Feeling the heat

As Bush unveils his industry-friendly energy plan, even members of his own party are starting to sweat.

By Anthony York

May 17, 2001 | If the standoff on China's Hainan Island was the Bush administration's first international crisis, its first domestic crisis is largely self-created. Despite Bush's rhetoric, it's not an energy crisis -- experts disagree on whether, outside of California, we're really facing one -- but a crisis of public confidence. Polls show President Bush has succeeded in convincing Americans that the nation's energy woes are serious, but they worry the administration can't solve the problem given its extensive ties to the energy industry.

And the energy plan Bush will release Thursday, crafted in near secrecy by a task force dominated by power-industry execs, with no environmentalists or consumer advocates, is likely to worsen that political crisis. Staking out his political ground, Bush said the nation is facing "the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargo of the 1970s," which "if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security."

Predictably, Democrats have begun hammering Bush hard on the energy issue, attempting to exploit public worries about his close ties to the industry. But even members of Bush's own party have come out in strong opposition to key planks of the plan being hawked by Vice President Cheney, head of the White House energy task force. California Republicans are angry the plan does little to solve the state's energy woes, while other Western conservatives are furious about reports that Bush will expand eminent domain laws -- anathema to the property-rights crowd -- in order to build more energy facilities.

Though Bush will not formally unveil the plan's details until Thursday, when he embarks on a two-day tour to try to sell it, the key components have been known for weeks. The plan calls for hundreds of new power plants, as well as renewed exploration for oil and gas and increased oil drilling, including new drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plan also calls for the "safe expansion" of nuclear power, as well as billions of dollars in tax credits for people who purchase energy-efficient cars or use alternative energy sources, such as solar power, at home. As expected, the plan stops short of asking autombile makers to raise fuel efficiency standards on new cars and trucks.

But the plan is also notable for what is not in it. Once again, the administration has rebuffed calls from Californians -- including many congressional Republicans -- to put price caps on wholesale energy prices in the West, where the price of energy has increased more than tenfold since last summer.

Instead, Bush's surprising answer to California's energy crisis, as well as rising prices at gas pumps around the nation, has been to hawk his massive tax cut. Consider this zany exchange from his press conference last Friday. A reporter asked, "What would you say to American families who may pay as much as $3 at the pump this summer at the same time that oil companies in this country are experiencing and enjoying record profits?"

To which Bush replied: "What I say is, I worry about the fact that hardworking people are paying high prices at the pump. It concerns me a lot. And therefore, the Congress needs to cut taxes as quickly as possible to give people money to be able to deal with this situation."

Of course, passing a $1.3 trillion tax cut in order to let Americans give more money to energy companies may seem a strange form of public policy. Once it's in the hands of the oil and energy companies, some of that tax cut will eventually end up in politicians' pockets -- to the tune of $64.6 million last cycle, according to records collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. (Seventy-five percent of that energy industry money went to Republicans last election cycle, with $2.85 million going to Bush, the industry's largest recipient.)

"Essentially, he's saying the government is a giant money laundering machine that gives back your taxes so you can give it to the oil companies or electric companies," says Rep. Robert Filner, D-Calif. "Why not just give it directly to them? What he's really saying is there is no tax cut, they're just giving the money to his friends in the energy industry."

Next Page: Some conservatives flinch: Whatever happened to private property?

• View blog reactions