Aug
24th
Sun
24th
Energy: Debunking The Myth That Obama & Clinton Were The Same
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Energy: Debunking The Unity Call That Obama & Clinton Were The Same!
Ironically, there appears to be one issue that both the far-right and far-left can agree upon this election. Both agree that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s policy were essentially the same, and neither can understand why it is the Clinton supporters refuse to back Obama. As a result, Clinton supporters have continued to have to deal with repeated attacks calling them racist or “Republican” Operatives, often times followed by pleas to unite. It’s quite a mixture of reaction to their refusal to support Obama. But why is that they would consider supporting McCain, just to stop Obama and the DNC, if Clinton and Obama’s policy’s were essentially the same? Perhaps because they weren’t!The Clinton Democrats’ fight has gone far beyond the fight for just a candidate, it is a fight to reform an entire political party and end the far-left hijacking of the party. Over half of Clinton supporters have failed to follow Obama into the general election, perhaps making them the largest swing-vote in this election. But there is no doubt that this week they will continue to face a massive media attempt and marketing campaign aimed at unity, and it is time that the most vocal of the Puma Community raise their voice to show the dangers of an Obama presidency.
The single biggest reason that Clinton lost the nomination stemmed not from failures of her campaign strategists at the beginning of the year but rather from events that took place following her first Senatorial victory. For three years following her initial election, there was no doubt in any pundits mind that Clinton would some day run for the presidency. As a result, during the first years of her Senatorial career the media was quick to highlight her move toward the center. It was a move that was pointed out by the Main Stream Media and even Conservative controlled air waves. I remember Rush Limbaugh pointing out on almost a daily basis her move toward the center. This move turned the Soros, Dean, Pelosi and Reid ideologues against her out of fear by these far-left power brokers of another Clinton Presidency that would be willing to work with both sides of the isle. As a result she lost their support and they found their own candidate. Now you can call Clinton’s move to the center in her early Senatorial career a move based upon political expedience or a move based upon a broader understanding that you must be willing to work with the other side; regardless, it was her own attempts to moderate her positions that started to stack the cards against her.
But were her and Obama’s policies really the same? As an independent conservative, I would argue no. On the surface, they may support similar basic principles, but you must look below the surface to realize just how radical Obama’s policies are.
Take for instance the issue of Energy and the Windfall Profit’s Tax. All candidates preach the need for increased alternative energies, but both Clinton and Obama want to roll back certain Energy-related tax-breaks and institute a Windfall Profits Tax. So they are essentially the same, right?? Wrong! We will never know what Clinton’s position would have been on drilling, but we do know the differences that existed in their energy plans.
Clinton had put together an energy plan that called for the creation of a 10 year -$50 billion ‘Strategic Energy Fund’. The fund would be paid for by a roll-back of oil-company tax-breaks (which of course Obama voted for and McCain didn’t) along with the imposition of a Windfall Profits Tax. Now if you are reader of PDOP, you understand how much I absolutely despise the thought of a WPT, yet that is not the issue today. Clinton’s plan would be paid for by rolling back $30 billion of tax breaks over a ten-year period, and her Windfall Profits Tax would raise $20 billion over a ten year period. At the time of the primaries this sounded like a large amount, but today it pales in comparison to Obama’s suggestions.
Obama’s energy plan calls for a $500 immediate energy rebate costing (by his own figures) $75 billion dollars, plus a ten-year, $150 billion, investment into alternative energies. He would pay for the plan through a roll back of $30 billion in tax breaks over ten years, along with the imposition of a $15 billion PER YEAR Windfall Profits Tax. Uh-Oh…Now are you starting to see the difference? Clinton - $20 billion over ten years, Obama $150 billion over ten years! Ironically, Obama’s $225 Billion plan still comes up short on the funding, but alas I will let you in on a little secret he doesn’t want you to know.
Obama and his adviser’s have consistently estimated that their WPT would raise $15 billion per year. That estimate was never based upon any hard numbers it was based upon their rhetoric that a tax equal to 10% of the oil company’s $150 billion in profits would be reasonable. Yet, when you look at how Obama is suggesting we implement the tax, he has called for a 20%-25% tax on per barrel prices above $80 per barrel. Considering that this tax would be imposed on the $20 million barrels per day our country burns through, the tax at $120 per barrel would actually raise (theoretically, in nonsensical & no understanding of free markets world) $58-$70 billion per year. At $100 per barrel the tax would raise $26-$35 billion per year.
So what’s the real difference: A Clinton WPT equal to roughly 1.25% of oil profits over 10 years, or an Obama WPT equal to 20%-40% of oil company profits over ten years.
I’m no fan of any WPT, but even I have to admit that Clinton’s energy plan was much more realistic, moderate and designed to raise revenue without destroying an entire industry when compared to the Obama plan. This is what Americans don’t understand and will never be told by the Main Stream Media. I may never agree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policies, but her left-leaning policies pale in comparison to the outright socialist proposals of Obama.
J Brown
August 24th, 2008
