« Poll: Obama Holds Huge Advantage Over McCain On Energy | Home | Poll: Obama And McCain Tied -- In Deep-Red Indiana! »

Obama: McCain Has Failed Us On Energy "For Decades"

In a speech Barack Obama is set to give in Las Vegas, he really ratchets up the attacks on John McCain on energy, a battleground that will only increase in importance with new polls showing that energy policy is a paramount concern of voters. A key excerpt...

For decades, John McCain has been a part of this failure in Washington. Yes, he has gone further than some in his party in speaking out on climate change. And that is commendable. But time and time again, he has opposed investing in the alternative sources of energy that have helped fuel some of the very same projects and businesses he's highlighting in this campaign. He's voted against biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power...

After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn't get it. I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I've been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win -- he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do. But in this campaign, John McCain offering the same old gimmicks...

Note Obama's concession that yes, McCain has "gone further than some in his party" on energy. As noted here before, we're seeing a consistent strategy on the Obama team's part to deal with perceptions of McCain as a "maverick."

Rather than pretend these public perceptions don't exist, Obama has time and again conceded a little bit in that direction, as he does here, as a way of leading people through those perceptions to an understanding that on the issues that matter to them, McCain simply doesn't represent a clean break with the past.

Full speech after the jump.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama - as prepared for delivery

A Serious Energy Policy for Our Future

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Las Vegas, Nevada

I want to start by thanking the folks here at Springs Preserve for the wonderful tour we just had. What we are seeing here -- from the solar panels that power this facility to the Bombard workers who built it -- is that a green, renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now. It is creating jobs, now. It is providing cheap alternatives to $140-a-barrel oil, now. And it can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act now.

All across the country, local leaders and entrepreneurs and small business owners are providing the innovation and initiative needed to make this transformation possible. In Pennsylvania, an old steel mill has become the home of a new wind turbine factory because of the state's push for renewable portfolio standards that require the production of more alternative energy. Wisconsin is poised to gain more than 14,000 jobs at existing manufacturing facilities because of its investment in wind power. Where we're standing in Southern Nevada happens to be one of the best sources for the generation of solar power in the world. Next week, our friend and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will come here to cut the ribbon on a new thermal solar technology plant. And between solar, wind, and geothermal energy, this state could create upwards of 80,000 new jobs by 2025.

The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless. But to truly harness its potential, we urgently need real leadership from Washington - leadership that has been missing for decades. We have been talking about energy independence since Americans were waiting in gas lines during the 1970s. We've heard promises about it in every State of the Union for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil - a 19th century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive. Why?

It isn't because the resources and technology aren't there. We know this because countries like Spain, Germany, and Japan have already leapt ahead of us when it comes to renewable energy technology. Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that.

What Washington has done is what Washington always does - it's peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won't lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we're paying the price. Now we've fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we're forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we're facing gas prices over $4 a gallon - gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That's how badly folks are hurting. That's how badly Washington has failed.

For decades, John McCain has been a part of this failure in Washington. Yes, he has gone further than some in his party in speaking out on climate change. And that is commendable. But time and time again, he has opposed investing in the alternative sources of energy that have helped fuel some of the very same projects and businesses he's highlighting in this campaign. He's voted against biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against a 2005 energy bill that represented the largest ever investment in renewable sources of energy - a bill that Senator McCain's own campaign co-chair, called "the biggest legislative breakthrough we've had" since he's been in the Senate. That bill certainly wasn't perfect - it contained irresponsible tax breaks for oil companies that I consistently opposed, and that I will repeal as President. But the tax credits in that bill contributed to wind power growing 45% last year, the sharpest rise in decades. If John McCain had his way, those tax credits wouldn't exist. And if we don't renew key tax incentives for alternative energy production - tax incentives that John McCain opposed continuing - we could lose up to 116,000 green jobs and $19 billion in investment just next year. And now he's talking about a tax credit for more efficient cars even though he helped George Bush block these credits twice in the last year.

After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn't get it. I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I've been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do. But in this campaign, John McCain offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices; gimmicks that will only increase our oil addiction for another four years.

Senator McCain wants a gas tax holiday that will save you - at most - thirty cents a day for three months. And that's only if the oil companies don't just jack up the price and pocket the savings themselves, which is exactly what they did when we tried to do the same thing in Illinois. He's willing to spend nearly $4 billion on more tax breaks for big oil companies - including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone. He wants to open our coastlines to drilling - a proposal that his own top economic advisor admitted won't provide any short-term relief at the pump. It's a proposal that George Bush's Administration says will not provide a drop of oil - not a single drop - for at least ten years. And by the time the drilling is fully underway in twenty years, our own Department of Energy says that the effect on gas prices will be "insignificant." Insignificant.

Just yesterday, Senator McCain actually admitted this. In a town hall he said, and I quote, "I don't see an immediate relief" but "the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, "It polls well." It's an example of how Washington politicians try to convince you that they did something to make your life better when they really didn't. Well the American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through the next election, they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table. They need a long-term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable sources of energy that represent the future. That's what they need.

Meanwhile, the oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven't touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production, and John McCain wants to give them more. Well that might make sense in Washington, but it doesn't make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain. Folks, these are not serious energy policies. They are not new energy policies. And they are certainly not the kind of energy policies that will give families the relief they need or our country the oil independence we must have.

I realize that gimmicks like the gas tax holiday and offshore drilling might poll well these days. But I'm not running for President to do what polls well, I'm running to do what's right for America. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down, but I can't. What I can do - and what I will do - is push for a second stimulus package that will send out another round of rebate checks to the American people. What I will do as President is tax the record profits of oil companies and use the money to help struggling families pay their energy bills. I will provide a $1,000 tax cut that will go to 95% of all workers and their families in this country. And I will close the loophole that allows corporations like Enron to engage in unregulated speculation that ends up artificially driving up the price of oil. That's how we'll provide real relief to the American people. That's the change we need.

I have a very different vision of what this country can and should achieve on energy in the next four years - in the next ten years. I have a plan to raise the fuel standards in our cars and trucks with technology we have on the shelf today - technology that will make sure we get more miles to the gallon. And we will provide financial help to our automakers and autoworkers to help them make this transition. I will invest $150 billion over the next ten years in alternative sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and advanced biofuels - investments that will create up to five million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; that will create billions of dollars in new business like you're already doing here in Nevada. And before we hand over more of our land and our coastline to oil companies, I will charge those companies a fee for every acre that they currently lease but don't drill on. If that compels them to drill, we'll get more oil. If it doesn't, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy.

When all is said and done, my plan to increase our fuel standards will save American consumers from purchasing half a trillion gallons of gas over the next eighteen years. My entire energy plan will produce three times the oil savings that John McCain's ever could - and what's more, it will actually decrease our dependence on oil while his will only grow our addiction further.

And that's the choice that you face in this election. When you're facing $4 a gallon gas, do you want a gas tax gimmick that will save you at most thirty cents a day for three months and a drilling proposal that won't provide a drop of oil for ten years, or a second rebate check and $1,000 tax cut to help your family pay the bills? When you look down the road five years from now or ten years from now, do you want to see an America that's begging dictators for more oil that we can't afford? An America that's fallen further behind the rest of the world when it comes to the jobs and industries of the future? Or do you want to see more places like Springs Preserve and Bombard Electric? More green jobs and green businesses? More innovation and ingenuity that helps this nation lead the way on affordable, renewable energy?

That's the future I know we can have. That's the America I believe in. And that's where I will lead us if I have the chance to serve as your President. It will not be easy. It will not happen overnight. It will not come without cost or sacrifice. But it is possible. It is necessary. And places like this, and people like you, prove that we have the resources, and the skills, and the will to begin today. I look forward to joining you in that effort. Thank you.


56 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Given that Obama favors tariffs on imported Brazilian ethanol (which, coming from sugar is much more energy efficient to create then corn ethanol), he's) he obviously has some serious work to do himself.

user-pic
user-pic

Thanks for the link.

The transcript from Meet the Press, in which Obama labels ethanol a "transitional fuel" was helpful.

Brazilian cane ethanol is a case of robbing Pedro to pay Paulo: clear cutting vast swaths of the vital Amazon rainforest to grow cane undermines anti-GW efforts. It's every bit as counterproductive and wasteful as growing corn for ethanol.

user-pic

That's totally false, sugar cane is not grown in rain forests, not all of Brazil is a Rain forest either, there are huge swaths of Savana which are being turned into cropland (mainly growing corn, ironically). But anyway, the sugar cane used to make ethanol is not grown where rain forests used to be, nor is anything else as the land is unsuitable for agriculture.

user-pic

Oh come on...you know "Big Sugar" wants to destroy the rain forrest as much as "Big Oil" wants to wipe out ANWR! You are a hand puppet of the special interest!

You're right about that--pardon my ignorance, and thank you for setting me straight. It's actually corn and soybean farming that are spurring the encroachment, it seems.

I can still understand why Obama would support the tariff--importing fuel from another nation really doesn't help the issue of energy independence.

Yes, he has gone further than some in his party in speaking out on climate change. And that is commendable.

Just enough to remind the rightwing base that McCain is (in their eyes) a tree-hugger who buys the global warming fantasy.

Nicely done.

But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do.

It's Manhattan Project II!!! A la Bob Wexler!!!

Now, this is exactly what we need to do!!

Agreed. But how's he going to pay for that second round of rebate check?

Hell, I'll do without the rebate if we do a no-holds-barred Manhattan II on energy.

Of course, that does not negate the fact that he's promised it and must find a way to pay for it.

user-pic

"What I will do as President is tax the record profits of oil companies and use the money to help struggling families pay their energy bills. I will provide a $1,000 tax cut that will go to 95% of all workers and their families in this country." Which you will have to turn around and pay back to the oil compamies + administrative costs in the form of increased prices...wake up America, corporations pay no tax...you do!

Um, the Apollo project went to the moon.

Manhattan project built a bomb...

Not sure which was harder. Or more expensive.

I think we needed a few German physicists to do both.

I know which project was which. I said Manhattan II because that's what the great Rep. Bob Wexler of Florida calls it!

Psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, "It polls well."

Obama is just too damn smart for McCain. :)

And here's McCain's response: "Yammayammajamma..."

user-pic

Hee hee!

I love your comments CarolBG.

You're only encouraging me! :)

I stream all his events live at cnn.com/live. I heard that line and burst out laughing. McCain and the Rethug machinery don't know how to deal with the real straight talker!

Okay Mr. Obama, good attack on McCain, but WTF do YOU have to offer? What is YOUR solution to the problem? Sorry, but the market will NOT adapt. Small businesses and entreprenuers will NOT provide the products and momentum required to affect change. Only a massive mandate from the government will force the change required on the market and the consumer. Mr. Obama, it is up to YOU to change this country and manage the expectations of industry and consumer. We didn't get to the moon because private industry thought it was a growth market. We got to the moon because someone had the vision to and political will to make it a national objective, supported by the nation. The next energy policy out of Washington should be a challenge to the American people to adopt a new energy standard in the next 5-10 years. It is up to YOU Mr. Obama, not small businesses.

Perhaps you should read the whole speech. I think you'll agree with what he wants to do. He is calling for putting the entire country and the resources of the govt. to solving the problem. A "manhattan project" for energy.

I read the whole speech and its a flaming bag of dung, left on the doorstep for the average American to have to consider how they want to deal with it.

"I have a plan to raise the fuel standards in our cars and trucks with technology we have on the shelf today - technology that will make sure we get more miles to the gallon."

CAFE standards a joke. Trying to revise them has been proven to be politically impossible. Obama can talk about this all he wants, but he won't get the votes for it, and more importantly, it doesn't change a damn thing. Blended fleet numbers mean that one well performing vehicle, that doesn't sell, can be countered with a huge gas guzzler that is popular. In the end, nothing changes. CAFE standards don't alter the expectations of the consumer or industry.

"And we will provide financial help to our automakers and autoworkers to help them make this transition."

So he's going to subsidize the auto industry? Beautiful! In other words, the same old tired song and dance. More subsidies to the hydrocarbon industry.

"I will invest $150 billion over the next ten years in alternative sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and advanced biofuels - investments that will create up to five million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; that will create billions of dollars in new business like you're already doing here in Nevada."

$15 billion a year? Wow. ExxonMobil makes that much profit in 5 months. We spend almost that much money each MONTH in Iraq. That doesn't even make the top 20 line items of expenditures on the budget. That's not even 3% of defense spending! It's just over 6% of the interest we pay on our debt! That's a drop in the bucket and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who actually understands the costs of a nation-wide transformative initiative like that.

"And before we hand over more of our land and our coastline to oil companies, I will charge those companies a fee for every acre that they currently lease but don't drill on. If that compels them to drill, we'll get more oil. If it doesn't, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy."

Uh, the land and coastline has already been handed over. The oil companies already hold the leases and are electing not to drill, which abides by the wishes of the average American who lives in the areas in question. But now Obama is going to FORCE them to drill, which is against the wishes of those residents? If its going to cost the companies money, you can bet your ass that they are going to drill and not absorb that cost. And what exactly is that going to accomplish? Not much. Just massive profits for the O&G companies, potential environmental damage and no long term relief for consumers.

Before Obama endorses this brilliant strategy he should consult Dr. Hansen from NASA, and see what he has to say on the subject matter. This speech is an indication of a politican that just doesn't get it and doesn't really have a plan. Every politician has his weaknesses and Obama's is on energy. He has no vision and he has no plan. The accusations of Obama being an empty suit ring true on this subject. I expected a helluva lot more vision from the guy than this. What we're getting is a culmination of old school Washington thinking. Not much change there at all.

"...a flaming bag of dung..."

I stopped reading what you had to say at that spot, figuring that you would just waste my day with hyperbolic rants.

What were your points, again?

Sorry, I guess I should have made that "a flaming bag of bat guano" to maintain your attention.

The bottom line is, if you're going to run on a platform of "change" give me something mroe than the same things I heard, and saw pummelled into submission, while working in the O&G sector for 20 years.

LannyMacD said: "$15 billion a year? Wow. ExxonMobil makes that much profit in 5 months. We spend almost that much money each MONTH in Iraq. That doesn't even make the top 20 line items of expenditures on the budget. That's not even 3% of defense spending! It's just over 6% of the interest we pay on our debt! That's a drop in the bucket and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who actually understands the costs of a nation-wide transformative initiative like that."

Sorry to let the air out of your rant here, but you missed your own quoted figure by a factor of 10. Obama said that he would invest $150 billion a year, not $15 billion. Quite a considerable difference.

"I will invest $150 billion over the next ten years in alternative sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and advanced biofuels - investments that will create up to five million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; that will create billions of dollars in new business like you're already doing here in Nevada."

Read it again. That is $150 billion over the next 10 years. Comprehend what he stated. That means he will spend $150 billion dollars over a time period equal to 10 years. If he meant what you suggest, he would have stated "I will invest $150 billion a year over the next ten years in alternative sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and advanced biofuels..." He did not. He stated the total dollar figure and the time frame in which it is going to be spent. So he has committed to $15 billion per year for the next 10 years, totaling $150 billion.

Rather than pretend these public perceptions don't exist, Obama has time and again conceded a little bit in that direction, as he does here, as a way of leading people through those perceptions to an understanding that on the issues that matter to them, McCain simply doesn't represent a clean break with the past.

He is devilish that way :-) More than just being a deliciously underhanded compliment, it lends him an aura of credibility to then lay into McCain. Most Dems do the compliments in a fulsome fashion and then lose the thread and move on -- that is where Obama starts up and moves in for the rhetorical kill!

user-pic

I just love it that he's so damn smart.

Me too! My inner professor simply relishes the fact that a really smart person might actually take the helm this time around...I am sick of the dumbed down discourse.

It is not just that he is smart, which is terrific enough in these times, but that he tries to educate the public at every turn -- I just lurve that :-)

I've lost all enthusiasm for this candidate.

I'll surely vote for him over McCain, but the enthusiasm is gone. It ain't hard to be better than McCain.

user-pic

If you're married, I really feel for your mate.

It apparently doesn't take much to cause you lose your "enthusiasm."

gee, thanks for making it personal

That's too bad, IP, because you were definitely in there. Perhaps another issue will come along to light your fire. Hang in.

We'll see how it goes. I'm sure it will. Hopefully. I'd much rather be excited.

user-pic

With a speech on energy that is so straightforward, so clear, so educational, so useful in allowing the audience to gain a historical perspective, so basically commonsensical.......it is no wonder that Obama polls 19 points ahead of McCain on this issue.

What a breath of fresh air is this fellow, Obama .

Apparently Obama wants to nationalize new energy sources.

Who in their right mind trusts that.

Who in the energy business will allow it to happen.

Obama = disaster.

yeah, fuck that! who wants new sources of energy when the current ones work so well and at such a bargain price too (eyes roll).....

And of course, as a troll, you once again miss the point.

Back into the drawer sock puppet.

Fogu's talking to himself again.

You're so cute when you're an idiot...which is pretty much all the time.

Ah, my fan base. Gotta love 'em.

well, you did such a good job of explaining yourself.....

user-pic

How's McSame gonna get his $80M in public GE financing without a quorum on the FEC?

Boris Spakovsky withdrew from consideration, but I haven't heard about a replecement nominee or any movement in the Senate to vote on FEC nominees.

It's only the FEC's lack of quorum that makes makes the pronouncement of the (Republican) chairman -- that McSame is currently in violation of the law -- less than an official determination.  It seems like the RepoMen and their candidate have a problem.

I like the bounty line, haha, wonderful.

user-pic
Meanwhile, the oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven't touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production, and John McCain wants to give them more. Well that might make sense in Washington, but it doesn't make sense for America.
Obama misses the opportunity to support H. R. 6251, use it or lose it. Stick it to big oil who collects profits but doesn't (attempt to) develop new reserves. Psychological impact yes but also a meaningful act!

You mean roll eye? lol

To Josephcast.

user-pic


Ok...I'm confused...he says "before we hand over more land" does that mean he'll push to lift the ban? Also, "if that compels them to drill, we'll get more oil..." I thought drilling would get us anywhere...? "It will not come without cost or sacrifice"...could we get a run down of those in "The Plan" before we sign on?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how nice it is to have a Democratic Presidential candidate who is on the offensive and not always playing defense.

user-pic

I agree, you candidate is offensive (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Sure you could. Liar.

McCain's $300M "prize" for someone to fix the energy problem represents a fundamental LACK of FAITH in the market to solve this problem. Where Obama would like to create the incentives and governmental support systems to enable innovation in the market, McCain simply accepts the idea that the market has failed, and will continue to fail, to solve this problem and would prefer to offer up this gambit.

How much do you think it will cost to solve this problem, even as narrowly defined as "a better battery"? Who do you know that is willing to finance that effort on the slim chance that the government likes their idea and award them the prize? Who knows what kinds of political games will be played in determining the winner?

McCain's prize is a joke, and true conservatives should be sickened by what it implies about McCain's lack of faith in the market.

Were improved batteries an engineering problem, then the $300M prize would make sense. ARPA got several functioning, driverless, software-driven cars that way by offering $10M, I believe.

But better batteries also involves advances in pure science and technology. Tinkering has not produced sufficient improvement over the last ten years, not enough to power cars as well as we want. Obama's Manhattan Project idea will work better in the intermediate and long-range future.

As far as gasoline tax holidays are concerned, I wonder if McCain is including the gigantic tax, in hundreds of billions of dollars, that we pay (or borrow) to pay for safe oil. I refer to the war in Iraq. That's about $1000 per person per year, compared to the $30 per driver per summer.

$4 a gallon for gas is a good thing. I wouldn't want any politician lowering it to levels two years ago. Of course it hurts lots of people, but it only hurts because we are finally paying the true price of oil (which includes a substantial part of our military budget). Anytime we see a crisis looming -- say in 1979 -- and we ignore the problem for almost forty years, then it's going to be rough when the crisis finally hits.

All the politicians of the '80s, '90s, and '00s avoided this problem, or chickened out as Clinton did with his BTU tax.

Global warming is going to be a far more serious problem. Bush has already wasted time. Science-ignorant people have contributed to making the problem worse. This may be Bush's worst legacy, more so than telecoms, torture, lying, politicizing the Justice department, etc.

Words, just words. Obama failed us on energy in the first few months he was in the Senate.

He voted for the 2005 Bush/Cheney Energy bill described here:
www.foe.org/new/releases/july2005/energybillfactsheet72705.html
highlights here: oversight.house.gov/documents/20050726164801-76366.pdf
vote record here:
www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

(Please don't confuse this bill with the 2007 amendment that promotes alternative fuels.)

So you've worked 20 years in the Oil and Gas industry. Then you can agree with the President of Shell Oil when he says that a barrel of oil should be between $35 to $65? Yes the oil companies make hugh profit at the american peoples expense. Mr. Obama is right about the raising the MPG for all vehicles. He has a better plan for renewable energy, than McCain saying we need more (useless) drilling offshore. What about the 68 billion acres of unused oil land being leased? Yes the very O&G industry you work for doing nothing with it. Just raping the american people of there hard earn money by raising gas prices to make the almighty dollar. Do you have a better plan? McCain the answer? More war and oil drilling? You need to growup and open your eyes. McCain and his gas tax holiday of about .30 cents a day for three months or a grand total of $27, big saving for america.

Follow this link and guess who voted for the bill that is described:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20050726164801-76366.pdf

Not McCain, not Clinton, but Obama.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address