The Audacity of Contempt

Take gas prices, the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans. Offer a blatant ploy that in fact won't help -- but will profit Big Oil. Pocket over a million in contributions from oil executives and use the money to put up an ad promising to take on Big Oil.

Call it the audacity of contempt. John McCain seems intent on proving that it is possible to scorn Americans into voting for him. Consider McCain's latest ad in the context of his "drill, drill, drill" energy policy. The text of the ad reads:

"Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago. Only McCain has taken on big tobacco, drug companies, fought corruption in both parties. He'll reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil, make America prosper again. He's the original Maverick...

"Battle Big Oil." Say what?

This is the same John McCain who just made off-shore drilling for oil a centerpiece of his campaign, reversing his longstanding opposition to it. He did so, not incidentally, while on his way to Texas for a series of fundraisers. The result unleashed a gusher of donations for Big Oil executives -- according to Campaign Money Watch, a nifty 1.2 million from Texas gas and oil interests in June alone, the very month McCain came out for drilling. He no doubt was told what to expect from the dozens of oil company lobbyists and retainers that reportedly are working with or raising money for his campaign.

Exxon reports an $11.7 billion profit for the last three months -- a new record in the history of corporatedom. The big five pocketed more than $140 billion last year. So Barack Obama suggests that we provide every American with a $1000 tax rebate to help pay for rising prices, paid for by levying an excess profits tax on the oil companies.

What does the maverick battler of big oil say? No way. McCain angrily dismisses the idea, saying that it would lead the oil companies to reduce their drilling in the US.

Now, all of this is based upon what might generously be called a big lie. The Big Oil companies, who hold leases for millions of acres that they aren't drilling on, have no intention of drilling for oil off our shores in the near future. They are simply looking to use the crisis to accumulate rights to drill in the future.

Moreover, even if they started tomorrow, it wouldn't help. As Bill Sher of the Campaign for America's Future detailed, Bush's own Energy Department reports that off shore drilling would produce no relief until about 2030. (McCain disputes that saying that we'd see oil in a year or two. His source? Anonymous Big Oil executives who no doubt have only the public's interest in mind). And once the oil came on line, the Energy Department tells us, it would save us about 6 cents a gallon off the price of gas. (Ironically, McCain regularly sneers Obama for suggesting that simply filling our tires would have more effect on supply and demand than drilling off shore. But again, according to the Bush Environmental Protection Agency, Obama had that right. If every American kept their tires filled, they'd save the equivalent of 12 cents a gallon starting tomorrow. Drilling sounds muscular but it is simply hot air that would be better used filling up tires.

But this isn't about policy; it's about politics. McCain pretends he's for action now. He paints Obama as out of touch. The fact that the plan would cater to the interests of the oil companies and not the pocketbooks of Americans is beside the point. After all, John McCain is the maverick, ready to "battle Big Oil."

Will it work? Daily tracking polls suggest McCain has been gaining on Obama. And other than Nancy Pelosi, Democrats have been deciding to switch rather than fight on off-shore drilling.

But there is one problem. Americans really are hurting this year. It isn't just a "mental recession," it's the real deal. And they are paying greater attention than ever before. This week, Obama released a full-scale plan to move to energy independence, investing $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy and conservation, providing subsidies to ensure that the US captures some of the new green auto and appliance markets of the future. That puts us on a long-term path to a sustainable energy future. In the short term, Obama takes on big oil with the excess profits tax to help Americans struggling with the cost of gas and food. McCain has a pretty good long term plan also. The differences would be worth debating.

But one difference is clear. McCain's not about to support a tax on the big oil companies whose executives are helping to fund his campaign. But that won't stop him from selling himself as a maverick promising to "battle Big Oil." If nothing else, he has the audacity of contempt for the very voters he needs to win.

Comments

[Soothsayer08]

As I said earlier but failed to post due to moderation, the low information voters will not believe John McCain isn't in bed with big oil, because they will probably never hear about it. Also out friends in the MSM won't report anything that reflects badly on John "their lord and savior" McCain

[UltraClassic]

Low information voters, that's a good one. Do you mean those voters who have not been subject to the steady drum beat of leftist propoganda via Kos and MoveOn?

[adavis08]

No it means people without a brain who supported GWB.

[OBXartist]

By low information voters I think he means those Republican voting knuckle-draggers who can't separate reality from the cartoonish John Wayne-like fantasy of America promoted by John McCain. I think he's referring to the millions of Americans whose lives keep getting worse due to their own Republican voting decisions over the past eight years, who blame their predicament on everyone else while remaining oblivious to all the evidence that they have actually been cutting their own throats economically and diminishing their own future and the future of their children. The people who can't be bothered to go to any credible source for their political or economic information, but who, instead, rely on Rush Limbaugh or anonymous fear-mongering chain e-mails for directions on how to vote.

Of course, this is just my guess, but I'm thinking that's what he meant by low information voters.

[mairs]

It's funny, but the left is where you get actual information that helps you make an informed decision. It's the right that substitutes jeering mockery and falsehoods out of empty-headed paid propagandists for the truth.

[going2ireland]

Must be nice to be living "above the clouds" and only knowing people who are completely informed.

Beneath the clouds, where the majority of citizens live, there is a large number of "low information" voters. All you need to do is come down off your soap box to find them.

[Strywever]

No, Soothsayer08 means people who simply parrot Republican talking points without doing any independent reading or research of their own. In other words, the majority of people who vote Republican.

BTW, it IS possible to read DOE reports and reports of independent think tanks on your own. Did you know that?

[jeremyemilio]

McCain's energy policy is insincere, yes. However, Obama's energy plan, no matter which way you cut it, boils down to "vote for me and I'll give you $1000." Wrap it up in whatever ideals and policy platforms you like, this is the most cynical move of the campaign to date, even trumping the "gas tax holiday."

[barackobama4prez]

You're wrong. $1,000 is real relief. That gas tax pandering is not. Just thought I'd break it down for you since you're slow on the uptake.

[CL696]

Where does this money come from?

[CharlesJ]

Have you read his plan? Have you listened to the economist that have reviewed Obama's Plan?
From all reports Obama's plan is the most progressive, responsible and doable plan to come out in many years. Cynical, no way. We need someone that is going to be agressive, that is going to help this country turn a new direction away from oil as the primary source, develope new energy sources, and to force the big three auto makers to produce more fuel effecient vehicles (which by the way they have the ability to do, but are in cahoots with the oil companies). Also If I might add, if you have a better Idea then submit it to Obama or McCain, this is about American and Americans as a whole, not the candidates.

[pennst1143]

yeah i have read the plan, found here http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

it doesnt say how the companies will be taxed, who will be eligible for the rebates, what the total amount of the rebates would be, whether this is a one time deal. . . simple vote for me and ill send you a check in the mail.

[KELLI2L]

Obama's plan may look good to you but how do you get around the fact that he changes his mind so often - that's not co-operative - that's confusion and indecision and pandering, etc. First he was for nuclear, now he's against it, then he was for no drilling in America - now he's for it. He's making me crazy trying to keep up with his flips !!!!

[Heavy]

Ironic. It is the one that provides immediate help to families in need. Wrap it up in whatever you like, that is the fact of the matter.

[Mingpeke]

Obama is not buying my vote with his rebate idea, however $1000.00 would be a huge help to my family. Here in the northeast a standard 250 gallon oil tank is over a thousand dollars to fill. We make too much money for LHEAP (which is expected to pay quailifing families about $460.00) so we will have to make choices like less food each week and keeping our house around 60 degrees when we are home and 55 when we are not. That $1000.00 would be HUGE to my family, It sounds like HELP not cynicism to me. Obama already had my vote before this idea, part of the reason is his comprehesive energy plan. The contrasts between Obama and McCain are vast. Obama would actually do something for my family. With McCain we would wait for more of the same that has made us much worse off than we were before the repulicans took over. Obama looks like hope to me!

[UltraClassic]

You seem like a smart guy, get a higher paying job. And the declining North East has none, come to Texas. It's warm and there is plenty of work. Otherwise, looks like you better keep your bunny slippers on.

[JohnIII]

What about the surplus package? Did that help? I remember it being criticized quite a bit on this site. How is $1000.00 going to do any good either? Or is it just the fact that it is being taken from the oil companies that makes it sound nice.

[Strywever]

So you're saying that government should do nothing to provide immediate relief to consumers at the same time they are implementing long-term changes? Is that your position?

[aaronburr]

Yes. The $1,000 is a voting year bribe with no long term policy significance. As to the philosophy your comment implies, where does it say government has to get its big snout involved in solving every problem?

[CocteausTwin]

Nice article Mr. Borosage. It certainly shows the contrast between the two candidates. One for a new energy policy and the other just trying to continue the help the cronies of Boosh.

[PierreLeClerke]

"Equitable Profit Sharing"

The crude that is the basis for these enormous profits is the property of the People of the United States and the rights to extract same have been granted based on much lower pricing structures. The current pricing as well as it's profound impact on the individual American and our economy could not have been considered in the negotiations that took place with the parties for parcels that are currently producing the vast majority of crude domestically.
The only equitable solution is a renegotiation of the basic sharing arrangement between the parties.
Clearly the royalties and leases are not in line with the damage being suffered by the granting lessor.

The language of this dialog must be framed as a participation agreement or "An Equitable Profit Sharing" This is not a tax or a windfall profit tax. The partnership between the parties is to intimate for such an unbalanced distribution of the profits when the granting party suffers as a direct result of the price run-up, when the primary commodity is the property of that granting party.

Any judge would rule that these leases are not equitable in their present moment and order a renegotiation of the terms.

If you believe otherwise, please present your argument in a factual manner that we my review it and discuss it openly.

Re frame the language, this is "Equitable profit sharing" not a tax!

[Alethea]

Interesting way to put it.

After all, they are drilling on public land are they not? Just like the roads and the airwaves, they are owned by all of us. Therefore, it used to be that companies who utulize the public commons for personal profit had to give back to the community in one way or another. Hence the existence of CSPAN (yes I've been listening to Thom Hartmann).

Maybe if we do it simmilarly to how the Networks have to air CSPAN for free, then maybe we can make the Oil Companies contribute a percentage to our Reserve for free as well so long as they are drilling on public lands.

It would never happen. But it's a thought.

[fleaba]

None of this will really matter unless federal money is put into a program to expand and seriously develop the sustainable engineering sector of this country. If you are going to tax oil companies lets put that money to work. (This is saying a lot, especially coming from me, as freiends and family were plaintiffs in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation.) We all know that drilling will only work for a very short interim.

As an engineering recruiter, I can tell you that unless the U.S. puts some serious money into sustainable design and development of these technologies to make them AFFORDABLE to the average person, we are going to be in big trouble. I think that the gov't should be offering full ride scholarships to students who go forward toward with an engineering degree in the areas of sustainability in water/wastewater, industrial plant design/ commercial and residential building, etc.
In addition, funding for labs across the country is vital. Leaving all this to the private sector is suicide.

I think that we are at a point in our evolution as a country where we need to step up to the plate and take the challange head-on. We cannot depend on oil companies forever. In fact, my thinking is that waiting just let's oil companies get their paws on the new technolgies and control the market. This is something that we do not need.

[KELLI2L]

That's right - programs only mean something when they are funded !!!!!

[PierreLeClerke]

Dear Mr. Borosage, please do all you can to get this change in language to the Obama campaign.
Just as the right manipulates language to sell their hidden agenda, we must be clear with our messages to the sound bite generation. We know the estate tax that effects only millionaires, is not a death tax that robes our families of our hard earned assets when we leave the planet, yet many Americans have fallen for this change in language labeling because its a quick, catchy phrase. Well tested in advance by mass marketing masters.
Our challenge is to make clear honest labels for our programs, to promote them as well as to counter the misinformation the masters will launch against programs that benefit the common good.
I'll provide the balance of the text in the next post for space constraints.

[UWorlds1]

It was just reported that Iraq has a surplus of 79 billion dollars...why are our tax dollars going to rebuild this country? Something smelly about this.

[CL696]

I agree...why is this not even discussed?

[whiskeytangofoxtrot451]

You're smelling Haliburton. They're sniffing around for a way to get a piece of that $79 billion pie.

[Peteyman]

Sierra Uniform, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot. You're making him look like he's a smart Sierra Oscar Bravo.

(Just a joke, testing my knowledge of the NATO alphabet.)

[cjger]

Corporate interests represented by the giant oil companies are the largest threat to our democracy. They have obscene amounts of cash, can control markets, contribute huge sums of money to political candidates (and all levels, not just the presidency) who are willing to give them favored treatment. Their power has been on display since John D Rockefeller. It takes a politician with near unanimous public support and abundant courage to confront this power. We have not had such politicians. Today, laws and elections are not about doing the will of the people; they are about how to help the oil industry make more money. RIP, America.

[reshas1]

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.


McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, said, "Barack Obama is opposed to offshore drilling and is also opposed to admitting that he voted for the same corporate giveaways for Big Oil that he's campaigning against today."

[CocteausTwin]

You can try to spread this stuff, but I think most see through faulty arguments.

[Strywever]

The part of this story you chose not to share is that Republicans would not allow ANY bill to go forward that did not include "gifts" for their big-oil constituencies. Obama is in favor of getting things done even if it means he has to make compromises. Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to paralyze Congress forever if their big-oil pals don't get there due.

Go peddle your tripe elsewhere. People on this blog are too well informed to buy the standard Republican lies and distortions.

[Tags]

Barack Obama would just be penalizing the oil companies for their recent behavior. If they try to push back (withhold supply), he just pushes back harder.

You can't fight city hall, but if republicans win there won't be any fight left in city hall. At least no fighting the oil companies.

[KELLI2L]

There is no good reason I can think of as to why we shouldn't take away the tax breaks for oil - since we gave the tax breaks to begin with - and they no longer need them since they are making winfall profits, don't U think. .. . . It's time to recind their tax breaks.

[reshas1]

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, said, "Barack Obama is opposed to offshore drilling and is also opposed to admitting that he voted for the same corporate giveaways for Big Oil that he's campaigning against today."

[PierreLeClerke]

Here are the facts, your boys in the Senate would not pass anything that did not include big oil welfare checks. The compromise was struck to keep the alternative energy incentive package alive despite the rights oil pocket attempts to kill alternative energy incentives.
Thats the rest of the story. Left with no good choices Obama and others voted on the best they could get from the oilmen in power.

[MidSection]

Obama could have stuck to his principles........but NO! He didn't.....just like he didn't on NAFTA, FISA, Drilling offshore, public financing of his compaign, reparations, affirmative action......and the list goes on. Is there any REAL surprise why he is doing poorly in the polls?

[bystander01]

The numbers used by Sher are from a report that assumed oil would be $60/barrel. Because oil is so much more expensive now, the impact of recovering the OCS oil would be much greater.

Analysis can be found here:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021171.php

[PierreLeClerke]

If you discover that you are speeding down the highway in the wrong direction do you,

1. Step on the accelerator and rush headlong further away from where you know you must go eventually?

2. Look for the quickest safest place to change direction and do so?

3. Continue to discuss the challenge as you move further away from your desired destination?

I'm sure you understand the question.

[bystander01]

Of course, why bother with discussion at all? Who cares if the arguments being used to support one side are invalid? We should all just mindlessly follow the leader. Well stated.

[LeftRight]

Did you actually read the article??? Cause they bring in oil shale, which is so energy intensive that it's actually losing money EVEN IF OIL IS $200/BBL!!!!

[dadw5boys]

Tax them is they stop drilling for oil GUESS WHAT?

THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WILL GLADLY BUY A RIG AND GO DRILLING FOR OIL~~~~~~~~

[hark]

We can increase domestic production without raiding ANWR or protected coastal waters. The oil companies cannot possibly fully exploit the leases they already have. For some reason, even the Democrats don't want the American people to know this simple fact. All we have to do is force the oil companies to drill more.

We should also force them to invest those windfall profits in alternatives, or threaten to tax them away and use them directly for the same purpose. The last thing we should do is hand out more rebates.

Just think, the last round of rebates we pissed away could have completely funded Obama's energy plan over the next decade and then some. What a colossal waste that was, pissing $168 billion away like that. Might as well have attacked another country for all the good it did.

[fredpferr]

force them to drill more? where? most of the leases that they are "sitting on" are dead ends. here's how it works: they lease potetially lucrative land, they explore it, they may drill it, they may not. if they don't drill, the lease will expire. force them to invest ... ? if you can forget about the corporate fat cats at the top for a moment, consider that their

[fredpferr]

(continued)

[mjt218]

Unfortunately, the $168 Billion is bogus. It supposes that oil companies should pay for the Coast Guard to protect US waterways which oil tankers travel through. The subsidies that should be looked into are related to tax write-offs, and are probably less than $50 Billion all told. It's also important to note that even small oil companies will be affected by re-writes to tax code and leasing rules.

[DaOne]

Sidney and Cindy, The Audacity of Elitism.

Oh Muffy, have Geeves bring the car round front, we're terribly late for the club. Ta!


Im Maverick Mc Cheese and I approve my meds.

[GoCards1978]

Hilarious, and thank you! I needed a good laugh.