Mediaboss Marketing

Energy issues are defining U.S. consumer, economic and security challenges more profoundly than any time since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. Russias invasion of Ukraine has placed enormous pressure on global oil and natural gas supplies,driving up prices around the world, and exacerbating already high domestic inflation, with U.S. consumers facing new record gasoline prices of more than $4.50 a gallon in part due to the newEU embargo on Russian oilthis week.

Yet, the crisis comes with real opportunity. Consumer anger over energy costs and new concerns about U.S. energy security are together providing key Democrats, especially perpetual swing vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), with fresh political motivations to enact a sweeping package of clean energy tax incentives that can also limit future oil shocks.

Late last week, Manchinindicatedthat renewed talks with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden(D-Ore.) may yet yield a dealon clean energy, as part of a scaled back Democratic-only budget reconciliation bill also focused on deficit reduction and Medicare prescription drug price cuts. And while Manchin has said reducing inflation is his chief policy concern, he and other Democrats have been slow to acknowledge that a revolution in domestic clean energy innovation and commercialization through tax incentives can helpinsulate America from future global oil shocks, improving U.S. energy security, along with addressing climate change.

Gaining long-term benefits of cheaper energy and insulation from fossil fuel commodity price shocks, however, will require a period of time where certain technologies need pending tax incentives to gain market share, help balance the electrical grid and lower prices. The costs of wind and solar power has fallen by more than 80 percent in just the last decade, making it cheaper than fossil energy in many markets, but due to its intermittency these climate-friendly renewable energy sourceswill require greater deployment of electricity storage and smart grid technologiesencouraged through the tax code and federal innovation incentives.

Electric vehicle adoption can over timereduce U.S. oil demanddramatically,lowering consumer fuel and maintenance costs, andhelping America manufacturerscompete with foreign EV producers, especially China. But today, EVs typically have sticker prices of at least $10,000 more than comparable gasoline-powered cars, although auto producers project rapidly reduced new EV prices as production lines reach scale. This is precisely why a pending Senate Finance Committee bill proposes consumer tax credits for EVs of at least $7,500. Under current law, domestic EVs produced by GM and Tesla no longer qualify for tax credits, so Congress must act to help our own manufacturers.

Even so, the U.S. will still need to produce more oil and natural gas for years to come to limit price shocks and improve energy security, as many Democrats have been slow to admit. But greater renewable electricity, along with existing and new nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, hydrogen and other sources, can reduce domestic price pressures on U.S. natural gas, more of which will need to be exported to help our EU allies break free from Russian gas. More broadly, the reduction in U.S. oil and gas reliance must remain a central long-term goal, both to address climate change and to wean the world from the influence of petro-dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Just as in the 1970s, the U.S. today cannot now rely on increases in Middle Eastern oil supplies to help cut oil prices, since Saudi Arabia especially has turned a deaf ear to requests for more production while making billions each day in new profits. The Saudi crown prince, the Kingdoms de facto ruler,recently refused to even take President Bidens callon the topic, and last month the Saudi energy minister said he intends to work out a [production] agreement with OPEC plus which includes Russia.

This suggests the Saudis and OPEC intend to limit production and keep global oil prices high for the foreseeable future, perpetuating energy inflation, their own high profits, and U.S. oil security vulnerability. This prospect is a key reasonBiden now intends to visit Saudi Arabiaand meet with the crown prince after a visit to Israel in late June.

Historically, in the face of Russian aggression, Middle East hostility, and oil price spikes, the U.S. has responded with bipartisan policies to increase energy supplies, reduce oil demand and address resulting economic and security vulnerabilities. In the 1970s,legislation supported by both Democrats and Republicanscreated the U.S. Energy Department, instituted the first auto fuel efficiency regulations, and created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Again in the 2000s during the Iraq War,Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005with bipartisan support to increase alternative supplies, and a Democratic House and President George W. Bush were able to pass a bill toraise domestic auto fuel efficiency to cut oil demand in 2007.

Yet, in a stunning demonstration of the high cost of extreme political partisanship to average Americans, Congress has been unable to pass major bipartisan energy and climate legislation, even as the energy crisis has worsened.

Now as midterm elections loom, time is running out for Congress to act. If bipartisan negotiations falter, as seems likely, then Democrats must act alone this summer as best they can. The White House and most Democrats may simply have to swallow hard and accept elements like increased debt reduction aimed at inflation to make sure needed energy and climate action finally happens.

At a May press conference,Biden said,I want every American to know that Im taking inflation very seriously and its my top domestic priority. And to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reckless autocrats like Putin, Im working with Congress to pass landmark investments to help build a clean energy future as well.

Given newly urgent energy inflation and security concernsimportant to most Americans,Democrats now have compelling new reasons to act on clean energy, in addition to the climate crisis. If they dont,anincreasingly disgruntled electoratetired of years of inaction on energy and climatewill likely seal their fate in November.

PaulBledsoeis strategic adviser at theProgressive Policy Instituteand professorial lecturer at American Universitys Center for Environmental Policy. He served as communications director of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton.

See the rest here:
Democrats must limit oil shocks along with climate risks - The Hill

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) Multiple Democratic state legislative candidates are suing Ohios top election official to get their names on the ballot.

In the latest ripple effect of Ohios redistricting battle, the six hopefuls five of whom are from central Ohio say Secretary of State Frank LaRose erroneously instructed boards of elections to reject their petitions, according to a complaint filed Tuesday with the Ohio Supreme Court.

The argument stems from when was the filing deadline for Ohios second primary election, set for Aug. 2. If the court rejects the plaintiffs arguments, Democrats may not have any official candidates in the Democratic-leaning Senate District 25 and House Districts 11 and 39.

Under Ohio law, aspiring officeholders must file a petition for candidacy 90 days before the date of a primary election.That means, for candidates running in the May 3 primary, the filing deadline was Feb. 2.

But if counting backward 90 days from Aug. 2, the filing deadline was May 4.

In a directive Saturday, LaRose ordered county election officials to recertify or reject by Friday any candidates who filed after Feb. 2 for the May 3 primary.

But given the Republican-dominated Ohio Redistricting Commissions months-long fight with the Ohio Supreme Court that led the state to hold two primary elections, plaintiffs contend that they werent required to file for office until May 4.

Despite the state court striking down the commissions third set of legislative maps that favored Republicans, a federal three-judge panel ordered LaRose to use the maps anyway, citing the need to be ready for Aug. 2.

LaRose, however, argued that the federal ruling did not change the Feb. 2 filing deadline.

All candidates in the suit met the deadlines that plaintiffs argue LaRose should follow, according to their individual declarations of candidacy.

Write-in candidates have 72 days before the start of a primary election to submit a petition for candidacy, according to Ohio Revised Code. Leronda Jackson and Elizabeth Thien are also part of the suit, saying they met their deadline by filing on May 16 and 23, respectively.

Go here to see the original:
Republican secretary of state sued over rejecting Democrats ballot petitions - NBC4 WCMH-TV

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Political strategists from both sides of the aisle are sounding off about what issues they think voters will care most about as they head to the polls for this year's midterm elections.

A number of those strategists spoke with Fox News Digital to give their predictions about which direction voters might swing in an election cycle that historically sees the party not in power, the Republicans in this case, make significant gains in Congress and other races.

Despite differences in opinion as to how the hot-button issues of abortion and gun control would sway voters, the one thing they all agreed on was that the economic challenges plaguing the country would take center stage when it came to which party Americans would ultimately support.

Democratic strategist James Carville pointed to the country's economic woes as the main indicator for how the midterms could go. (Munoz for ICSS Livepic/Getty Images)

TEXAS HOUSE COULD DOUBLE NUMBER OF GOP WOMEN IN NOVEMBER: WERE SICK OF HAVING THE LEFT SPEAK FOR US'

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville poured water on the idea that concern over guns would make a significant impact in the elections and pointed to the country's economic woes as the main indicator for how the midterms could go.

"Historically it hasn't been a dominant issue," he said, referencing the impact guns could have on election results, but noted it could have a specific effect on some Democratic voters concerned about other "cultural" issues like the environment and abortion.

Carville admitted that the outlook for Democrats in the midterms was "not going in a very good direction," but that they could potentially "cut their losses short" if voters did decide to turn out over fears that a Supreme court decision ending Roe v. Wade would lead to future decisions they might oppose.

Earlier in the spring, voters' concerns centered largely on the Biden administration's handling of the numerous economic challenges facing Americans, including a near 40-year-high inflation rate and record-high gas prices. However, the discussion on the political landscape surrounding the midterms was upended in May with the leaking of a Supreme Court draft memo suggesting the nation's highest court might be set to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

The leaked draft memo was followed by the shooting deaths of 10 people at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, as well as the shooting last week at an Uvalde, Texas, elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers.

Pro-life demonstrators protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, May 16, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

OHIO SENATE SHOWDOWN: REPUBLICAN JD VANCE HAS SLIGHT EDGE OVER DEMOCRATIC REP. TIM RYAN

Each of those events sparked intense political rhetoric from Democrats over future access to abortions, as well as potential gun control legislation, that began making its way into conversations surrounding the elections.

Carville ultimately predicted Democrats' performance would depend on the economy, specifically pointing to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and income growth.

He argued "Democrats might do better" if those two indicators improved, but that for now it was "like watching two horses race back and forth."

"The big problem for this White House and the Democratic Party, is they've created so many other problems that are competing with abortion or guns among voters, and it's going to be hard to put those aside," said former Trump administration adviser Kellyanne Conway, specifically mentioning high gas prices, supply chain issues, and the shortage of baby formula affecting families with newborns.

Conway argued that Democrats were trying to capitalize on issues like abortions and guns, two topics she discussed at length in her new memoir, "Here's the Deal," but that they were "competing with themselves for voters" because of their handling of the economic challenges affecting Americans.

She added that Democrats were making "significant miscalculations" by thinking that voters only cared about certain issues, but noted that the recent shooting tragedies and concern over Roe v. Wade could still drive more people to the polls.

People use voting machines to fill out their ballots in the Georgia primary at the Metropolitan Library on May 24, 2022, in Atlanta. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

TRAILING OZ BY JUST OVER 900 VOTES IN GOP SENATE PRIMARY, MCCORMICK ASKS FOR HAND RECOUNT IN 12 PA COUNTIES

Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor Kevin Walling talked about the importance of issues like guns and abortion, but repeated the same argument made by Carville and Conway that voters' intentions would come down to the "bread and butter issues."

"It's still going to be inflation as the core focus, I think, of voters going to the polls," he said.

Walling stated that Roe v. Wade and guns could come into play in some races across the country where those issues stand out specifically for certain constituents, but that "it really is going to be the economy."

He added that "the million-dollar question" was which party would come out on top in November, but that he was "bullish" about Democrats' chances despite their economic challenges.

President Biden clears his throat as he announces new steps requiring government to buy more made-in-America goods on March 4, 2022. (Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Voters' concerns about the economy have also been evident when it comes to President Biden's approval rating.

According to a poll published last month by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Research, only 18% of respondents said Bidens policies had helped more than they had hurt the economy, while 51% said his policies had hurt more than they had helped.

Original post:
Democratic, Republican strategists agree economy will trounce guns, abortion as 'number one issue' in midterms - Fox News

A coalition of Texas unions and members of Congress is calling on the Biden administration to ensure workers rights are protected in the buildout of offshore wind infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a letter sent out Thursday morning, Democratic Reps. Al Green, Lloyd Doggett, Sylvia Garcia, Marc Veasey, Veronica Escobar, Vicente Gonzalez, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Joaquin Castro, who all represent districts in Texas, called on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to ensure that Gulf-based wind power projects are built by union labor.

The representatives noted that due to organizing obstacles at the state level, union membership among workers is about one-third the national rate in Texas.

In the letter, the members called on BOEM to ensure that leasing terms for wind projects in the Gulf include a requirement for a project labor agreement (PLA), or a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement between construction unions and contractors.

The members also called for the use of a community workforce agreement, a PLA with a goal of hiring low-income workers for construction projects.

The letter follows a public comment submitted in February by the Texas Climate Jobs Project, a coalition of labor unions in the Lone Star State that aims to bridge the gap between addressing climate change and the needs of workers. The group cites what it says is endemic wage theft in the construction business in Texas, and called on BOEM to incorporate local working conditions into its environmental analysis.

What were asking for is when they do issue those leases, that those leases have requirements in there for job quality, for the ability of workers to come together and community benefits so that even as we build this renewable capacity, were making sure that working people, and people who have historically been disadvantaged by the way energy has been produced in Texas, have a real seat at the table, Rick Levy, president of the Texas AFL-CIO, said in an interview with The Hill Wednesday.

Levy described offshore wind as the ideal project to assuage what he said was unease among parts of organized labor about renewable energys effect on jobs.

The reason we got involved in this project was to make sure that number one, it happens, and number two, when it does happen, that we make sure that these are good jobs and that people have a voice in these jobs and that the jobs really benefit the whole community, he said.

The Biden administration has set a broader goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity deployed by 2030, but has yet to formally announce lease sales in the Gulf. Last June, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced the department would explore opportunities for renewable development in the area.

Updated at 9:27 a.m.

View post:
Texas Democrats, unions call on Interior to protect workers rights in offshore wind leasing - The Hill

Academics associated with the University of Chicago, including Mr. Posner and Mr. Bork, built a case for sharply limiting antitrust enforcement during the 1970s. Their ideas began to take hold even before they were put on the bench. The Supreme Court issued one of its first rulings limiting the scope of antitrust enforcement in a 1977 case, Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania. Justice Lewis Powell Jr., who wrote the decision, left a scribbled record of his intellectual debts in the margin of a case memo. It read, Posner, Baxter, Bork.

Baxter was William Baxter, a Stanford law professor whom Mr. Reagan installed as the head of the antitrust division at the Justice Department. Mr. Posner and Mr. Bork ended up on appeals courts, where they became influential interpreters of antitrust law. Other important Reagan picks included Frank Easterbrook, a law professor at the University of Chicago; Douglas Ginsburg, a Harvard Law professor with a distaste for regulation; and, a few years later, Justice Scalia, whose opposition to antitrust enforcement is perhaps best illustrated by a case he did not decide. Shortly after his unexpected death in 2016, Dow Chemical said it would pay $835 million to settle an antitrust case that had been about to come before the court. With Mr. Scalia gone, Dow could no longer rely on a favorable outcome.

On the bench, these men and their allies replaced a broad effort to check corporate power with a narrow focus on consumer welfare. Pretty much anything that didnt raise prices was OK. The courts also made it increasingly difficult for the government to win. Perhaps the last merger raised prices, but who could be sure about this one?

In 2017, Mr. Posner, addressing an antitrust conference at the University of Chicago, puckishly asked the audience, Antitrust is dead, isnt it?

The conservative jurists received important support from centrist and liberal justices who took a jaded view of the broad goals of the nations antitrust laws and saw enforcement efforts as inconsistent and even counterproductive.

What they left standing has proved woefully inadequate. The rise of corporate concentration is harming consumers, suppliers, employees and democracy itself.

Restocking the courts is only a part of the solution, and it is a long-term project. Antitrust cases brought by the Biden administration will be adjudicated mostly by judges appointed by Mr. Bidens predecessors. Eighteen federal judges named by Mr. Reagan are still serving.

Excerpt from:
Opinion | When Picking Judges, Democrats Need to Stop Ignoring Economics - The New York Times