President Obama today used a visit to the Department of Energy to blast Republican opposition to energy efficiency measures contained in the economic stimulus legislation.
Obama, who was at DOE to sign a memorandum [PDF] ordering the department to set new energy efficiency standards for appliances, rebutted GOP complaints about a proposal to use some of the stimulus money to replace the federal automobile fleet with more efficient vehicles.
“This is what they call pork,” said Obama. “You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself—are these folks serious? Is it any wonder that we haven’t had a real energy policy in this country?”
Instead, Obama spend the bulk of the event rallying support for the economic stimulus plan, which the Senate may vote on as early as this evening.
“After decades of dragging our feet, this plan will finally spark the creation of a clean energy industry that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next few years, manufacturing wind turbines and solar cells, for example—millions more after that,” said Obama. “These jobs and these investments will double our capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years.”
As for the energy efficiency directive, DOE will have to set new rules for nine types of appliances by August 2009, including lamps, ovens, microwaves, boilers, and dishwashers. He also directed the agency to set standards for other appliances, which is expected to affect more than 30 product categories
“This will save consumers money, this will spur innovation, and this will conserve tremendous amounts of energy,” said Obama. “We’ll save through these simple steps over the next 30 years the amount of energy produced over a two-year period by all the coal-fired power plants in America.”
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
jeffgreen11 Posted 9:06 am
05 Feb 2009
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:39 pm
05 Feb 2009
Nice try Obama.
You can make an arugula salad in your Cuisinart and emit 10 percent less CO2.
Obama The Vapor President ?!?
Permalink
KenGreen Posted 3:47 am
06 Feb 2009
Obama should strip all of the non-stimulus, long-term infrastructure stuff our of the "stimulus" bill, pass that, and then run the rest through the normal legislative process of drafting, comment, amendation, and so on, which is how Congress is SUPPOSED to work.
Instead, he's fear-mongering in order to cause a panic that will let him sneak his, and the other democrat's wishlist into one bill which will receive virtually no debate either in the public sphere, or on the floor of Congress.
Obama's fond of saying "He won," as if that means that all Americans voted for him, and the Democrats, and want what they want. Hardly. 46% of voters voted for McCain, and 1.5% for some independent.
Kenneth Green
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 103';l[21]=' 114';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 105';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 97';l[27]=' 64';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 101';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 114';l[32]=' 103';l[33]=' 107';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
edarnold41 Posted 4:02 am
06 Feb 2009
It's hard to carry through a non-partisan agenda, when your own party is playing partisan politics to the hilt. This does not bode well for the future...
Permalink
vaslav tchitcherine Posted 4:06 am
06 Feb 2009
Permalink
raphsperry Posted 6:18 am
06 Feb 2009
Demands for bipartisanship are fair when both sides have something of value to add -- and I would note that some Republicans had important concerns about the TARP legislation that, unfortunately, was bipartisan. It was also a much larger dose of fear-mongering from the Bush White House than we are seeing at present fro the Obama White House.
As far as investing in energy efficiency goes, calling it "Pork" seems to be a complaint that the jobs to be created are mostly in industries geographically centered in states that tend to vote Democratic. Republicans want federal money to benefit their states, but their constituents are not prepared to invest in the industries this country happens to need. Real "bipartisanship" would recognize the need for a new generation of energy investment and try to make the federal layouts that are part of it geographically equal, not in denying the importance of the task.
Raphael Sperry
Permalink
randino Posted 10:02 am
06 Feb 2009
Meanwhile, those who worked their hearts out for him were starting to wonder "Heh, what about us?" Once again we see a fundamental genetic difference between the two parties. Republicans cling to their base, and Democrats run away from theirs.
That is why Republicans were so successful in mobilizing their base, and drowning Congress in letters, emails and phone calls objecting to the stimulus package.
Obama, better learn the meaning of another Texas political saying. "You dance with them that brung you." I think he is starting to wake up to that. The energy department speech was a starter. He needs to get his blood up.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:13 am
06 Feb 2009
(Emphasis mine)
Well, that's why it's called a stimulus package and not a short-term stimulus package.
And why does it have to be just short-term? What's wrong with long-term stimulus as well? wouldn't that help alliviate future economic declines (be they more or less as dramatic as this one)?
Permalink
splashy Posted 6:57 am
07 Feb 2009
Isn't that what the fossil fuel companies have? Why can't the non-fossil fuel companies have the same perks?
Those tax cuts that were put in for the Repubs are the silliest thing going. They don't do much at all. There are much better returns giving money to the poor and near poor (food stamps, for instance), who will spend it immediately on the things they have been doing without.
What part of stimulus don't the Repubs get?
Permalink
splashy Posted 6:58 am
07 Feb 2009
My proofreading skills peak right after I post something.
Permalink