January 2012 Debate Continued

In the January 7, 2012 debate Santorum was asked what he meant by his statement – we don’t need a CEO, we don’t need a manager as President. His response – we need a leader, someone who can paint a positive vision for this country, someone who has the experience to be the commander-in-chief; he said he has 8 years on the Armed Services Committee, managed major pieces of legislation through the House and Senate on national security issues like Iran which is the most pressing issue we have today and like Newt said no one has more experience with that country than he (Santorum), someone who can paint a vision of what America’s strength is about, let our allies know that they can trust us and let us enemies know they have to respect us and if they cross us they should fear us. In regard to Romney Santorum said he has business experience that doesn’t match up; we need someone who can inspire. Romney responded with career politicians need to be in the business world first to know managing is leadership. Gingrich was directed to respond to his attacks regarding Romney’s tenure as CEO at Bain Capital – saying it’s a story of greed, stripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to the highest bidder, often killing jobs for big financial rewards. Gingrich response – he said it reflects the New York Times story of 2 days ago; he’s very much in favor of free enterprise, creating business, growing jobs, providing leadership. Gingrich went on to say that he’s not nearly enamored with the Wall Street model where you can flip companies, have leveraged buyouts, you can take out all the money leaving behind all the workers and people need to decide if on balance were people better or worse off with this style of investment (bankrupting companies and laying off workers). Romney’s response was he’s proud of the jobs he has done and the overall net was he created jobs. Romney said let’s not forget that this is a free enterprise system and we don’t need government coming in telling us how to make businesses work. Huntsman was brought into the discussion. He said he comes from manufacturing and people need to look at a person’s record but thinks that somebody’s record as Governor is probably more telling of how they would be as President. Huntsman said he took his state (Utah) to #1 in job creation, initiated a flat tax, and reformed health care without a mandate. Romney’s response was that he commends Huntsman and we need a President who understands the economy and job creation.

The debate went to Paul’s attack on Santorum in which he called him a corrupt corporate lobbyist, a Washington insider with a record of betrayal – Paul said it was based on somebody’s survey, he voted to raise the debt limit 5 times, voted against the right to work, voted for no child left behind and a prescription drug program, he’s a big spender and took money from lobbyists. Santorum’s response was the information was by a group called Crew and if you haven’t been sued by Crew you’re not a conservative, he said he’s not a libertarian as he believes in some government and considers himself a cause guy that gets involved in causes he believes in (worked to defeat cap and trade in regard to coal/global warming). Paul’s response was that Santorum is a big spender and he (Paul) voted against spending. Santorum responded with - he voted for a balanced budget, line item veto, welfare and social security reform and worked on Medicare and Medicaid. After some bantering – Perry said you just saw a great example of why I got in this race; I’m not an insider from Washington or Wall Street.

I had no clue what cap and trade meant. Per sightline.org, the ‘cap’ is a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year and ‘trade’ means that companies may swap among themselves the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouse gases. Sightline says to make cap and trade work best a program must have: (1) a Comprehensive scope – the cap covers all measurable emissions of greenhouse gases to ensure an efficient, economy-wide transition away from carbon-based fuels, (2) an Upstream regulation - operates where fossil fuels enter the economy, that fewer than one-tenth of one percent of businesses interact with the system, (3) Auctioned permits - energy companies pay for permits in order to compensate families for the burden of expensive energy, (4) Limited offsets – that is limited alternatives to carbon permits to ensure cap and trade goals; they need to be strictly limited, well-defined, and closely regulated, and (5) Auction revenues - the money from auctioned permits can be returned to families or invested in clean energy efficient technology and create green-collar jobs. President Obama has made it clear that establishing a bold cap and trade program is a priority. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454) in June 2009, it would cap carbon emissions at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, gradually lowers the cap to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Unfortunately the bill allows for substantial use of offsets and only auctions 15% of permits in the initial years (ramping up to 70% auctions by 2030) but it remains a giant leap toward a clean energy economy. The American Power Act was recently introduced in the Senate and they have pledged action on energy legislation before the end of the year. Sightline argues that if we create the right kind of system we not only get off the fossil-fuels roller coaster but speed the transition to a clean energy economy that puts the interest of people before interests of polluters. Cap and trade provides the framework to commit us to responsible limits on global warming emissions and with commonsense rules it’ll spark the competitiveness and ingenuity of the marketplace to reduce emissions as smoothly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible.