'It never would have been this milquetoast without my efforts!'

Does Bush deserve credit for the energy bill?

Posted by David Roberts at 9:22 AM on 19 Dec 2007

Read more about: politics | legislation | energy

Let's review what happened with the energy bill:

The House and Senate each voted through energy bills. The Senate's had a CAFE boost and a Renewable Fuel Standard; the House's had a Renewable Energy Standard and a tax package to take subsidies from oil companies and give them to renewable energy.
Nancy Pelosi battled for months with John Dingell, finally securing his support for a CAFE increase.
The House then passed a bill that had all the provisions in it -- CAFE, RFS, RES, and tax package.
The White House threatened a veto. Republican Senators whined.
Reid put the bill up for a vote; it failed.
Reid stripped out the RES but not he tax package and put it up for another vote -- it failed 59-41 to overcome a filibuster threat.
Reid stripped out the tax package and passed the bill more or less the way the Senate originally passed it: CAFE an RFS.

The White House's sole involvement in this entire process was to send periodic threats to Nancy Pelosi, vowing to veto any bill that didn't do exactly what the President's idiot "20 in 10" plan does, and no more. Republicans in Congress, as they have for seven long years now, went along lockstep with his wishes.

The shape of events is not that difficult to discern: The Democrats tries to pass ambitious, historic legislation and the Republicans acted as a roadblock. Democrats pushed forward. Republicans pushed backwards, going to the mat to defend oil company tax breaks.

Given that, I ask you, who deserves "credit" for the bill?

Apparently -- and I'm not kidding here -- the White House says Bush deserves the credit. And of course, rather than laughing at this, mocking it, as any sane person would, the Roll Call reporter credulously passes it on, noting the "controversy" over who deserves credit.

Look:

The White House, which may hold a signing ceremony as early as Wednesday, also says that it was the president who helped shape the final package since Congress responded to a host of administration concerns. White House officials also say that Congress followed the course Bush charted in his 2007 State of the Union address, in which he called on lawmakers to reduce gasoline use by 20 percent in 10 years, in part by undertaking efforts to “modernize” the CAFE program.

Republicans say the Democratic energy plan would have hit a brick wall if it were not for an engaged White House seeking to strike a balance with the Democratic-led Congress.

"Without question, some of the credit is due," Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said of the White House. "This is the president who stood in the well of the House and said during the State of the Union that 'America is addicted to oil and we should do something about it.' "

"Shaped" it. Will you just kill me?

What a dyspeptic way to head into the holidays.

For story: 'It never would have been this milquetoast without my efforts!'
4 Comments | Post a Comment

In the Spirit of the Holidays

We can most generously call the gift of credit to Bush the "Immaculate Deception".

by justlou at 10:49 AM on 19 Dec 2007

Oh, he shaped it alright...

...shaped it into piecemeal legislation that could've been much better had he gone with the original version.

by Tasermons Partner at 11:31 AM on 19 Dec 2007

This is what we're up against

Pathetic.

Yeah, to say he "shaped" this is like saying my 4-year-old nephew shaped my hundred dollar vase by breaking it.

Kudos to the Democratic congress for pushing for something meaningful. Kudos to Mr. Bush for reminding us that we need a different president.

by kayser at 12:25 PM on 19 Dec 2007

Another possibility...

Here is another angle on this story.

World oil production has been flat for two years. Bush and Cheney know all about peak oil (from Matt Simmons, Roscoe Bartlett,...). To meet the average growth rate in petroleum use of 2%, B&C invade Iraq. When that didn't produce the necessary oil for world markets, they turned to biofuels (starting in 2006) to fuel our "non-negogiable" way of life. Now they realize that may not pan out as much as they had hoped. Hence the new CAFE standards, in addition.

Why else would two "oil men" (who believe conservation is a "personal virtue") support ethanol, a competitor of the oil industry? (It's certainly not because they have any concern for global warming.)

by Colin Wright at 12:04 AM on 20 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.