ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Greenspan: Country Can’t Afford John McCain’s Massive Tax Cuts For The Rich

On Bloomberg Television this weekend, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told host Al Hunt that the country can’t afford John McCain’s massive $3.3 trillion tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions:

HUNT: John McCain’s proposed $3.3 trillion of tax cuts in two terms. Can the nation afford tax cuts of that magnitude?

GREENSPAN: Unless we cut spending, no. … I’m not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.

Watch it:

After endorsing Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy which turned Clinton-era record surpluses into record deficits, Greenspan has much to atone for. Telling the truth about McCain’s agenda is a good start.

As the Wonk Room has noted, McCain’s tax cuts would produce the highest federal deficit in 25 years. After inheriting Bush’s $407 billion deficit, yearly deficits under McCain would increase sharply, beginning with at least $505 billion in FY2009.

McCain has not specified how he would pay for his tax cuts, though he claims he will balance the budget in his first term. Recognizing that McCain’s math doesn’t add up, McCain’s top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin has said, “I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction.”

McCain has acknowledged the economy is not something he understands, but he has reassured the public, “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” He should start listening to him too.

Climate Progress

Gregg Easterbrook still knows nothing about global warming — and less about clean energy.

Slate magazine is seen as liberal, but is in fact just another status quo publication promoting a do-nothing policy on clean energy and global warming (see, for instance, “Slate and the Post are suckered by anti-environmentalist Newt Gingrich“).

Why else ask for a review of Tom Friedman’s new call to action, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, from the American Bj¸rn Lomborg? And I don’t mean that in a good way (see “Lomborg skewers the facts, again” and links therein).

I’m speaking about Gregg Easterbrook, well-known fountain of climate and energy misinformation (see, for instance, “People Who Just Don’t Get Global Warming: Gregg Easterbrook and the Editors of the Atlantic“). I’ve already commented on Friedman’s must-read book here. This post will focus on the three biggest energy and climate whoppers in the Slate review.

WHOPPERS #1 and #2: Wherein Easterbrook reveals he knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about renewable energy, energy efficiency, government technology programs, or commercialization:

Hot, Flat, and Crowded is wise to say that American innovation is the best hope for a clean-energy future. The book is wrong to advocate a government-subsidized crash program of energy research–just as Barack Obama calls for $150 billion in alternative-energy subsidies. Government should regulate greenhouse emissions, then let the free market sort out the details, including by funding the research. Government’s track record at setting goals is good; its track record at commercialization is awful. Wind-turbine application went nowhere in the 1970s and 1980s when federally subsidized; actual use has come since the 1990s, when the government bowed out and the private sector took over. Friedman extols various energy-saving gizmos about to become practical, such as inexpensive black boxes for home power management. They sound great–but no government-subsidized research ever would have produced them.

First off, the government has been unbelievably successful at commercializing “various energy-saving gizmos” as I detailed in “Energy efficiency, Part 5: The highest documented rate of return of any federal program.” Indeed, the illustrious National Academy of Sciences verified that a handful of energy-saving gizmos developed by my old office at the Department of Energy have returned a staggering $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million.

Second, the government never “bowed out” of the wind turbine busines. Well, the U.S. government did under Reagan and Bush’s father, but not the rest of the world. Reagan gutted Carter’s large renewable energy R&D program and eliminated the tax credit for wind. But governments in the rest of the industrialized world significantly increased their research and subsidies, and wind-turbine applications steadily improved in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. wind industry soared “since the 1990s” because we put in place a tax credit in 1992 (and because we made use of advances funded partly by the Clinton administration but also by other countries) — although growth has been intermittent in this country because conservatives began working hard to cut wind R&D and cut off the tax credit after 2001 (see “Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company“).

But “since the 1990s” was too late. Thanks to the Gregg Easterbrooks of the country — otherwise known as Reagan, Gingrich, Bush and McCain — the United States became only a bit player in a global industry it helped create and once dominated, a bit player in what will certainly be one of the largest job-creating industries in the world. Government R&D and deployment programs not only advance the technology, they advance U.S. manufacturers and market share.

Gregg Easterbrook typifies why this country has no serious energy policy — he seems to be a moderate, independent thinker of a kind that a liberal-seeming publication like Slate should turn to, but in fact he is a reactionary know-nothing, which I suppose is redundant.

[As an aside, Friedman's book doesn't advocate a government crash program of energy research. It advocates a government crash program of R&D and one for deployment. I know that because Friedman interviewed me and that entire discussion can be found on pages 187-189 of the book.]

WHOPPERS #3: Wherein Easterbrook pooh-poohs those who are concerned about global warming and reveals he is Lomborg’s less-informed twin:

Read more

Politics

So-Called Energy Expert Sarah Palin Doesn’t Know How Much Energy Her State Produces

On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s “experience” in “the field of national security” by asserting that “she knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.” McCain’s claim to Palin’s expertise was undercut the next day, however, when Palin severely overstated Alaska’s energy production in an interview with ABC News’s Charlie Gibson.

Challenged by Gibson on her “national security credentials,” Palin cited her experience as the governor of a “state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy” as a credential that she “brings to the table“:

PALIN: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

Watch it:

But, as the non-partisan FactCheck.org points out, Palin’s claim about Alaska producing 20 percent of America’s domestic energy supply is “not true. Not even close.” In fact, “Alaska’s share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent.”

Palin would have been closer to reality, but still incorrect if she made the claim specifically about oil production rather than energy supply:

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government’s Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said “energy,” not “oil,” so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That’s equal to just 3.5 percent of the country’s domestic energy production.

Palin’s incorrect facts appear to be rubbing off on McCain. As FactCheck.org notes, McCain made the same claim in a separate interview with Gibson on Sept. 3. “She’s been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply,” McCain told Gibson.

Yglesias

New Things McCain Has Lied About

It’s getting difficult to provide a separate blog post for each McCain Lie that winds up getting exposed. But:

That second McCain Lie is a reminder of a vintage McCain Lie that I don’t think I’ve previously discussed wherein they tried to say Palin has been to Ireland when, in fact, she was on a plane that stopped in Ireland to refuel before taking off again. By the same token, I can tell you some time about my visit to the Memphis Airport and the new appreciation of Tennessee culture I acquired there.

UPDATE: You know, to be honest, I did gain something of an appreciation for Tennessee culture during my Memphis layover. The barbecue I had was far from the best barbecue I’ve ever had, but it was definitely the best airport food I’d ever had and definitely made me want to come back to Memphis sometime to try some not-in-the-airport eats.

Yglesias

Lowry: Palin’s Not Ready

National Review editor Rich Lowry:

The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can’t imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities. She was much better, and positively good, on the social issues—which are dear to her and she’s thought about—and anything having to do with her personally or with her record in Alaska. She was magnificent on the Iraq-prayer question. This tends to suggest she’ll be as strong on the national issues, once she’s truly conversant with them. I hope she got up from the foreign policy session and said to her aides, “Dammit. That wasn’t good enough and I’m not letting it happen again. I’m not going to allow myself to be so under-prepared for another high-profile interview again.” Of course, she has a tremendous amount of material to master in a short period of time.

Again, we see a conservative and a Palin fan basically hoping Palin will be ready at some future point when she has the opportunity to learn about such matters as foreign policy and domestic policy. And of course it’s unlikely that McCain will win the election and die in January, so probably we won’t wind up with a president whose not prepared to discuss the vast majority of issues in national politics.

All of which is a reminder of what a crassly political choice this was. The President of the United States has an enormous job. And nobody expects anyone, no matter how experienced, to somehow do it single-handedly. You’re helped by a team. Recent Presidents have used the Vice Presidency as an opportunity to add a key player to the team. And it’s easy to see why someone might think that adding Joe Biden to the Obama Team would allow the Obama Team to govern more effectively. Biden is the kind of guy who, had he not gotten the nod for VP, would have been in the mix to run the State Department. If McCain had gone with Joe Lieberman, I wonder which agency Palin would have been a serious choice for.

Yglesias

Ike Hits

avn_l.jpg

Hurricane Ike seems to have killed at least one person in Texas, and probably more than one once the situation stabilizes enough to really survey the damage. Meanwhile, tons of lesser damage as “the huge Category 2 hurricane peeled sheets of steel off skyscrapers in Houston, smashed bus shelters and blew out windows, sending shattered glass and debris across the nation’s fourth largest city, with a population of 2.2 million.” Even more destruction seems to have been inflicted on the much smaller city of Galveston. And of course poorer island countries such as Cuba and Haiti are facing even more severe problems.

Nobody wants to politicize a natural disaster. But that’s in large part because we’re not accustomed to thinking about the weather as a policy issue. Clearly, however, when it comes to the issue of climate change weather is very much the point. The evidence suggests that global warming makes storms more severe, and the warmer we let it get, the more extreme weather phenomena we’ll see. If terrorists had done this, you can bet politicians would be willing to spend quite a bit of dough to try to prevent something worse from happening.

Politics

‘Obama Waffles’ featuring racist, stereotyped images sold at Values Voter Summit.

waffles_phixr.jpgAt the Values Voter Summit this weekend, vendors sold an item called “Obama Waffles” featuring a racist cartoon of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) on the box front — with “popping eyes and big, thick lips” — and another image of him wearing an Arab-like headdress on its top flap. Its creators, Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, said it was meant as “political satire,” and sold the box for $10 from a booth at the Family Research Council event. CNN’s Lou Dobbs stopped by the booth and exclaimed, “My wife will love this!” A photo shows Dobbs with a box of the mix in his hand.

UPDATE: American News Project interviewed the creators, who said they were just “having a little fun during the election season,” and denied that the box was racist or offensive. Watch it: Read more

Yglesias

McCain and FCS

I noted this briefly the other day, but among other deceptions over the past week, John McCain pulled an underhanded move where he tried to portray Barack Obama’s opposition to the Army’s Future Combat System program as opposition to “future combat systems” for the Army. McCain should know better because, after all, he, too, is a critic of the Future Combat System. At any rate, the Army Times has a solid piece laying this out.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up