Associated Press
When the political world ponders which issues will matter most on Election Day, it's pretty easy to come up with a laundry list: jobs, economic growth, health care, foreign policy, immigration, etc.
But let's not forget energy -- or more specifically, a specific alternative energy program that carries quite a bit of political significance.
Monday's headline in the Des Moines Register seems destined to echo throughout Iowa until Election Day: "Lines now drawn on wind tax credit: Romney opposes it, Obama favors it."
Rarely in presidential politics can such dichotomic declarations be made without the accompaniment of asterisks galore. But in this case, it was appropriate; the difference is truly cut and dried. On the question of extending the wind production tax credit -- an important issue for Iowans because of the roughly 7,000 jobs tied to the state's wind-energy industry -- the two candidates have made their positions perfectly (and diametrically) clear: Obama supports it and Romney does not.
On the surface, it's just one of many issues on which President Obama and Mitt Romney are on opposite sides. It's not even especially surprising that the Republican candidate, no longer bearing any resemblance to the previous versions of himself -- Romney used to support investments in alternative energy programs -- would take this position.
But this one carries a political punch. In particular, the swing state of Iowa loves the wind production tax credit, and Hawkeye State Republicans are not at all pleased.
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) said this week that Romney's "wrong" and the former governor's position "shows a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was incredulous, saying this couldn't possibly be "the real position of the party."
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R), a Romney surrogate, said he intends to "further educate" the presidential hopeful. How diplomatic of him.
This is a position that may well push Iowa closer to Obama, but let's not forget that it's not the only swing state that cares about the issue.
Coloradans are watching closely, too.
Three of the four Colorado House Republicans who signed a letter earlier this year pushing for the extension of the wind energy production tax credit say they still support it -- though their presidential hopeful said he didn't.
Vestas CEO Vestas CEO Ditlev Engel said that if the tax credit is not extended, the company may have to lay off most of its Colorado workers. The company, which has facilities in Brighton and Windsor in addition to Pueblo, employs about 1,700 people in Colorado.
Eight out of nine of Colorado's Congressional delegation signed a letter to Congressional leadership in February urging the wind energy tax credit extension.
Romney's position isn't just theoretical, either. The existing wind production tax credit expires at the end of the year, and though there was bipartisan support for its extension, Romney's announcement this week derailed the proposal -- many Republicans decided to take their cues from their ostensible party leader.
Both Iowa and Colorado are considered battleground states, and polls show Obama and Romney competitive in both. An issue like this can shift thousands of votes, which may well make the difference between victory and defeat.
Leave a Comment:
Waiting to hear how Teabagger Steve King weighs in on this one. I'm sure he'll find a way to embarrass the state again with some inane uttering.
He takes the NO COMMENT cowardly plea on issues like this , then he will stab iowa workers and business owners in the back 1st chance he gets
Oh, I see it now - King is focusing his {hot wind} energy on making sure we all speak English ('cause we all know how many JOBS JOBS JOBS that bill will create).
It's ironic, too. King uses the same English words we all use, but we sure as hell don't speak the same language...
Big Energy devoted big dollars to getting their "Oil Depletion Allowance".
As soon as they get a "Wind Depletion Allowance", they will come on board!
Citizens and voters need to encourage Congress and the President to think strategically. We need to invest in our future. America spent approximately a trillion dollars and roughly ten years on the invasion of Iraq. During that time we also spent many tens of billions on subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries. We still send many billions of dollars to nations which are enemies in all but name. Suppose we (1) end fossil fuel subsidies; and (2) invest 100 billion dollars a year for the next 10 years on alternate energy and energy savings projects. In ten years, we would be within striking distance of being able to end our imports of oil from despotic regimes.
Not only that, we would be poised to be an industry leader for a product for which every developing nation in the world would have significant demand.
That = jobs and growth!
It feels good to know that there is a solution to getting out from under all that oil.Soap and water works but, opening a window and letting in some fresh air also works. I hope clean coal works too, if they would just comply with the regulations that save peoples' lives, we'd be in pretty good shape. Does it always have to be about saving a buck or making a buck? How about saving lives, that'll work.
Coal is a fossil fuel which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when you burn it. Even if you were able to scrub all the mercury, sulphur and other stuff out of the stack, there still cannot ever be such a thing as "clean coal". We must get off coal as urgently as oil.
Coal can not be made environmentally friendly. No way, nohow. Same for petroleum. If we actually used all of the proven reserves of fossil fuels that are already on the transnational corporate books, it would be game over for life as we know it on Earth. America is just the most backward, head-up-its-ass of all industrialized nations. There has to be a huge tax on CO2, with the proceeds going into rapid development of the entire panoply of sustainable energy sources: wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. It is equally important that we develop the technology to utilize hydrogen fuel as a storage medium for intermittently generated excess power. True, right now it is inefficient to make hydrogen from the electrolyzing of water, but there is no other way to store energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Is there any doubt that the one and only reason Romney is against the wind energy tax credit is because he's pandering to the conservative base whose position is that if Obama is for it, they're agin' it -- no matter what "it" is. If tomorrow, Obama embraced Paul Ryan's budget, suddenly every right-wing panty would be in a twist, screaming bloody murder about Ryan's budget, forgetting that the day before, they absolutely loved it.
Mitt has stated his solution to this problem already.
The people of Iowa should just borrow the money from their parents for wind power.
Dang. The junior high kid in me saw that headline and thought this was gonna be a great story about "breaking wind."
Or the impotence of political gasbags.
When push comes to shove , every gop member the op speaks of would fold to big oil , they would just make sure they could do it in a way that would give them political cover is all
We have seen it to many million times over , they claim they want health reform , immigration reform , banking reform , till it comes time to actually do it , then they vote for what the corporations want 100% , I for one am done being fooled by the gop , and they all need to be exposed for it
Y'know, Chuck, politics is your job. What else would the "real position of the [Republican] party" be, these days? The GOP position is that coal, oil, gas, and nukes = good; solar, wind, and energy conservation by any means = bad. Cars and highways = good; trains and mass transit = bad.
Please keep up.
I'll bet there's a photo of Robme and Ken Lay out there somewhere..
Photos of Robme and Bush should be all the rage...
PA as a stake in Wind Power too. Gamesa as a production facility in Fairless Hill, PA (suburb of Philadelphia). Also the company I work for makes lights for inside the towers. Another swing state with an interest.
Considering that PA is really like two diff states (planets?), I'm not sure if I should say PA has an interest, or if I should say the eastern side of PA or just the Philly part! I'm sure the western side of PA has no fracking interest in Wind because they would rather poison their own water and tear up their farms with gas wells than put a wind tower on the farm or mountain top. ;-/
T. Boone Pickens, an ardent supporter of natural gas and wind power has accused the president of not living up to his promises on alternative energy. Pickens has invested $500M in wind power for the US, so I will believe his opinion more than those on this site. Instead of funding failed companies or giving tax credits, the government should allow carbon trading or at least a pollution tax to make those alternative energy companies competitive instead of subsidizing their unpayable debts.
If our opinions don't count for much, then why are you hectoring US about how the government should allow carbon trading? Not only do our opinions not carry much weight, but the sort of people who read Benen are overwhelmingly in favor of cap-and-trade and/or carbon taxes. Seems like you're yammering at the wrong people for multiple reasons.
Maybe you could get T. Boone Pickens tg lean on the GOP about this, since his opinion counts for so much more than ours.
Your opinion is as good as mine. I am entitled to it as much as anyone else. Both parties need to back carbon credits or pollution taxes and the candidate who is supported by "the sort of people who read Benen" has failed. Neither party has done anything to progress on the issue. With the current state of the government this would need bipartisan support.
Tom, did you forget that the GOTP led Congress refused to even discuss cap & trade - yet another idea they were for, before they were against it. Nice try though.
Hate to burst everyone's bubble, but just in case you are not paying attention the climate of the earth is changing. Hotter drier summers in places that didn't used to get so hot, longer more intense fires (think Colorado), rain in parts of the world where it barely rains; this is a preview of what's to come unless we start changing how we get and use energy.
Yes, bible thumpers, I know - G-d promised Noah there would be no more destruction - but WE ain't G-d, and we're doing a pretty good job of destroying the world all by ourselves with G-ds help! WE cannot continue to give subsidies (WELFARE) to BIG OIL/COAL and deny "investment" to alternative forms of energy production! And despite what you thumpers believe, the climate IS changing because of our collective use and abuse.
Hedzup? Related to global warming and fossil fuel lobbying, today is a double-whammy day in history. Today, the National Nnow and Ice Data Center, Boulder Colorado [ nsidc.org ] released a polar satellite image that shows that the long-sought-after Northwest Passage, across the top of Canada, is ice-free six weeks early. Today's posted image:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png as of today..
Like the recent, stunning NOAA pix of Greenland's ice sheet liquifying, this early, now-ice-free passage underscores the rapacious and UNDENIABLE rate of global warming.
Why the double-whammy? Because this day in history, 2 August 1610, famed explorer Henry Hudson sailed into Hudson Bay, thinking it was the long -sought Northwest Passage.
National Geographic has a wonderful education series about Henry Hudson's travels. How to map it, why Hudson pursued these routes. http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/activity/mapping-the-explorations-of-henry-hudson/?ar_a=1
Apologies for the typo. That's "National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado."
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Today's pic of the now, ice-free Northwest Passage, six week earlier than usual in the ice-melt season.
I could not edit the previous comment's text for some reason?