Is McCain Backing Away From His Pledge To Regulate The Tobacco Industry?
Is McCain Backing Away From His Pledge To Regulate The Tobacco Industry?
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill that would “empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the tobacco industry” and allow regulators to demand the “elimination of other hazardous ingredients in cigarettes.”
The bill, which provoked a veto-threat from the White House, mirrors a failed 1998 proposal spearheaded by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain’s bill sought to give the federal government unprecedented oversight over the tobacco industry and led many Republicans to caricature the legislation as a “very liberal, big government, big bureaucracy, not a Republican bill.”
McCain responded by pledging to “never” give up on the effort — promising to “hold tobacco companies liable for their efforts to endanger children” — and publicly praising the regulatory nature of the legislation:
Nicotine and tobacco products will now be subject to broad regulatory and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration and the industry will be required to pay over $500 billion to settle claims and fund vital anti-smoking and related health care initiatives…Second, our goal is to insure that nicotine and tobacco products are regulated by the FDA to protect public health. [News Conference, 3/20/1998]
But McCain may now be backing away from his pledge to regulate the industry. While still officially a sponsor of the Senate version of the latest tobacco bill, McCain has suggested that he “won’t commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation” and regularly belittles government regulation on the campaign trail:
- Again, we get back to Senator Obama believes that big government is the answer — government is the answer. He’ll raise your taxes. He will increase regulation. [Town Hall, 7/10/2008]
- So I think it really has to do — the fundamental difference is our view of the role of government in America. Everything he has supported is bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes, et cetera. And I am a very proud conservative that believes in less government, in our nation’s security, and lower taxes, and a government that basically only intervenes in people’s lives when every other avenue has been exhausted. [Town Hall, 7/7/2008]
- I was one of many newly elected members who claimed with pride to be disciples of Ronald Reagan. I am as proud of that distinction today as I was then… I think all Reagan Republicans would describe the core values of a conservative as…opposition to unnecessary government regulation; and lastly, and very importantly, belief that the government that governs best governs least. [Reagan Library, 6/23/2006]
- Comments
- 0
‘Conditional Engagement’ Misreads Iraqi Consensus On U.S. Military Presence
‘Conditional Engagement’ Misreads Iraqi Consensus On U.S. Military Presence
Our guest bloggers are Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Peter Juul, a Research Associate at the Center.
The first problem highlighted in the previous post is that “conditional engagement” fails to outline the precise conditions when U.S. troops would depart –- it’s an exit strategy without an exit. Conditional engagement is a policy proposal that is unsure of what it wants to achieve, besides vague terms like “accommodation” and “sustainable security” – hardly much of an improvement on the amorphous goals defined by conservatives as “victory” or “success.”
The second main shortcoming is that it misreads Iraq’s interests and calculations, which have evolved and changed rapidly in the past few months alone:
2. Conditional engagement assumes that the carrots of continued military, economic, and political support are more appetizing then they are.
Conditional engagement falls into the same trap that the Bush administration has on Iraq for the past five years: overestimating how much leverage the United States has in Iraq and underestimating broader Iraqi opposition to a continued U.S. military presence.
Certainly, there is a lot of posturing going on among Iraq’s leaders these days, and a number of Iraqis who publicly state that they oppose the U.S. presence actually understand that they would not be in power if not for the security umbrella U.S. forces have provided.
But the core of the conditional engagement argument is based upon a presupposition of Iraqi dependency on the United States– a dependency that has visibly weakened in just the last eighteen months, and on several fronts:
- Growing financial independence – Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, noted in a recent report that Iraqi government revenues for the 2008 fiscal year will likely reach $70 billion, which is double what was originally projected at the start of the year. Barham Salih, Iraq’s deputy prime minister in charge of reconstruction, reportedly said earlier this month that Iraq didn’t need any additional foreign funding for reconstruction.
- Increasing size and capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Military operations in Basra, Baghdad, Amara, and Diyala this year have all gone much better than previous operations. The overall size of the ISF has reportedly increased by 50 percent from 323,000 at the start of 2007 to a current size of approximately 500,000, according to U.S. government figures. Of course, everyone knows that the Iraqi military lacks key capacities – logistical support, airlift, and basic management structures – and this of course abstracts from a more complex reality posed by multiple independent militias, which are as much of a political problem and a reflection of internal power dynamics as it is a capacity challenge.
This increasing Iraqi capacity demonstrates that perhaps “conditional engagement” is more of a descriptive analysis of the current Bush administration policy, rather than a prescriptive analysis that offers a viable policy for a new administration. The problem with the current policy, as with conditional engagement, is that it never actually describes how to bridge Iraq’s internal divisions. Read the rest of this entry »
Bush’s ‘Sprint To The Finish’: Destroy The Planet
Bush’s ‘Sprint To The Finish’: Destroy The Planet
The Bush era of energy policy has been one of contempt for the planet and the economy — all for the benefit of Exxon and its ilk. Now he wants to tie our future to even dirtier, deadlier, costlier fossil fuels. Today in West Virginia, President Bush declared his plan for a “sprint to the finish” of his tenure:
We all want to be environmentally friendly people, but we also want to have practical policies that deal with the problems we face today and the problems we’ll face tomorrow if we don’t get going.
What are these “practical policies”?
— “We use about 1.1 billion tons of coal a year. That sounds like a lot to me. It — and so the challenge is, how do we make sure that this reliable source of U.S. energy remains in the center of our strategy?”
— “First, we ought to be drilling offshore exploration, what’s called the Outer Continental Shelf.”
— “Secondly, we ought to expand oil production by tapping into oil shale.”
— “We ought to be drilling in Alaska.”
— “I believe that one really promising source of energy, so we can power our automobiles and become less dependent on foreign energy, is coal-to-liquids projects.”
This is a call for a “sprint to the finish” of civilization as we know it. The Wonk Room has explained how coal-to-liquids, oil shale, expanded offshore drilling would benefit no one but corporate polluters — and would dramatically worsen the climate crisis.
Two weeks ago, former Vice President Al Gore, Bush’s 2000 opponent, explained the roots of the Bush-era crises:
When we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.
We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.
But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.
Standing before right-wing coal industry of West Virginia — which has devastated the state’s jobs, lives, and land — Bush claimed, “I love the fact that we’ve got people who understand the dangers we face, understand we’re facing ideological people that use murder to achieve their objectives, and want to hurt us again here at home.”
With his right-wing fealty to the fossil polluters who, if left unchecked, will destroy the planet, the president is describing himself.
The $1.3 Trillion Question: Does McCain Raise Taxes On Health Insurance?
The $1.3 Trillion Question: Does McCain Raise Taxes On Health Insurance?
Our guest bloggers are James Kvaal and Robert Gordon, Senior Fellows at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Sen. John McCain had a read-my-lips moment on taxes yesterday, telling a town hall meeting that “I want to look you in the eye: I will not raise your taxes nor support a tax increase. I will not do it.”
Of course, only three days earlier, McCain said that higher taxes were “on the table” to solve Social Security. And he seemed to say the same to a group of donors last night. ThinkProgress has more of McCain’s muddled history on Social Security taxes.
Here’s another place where John McCain may be willing to raise your taxes: to pay for his enormous health care plan.
McCain has proposed new health insurance tax credits, which his campaign estimates to cost $3.6 trillion over the decade. He says he pays for it by taxing workers’ health benefits, which are largely tax-free today. McCain aides say the plan has no net cost and left it out of their budget plan.
McCain’s numbers add up only by raising taxes on middle-class families. To raise $3.6 trillion by taxing health benefits, you need both income and payroll taxes. But that means an $1,100 tax increase on a typical married couple earning $60,000 in 2013.
Alternatively, McCain could avoid tax increases by applying only income taxes – but not payroll taxes – to health benefits. And this is what his spokesman told the Daily Tax Report he does. But income taxes alone fall $1.3 trillion short of paying for his tax credits.
McCain aides say they pay for their health care plan without raising middle-class taxes, but that’s not possible. So which is it? Do they raise taxes on ordinary families by more than a thousand dollars or add $1.3 trillion to the deficit? It may be the biggest unanswered question in the candidates’ fiscal policies.
$236 Per American Driver: Big Oil’s U.S. Profits From The Last Year
$236 Per American Driver: Big Oil’s U.S. Profits From The Last Year
Sky-high gas prices mean hardship for American families but huge profits for big oil companies.
According to a new study from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, their U.S. profits from the last 12 months were the equivalent to $236 from every single person with a drivers license in America.
In the past year, oil and gasoline prices have broken all records. Oil reached $147 a barrel, and gasoline hit a new high of $4.11 a gallon earlier this month. Oil prices were 90 percent higher over the past three months than they were a year ago.
Today, Exxon Mobil announced that they had made $11.7 billion in the last three months, the most profitable quarter ever for an American company.
The other big five oil companies announced earnings 26% higher than this same period last year, putting them on track to break last year’s record profits.
High prices may be good for oil company profits, but they’re bad news for American families. Higher gasoline prices are costing ordinary families hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year.
In the past 12 months, the five largest oil companies have earned $148 billion world wide, including an estimated $47 billion in the United States. To put these numbers in perspective: if these U.S. profits were distributed evenly among American drivers, it would equal about $236 per driver.
For more information, check out the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s full report here.
UPDATE: Chevron has since released their Q2 2008 profits: $5.98 billion in the last three months, up 11% from the same period last year. While slightly less than predicted in our report, it doesn’t significantly change the per-driver share of the five companies’ U.S. profits over the past year which remains approximately $236 per American driver.
Doctor’s Orders: Kissinger Advocates Staying In Iraq
Doctor’s Orders: Kissinger Advocates Staying In Iraq
Former Secretary of State and all around foreign policy eminence Henry Kissinger argues in this morning’s Washington Post that previous calls for a timeline for US withdrawal from Iraq have been “overtaken by events.” In other words, things are going so much better, now we have to stay!
Almost all objective observers agree that major progress has been made on all three fronts of the Iraq war: Al-Qaeda, the Sunni jihadist force recruited largely from outside the country, seems on the run in Iraq; the indigenous Sunni insurrection attempting to restore Sunni predominance has largely died down; and the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has, at least temporarily, mastered the Shiite militias that were challenging its authority. After years of disappointment, we face the need to shift gears mentally to consider emerging prospects of success.
Though Kissinger identifies himself as a friend and occasional adviser to John McCain, I’ve argued previously that the foreign policies that McCain has outlined bear little resemblance to the realpolitik of Kissinger, but rather reveal McCain’s strong commitment to a neoconservative ideology and agenda. Kissinger’s op-ed, however, indicates that Kissinger and McCain share the same mistaken assumptions about effect of US withdrawal on Iraqi politics.
The main problem with Dr. K’s prescription for Iraq is that he doesn’t recognize the US presence itself as a provocation, or how the open-ended and condition-less US commitment to Iraq acts as roadblock to genuine political accommodation. Kissinger suggests some negative consequences of setting a deadline (”largely defeated internal groups to go underground”), but doesn’t acknowledge that these have come to pass in the absence of a deadline. Kissinger also bizarrely claims that a deadline “will give Iran an incentive to strengthen its supporters in the Shiite community for the period after the American withdrawal.” I don’t know where Kissinger’s been, but Iran has been doing this since March 2003, and continues to enjoy very good relations with the same Iraqi Shia political elites currently supported by the US.
As I wrote last week, no government which derives its authority from a foreign military occupation, or even appears to, will ever be seen as legitimate in the eyes of its own people, and thus the Iraqi government will not be able to truly stand on its own until there is a firm US commitment to withdraw. Acknowledging and honoring the strong Iraqi consensus in favor of a US withdrawal is an essential step toward breaking through the current impasse between Iraq’s political factions, which was, after all, the stated goal of the surge in the first place.
House Conservatives Employ DeLay-Style Tactics To Kill Legislation That Would Rein In Oil Profiteers
House Conservatives Employ DeLay-Style Tactics To Kill Legislation That Would Rein In Oil Profiteers
Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Tom DeLay may be gone but he is not forgotten. During yesterday’s vote on the Commodity Markets and Transparency Act (H.R. 6604) to rein in oil profiteers, House Republican leaders pressured 13 of their members to switch their vote from “yes” to “no.” Thanks to these strong arm tactics and weak members, the bill to lower gasoline prices by controlling profiteers failed by a vote of 276-151, falling ten votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage under the suspension of the House rules. Once again, the GOP leadership used their power to help keep oil prices and profits high, while hurting the average driver.
Fadel Gheit, Managing Director and Senior Oil Analyst, Oppenheimer & Company testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
I believe the surge in crude oil price, which more than doubled in the last 12 months, was mainly due to excessive speculation and not due to an unexpected shift in market fundamentals.
During the alloted time for voting, 291 members cast “yes” votes – more than enough to pass the bill. Then Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) and their minions went to work. Thirteen Republicans flipped and joined the 16 Democrats and 122 Republicans already in opposition. Final result: the bill failed, and profiteers will continue to drive up oil prices.
The “Threatened Thirteen” who switched their votes to oppose controls and oversight on Enron-like profiteering:
– Tom Cole (R-OK), Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee
– Andy Crenshaw (R-FL)
– David Davis (R-TN)
– Frank Lucas (R-OK)
– Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
– John Peterson (R-PA), retiring; House leader for oil drilling in protected coastal areas
– Joseph Pitts (R-PA)
– Rick Renzi (R-AZ), retiring due indictment for fraud, other charges
– Mike Rogers (R-MI)
– Jim Saxton (R-NJ), retiring
– Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
– John Sullivan (R-OK)
– Michael Turner (R-OH)
This story feels familiar because it is. In October 2005, then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) got three members to switch their votes in favor of a bill to weaken the Clean Air Act and other environmental safeguards to pass “Gasoline for America’s Security Act.” It would have eliminated health protections to help big oil companies build refineries. (Fortunately, it died in the Senate.) So although Tom DeLay is gone due to an indictment for felony conspiracy, his replacements still use the “hammer” from DeLay’s old toolbox.
Coburn’s Obstructionism Leaves 44,000 Paralyzed Veterans In A Lurch
Coburn’s Obstructionism Leaves 44,000 Paralyzed Veterans In A Lurch
While personally blocking more than 70 pieces of legislation, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has portrayed himself as a champion against “wasteful” government spending. In reality, Coburn’s obstructionism has delayed, deferred, or killed legislation that would have expanded medical research and improved the lives of millions of Americans.
Responding to Coburn’s obstructionism, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) crafted the Advancing America’s Priorities Act, a package of nearly 40 bills that Coburn and other conservatives prevented from coming to a vote.
The package included The Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve Act, which would have “allocated $25 million for research on spinal cord injuries, rehabilitation and measures to improve the quality of life for paralyzed Americans.”
Because Coburn and his conservative allies successfully killed the deal, he has attracted a number of right-wing admirers:
- Two months ago, I made a rather vivid attack on a group of U.S. senators I called “the Coburn Seven,” who were blocking consideration of this measure. I was convinced that Tom Coburn — known in the Senate as “Dr. No” for objecting to nearly all spending increases — intended to kill the bill. Then I made the worst mistake of the commentator: actually meeting the object of your scorn….Coburn politely assured me that his motivation was not stinginess. His main goal was to increase the number of people receiving treatment. [WP, 7/30/2008]
- “Now that he is a member of the Senate and I am back in the private sector, paying taxes and worrying about the debt, my view of Coburn has changed. I love the guy.” [The Hill, 7/28/2008]
- “But this other Advancing America’s Priorities Act, that has to be shut down. And Senator Tom Coburn, we we love him. Dr. No , he is up there crusading, it’s a one man crusade if you ask me, against what’s going on on Capitol Hill.” [The Laura Ingraham Show, 7/28/2008]
- “Much like the late conservative hero “Senator No” (Jesse Helms), Coburn seems to be the only conservative willing to block legislation that would exacerbate the $9.3 trillion dollar debt this Congress is passing on to future generations.” [Human Events, 7/14/2008]
Coburn’s so-called ‘idealism’ has real and negative impacts on Americans. According to the Paralyzed Veterans for America, the bill, which would have cost just $0.82 cents per family, would have benefited the 240,000 Americans, including 44,000 veterans, “who suffer from spinal cord injuries or paralysis.”
Unfortunately, these Americans now have to bear the burden of Coburn’s “idealism.”
Newt’s ‘American Solutions’ Is A Front Group For King Coal
Newt’s ‘American Solutions’ Is A Front Group For King Coal
This is the second post in our series of investigative pieces looking into ASWF. See the first post here.
Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company, became one of the top funders for Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF) this June, with a contribution of a quarter of a million dollars. IRS documents reveal that Peabody’s donation of $250,000 on June 9 — days after fossil-industry senators blocked global warming legislation — came on top of an April contribution of $25,000 from Peabody’s top Washington lobbyist, Frederick Palmer:
Peabody, World’s Largest Coal Company, #4 Backer Of American Solutions For Winning The Future. Newt Gingrich’s 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, has received $275,000 in contributions from Peabody Energy, Inc. As of July 1, 2008, the world’s largest private-sector coal company is ASWF’s fourth highest contributor. [IRS, $250,000 6/16/08, $25,000 4/30/08]
Last year, a front group backed by Peabody smeared Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius (D) as a supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying an air permit to new coal plants because of their potential global warming pollution. When challenged, Peabody declared, “We are pleased to support the message.”
On July 23, Peabody reported record profits of $242.6 million and record sales of $1.53 billion for its second quarter, on surging coal prices. Its 59.8 million tons of coal sold are responsible for about one percent of the world’s total global warming emissions that quarter.
Peabody Energy’s vision for “America’s Energy Future,” with U.S. coal consumption doubling by 2025, is shared by ASWF, as its “Platform Of The American People” attests:
– To combat the rising cost of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, we support the United States using more of its own domestic energy resources, including the oil and coal it already has here in the U.S.
– We believe the United States should increase its use of coal because it is a domestically available energy source, is less expensive than imported foreign oil, and new technologies have dramatically reduced emissions from burning coal, as well as making it much less harmful to the environment.
– We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible.
– We believe in using United States domestic energy sources such as clean coal and oil, even if it means drilling off our coasts and in Alaska, as well as offering tax credits for American businesses that develop new energy sources.
The fossil-fuel-dependent future that Peabody Energy is promoting through Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” billionaire-backed front group is catastrophic, as it “ignores the nightmarish damages that would be caused to our air, water and climate.”
In the words of NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen, “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link.” ASWF is just the latest of these fossil-fueled front groups. Hansen concluded:
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children.