|
 enate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle is using the September 11 terrorist
attacks to block President Bush's proposal to increase our energy
security. (If this sounds perverse, it is.) This — despite
Bush having campaigned aggressively on reversing eight years of
anti-energy policy. Despite the past year's energy difficulties,
including an unprecedented, blatantly political dip into the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. Despite the struggling economy and the indisputable
link between affordable energy and economic activity. Despite increasing
tension in the Middle East.
Despite all
this, Tom Daschle positions "Republicans," seeking to
increase our energy security, as using the terrorist acts of war
for their partisan, political objectives. And all merely to achieve
his partisan, political objectives, which happen to have
human consequences — and further weaken our ability to withstand
more attacks and international instability. Presidential aspirant
Daschle learned well from his mentors the Clintons, and from their
talent for using language not to convey one's meaning but to disguise
it.
Let us review
the bidding. In September, 2000, candidate Bush released a detailed
energy agenda. It incorporated themes he advocated throughout his
pursuit of the nomination, dedicating particularly prominent attention
to lowering the record "U.S. dependence on foreign oil"
and "making energy security a priority of U.S. foreign policy."
As president he advocated national energy reform, yielding a House-passed
bill including numerous compromises, and benefiting from both heavy
union lobbying and the support of 36 Democrats. We call this a bipartisan
bill.
Predictably,
Senate Republicans advocated their version and the Democrats criticized
it, yipping ritual arguments about windmills and wasteful consumption.
The White House continued to pitch its original proposal, seemingly
believing it could get from a Daschle-controlled Senate what it
failed to achieve in a DeLay-led House. Things plodded deliberately,
which is to say not at all.
Then we were
at war, and sensitized to the vulnerability of our own energy security.
President Bush continued with his arguments for increasing the supply
and availability of domestic-energy assets. Daschle slapped him
down, asserting about both this and the stimulus plan that "[w]e
must not use the tragedy of September 11 to push through favored
causes... if they won't provide an immediate boost to our economy,"
and muttering other warnings about political opportunism.
So, Bush ran
on particular agenda items keyed — in whole or in part —
to stimulating the economy and protecting our national and energy
security. Tom Daschle disagrees with the Bush approach(es), declaring
pursuit of these items to be inappropriate now that the threats
against which they were designed have become exponentially more
acute. Got that? As usual, in order to not be "partisan"
Bush need merely agree to his political opposition's agenda.
Granted, if
true, Daschle's intimation of opportunistic politicking — now
regularly inveighed against proposals he dislikes — is as obscene
as are the telescam artists nabbed for pulling essentially the same
stunt: preying on current fears to inappropriately obtain that which
they otherwise could not.
Therefore,
shame on Tom Daschle.
Daschle has
said no one should use national or energy security after the September
11 attacks to promote their agenda — knowing full well that
President Bush argued both as principal reasons for his energy plan.
Now that we have been attacked, and our energy sources are considered
even more at risk, Daschle will not stand for those arguments because
he knows they are persuasive. Thus, Daschle cleverly, if sinisterly,
uses the attacks to achieve his previous goal — blocking Bush's
energy bill to appease his anti-energy "environmentalist"
base, though angering unions, in the hope of frightening enough
young mothers to make up for it.
The votes existed
to get an acceptable energy bill out of the Senate Energy Committee,
and to pass such legislation if given a floor vote. Therefore, perhaps
feeling he could not trust Democratic Energy Committee Chairman
Jeff Bingaman to be sufficiently mendacious, Daschle humiliatingly
rescinded Bingaman's jurisdiction over a matter that most Americans
increasingly recognize as critical not merely to our standard of
living, but to our security. In lieu of a bill with bipartisan support
crafted by the Energy Committee, Daschle instead promised to personally
craft a "moderate alternative" — alternative ostensibly
to an "oilman president," but in reality to existing bipartisan
efforts. He says we might see it next spring.
Now, Senate
Republicans claim they're going to get tough and attach energy to
"anything that moves." Sen. John Kerry has vowed to filibuster
Republican attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) for exploration. Last week, he upped Daschle's dirty ante
with, "If they are going to play partisan politics during a
time of war, we will have to use every weapon available to us to
get important national security interests before Congress."
Daschle and
Kerry indicate they will counter with a quilt of proposals reflecting
evil genius — for which now is hardly the time — offering
programs they have no desire to see enacted (some offshore exploration
and a gas pipeline from Alaska). Dashle's confidence is justifiably
high that he can make the president and his Senate allies appear
"unreasonable," as they of course will reject this mirage
for failing to include the necessary liberalization of domestic
exploration and production restrictions. Thus, with a compliant
media, Daschle appears the voice of moderation.
President Bush
adopting the House bill as a bipartisan achievement isolates Daschle
as a political bottom-feeder. Senate Republicans must drop their
own hobbyhorses, force the House-passed "bipartisan" bill,
and disavow the White House of its apparent belief that the president's
(assuredly temporary) riches in political capital are best kept
under the mattress. Tom Daschle is behaving badly, and energy security
is, now more than ever, critical.
|
