Obama On Energy Rebates And The 'Race Card'You can also listen to David Brooks and EJ Dionne pontificate on the interview.Listen Now [7 min 56 sec] add to playlist
Mark Carlson -Illinois Sen. Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting in St. Petersburg, Fla. on Aug. 1, 2008. APDemocratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says the recent spate of attack ads from Republican John McCain's campaign distracts from the pressing issues facing Americans."You know, that, I think, is an indication that they don't have many good ideas in terms of actually solving problems for the American people," Obama told NPR's Michele Norris. "And my goal is to keep talking about the issues that matter."
Obama spoke to Norris from St. Petersburg, Fla., where earlier on Friday he unveiled a proposal for a new $50 billion economic stimulus package, which would be funded by deficit spending and through a new tax on oil company profits.
"If you continue to see an economic slide, that is going to cost far more in terms of tax revenues, because businesses aren't selling, taxes aren't being collected," Obama said. "And what we're going to end up with is a much worse situation."
Obama's economic plan would send $1,000 "emergency" rebate checks to consumers struggling with increased energy costs. The goal, he said, is to offset the cost of gasoline and heating bills over a four-month period.
Obama and Norris discussed the details of his short-term stimulus plan. The Illinois senator also addressed charges recently leveied by the McCain campaign that he is "playing the race card." Below are excerpts from their conversation.
MICHELE NORRIS: This morning you announced a new emergency economic plan. It includes a $50 billion package. Can you promise to pay for all that without increasing our debt? Where will this money come from?
BARACK OBAMA: When it comes to a stimulus package, typically you are not looking at offsets, because what you are trying to do is to prevent the economy from going into a further tailspin, which will cut tax revenues. So hopefully, just by stimulating the economy, the stimulus is paying for itself.
On the short term, this is $50 billion that is financed by the deficit. But what I've said is that we need a short-term stimulus and then we need a long-term policy for fiscal restraint, and that means eliminating waste in government. It means rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. It means beginning to wind down the war in Iraq, where we're spending $10 billion every single month. But when it comes to short-term stimulus, the key is just making sure that we avoid the economy going into a further tailspin.
But with the deficit as high as it is right now, is it responsible to propose something that is likely to increase deficit spending?
Well, Michele, understand that if we continue on the trends we're on right now, where unemployment keeps on going up -– I'm in Florida, where they are in recession for the first time in 16 years — if you continue to see an economic slide, that is going to cost far more in terms of tax revenues, because businesses aren't selling, taxes aren't being collected. And what we're going to end up with is a much worse situation when it comes to our deficit.
You know because of the timing of our program that many of our listeners are in their cars. And so I want to ask you about your proposal to force big oil companies to share their record-breaking windfall profits. It's hard to find an economist who supports the idea of a windfall profits tax. Most argue that this would stifle investment in oil discovery and oil production precisely at the moment when the U.S. should be encouraging more.
Classic economic theory says you don't meddle in the markets. Look, I mean, most economists buy into that approach. Exxon Mobil made $12 billion last quarter. They made $11 billion before that, and $11 billion before that, and not all of this is going into research and development — and families need some relief.
Now, I am the first to admit that what we need is a comprehensive plan, and that's what I've been putting forward for the last 18 months — making sure that we're increasing fuel-efficiency standards on cars drastically, investing in the retooling so that we can have plug-in hybrids. I have set a goal that we reduce our oil consumption by 30 percent over the next 20 years. So that's the long-term answer to rising gas prices.
But in the short term, the notion that oil companies that have been making record profits, hand over fist, can't give a little bit of that back to make sure that not just drivers but senior citizens on fixed income are going to have the ability to pay for heating this winter, which is going to be a huge potential problem — I don't think that's too much to ask.
Before I let you go, senator, I just want to ask you about this sparring that's been going on back and forth between the two campaigns. Yesterday, the John McCain campaign accused you of playing the race card. This morning, one of your top strategists, David Axelrod, acknowledged that you were referring to race among other things when you talked about how you present a different image than the faces that we now see on our currency, on our $1 bills and on our $5 bills. I just want to be clear about what you were trying to say in that comment. How has the GOP or the McCain campaign been using scare tactics, particularly when it comes to race?
This notion that somehow I was playing the race card is ridiculous. What I said in front of a 98 percent conservative, rural, white audience in Missouri is nothing that I haven't said before, which is, I don't come out of central casting when it comes to what presidential candidates typically look like. And it doesn't just have to do with race. It has to do with my name. It has to do with my biography and my background. It has to do with our message of change.
And so in no ways do I think that the McCain campaign has targeted race issues — although I will say that the way that they've amplified this, you know, has been troublesome. And the eagerness with which they've done it indicates they think they can exploit this politically, but in fact, what I have said – and there's not doubt about this, they've said it themselves — is that they want to make me appear risky to the American people. I don't think there's any doubt that people are still trying to figure out what's this young guy doing running for president. Our job is to make sure that they understand that the changes we are promoting are changes that have to be made — that if we don't make them, that's the riskier course.
Because race is such a tricky thing –- you yourself acknowledged that in your speech in Philadelphia — to the extent that they do try to exploit this, how do you inoculate against that? How do you, as a candidate in a historical position, given that some Americans may feel some discomfort about crossing that historical threshold, how do you deal with that?
You know, I have great confidence in the American people. I mean, if you look at the campaign that John McCain has run over the last month, it's been "Paris Hilton, Britney Spears." This latest episode just recently, the false accusation that I refused to visit troops [during Obama's recent trip to Germany] because the cameras weren't with me, suggesting that I would rather lose a war so I could win a political campaign. You know, there have been a — just a sustained caricature of me and character attacks against me.
You know, that, I think, is an indication that they don't have many good ideas in terms of actually solving problems for the American people. And my goal is to keep talking about the issues that matter.
Brooks, Dionne Dissect Obama Interview
Listen Now [4 min 28 sec] add to playlist
All Things Considered, August 1, 2008 · Regular political commentators E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times offer their insight on the interview with Sen. Barack Obama. They also discuss the rest of the week in presidential politics.
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment