CONGRESS

Public Wary of Sequestration, Not Clean Energy

Amy Harder
May 22, 2012, 5:30 p.m.

A large ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans sup­port a pair of con­gres­sion­al ef­forts to cre­ate an eco­nomy based on clean­er-en­ergy sources, ac­cord­ing to the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

Al­most two-thirds””64 per­cent””of those sur­veyed said that Con­gress should ex­tend fed­er­al tax cred­its that en­cour­age pro­duc­tion of al­tern­at­ive-en­ergy sources, such as wind, that are due to ex­pire at year’s end. In a sep­ar­ate ques­tion, 64 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they sup­port en­act­ment of a clean-en­ergy stand­ard, which would re­quire the coun­try to pro­duce a high­er per­cent­age of its elec­tri­city from clean­er sources of en­ergy.

The United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, sur­veyed 1,004 adults by land­line and cell phone from May 17-20, 2012. It has a mar­gin of sampling er­ror of +/- 3.6 per­cent­age points.

The poll’s find­ings in­dic­ate a dis­con­nect between what the pub­lic says it wants and what this Con­gress is able or will­ing to do on en­ergy policy, which in an elec­tion year is mostly nil.

In a vis­it on Thursday to Iowa””the coun­try’s second-largest wind-pro­du­cing state after Texas””Pres­id­ent Obama will urge Con­gress to ex­tend a key pro­duc­tion tax cred­it for wind and a clean-en­ergy man­u­fac­tur­ing cred­it. Con­gress is un­likely to con­sider these tax cred­its un­til year’s end when law­makers take up the an­nu­al “tax-ex­tenders” pack­age. Wheth­er con­gres­sion­al sup­port­ers of the tax cred­its, in­clud­ing seni­or Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Chuck Grass­ley of Iowa, can muster enough sup­port to ex­tend the cred­its re­mains un­cer­tain and likely de­pends on the out­come of the elec­tions. Ac­tion this year on a clean-en­ergy stand­ard meas­ure in­tro­duced by re­tir­ing Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Chair­man Jeff Binga­man, D-N.M., is very un­likely no mat­ter how Elec­tion Day goes.

While sup­port for these clean-en­ergy policies was pre­dict­ably stronger among Demo­crats and in­de­pend­ents than Re­pub­lic­ans, re­spond­ents identi­fy­ing with the GOP were split. Al­most half of Re­pub­lic­ans said they sup­port ex­tend­ing clean-en­ergy tax cred­its (48 per­cent) and en­act­ing a clean-en­ergy stand­ard (47 per­cent). That sup­port is not re­flec­ted in Wash­ing­ton, where most con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans shun clean-en­ergy policies, es­pe­cially an en­ergy man­date, in fa­vor of less gov­ern­ment in­volve­ment and re­du­cing the de­fi­cit.

Sup­port for the two policies was high­er among blacks and His­pan­ics, young­er people, and earners mak­ing less than $30,000 a year. For ex­ample, 61 per­cent of whites said they sup­port ex­tend­ing clean-en­ergy tax cred­its, but 72 per­cent of His­pan­ics and blacks said they do. Just over three-quar­ters of re­spond­ents between ages 18 and 29 said they sup­port ex­tend­ing the tax cred­its, while 54 per­cent of re­spond­ents older than 50 said they do.

Al­though Wash­ing­ton and the pub­lic ap­pear dis­con­nec­ted on clean-en­ergy policy, they’re more united on an­oth­er key en­ergy is­sue: hy­draul­ic frac­tur­ing, or “frack­ing,” a con­tro­ver­sial tech­no­logy used to de­vel­op de­pos­its of shale nat­ur­al gas and oil re­cently dis­covered in many re­gions of the coun­try.

A slight ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans are aligned with the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­cent ac­tion to reg­u­late frack­ing, ac­cord­ing to the sur­vey: 53 per­cent said they sup­port in­creas­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion of frack­ing; 25 per­cent said they sup­port de­creas­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions to en­cour­age more nat­ur­al-gas pro­duc­tion. Only 15 per­cent said that the coun­try should com­pletely ban frack­ing be­cause of the en­vir­on­ment­al con­cerns, in­clud­ing wor­ries that it could con­tam­in­ate drink­ing-wa­ter sup­plies and worsen cli­mate change.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion is very un­likely to sup­port a com­plete ban on frack­ing. But it has in the past month an­nounced two reg­u­la­tions, in­clud­ing one to cut air emis­sions from frack­ing and an­oth­er re­quir­ing com­pan­ies drilling on pub­lic lands to dis­close the chem­ic­als they use. The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has in the past left frack­ing reg­u­la­tion to states, but the shale-gas boom and es­cal­at­ing en­vir­on­ment­al con­cerns have promp­ted the ad­min­is­tra­tion to step in.

Ma­jor­it­ies of Demo­crats (60 per­cent) and in­de­pend­ents (55 per­cent) said that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment should in­crease reg­u­la­tions, while al­most a quarter (24 per­cent) of in­de­pend­ents agreed with 41 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans that the gov­ern­ment should de­crease reg­u­la­tions to stim­u­late more en­ergy pro­duc­tion.

Re­spond­ents in the East, which in­cludes Ap­palachi­an states such as Pennsylvania that are ground zero for the shale-gas boom, are the least sup­port­ive of frack­ing. But even there, only 18 per­cent back a com­plete ban. Ex­actly half sup­port in­creas­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions.

Mean­while, Amer­ic­ans seem the most di­vided over what Wash­ing­ton should do with the im­pend­ing auto­mat­ic cuts of $600 bil­lion in both do­mest­ic pro­grams and de­fense spend­ing, which Con­gress agreed last sum­mer to im­pose at year’s end if it couldn’t reach an agree­ment to re­duce the de­fi­cit.

A plur­al­ity (41 per­cent) said that Con­gress should up­hold the ori­gin­al agree­ment to equally bal­ance the cuts between de­fense and do­mest­ic pro­grams, but an­oth­er 26 per­cent said that Con­gress should cut more from do­mest­ic pro­grams and less from de­fense. Yet an­oth­er 20 per­cent said Con­gress should strike the en­tire deal and not im­pose any cuts at all.

A ma­jor­ity of Demo­crats (54 per­cent) said that the agree­ment should stay as is, but few­er in­de­pend­ents (43 per­cent) and Re­pub­lic­ans (32 per­cent) agreed with that po­s­i­tion. Al­most half (44 per­cent) of Re­pub­lic­ans said that more cuts should come from do­mest­ic pro­grams to pre­serve de­fense spend­ing. Re­spond­ents with a high school de­gree or less seemed to be the least sup­port­ive of keep­ing the agree­ment as it is””just 36 per­cent sup­por­ted the status quo.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
27TH AMENDMENT
Congress Can’t Seem Not to Pay Itself
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Far Away from Cleveland is the California GOP Staying?
5 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."

ATTORNEY MAY RELEASE THEM ANYWAY
SCOTUS Will Not Allow ‘DC Madam’ Phone Records to Be Released
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."

Source:
×