Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > August > 11
Monday, August 11, 2008
Talk radio’s eruption over Chambliss and his energy agreement spreads to Atlanta
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Talk radio’s eruption over the “Gang of Ten” bipartisan energy proposal continued on Monday, as U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss got into it — in polite fashion — with WSB talk guru Neal Boortz over the issue.
The topic has percolated since a Wall Street Journal columnist attacked the compromise last Thursday. That syndicated vetter of conservative issues, Rush Limbaugh, railed against it on Friday.
Monday was Boortz’ turn. Like others before him, the Atlanta-based radio host complained that the Senate initiative, led on the GOP side by Chambliss, undercut the protests that House Republicans — led by U.S. Rep. Tom Price of Roswell — have generated since Congress left on vacation.
Boortz dismissed the way the senators have proposed paying for conservation incentives in the bill as a tax increase on oil companies — and, before Chambliss got on the line, threatened to vote for Libertarian Allen Buckley.
Chambliss said oil companies are getting plenty in return for the elimination of a 6 percent tax break they currently get and declared that Boortz and his radio compatriots “rather than finding a solution to a crisis that exists in America, you’d rather have a campaign issue for the election.”
Listen to sound clips of the confrontation, kindly provided by WSB Radio(750AM) here, here and here.
Now, some of you out there may theorize that Chambliss — who has angered the base before with his participation in negotiations over immigration, and his championship of the farm bill — may be in danger of losing his right wing.
But think on this: In aggressively dealing with conservative talk radio on this issue, Chambliss may instead be engaging in a Republican version of a Sistah Souljah maneuver — i.e., slighting one’s base in order to reassure the middle.
A partial transcript of the Chambliss-Boortz set-to begins here, and continues on the jump:
Chambliss: Tell me what you’re upset about, Neal, when Republicans and Democrats are trying to lower gas prices.
Boortz: Oh, come on. Save the [unintelligible], Senator. What I’m upset about is that Republicans have a winning issue here, on the fact that the Democrats wanted — wanted — the American people to pay big bucks for gasoline, because it plays well for them in the election. And the Republicans had a winning issue — that I think y’all just knocked the props out, from right underneath ‘em.
Chambliss: I totally disagree, Neal. For this reason: No. 1, there are people — and I hear you saying the same thing some other talk shows are saying — who rather than finding a solution to a crisis that exists in America, you’d rather have a campaign issue for the election. Well, you know, people voted for me in 2002 to go to the Senate to solve problems — not have campaign issues to deal with.
What we did was, we got together as a group. Five Republicans and five Democrats. Four of the five Democrats had never voted for off-shore drilling. They’re willing to come our way to make that commitment. Four of the five Democrats are not big believers in nuclear power production. They’ve come our way on the issue of nuclear power production.
Four of the five Democrats have never considered voting for recycling of nuclear waste from power plants. They now have come our way on this issue.
Boortz: Are any of those Democrats Nelson or Martinez?
Chambliss: No.
Boortz: Well, then Florida is out of the picture.
Chambliss: I don’t know what they would do if we did not propose to open up the Gulf of Mexico, which is what we’re doing, because that’s where the oil is.
Boortz: Well, I know, but you leave it up to Florida and — now, here, tell me where I’m wrong. Does this agreement — I understand there’s nothing in writing, there’s no bill, there’s nothing signed — but does this agreement provide for any higher taxes on the oil industry?
Chambliss: What it does is, in 2004, Neal, we passed a provision that gives an exclusion to all oil companies, including Hugo Chavez, for 6 percent of their income that comes from domestic production. So the top 6 percent….
[CALL BEGINS TO BREAK UP. CHAMBLISS CALLS BACK]
Boortz: Sorry about the cell phone problems there, Senator.
Chambliss: I apologize. I’m on the road here, I’m getting close to Lewis Grizzard’s No-Name Bar down here in south Georgia.
Boortz: Well, go in there and have one for me. Are there any tax increases on the oil companies in this agreement with the Democrats?
Chambliss: Here’s what we proposed. We can’t do anything as a Gang of Ten, relative to how the conservation measures are paid for. But what we suggested to the Finance Committee that will make the decision is that, look, in 2004 we put this tax provision in which excludes from income for all oil companies 6 percent of the income derived from domestic production.
It’s just excluded from their income, totally.
Boortz: From their taxable income.
Chambliss: That’s right. Now what we’re proposing to do is to tell the five majors plus Citgo, that’s owned by our friend Hugo Chavez, that we’re going to take that away from you because we don’t think we need to give them an incentive. We’re giving them an additional area in the Gulf of Mexico, where we know there’s oil, we’re giving them the right to go off-shore in four states in the first phase, and in the second phase, there may be other areas off-shore that they’ll be allowed to go.
They would a lot rather get their production domestically, because they don’t have to pay to get it here. They have the infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico….
Why should we still give the incentives to Hugo Chavez to make money off —
Boortz: Isn’t Hugo Chavez something of a red herring here? I mean, you throw him in with the other oil companies, because certainly he does elicit an emotional response from Americans, but isn’t the short answer here, yes, the tax burden on the oil companies will increase under this arrangement?
Chambliss: That’s only if the Finance Committee decided to use that.
Boortz: Likewise, there will only be drilling off the coast if the states agree to it.
Chambliss: Except for the Gulf of Mexico, the states have the option of agreeing to opt in. That’s true….
Permalink | Comments (30) | Post your comment |
Watchdog group calls on McCain to cancel Atlanta fund-raiser because of Reed’s participation
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Ralph Reed’s standing in national GOP circles is getting a test.
Campaign Money Watch, a campaign finance watchdog group, has just called on Republican presidential candidate John McCain to cancel plans for an Aug. 18 fund-raiser in Atlanta hosted in part by Reed, the former state GOP chairman and ex-leader of the Christian Coalition.
Here’s the original post that sparked the response.
The organization cites Reed’s association with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Washington lobbyist now in federal prison for influence-peddling. Reed lost an ‘06 bid for lieutenant governor, largely because of revelations of that relationship — uncovered by McCain’s Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
“Will the real John McCain stand up, already?” asked David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch. “Sen. McCain knows exactly how Ralph Reed helped Jack Abramoff defraud Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars, and how Reed lobbied on Abramoff’s behalf to protect sweatshop owners in the Northern Mariana Islands. Sen. McCain should spare himself any further embarrassment by canceling this event immediately. Whose help will he accept next? Tom DeLay’s?”
Update: A call to the McCain campaign by my colleague Aaron Gould Sheinin produced this response from Republican National Committee spokeswoman Katie Wright:
“I find it laughable they would go this route, considering Senator McCain chaired the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that investigated Jack Abramoff. I suggest they take a closer look at Barack Obama’s friends like convicted felon Tony Rezko or his National Co-Chairman Harry Reid, who took nearly $68,000 from Abramoff.”
Permalink | Comments (25) | Post your comment |
A Nunn sighting in the tumult over the other Georgia
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Though the reference disappeared in subsequent Sunday editions, early versions of a New York Times article on Barack Obama’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia included this paragraph:
Wendy Morigi, Obama’s national security spokeswoman, said that in recent days the campaign had spoken to experts including Sam Nunn, a former senator of Georgia and an influential Democratic voice on foreign policy; Michael A. McFaul, a Russia scholar at Stanford University who heads the campaign’s foreign policy team on Russia and Eurasia; Richard Holbrooke, a former American ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton; and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic representative of Indiana, who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment |
Borders withdraws from ‘09 race for mayor of Atlanta
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Atlanta City Council President Lisa Borders has just withdrawn from the ’09 race to follow Shirley Franklin into the mayor’s office. Rumors had been swirling to this effect since Friday.
Read Borders’ entire statement here. In part, the press release says:
“I was raised to put family and community before personal ambition. This ethic has guided me for decades and brings me to this decision today. Issues that face every family have no respect of political goals, and I am not immune. Taking care of my family has always been my priority, and increasing health concerns faced by my aging parents require that I place their needs above my own.”
Borders indicated that she intends to remain as leader of the city council.
At this risk of sparking a storm of protest from followers of Councilwoman Mary Norwood, the Insider has got to say that this development looks like it should benefit state Sen. Kasim Reed of Atlanta.
Update: in a statement issued Monday afternoon, Reed praised Borders’ contributions to the city. “I believe nothing is more important than family and respect Ms. Borders’ decision to focus on her loved ones during this critical period. I am pleased to learn that she will continue to be involved in helping our city move forward,” Reed said.
Photo credit: Nick Arroyo/AJC
Permalink | Comments (21) | Post your comment |
First, pre-heat oven to 425 degrees: A recipe for ‘cooking the books’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
That federal trial of a politically connected Smyrna company and its three executives continues to churn out preliminary documents that reveal bits and pieces of the prosecution’s case.
And the company’s fine sense of mathematics.
The Facility Group, its chairman/CEO Robert L. Moultrie, chief operating officer Nixon Cawood and executive vice president Charles Morehead are alleged to have made illegal campaign donations to win the contract for a state-backed beef plant in Mississippi.
The company then inflated costs to recoup that money and more, prosecutors allege.
Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, now a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, is thought to be the unnamed and unindicted public official who received the contributions.
In one document dump from last week, revealed tidbits include the allegation that the Facility Group charged $423,000 for insurance that only cost the company $40,000, and the discovery of false time sheets to “cook the books to back up the false hours.”
Prosecutors also say that have a hand-written formula, penned by company controller, the company used to double-bill the cost of its employees. It goes something like this:
An employee who earns $100 an hour also gets health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, disability insurance. Social Security and bonuses must be paid. So the true cost is $130 an hour. So that’s a bottom-line ratio of $1.30 of cost for every $1 paid to an employee.
Sayeth the prosecutors:
”Then, according to the accountant, The Facility Group estimates an employee only works 65 percent of the time (35 percent goofing off, not working, sick, vacation- inefficiency).
So they divide 1.3 (their alleged cost to employee)/65% (inefficiency) and come up with a neat figure of 2.0, which they multiply times the employees salary for every hour the employee works. For example if an employees salary is $200 an hour they claim he costs them $400 and bill that employee out at $400.”
