential election will affect it. Energy, pharmaceutical and telecommuni...
 
Comments
115
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
photo

If corporations treated their workers fairly to begin with, unions wouldn't be necessary at all.

Yes, unions sometimes go too far or stray from the point from their existence - maybe Obama can convince both sides to play nice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 AM on 11/05/2008

Human nature means we will always need unions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 11/07/2008

McCain has pledged to invest his own money on a one way airplane ticket to Alaska for Sara Palin.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 AM on 11/05/2008

HEMP grown in America!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 11/03/2008
photo

Are you high right now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 AM on 11/05/2008

"On the other hand, oil companies could profit if McCain wins since he is a big champion of offshore drilling."

"Could"? Try "will"...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 AM on 11/03/2008
- smag I'm a Fan of smag permalink

How to you people think you can win Va by Obama telling the San Francisco Chronicle on January 18
saying he would charge a huge sum against Coal Industry for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted to the point they would bankrupt themselves. Happy job hunting coal miners...a gift from Obama. But he'll still send you a small check from the rich. Coal miners vote!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 AM on 11/03/2008
- Toby Barlow - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Toby Barlow permalink

Well, what he actually said applied to taxing NEW coal mines, not the coal industry in general. And if we don't address the greenhouse emissions issue, we will all be paying higher prices for everything. McCain agrees this is an issue so I don't think there's much of a chance of this swaying the vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 11/03/2008
photo

Clean-coal technology doesn't exist in the sense Obama is demanding. There is no technology that reduces greenhouse gasses and burns coal at the same time.

McCain is McBush. He will allow coal to expand and spew unfettered.

Could technology advances make it possible to reduce greenhouse gasses and burn coal simultaneously? It's doubtful.

The world needs the political will to say no to more coal, and the political will to reduce coal's percentage in power generation. Right now, it's wind, hydro, solar, and nuke. All mean less coal, not more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 11/03/2008

I don't think OBama said he'd tax "coal mines." Coal mines don't emit greenhouse gases. I believe Obama would tax utility companies that burn coal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 11/03/2008
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 11/03/2008

Want a first hand military perspective on why we haven't caught Bin Laden yet?

Go to:

http://rovitoreview.blogspot.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 11/02/2008
photo

spam

HuffPo is not a forum for blogpimping. Buy an ad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:06 PM on 11/03/2008

Well, the coal industry is set. Both Obama and McCain love the idea of filthy coal technology.

Boeing doesn't have to lose any sleep either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 PM on 11/02/2008

McCain has been in the pockets of the oil and gas, telecommunication and defense industry for many years. This past summer, McCain accepted a $1,000,000 contribution from the oil and gas industry. McCain's campaign is run by former lobbyist for the oil and gas and telecommunications industry, most especially the oil and gas lobbyists. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see to whom McCain will be dispensing favors; Drill Baby, Drill.

The U.S. depleted it's supply of easily accessible oil years ago. What remains is the more difficult to extract oil, both on shore and off-shore. We will see little change in our fuel tabs but the oil and gas industry will reap unprecedented profits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 11/02/2008

Drilling off-shore is more a favor to the American people than oil companies. Better to get oil from here than from Venezuela, Saudi, or Nigeria. Plus it will create jobs, good high paying jobs that swell the oil and gas industry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 PM on 11/02/2008

And those oil slicks are a nice side benefit, too. Remember, "NO OIL SPILLED during Katrina". Just keep telling yourself that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 11/02/2008

Drilling our own oil is essential to maintaining American control over PRICING of oil--America can drill without letting the leases to Big Oil Companies. It is a myth that American oil has evaporated. Have you not read "Snake Oil" in the Washington Post, on Sept 3, 2008? America has plenty of natural oil and gas treasures--we should not be giving away our publicly owned oil and gas to the Big Oil Companies in leases to the "highest bidder" and then taking the chump change back in windfall tax revenues. We actually own our own oil, so this is not "socialism" or some kind of takeover of oil wells or rigs. We can set up our own drilling system on public lands and offshore (see the Mineral Mining Service 2006 reports on the fact that there is much much more oil than was perceived in the 1981 early seismic findings.) By giving America's oil over to the Big Oil Companies, we essentially get high dollar OPEC prices back in return and become enslaved to DRILL BABY DRILL, which is codename for oil companies taking over our National Treasures. No deal. We can drill our own, thanks, if America needs to. The problem has always been emissions. We must develop all kinds of emissions controls, and this should be a mandated industry paid by any oil and gas revenues. obtained from

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 11/05/2008

We need to re-build the American manufacturing base - all kinds of different products - ranging from textiles to electronics to wood carving - whatever.

There are plenty of consumers around the world that would love to buy American made goods.

It is really sad that companies have moved everything to China to take advantage of lower paid workers there and forgotten the fact that many consumers in Asia, Africa and Europe have always admired American innovation and brand name - MADE IN USA! I hope there will be a revival of American goods by giving tax incentives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 11/02/2008
photo

Didn't Obama say that 'free trade is here to stay' or how 'manufacturing won't be coming back'? (both are paraphrased)

It'd be nice, but we can't compete with automated or penny-per-hour jobs for products costing $100 (like Kine brand shoes) - no matter how solid our quality was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj-vIOMtVY0

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 AM on 11/05/2008

Well, Goldman Sachs will benefit 3:1 if Obama wins. Well, that was the bundled contribution ratio for Obama: McCain.

Its OK OBAMA, ALL is forgiven!

You are our SAVIOR!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 11/02/2008

Well, he didn't use "associated with", "terrorist", or "socialist", but he did find a way to squeeze in "Savior".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 11/02/2008

Guess using "Me$$iah" is getting old.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 11/03/2008

To date the only winners of the ongoing collapse are the bankers, insurance companies and other financial interests who brought this country's and the world's economic system to this peril. Conditions will largely dictate economic winners and losers in the future, who ever is President. It is a safe prediction that the United States of America will be foremost among the losers in the new redistributing of power in this increasingly dangerous world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 11/02/2008
photo

I hope Obama leads the way for investments in enterprises, that want to build renewable energy technologies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 11/02/2008
photo

Both Obama and McCain clearly understand that we need to break our dependence on imported oil but they have fundamentally different approaches to how to do this. McCain seems to favor more drilling, nuclear and technology improvements to existing sources. Obama seems to want to invest in new sources wind, solar, next generation biofuels. So, there will be different industry winners and losers depending on who wins the election. It does seem like a blending of both is the best way to go and so the question is who is more likely to merge the other's ideas into their own set of ideas? From the small bits and pieces we have seen of the two candidates and their teams it appears that Obama will help more businesses and a wider array of industries. His mentioning of McKinstry and Company in his 30 minute infomercial was a good example of that.

Joel Horn

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 11/02/2008

After the crash in oil and natural gas prices, I think a massive increase in spending on alternative energy may be counter-productive. It could be economic suicide for alternative energy companies to rapidly expand capacity, even with govt money, in a period of declining demand. Wind and solar companies right now are healthy and expanding on their own without govt aid, but a significant increase in capacity will push down prices and put many of them out of business. This scenario may be even worse considering most the top solar companies in the world are currently Chinese, and a drop in prices would probably put American companies out of business to the benefit of the lower cost Chinese producers. Maybe people haven't noticed, but Verasun, one of the top American ethanol producers, filed for bankruptcy this weekend because of tough economic conditions. I'd hate to see some our healthy solar and wind companies follow the same route. I believe we'll see modest increases in subsidies or govt grants/loans going forward, but nothing even close to what some people think.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 11/02/2008

What interest do you have in the status quo that fosters little or no competition? Let the oil companies compete against wind and solar and biofuel companies. If significantly improving competition and thus our economy means subsidizing alternative companies and investing in research and development to ameliorate our capacity to mass produce effective alternative energies, then so be it. If we could find a way to make our cars run on water or vegetable oil and to heat our homes in the winter with cheaper alternative energy, then let's do it. We need to force the oil and robber barons to compete against viable entities representing green energy. They've had it their way for too long, and over the past 100 years, they've been over-fed at the public trough, making life much more difficult than necessary for the average American.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 PM on 11/02/2008

Ethanol SHOULD fail...it's worthless.

Just this last month, my state (Wisconsin) put into place a mandatory 10% ethanol mix in our gasoline, even knowing up front that ethanol reduces fuel economy. It took my car about one day to notice the difference. Whereas I used to get 30.5 mpg, I am now regularly getting 27 mpg.

For all of us math geniuses out there, that means i will be forced to buy MORE gasoline, and more of what I buy will end up in our atmosphere instead of being converted to actual energy.

Our Governor, James Doyle, has pocketed millions from the ethanol lobbyists, and our democratic congress has forced the people of Wisconsin to buy this crap.

I can't help but think that without politcial parties, lobbyists would have a difficult time bribing entire groups of independents.

That's what we're talking about here in Wisconsin...flat out bribes taken by our wonderful elected officials.

If every ethanol company goes under, it won't be soon enough for me. Maybe then we'll get SERIOUS about finding a real, non-petroleum alternative to gasoline.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 AM on 11/03/2008
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 PM on 11/02/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect