National Security

Back to Basics On Energy: It’s the Economy, Stupid

Keith Johnson, of the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog, has a solid summary of where the media narrative on drilling sits: Republicans are winning the battle. This narrative is backed by a new Rasmussen poll that has 64 percent of Americans supporting offshore drilling, and 42 percent seeing it as the "best way to reduce oil prices." Rasmussen also tells us that Americans believe McCain wants to find more sources of energy, while they believe that Obama cares more for limiting energy use. Unsurprisingly then, Americans two-thirds of Americans side with McCain’s approach.

The New Republic’s editors make some interesting but debatable points today about how the narrative has gotten to this point, arguing that blaming speculators and going after oil companies may not have been the best plan of attack. TNR also argues that the Obama and Pelosi shift toward allowing more offshore drilling in a compromise bill that would also include support for renewables and efficiency was the second losing move in this argument, and that Democrats’ inability to debunk the drilling idea in the minds of voters was troubling.

As I argued yesterday, the shift on drilling will not be a big deal, and will likely remove drilling as a wedge issue into the fall. The more important voter perception is that Americans believe that Obama cares about energy austerity while McCain wants to do everything he can to increase production. (His actions don’t bear this out, but perception is what matters.)

Whether drilling specifically will be a voting issue is unknown, and this is likely a case where Republicans are winning the battle on drilling but setting themselves up to lose the war on energy as a whole. However, being portrayed as promoting austere energy use is extremely dangerous for Democrats. Obama has already begun to recast the debate on energy about investing in a clean energy economy, which is forward looking, as opposed to the McCain Republican petro-economy of the past, one that, as Michael Moynihan notes, continues to have dangerous ramifications in foreign policy.

At the end of the day, the most important argument to make and win is that energy policy is central to the economy: energy to power the economy, energy impacting American households and families through gas, home heating, and overall prices, and energy jobs and investment allowing average Americans to enjoy the broad-based prosperity they knew in the 1990’s, but that disappeared in the Bush administration. Transitioning to a clean energy economy will not be simple or easy, but, done responsibly, it is a key to future prosperity. Americans already feel austerity in their pocketbooks; being perceived as asking them to feel it in their energy use is not in Democrats' interests, especially when the better option of investing in a clean energy economy exists.

Russia and the Limits of Oil Wealth

New York City - The reappearance of a belligerent Russia on the world stage, buoyed by high oil prices and newfound wealth, would appear to signal a new era in global politics. For anyone still clinging to the idea of the unipolar moment, the spectacle of Nicholas Sarkozy brokering a deal between Russia and Georgia, shows that the moment of a single superpower is probably over, and something like a return to the era of the Great Powers, at best, or the Cold War, at worst may be in store--absent real U.S. leadership to the contrary.

Nor is it an accident that high oil prices have ushered in the return of authoritarianism to the global stage. Securing and maintaining oil wealth has never been pretty or conducive to democracy. The huge payoff from controlling the wealth has always encouraged factions to vie for its control and, once they obtain it, quash opposition. So it was throughout Central Asia during the years of the Great Game and remains today, not only in Russia, but also in Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Venezuela. From Putin to Ahmadinejad to Chavez, oil-emboldened strongmen are again asserting their power.

However, as glamorous as unbounded oil wealth inevitably seems, it equally comes at a tremendous cost that in a modern economy, can entirely cancel out its benefits. That is because through the phenomenon of Dutch Disease--the phenomenon noted in Holland after the discovery of North Sea oil, it has an incontrovertible tendency to undermine the rest of a nation's economy. The high profits obtainable through oil, gas, or indeed any valuable commodity, tend to make other industries non-competitive by driving up costs. This is the dark cloud that threatens Russia's future.

Indeed, as Philip Stepens notes in today's Financial Times, Russia faces a raft of deep-seated economic problems that belie her new found swagger. Russia is losing population at an alarming rate due to low birth rates. Infrastructure is crumbling. And the corruption problems that have plagued her for decades have only grown worse as she has become more dependent on oil and gas revenues. Indeed, Russia's decision yesterday to suspend Robert Dudley, the British head of its TNK-BP oil venture, for trumped up reasons, testifies to the absence of the rule of law, likely continued capital flight, and corruption that still characterizes commercial dealings in the country.

Oil wealth always tends to contain the seeds of its own destruction. Were it not so, countries like Iran, Venezuela and Mexico would dominate the global economy. Thus, Russia is riding high for now. However, with her econmomy increasingly dependent on oil and gas, a drop in prices would have strong and swift effects. Russia, herself, would benefit in the long term from diversification away from oil but this is a goal that has always eluded those who worship at the altar of oil.

From a U.S. strategic point of view, shifting energy consumption away from oil and gas toward renewable energy that is not tied to any one geographic locations can, thus have important strategic as well as economic benefits.

Oil Power Politics

New York City -- Perhaps at no point in his failed presidency, probably the worst in American history, did President Bush look more out of touch than sitting at the Olympics in Communist China as did fellow guest, Vladimir Putin, also watching the festivities was presiding over the invasion of democratic Georgia. Having not so recently invaded a country himself, Bush's moral authority was at a low. But contributing to the aura of self-interested incompetence suffused with a dose of cnyicism was his acquiescence to a vastly diminished American presence in the world.

Although it appears that the immediate Russian strike was triggered by a Georgian action against South Ossetia, the Olympic timing that placed Bush in the Chinese stands as Russian tanks rolled was tailor-made for Vladimir Putin. Pumped up with new oil and gas wealth extracted directly from Europe and the United States, Putin could not have found a better stage to announce his reassertion of Soviet imperial ambitions.

Now as President Bush and his team prepare to leave office, it is left to the rest of us to figure out how to resurrect an America that has been unnecessarily and artificially weakened--economically, militarily and strategically by this oil friendly Administration.

Indeed, oil and natural gas wealth is responsible for virtually all of the hubris on display from Putin like the other petro-strongmen who currently threaten the world's security. And oil and gas revenues are fueling the rebirth of authoritarianism--a point discussed trenchantly by Chrystia Freeland in today's Financial Times.

There should be no mistaking, at this point, that oil and gas wealth is a direct threat to the future security of the West. Thus it should be equally clear that a national commitment to developing alternative fuels must be a central element of American economic and security policy. To be sure, this transfer cannot take place overnight. But neither economically nor strategically, can the United States--or Europe--or other free countries allow themselves to remain dependent on the oil states.

As I have written before, a national program to change how we get our energy should include the following:

  • Immediate passage of tax credits for renwable fuels such as the solar investment tax credit and production tas credit which benefits wind power;
  • Acclerated development of new and impore energy storage and other advanced energy technologies;
  • A renewable electricity standard;
  • Legislation and tax credits to take older gas-guzzling vehicles off the road (as suggested by Jack Hidary and recently, Alan Blinder);
  • Tax credits to encourage energy savings; and
  • Investments in mass transportation and smart growth to lower energy demand across our society.

As major changes in energy consumption in the last few months --sparked by high gas prices--have shown, Americans can adjust. But we cannot leave this transition up to the whims of the market.

Most important of all is that these measures not be viewed independently as elective items but rather as part of a vital national commitment to free ourselves from what has become an unacceptable dependence on fossil fuels.

The alternative--acquiescence to a world run by oil-emboldened strongmen--is simply unacceptable.

McCain Disappears into a Rovian Fog

As readers of this blog are aware, we've been disapointed by John McCain's serial lies and misstatements about the two candidates respective energy policies. These lies popped up in his recent TV ads, which were replaced by a "troop" ad the McCain campaign pulled down after admitting it was untrue.

As Jake points out, the new McCain ad lies again - this time making the case that Barack Obama has called for directly taxing electricity. I'm going to leave it Michael and Jake to tackle in greater detail why this claim is - we have to say it again - just not true and politically irresponsible. Paul Krugman does a good job today in the New York Times explaining just how irresponsible the new McCain position on our energy future is.

The McCain campaign has become an incredible and wild disapointment. At one point in time, McCain was the great maverick, challenging the worst politics and policies of this disasterous Bush era. But on issue after issue - immigration, a national economic strategy, torture, climate change, being a straight talker - McCain has gone from responsible challenger of a failed Republican path to an irresponsible and craven champion of a Republican politics that has done so much harm to the national interests of the United States. Inrcreasingly, it will be McCain's embrace of the politics of the Bush and Rove era that will become a central focus of the national campaign.

NDN believes that there are few greater challenges to our national interest than the challenge of high energy prices and climate change. Which is why we've been so aggressive these last few months in this "green" space, and why we are hosting a very important event on Energy and the American Way of Life with U.S. Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin and other thought leaders later this morning here in DC (for info on how to watch live or attend click here). And look for a paper later this morning from NDN Green Project Director Michael Moynihan on the tremendous promise of solar.

I remain confused about why John McCain would surround himself with Bush people who would always have divided loyalities, torn between buffing up the "legacy" of our current President versus offering a new and better path. Inrcreasingly it will be McCain's embrace of the politics of the Bush and Rove era that will become one of the defining issues of this national campaign.

A New Immigration Strategy - Deport Yourself!

This past Sunday, Assistant Secretary for Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), Julie Myers, announced a new pilot program called "Operation Scheduled Departure" on Univision's political show, Al Punto. The idea is to "invite" all the undocumented immigrants who have already undergone immigration proceedings and have been issued a removal order (called non-criminal fugitives by ICE) to approach their local ICE office to begin their deportation. Why didn't we think of that before?! ICE reports that there are 400,000 people who currently fit that description. People who are not eligible for the program are all the undocumented immigrants who have not yet undergone removal proceedings (i.e., have not been caught), and any with a criminal conviction. However, when Ms. Myers "invited" all the viewers of the channel with the largest Hispanic audience in the country to participate, she omitted this detail, making it sound like anyone who is currently undocumented can participate. Not to mention, the policy is contradictory - during this same interview, Ms. Myers herself stated, "When I speak to people in the [ICE] detention centers and I ask if they plan on coming back [to the U.S.], they say ‘of course I'm coming back - that person always gives me a job.'"

During a conference call today with Congressional staffers, ICE officials had a hard time selling the program. Before promoting this program among people in their districts, staffers understandably pressed for answers: "What would be the benefit of participating?" DHS says: Well, they'd avoid risking being caught in a raid (another one, I guess, because they've already been caught, right?) and this way they'd have time to make "all necessary arrangements". Brilliant! It sounds like a concierge service. "Would turning oneself in count towards a legal status?" No. "Would participating in the program grant reprieve from the statutory bars that prohibit re-entry into the U.S.?" No. "Could people just leave of their own accord, without reporting to ICE, and then report their departure to a consulate abroad?" Sure, that's still their choice. Hmmmm...I could almost hear everyone on the phone scratching their head. "What about countries that refuse to issue travel documents, or won't accept their nationals back?" Yeah, then those folks would remain in the U.S. under ICE supervision indefinitely. Sounds like they've really thought this through. ICE could not provide me with the cost of the pilot program, and they couldn't tell us what results they expect to have. So I still don't understand the point of this program - a program that will only be in five cities (Santa Ana, CA, San Diego, CA, Chicago, IL, Pheonix, AZ, and Charlotte, NC), to - ideally - schedule the deportation of 400,000 people during a three-week window (August 5-27). I agree with Doug Rivlin, from National Immigration Forum, "It's pure fantasy." Even Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the largest anti-immigrant lobby group, agreed, "The government would have to offer some kind of incentive to entice immigrants to sign up."

Yet another example of the short-sighted, uninformed, and inadequate policies of this Administration. To us at NDN, this is not a solution to the problem. Instead of laughable policies like this, DHS should channel its resources towards dealing with its own backlog, which is keeping many from obtaining legal status, and it should help Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform to address the flaws in immigration law, provide a pathway to citizenship for those who fulfill certain requirements, and deal with the issue of future flow of immigrants.

The New Case Against Hispanics

On the CIS "report" that I mentioned yesterday - the premise of this paper, does demonstrate that CIS intends to argue that all undocumented immigrants are uneducated Hispanics and that all foreign-born, less-educated Hispanics in the United States are necessarily undocumented immigrants:

CIS ignores that undocumented immigration responds more to economic conditions than to immigration-enforcement measures. Data actually shows the economic downturn in many of the industries where undocumented immigrants tend to be employed (construction, service, and retail sectors) began well before August 2007 (as cited by CIS) - during the 1st quarter of 2007.

Undocumented immigrants themselves report that immigration-enforcement measures are not a deterrent. The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC-San Diego performed an actual field study and found that 91 percent of individuals who intend to cross the border without documents see attempting to cross the border as "very dangerous," and nearly one-quarter know someone who has died while doing so. Additionally, over 90% of the people who intend to cross the border and believe crossing is "very dangerous" cross anyway. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Julie Myers, herself admitted during an interview with Univision, that when she asks ICE detainees if they're going to try to cross again, by far most of them say yes.

CIS repeatedly contradicts and undermines its own conclusions. Although no "evidence" is given, CIS posits:"there is good evidence that the illegal population grew last summer while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population began to fall almost immediately." Hmm - so these less-educated Spanish-speaking Hispanics (per CIS) were just glued to CPSAN and taking cues from the Senate floor to decide what to do. But CIS then observes (in a footnote), that "illegal immigrant employment is partly seasonal, with more in the country during the summer months [when the immigration debate took place] when employment increases in agriculture, construction, and the hospitality industry."

CIS suggests that the solution to undocumented immigration is more deportation-only measures, a continued economic downturn, and a vow of silence by presidential candidates. CIS also warns that, "Presumably, since even talking about comprehensive immigration reform in the United States could spark a sudden rush of Mexicans across the border, presidential candidates should simply ignore the issue." Great, because ignoring issues always makes them disappear. That is SOUND policy right there.

Border enforcement alone doesn't remedy, it exacerbates the broken immigration system. Since 1993 there has been a 322% increase in the budget of the border patrol. The result has been that during this period of tighter enforcement, the undocumented population has more than doubled in size. It's like a balloon - when enforcement clamps down in Yuma,AZ, crossings through Yuma might decrease, but they increase in San Diego - people find an alternative route. Border enforcement by itself has only helped get "coyotes" (smugglers) more business - the cost of crossing illegally has gone from $975 in 1995 to $2,124 in 2007.

We need a real solution: The answer is not found in blatant anti-Hispanic propaganda, nor in "ignoring" proposals to reform the immigration system, as CIS suggests. A real solution to the problem is to begin by engaging the countries from which immigrants originate (not just Mexico) and share the responsibility of ensuring that economic conditions in the world are such that people can make a living at home. It's necessary to reform the entire visa and legal immigration system, internal and external enforcement, eliminate the backlog that keeps many in uncertain status, and provide a pathway to earned citizenship. Deportation-only strategies do nothing to actually address the problem.

 

Center for Immigration Studies, At It Again

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has received a lot of press for a report it released today called Homewardbound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population, so it's important to set the record straight on the report's "indications." Before pointing out the discrepancies in the report, it is essential to understand the background of who wrote it. CIS has been recognized as the "think tank" of the network of at least 13 anti-immigrant and white supremacist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This group was begun by a man named John Tanton, under the guise of his interest in the environment and "population control." He has helped fund all these groups through one entity, U.S. Inc. U.S. Inc.'s lobbying arm is called "Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)." The Executive Director of FAIR, Roy Beck, frequently acting as the "moderate" voice on cable news and radio talk shows, is actually editor of the Social Contract Press - a publishing house that promotes works such as "The Camp of the Saints," considered to encourage fear of anyone with colored skin. FAIR in turn created a "think tank" under its tax umbrella - CIS.

They are now separate legal entities, but FAIR still provides funding to CIS. It's evident throughout the history of CIS that its work product is aimed at portraying immigrants as criminals and spreading the notion that the immigrant population is exploding and deteriorating our communities - not once have they published a "research" paper that attempts to inform and remain unbiased, you won't find anything about the positive contributions of immigrants on their website. Take a minute and look through the websites of the groups in this network - the rhetoric against Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics demonstrates how papers like these and groups like these don't just affect immigrants (which are of all colors), or Hispanics, they affect everyone who lives in this country and anyone who cares about the values on which this country was founded. True Patriots would never have such fear of others and never promote such hateful rhetoric and "indications".

The groups in this network care little about facts - I almost felt like I should get the Population Environment Balance a map, or a newpaper, when I saw their website praising the anti-immigrant laws in Prince William County, MARYLAND (this county in VIRGINIA has only been the prime example nationally of immigration enforcement taken to the local level for the past year). But we cannot underestimate the fact that even inaccurate reports like these - words - have consequences: the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that in 2000, 602 hate crimes took place in our country. That number rose to 888 in 2007, and in 2006 819 Hispanics reported being targets of those crimes.  According to the FBI, anti-Latino hate crimes rose 35% between 2003 and 2006. 

There Is Amnesty...for Unscrupulous Employers

The Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa, subject of the largest raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is back in the news.  Following this week's Congressional hearings to review the situation of undocumented immigrants detained during the raid, Congressman Luis Gutierrez and several members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus spent this weekend in Postville to look into the arrests and convictions of 400 plant employees and the impact of the raid on the community as a whole.  What's shocking in this case is that documents show how DHS prompted detainees to plead guilty to a criminal offense that they had not committed - ID theft - in order to "expedite" their processing, without providing legal counsel (Administrative entities, like DHS, don't have to provide counsel).  What's also shocking and demonstrates the broken immigration system is the fact that "enforcement" seems to stop at the worker - Agriprocessors has yet to be sanctioned, punished, or fined for having violated a series of laws.  Congressman Gutierrez noted the "proportional imbalance" of the raid, because Agriprocessors, which was under investigation by the State Department of Labor even before the immigration raid for wage and hour violations, child labor and physical and sexual abuse, so far, has faced no charges, while its undocumented employees have unwittingly pleaded guilty to harsher offenses, with harsher consequences.  This is yet another example of the extent to which "enforcement" is merely a talking point for this administration - until the entire immigration system is reformed, and as long as unscrupulous employers are allowed to continue violating the law without so much as a slap on the wrist, the system will continue to be broken. 

The United States and Colombia - Consolidating Achievements

The op-ed in today's New York Times written by Secretary Gates and the Columbian Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos, reflects the spirit of shared responsibility and mutual respect that has led to dramatic progress in improving security in Colombia.  The two leaders met today to discuss the U.S.-Colombia security relationship - just one day after NDN hosted Colombian Ambassador Carolina Barco at a Latin American Policy Initiative to hear her perspective on the historic liberation of several hostages held by the FARC, Colombia's growing economy, and the proposed CTPA. 

It's important that the administration take stock of the fact that Colombia's gains are America's gains.  During her presentation, the Ambassador pointed out that over the last 10 years Colombia has been on a path to eradicate drug production, which - in combination with economic and legal reforms - has led Colombia out of a "vicious cycle" of drugs, insecurity, and poverty, into a "virtuous cycle" of security, investment, and economic growth.  The remarkable transformation in Colombia's security situation is largely the result of a partnership between the U.S. and Colombia.  The U.S. understands the benefits to be gained from having a strong, prosperous, and secure ally in Colombia, and has thus committed resources to help consolidate Colombia's hard-won freedom from violence and its economic prosperity.  One can only hope that the next administration will remain invested in the security and prosperity of the Latin American region, continuing the partnership with Colombia and extending similar commitments in the rest of the region - recognizing that any instability in the region has repercussions in the U.S., and by the same token, the gains of its neighbors are the gains of the U.S.  

Unpublished
n/a
Syndicate content