Okay, somebody explain Sen. Kerry's vote to keep oil industry subsidies:

[beachmom]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00187#position

Same as Inhofe voted.

[YvonneCa]

1. I don't think it was about oil subsidies...

...at all. I think it was about passing the underlying bill...unemployment benefits, etc. If Sanders' amendment was attached, it might lose votes on the underlying bill? I'm just guessing here... :7

[beachmom]

2. Well, NO Republicans voted for the amendment. Here are the Democrats

that joined the Republicans:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

[YvonneCa]

3. Again, I'm only guessing, but...

...I doubt any Republicans would vote in support of cutting off big oil. Not their style.

I would think the Dems voting against could have a couple of reasons:

1. Oil interests in their state OR $$$ from oil lobby...(ie. Begich, Landreau)

2. The idea that the underlying bill would fail with Sanders' amendment attached.

There could also be the issue of attaching an unrelated amendment to any given bill. My guess is Kerry would be in category 2.

[beachmom]

4. He didn't have to vote that way.

Anyway, I am already onto my new thing to be disappointed about: Pres. Obama would not even TALK about climate change in his speech tonight. That is why climate legislation is toast. Ugh.

[YvonneCa]

5. No he didn't have ...

...to vote that way.

As to the speech, I'm still 'stewing' about that. :) I'm so mad at cable that I'm ready to cancel it...they ALL beat up on Obama, for different reasons.

I just wish President Obama would be himself and not rely so much on the 'presidential typical' ways of using the bully pulpit. I think, for the most part, he tries to AND is actually doing the right things behind the scenes. But when he does 'presidential typical' like tonight...GWB comes to mind and I hate it.

:hi:

[Mass]

6. Though disappointing and surprising, my guess is that they are trying to get a comprehensive bill

about energy and climate and any amendment like that makes the likeliness of such a bill smaller and smaller.

Now, I am doubly PO. that, + Obama insisting about a bill against climate change, without saying what that means. Given that every single energy bill in the Senate claim they do fight climate change, we need a little bit of precision. (I feel like when the public option started to disappear, at this point).

[Mass]

7. Kerry Lieberman's statement

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/06/reaction-to-obamas-oval-office-address-pours-in/1

Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.: "This could be a historic leadership moment. President Obama used his first-ever Oval Office address to call for the passage of comprehensive energy and climate legislation. There can be no doubt that the president is rolling up his sleeves to ensure we establish a market mechanism to tackle carbon pollution, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year, strengthen energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. We will continue working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass comprehensive reform this summer."

[beachmom]

8. Not sure we can ready any tea leaves on this, but interesting item from Marc Ambinder:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-night-beat-clapper-to-get-a-recess-appointment/58180

1. Be aware: the White House has a strategy here for getting climate change legislation passed. It's called "getting to conference." That is, the Senate needs to pass a bill this year. And then the House and Senate will (in theory) put in some sort of carbon pricing mechanism when the two chambers reconcile their bills. It's just much easier to get bills passed without forcing the Senate to try to pass a bill it does not have the votes to pass.

Democrats hope that Obama's speech creates some room for them to run on clean energy platforms and castigate Republicans for siding with big oil against regulation.

So pass any old bill in the Senate and then throw carbon pricing in after, and then .... it magically ends up the President's desk for signing? Oh, please may that be in the works!

[ProSense]

9. I don't buy that, and

nobody will and should.

This is the reason Kerry wants the bill to be the primary focus.

They need to stop playing games.

[Mass]

10. But the address today was understood as a lack of support to this approach.

I know you dont want to hear that, but the fact he did not mention cap and trade or carbon pricing, for example, at the very least will push people to interpret the speech the way Marc Ambinder did (and, as I said in your thread in GDP, this is how I interpret it).

Here is what the Times writes,
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/obama-seeking-new-ideas-on-energy-and-climate/?partner=rss&emc=rss

As I said earlier, it looks like the lack of commitment to the public option: avoid to pronounce the name is not asked. We already know that there are people in the WH who dont think it should be done.

[ProSense]

11. This specifically states that climate is in the mix

Obama Seeking New Ideas on Energy and Climate

He alluded to last year’s successful passage of a climate and energy bill in the House, but made no mention of the current proposal by his Democratic allies in the Senate for legislation including a cap and trading mechanism for emissions. In talking points distributed after the speech, the White House described the Kerry-Lieberman bill as “a plan” — clearly hinting that it would consider other plans.

And the media spin continues.

Also see this.

[Mass]

14. No spin here - It was in Obama's speech as well.

Now, I would not mind if he considered other approaches to carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax, or more restrictive policies like Sanders's, but do you honestly believe he meant that. No, it was a clear sign that he was starting to position himself as supporting an energy only bill with measures supporting wind and nuclear in it. This does not work, as we all know, because why should people switch to more expensive forms of energy if pollution is not taxed.

BTW, as far as this article states, Benenson is NOT A White House aide. The other one is a Senate aide. So a senate aide (from whom? Kerry? Boxer? Dorgan? ...) said that. Understand that, depending upon who it is, it could be meaningful or not.

Also, I reread Gore's statement. While it is globally supportive of the speech, it spends time reminding the need for carbon capping, and I dont think he would have spent the space to do that rather than hailing the president on his leadership on this issue if he was not somewhat concerned. I would have been reassured if the president as said something as simple as what Gore said. The fact that there was no plea for something like that worries me.

[karynnj]

16. It does seem like Obama is trying for an easier win rather than pushing for

pricing carbon. By putting it with all the Gulf coast stuff, it sort of hides that he is being less than courageous. If he gets everything he called for, he will have done at least three major things. The first is to insure that BP pays those affected. I doubt that they can pay the full cost of everything this accident caused. The second is that he is very likely to get the changes in regulation that he wants. The third is the huge commitment to rehabilitate the environment in the Gulf to where it should have been doing things environmentalists called for for decades.

All of those things should easily get support - though the last might require some lifting.

I suspect the thought is that the last one will get sufficient praise from environmentalists that he can afford to disappoint them on not pushing for a real climate change bill. It would seem that the Lugar bill or the Bingaman bill are not out of line with what he is asking for. If passed, he likely would praise the money going to clean energy, without noting it was a lost opportunity. (That bill would be the right time for the Sanders amendment. The justification then would be not just the cost savings, but that it lowers the price of the fuel we want to get away from.

[Mass]

17. Yes, but it is very disappointing. It would have been nice to see a little bit of leadership.

We all know this country does not do anything before there is a crisis (real or imaginary). So, what will it take to see some leading politicians do something. Or will it take once again Nancy Pelosi to decide Obama to act and stop listening to the do nothing crowd.

[karynnj]

18. I completely agree - I found that part extremely dissappointing

Especially with the EPA costs coming in at less than 50 cents a day and at least one poll showing that 63% of the country thought charging for carbon was good, he could have used one minute explaining the lift that using a carbon tax of some type would give to shifting the mix of energy sources. That and explaining that we already spent 2 decades - since Rio - trying the voluntary methods.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-16/climate-bill-lacks-momentum-even-after-bp-spill-democrats-say.html

In addition to that poll, this article shows the problem. There are two many Senators willing to let the Republican fear machine win this one - and are unwilling to fight the Republican characterizations that this is a bad vote for the Democrats. Feinstein is disingenuous saying it could pass next year. First it wastes the effort of passing Waxman/Markey and second, it is hard to believe that passing it in a more Republican House and Senate would be easier - especially after giving away all the goodies in an energy bill this year.

[Mass]

19. It seems that even people very supportive of Obama think so

A view I tend to agree with.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/obama-punts-on-climate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+matthewyglesias+(Matthew+Yglesias)

Obama Punts on Climate
by myglesias
1 person liked this


The most important thing to keep in mind about the sort of “major” presidential speech we saw last night is that they don’t matter. At all. They don’t move votes in Congress. They don’t move public opinion. The bully pulpit method of governance doesn’t work. And that’s about the best I can say about Obama’s speech—even if it had been much better, it wouldn’t have done much good.

But as long as someone speaks in public, he’s inviting you to analyze his words. And on that score, the evaluation just can’t be very good. I understand that the Senate isn’t going to pass a comprehensive climate/energy plan that puts a price on carbon. I get that. Nevertheless, the right thing to do is to pass such a bill. A discussion of energy policy should say so. A discussion of energy policy should mention climate change. There’s more to be said about the benefits of energy reform than its role in averting climate catastrophe. And there’s more to improved energy policy than carbon pricing. But climate change is really important. And putting a price on carbon is really key to getting a handle on it. If you’re talking about these issues, you should say that stuff. And Obama didn’t.

Yesterday, the EPA completed its analysis of the American Power Act and found that it’s a highly affordable way to reduce emissions from greenhouse gasses. That would have been worth mentioning. If you’re not going to talk about this stuff, then why talk? There’s nothing wrong with settling for less than you wanted, but it’s downright weird to not even discuss what really needs to be done.

[ProSense]

20. Here is what I don't get

Yesterday, the EPA completed its analysis of the American Power Act and found that it’s a highly affordable way to reduce emissions from greenhouse gasses. That would have been worth mentioning. If you’re not going to talk about this stuff, then why talk? There’s nothing wrong with settling for less than you wanted, but it’s downright weird to not even discuss what really needs to be done.

Why is the discussion always about what the President didn't say? This address was about the Gulf response, not energy policy.

Two weeks ago, the President gave a speech specifically about energy policy

But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future -- if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.

No, many businesses have already embraced this idea because it provides a level of certainty about the future. And for those that face transition costs, we can help them adjust. But if we refuse to take into account the full costs of our fossil fuel addiction -- if we don’t factor in the environmental costs and the national security costs and the true economic costs -- we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future.

Is the assumption that he has changed his mind since then?

[Mass]

21. It was not about the Gulf only, or he would not have spoken about an energy policy.

This is the point. He made part of his speech about the need for a clean energy bill. He talked about pretty much everything that people are offering for an energy policy, except the need for capping carbon. It was a prime time address, and it could have been a place to make a short pitch on these issues. He explicitly chose not to, and on the contrary to insist there were other ways (which ones? Energy policies alone do not work).

Given the Senate situation, it is not a pitch to wonder why he did not use any of these words.

[karynnj]

22. Good points, but the expectations were set that he would take a stand

Hearing what McConnell said, I can see the wisdom in separating the two pieces. He said that Obama was using the crisis to push energy legislation. This really was a speech on what to do with the oil spill, BP and the damage in the Gulf.

The problem, to me, came in the paragraphs where he spoke of being open to ideas on energy policy. I can see that endorsing Kerry's legislation here would have been "partisan", but when he didn't it looked like he was distancing himself. His spoken words could apply to K/L or to Lugar's bill or even Bingaman's energy only bill - as it includes green energy.

Part of my problem is that no one has been able to explain and counter the millions of dollars spent demonizing the carbon pricing in the bill. Even here and on Daily Kos, many parrot the RW line that it will lead to derivative like speculation - when it was designed to prevent that. It also looks like Move On is lining itself against it. As Obama had a big audience, this could have been the time, however it might not have been the right time and place.

[karynnj]

12. I don't get it - the bill out of reconciliation still has to be voted on in the Senate

before it goes to the President's desk. (There is also no possibility of using a reconciliation fix that needs just 50 votes - there was no enabling language for this and in fact an amendment against it - that many Democrats voted for.

[karynnj]

13. I agree with you - Could Kerry be eliminating the same loopholes in his

bill? Passing this amendment would then have the affect of eliminating them from Kerry's bill making it more expensive. There's a lot of money there.

One clue is that both Kerry and Lieberman voted this way. In addition, there are many on the other side - like Rockefeller and Feingold, who have been awful on climate change.

[Inuca]

15. I was kind of following the vote

and when I heard "kerry - no" the first thought in my mind was WTF??? OTOH, Yvonne (and karyn I think) may have a point, it may be one of these painful to make and painful to explain votes made while viewing a goal post further down the road. I don't know... And I keep feeling that my head may be on the verge of exploding, this + last night's speech + the awful news and images coming from the Gulf...

About the speech: I DID like it. It did not lift me out of my chair (well... actually bed) with enthusiasm or newly found energy and sense of purpose, but I did like it. And when I started hearing the pundits right afterwards (Keith and company), I was wondering if we listened to the same speech. And maybe I wanted it too much to be so and hence had impaired objectivity, but I thought that the part about energy (and climate, kind of, he did mention it once + he mentioned the House bill) while somewhat vague, was stronger than what I expected.

[ProSense]

23. David Wade explains

Kerry, the Democrats' designated crusader for clean energy reform and tough emissions regulations, said through a spokesman he was not opposed to the substance of the amendment, but rather the timing at which it was introduced.

"Senator Kerry supports closing tax loopholes for the oil and gas industry," Kerry's chief of staff David Wade e-mailed Raw Story, in response to a query. "However, the tax extenders bill is not the right vehicle for this reform because we need it included in comprehensive energy and climate legislation so they can help pay for the new tax incentives and investments for clean energy we are proposing."

link

[Mass]

24. Thanks. That is what I figured, but it is good to see this clearly stated.

[beachmom]

25. Thanks for this. Makes sense. nt

[ProSense]

26. Good news

Gibbs on Kerry's bill

[karynnj]

27. Now, that is clear and emphatic!

No ambiguity at all. This really is good news. I hope Obama can help Kerry get his message out on what the plan really is.

[ProSense]

28. Very. This is

also posted here along with an article that includes this quote:

"The president is not asking that the Congress pass another ordinary energy bill as we've done twice in the last five years, that hasn't really changed our dependence on foreign oil or on fossil fuel generally," Lieberman told reporters. "He's asking for something so big that he compared it to the mobilization for World War Two and the moonshot program."

Kerry made that point about energy only legislation recently.

[Inuca]

29. Very good indeed

fingers crossed. But where will they get the damn' 60 votes in the Senate, especially with quite a few Ds likely to defect?