McCain Wants It Both Ways On Global Warming, Ends Up Attacking His Own Plan
McCain Wants It Both Ways On Global Warming, Ends Up Attacking His Own Plan
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivered a major speech on global warming at the North American headquarters of the Danish wind-power company Vestas, despite having prevented the passage of critical renewable energy tax credits for the wind industry in December and February. His campaign also unveiled an advertisement that includes this voiceover:
One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution. The other side denies the problem even exists. There’s a better way.
Watch it:
One half of the ad is true: A significant constituency of the right wing denies that global warming exists or requires action. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, promotes the Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Right-wing media promote false headlines about climate change science. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bush administration’s response to global warming is to embrace an energy policy of increased fossil fuel dependence.
But what “extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution”? Those calling for a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade system to set a price on emissions are primarily conservative economists like Glenn Hubbard and Gregory Mankiw, the chairmen of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2001 to 2005. Is McCain calling Wall Street conservatives “extreme”?
And what “crippling regulation”? The only thing McCain describes as a “regulation” is an energy efficiency standard for building codes. The global investment firm McKinsey & Company has found that mandatory energy efficiency standards, far from being crippling, overcome present market failures and policy distortions and can drive massive return on investment. Is McCain calling McKinsey “extreme”?
McCain’s just trying to have it both ways — his campaign is trying to promote the complex system of government regulation necessary to establish a fair and national carbon market and still pay homage to a right-wing ideology that considers any governmental solutions anathema. Read the rest of this entry »
Stephanopoulos Stumps Fiorina On Corporate Tax Loopholes
Stephanopoulos Stumps Fiorina On Corporate Tax Loopholes
On This Week yesterday, McCain economic adviser Carly Fiorina restated her support of tax loopholes for big business. Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, has been a long-time defender of a gap in the U.S. tax code that enables American corporations to keep foreign profits overseas and abstain from paying domestic taxes.
The Wonk Room, which covered Fiorina’s preference for corporate tax breaks and offshoring back in April, wasn’t really surprised to hear her defending McCain’s stance on George Stephanopoulos’ show. But we were a little surprised to see how easily George was able to point out the flaw in her logic — and how transparently disingenuous Fiorina’s talking points really are.
Watch it:
Sen. McCain, according to Fiorina, understands that “you must focus on why jobs are going overseas.” That may be well and good, but what Fiorina seems to be missing, and what George points out, is that there are two separate issues. A cut in the corporate tax rate is not the same as closing a tax loophole — a tax loophole that allows business profits to remain completely untaxed if left overseas.
Even under Senator McCain’s plan, corporations would still pay 25 percent (down from 35 percent) on money they bring into the country — and that is a lot more than the zero that they pay now. As Stephanopoulos noted, this zero percent does nothing to incentivize businesses, or government defense contractors, from bringing profits back into the US.
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
In The War Of Ideas, Bush and McCain Wield A Wet Noodle
In The War Of Ideas, Bush and McCain Wield A Wet Noodle
In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Commentary’s Gabriel Schoenfeld warned of a “growing pro-Obama/anti-McCain axis,”* an Ecumenical Legion of Doom that, in Schoenfeld’s telling, includes Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the leaders of Hamas, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il:
The obvious possibility…is that one or more of these players might do everything in its power to hurt Mr. McCain and help Mr. Obama. Dramatic action keyed to our internal politics is, after all, already a page in some of our adversaries’ playbooks.
Today, Alex Koppelman notes that Schoenfeld’s argument manages to ignore everything that we have learned about the way that groups like Al Qaeda use media:
Schoenfeld…reached back to the 2004 presidential election, writing, “In 2004, Osama bin Laden’s television appearance only a weekend before the presidential election may have been a naked attempt to influence the outcome by reminding voters that he was still at large and President Bush’s policy had failed.”
Conspicuously absent from Schoenfeld’s argument that these various groups would want Obama as president and would take some action to help him, and from his discussion of the 2004 bin Laden videotape, is one very important point: The CIA believed that bin Laden wanted the tape to help President Bush, not his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry.
Indeed, it’s important to recognize what a propaganda bonanza the neoconservative “war on terror” has been for Osama bin Laden, as well as for extremists, Islamic and otherwise, throughout the world. (The only thing that Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Hugo Chavez really have in common is the extent to which Bush’s arrogant unilateralism has helped justify the further consolidation of their political power.) The attacks of 9/11 made bin Laden a major figure in Arab media and culture; the decision by Bush and the neocons to cast him as the sinister leader of a global Islamofascist movement made him a legend. Simply put, Bush’s policy response to 9/11 has done more to promote bin Laden’s ideology than a hundred 9/11s. John McCain’s insistence on treating “Islamic extremism” as the “the transcendental challenge” indicates that he simply doesn’t grasp this.
*Why do neocons love that word, “axis” so much? Partly because the World War II allusion allows them to indulge their Churchill fetish. But mostly because it enables them to create the impression of an enemy “alliance” where there is no real evidence of any such thing, in order to conflate various extremist groups with differing, and often conflicting, goals and ideologies into a single Islamofascist Frankenstein’s monster, which they can then use to scare the simple villagers who read their magazines into voting for their preferred candidates.
There’s no denying that there are real threats out there in the world. The problem is that conservatives by and large have demonstrated over the past seven years that they are incapable of actually tackling the 21st century threats. They are stuck in a World War II mindset that is irrelevant to today’s challenges – after spending nearly a trillion dollars and grinding down our military, terrorist attacks have increased, the Al Qaeda threat remains real and present, and the positions of autocrats from Pyongyang to Moscow to Riyadh has gotten stronger.
McCain’s ‘Hypocritical’ Wind Power Photo-Op
McCain’s ‘Hypocritical’ Wind Power Photo-Op
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is poised to make a major speech on global warming today at the North American headquarters of the Danish wind-turbine company Vestas. In the speech, McCain takes steps to rhetorically distance himself from President Bush’s shameful record of inaction on global warming:
I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.
Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Joe Romm notes that McCain has chosen a “clever, but ultimately hypocritical location” for his address, because “conservatives including John McCain, are the main reason McCain has to go to a Danish wind turbine manufacturer to give a climate speech.”
Last year, Sen. McCain told Grist, “The wind industry is doing fine.” In fact, the United States was the market leader in wind technology — following government investments decades ago under President Carter. In the past 26 years that McCain has been in Congress, Romm explains, conservatives “repeatedly gutted the wind budget, then opposed efforts by progressives to increase it, and repeatedly blocked efforts to extend the wind power tax credit.” Now the United States is a “bit player” in the $36 billion global market.
In these past “eight long years” alone, McCain has worked with other conservatives to kill federal renewable electricity standards and renewable energy production tax credits. Here are some of the lowlights:
McCain Opposes Renewable Electricity Standards. A renewable electricity standard would require utilities to generate a certain portion of their electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. Twenty six states, including Arizona, have such requirements. The passage of a renewable energy standard in Colorado in 2004 was a key incentive for Vestas in siting its new wind turbine plant in that state. Sen. McCain voted against renewable electricity every time:
– 2002 (Vote 50): Voted against 20 percent requirement.
– 2002 (Vote 55): Voted to gut 10 percent requirement.
– 2002 (Vote 59): Voted to gut 10 percent requirement.
– 2005 (Vote 141): Voted against a renewable portfolio standard.
– 2005 (Vote 363): Cast deciding vote to cut rural Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program funding rom $23 million to $3 million.McCain Opposes Renewable Production Tax Credits. The renewable electricity production tax credit has been key to the growth of the domestic wind industry by supporting power companies, businesses, and individuals who employ wind, geothermal, solar, and other types of renewable electricity. However, the tax credit has been allowed to expire three times in the past decade — in 2004, McCain introduced an amendment that would have eliminated the tax credit entirely. McCain’s continued opposition to the tax credit is putting the wind industry at risk again:
– March 2006 (Vote 42): Voted against extension of tax credits.
– March 2007 (Vote 98): Skipped vote to extend tax credits.
– June 2007 (Vote 223): Skipped vote to extend tax credits.
– December 2007 (Vote 416): Skipped vote to extend tax credits — extension failed by one vote.
– February 2008 (Vote 8): Skipped vote to extend tax credits — extension failed by one vote.
A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows how this failure of conservative priorities — from Bush and McCain — “contributes to a boom-bust cycle of development that plagues the wind industry.”
UPDATE: In 2003, Vestas cancelled plans to construct a wind turbine plant in Portland, Oregon and laid off 500 employees because of the uncertainty surrounding the production tax credit.
Full Text Of John McCain Climate Change Speech
Full Text Of John McCain Climate Change Speech
UPDATE: The Wonk Room now also has the McCain campaign talking points, question-and-answer and “fact sheet” handouts.
UPDATE II: David Roberts at Gristmill, A Siegel at Energy Smart, and the Sierra Club praise McCain’s recognition of global warming but find his plan inadequate. Joe Romm at Climate Progress responds to McCain’s hypocrisy for delivering the speech at a Danish wind turbine facility. Matthew Yglesias wonders about McCain’s fixation on nuclear and insufficient goals. David Corn wonders why McCain “didn’t blast Bush on global warming when he was courting Republican voters.”
Here is the full text of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) speech on climate change in Portland, Oregon, as prepared for delivery:
Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Vestas Wind Technology. Today is a kind of test run for the company. They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies, and all these wind turbines, but there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to come give a speech.
Every day, when there are no reporters and cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are doing important work. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.
Wind is a clean and predictable source of energy, and about as renewable as anything on earth. Along with solar power, fuel-cell technology, cleaner burning fuels and other new energy sources, wind power will bring America closer to energy independence. Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world’s oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.
Actually, Cato, McCain’s Health Care Plan Really Is That Bad
Actually, Cato, McCain’s Health Care Plan Really Is That Bad
An analysis of John McCain’s health care plan by Cato Institute’s Michael F. Cannon argues that “Sen. McCain’s plan is a lot better than his critics suggest.” We disagree. Here’s why:
Cannon argues that, contrary to Elizabeth Edwards’ claim that McCain’s embrace of the private market wouldn’t secure coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, “the individual market covers lots of people with high-cost medical conditions — so long as they purchased the insurance when they were healthy.” Not only that, but “those high-cost patients do not pay premiums that correspond to their health risk, and their coverage does not disappear when they change jobs.”
But Cannon, in his enthusiasm to defend McCain, overlooks some important facts:
McCain’s Plan Would Weaken The Ability Of Sick People To Keep Their Private Insurance: The main reason (not mentioned by Cannon) that some people who develop health problems can renew their health insurance without seeing higher premiums is federal regulation through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). States have improved on these regulations, offering more protections to sick consumers of private health insurance, but John McCain, in his push for an unregulated national market, would undermine these additional protections.
McCain’s Plan For The Uninsurable Is Woefully Inadequate: While only 5% of non-elderly Americans participate in the individual insurance market, 56 million chronically ill people are currently covered by employer-based health insurance plans, which can absorb the cost of these high-risk individuals because their pools are diversified. McCain would eliminate the tax incentive to keep these plans active, and nudge many of these folks into the private market where insurers would be reluctant to cover them. McCain’s answer? Dubious “high-risk” pools. Cato’s answer? Thoroughly debunked “Health Savings Accounts.”
There Are Better Alternatives That McCain Opposes: Cannon argues that McCain’s plan “provide more secure coverage of high-cost conditions than the current job-based system does” — but the way to provide the best security is a method which McCain adamantly opposes: offer a competing non-discriminatory, flexible alternative to employee based coverage by letting any American join a system like the one members of Congress use to get their insurance.
As the Des Moines register editorial board opined, McCain’s “dangerous experiment…should scare the heck out of the millions of Americans who rely on employer-based coverage.”
Most Capital Gains Flow To Millionaires
Our guest blogger is James Kvaal, Domestic Policy Advisor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Jack Kemp – once Bob Dole’s running mate and now a top economic advisor to John McCain – defends McCain for supporting the capital gains tax cuts he originally opposed. Kemp repeats the discredited claim that lower capital gains rates produce more revenue. (There’s more on this here, here, and here). And then he says:
It is an absolute, empirically proven fact of tax policy that nearly one-half of all capital gains redound to the benefit of folks earning less than $50,000 a year.
It’s not quite clear what Kemp means by “redound to the benefit,” but if means they get the money then he’s wrong – very wrong. Households earning less than $50,000 a year collected a mere 2.5 percent of capital gains in 2005, according to the Tax Policy Center. Families earning more than $1 million a year collected 59 percent of capital gains. Moreover, most middle-class families with capital gains hold their investments in retirement accounts shielded against capital gains taxes.
Will McCain Fund His Corporate Tax Cuts With Massive Cuts In Social Security?
Will McCain Fund His Corporate Tax Cuts With Massive Cuts In Social Security?
John McCain’s ‘economic plan’ packs a solid one-two punch for the middle class. His first hit is in his sweeping, unprecedented tax cuts–tax cuts that that go primarily to corporations and high-income tax payers, stripping the government of $300 billion in annual revenues.
Now John McCain has made it very clear that he plans to balance the federal budget by the end of his second term.
Criticism has been broad, coming from Paul Krugman, the Wall Street Journal, the American Prospect and Robert Bixby, director of the non-partisan Concord Coalition.
To balance the budget, McCain would need to cut federal programs down to a level they haven’t seen since 1976–decreasing spending by programs like the Department of Education, Department of Agriculture and Department of Labor over 40% if you hold constant defense spending, which the senator has agreed not to cut. No president would propose and no Congress would pass such draconian cuts.
So how will McCain balance the budget? James Pethokoukis of U.S. News thinks he has the answer: massive cuts in Social Security benefits. The cuts Pethokoukis outlines would not only eliminate the Social Security shortfall but also generate $2.9 trillion to help pay for McCain’s tax cuts. He points to McCain aides’ suggestions that he might raise the retirement age and cut the growth in benefits over time.
Implementing those two solutions would actually result in more money going into Social Security than is needed to fund scheduled benefits. There would be money left over to help reduce taxes or increase spending on education or energy or whatever […] Now if you did a combination of price indexing starting in 2015 and extended the retirement age to 70 by 2050, that $5 trillion deficit turns into a $2.87 trillion surplus.
If Pethokoukis is right, McCain is attempting to do something that no president has ever done before: using payroll tax revenue to fund other functions of government. The result would be huge cuts in the program that lifts 13 million seniors out of poverty and a shift of the tax burden from progressive corporate taxes onto regressive wage taxes.
The gaping whole in McCain’s budget plans has left us all to speculate. But it cannot be a good sign for the McCain campaign when even McCain sympathizers think they detect a plan for massive cuts in arguably the most popular government program in history.
McCain’s ‘Main’ Health Care Concern Is Clearly Not ‘Cost’
McCain’s ‘Main’ Health Care Concern Is Clearly Not ‘Cost’
An LA Times piece today contrasts John McCain’s health care plan with the Democratic candidates’ plans by implying McCain is more concerned about health care “costs” while his opponents main concern is “coverage.”
But cost control and universal coverage are not mutually exclusive– they are inextricably connected. By neglecting the 47 million Americans without health insurance, McCain is neglecting one of the best ways to bring costs under control: universal coverage that reduces pricey, last-minute hospital visits by uninsured patients, lowers administrative costs, and encourages cost-effective preventive care.
Furthermore, McCain’s plan would increase the amount America’s families would spend on health care in a few key ways:
Eroding away the value of families’ health care tax benefit: McCain would eliminate the tax break for employee-based coverage, replacing it with a $2,500 tax credit for individuals ($5,000 for families) to help pay for private health insurance. Disturbingly, however, this credit will be pegged to general inflation instead of the price of premiums, the net effect being a “massive tax increase.“
Confusing cheaper coverage with lower costs: McCain wants to shift as many families as possible into an unregulated national insurance market where some people — particularly young, healthy people — may find coverage with enticingly low monthly premiums. But these attractive premiums would disguise, as Ezra Klein points out, “very high deductibles, lots of personal financial risk, and relatively sparse coverage.” After all, when insurance companies “cut costs,” they aim for one thing: denying as much coverage as possible.
Shifting struggling families into flawed, expensive “high-risk” pools: For unlucky families struggling with pre-existing conditions like cancer, heart disease or diabetes, McCain’s plan would offer a chance to buy into “high-risk pools.” Only trouble, these pools have many of the same draconian limitations as the unregulated private market: waiting periods, premiums that are out of reach for many families, substantial deductibles and co-pays, and limits on mental health and maternity care.