August 17, 2006
Darcy Burner passes gas, burns Cantwell, Dicks, Larsen

The Darcy Burner campaign released this howler of a web site: "Gas Pump Man", which claims:

Congressman Dave Reichert's solution [to the high cost of gasoline] is to give the oil companies YOUR MONEY
Burner's answer:
We need a real leader who will fight for real solutions -- such as developing alternative energy sources
The left hand side of the page exclaims:

The gassy website doesn't explain where the $14 billion comes from, but the Burner campaign acknowledged that this refers to the total tax credits in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Washington Post explains that the $14 billion includes credits for energy projects other than oil and gas, including, uh, developing alternative energy sources. (The wind power lobby, for example, seems pleased). Another blogger deconstructed a similar campaign smear in a Senate race, and breaks down the $14 billion to show that the large majority of the breaks are targetted for industries other than oil and gas.

Reasonable people can debate whether this was the best possible energy bill. But Dave Reichert is hardly the only Congressman who deserves credit for it. Washington Democrats Norm Dicks and Rick Larsen voted for the final version, as did 25 of 42 Senate Democrats -- including Sen. Maria Cantwell.

Okay, so the whole "Gas Pump Man" thing is childish, factually untrue, and a bizarre, desperate attempt to attack Reichert for bipartisan progress on a difficult problem. But it's what we've come to expect from a challenger who has no relevant accomplishments of her own, and who seems to have a low opinion of her voters' intelligence. (The same meme about "giving $14 billion to oil and gas companies" is showing up in other Congressional campaigns. The newbie Burner is perhaps just reading lines from the DCCC scripts)

hat tip: Lynne in Arlington.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 17, 2006 01:03 PM | Email This
1. saw the commercial finally.

Based on what we've seen so far, Darcy's biggest triumphs are still to come.

Wait until the really big whopper lies come out...remember telling a lie to Seattle voters is only a bad thing if you can't get away with it.

Posted by: Andy on August 17, 2006 01:07 PM
2. I guess this will help McGavick - Maria Cantwell - the Gas Pump Woman, according to fellow Dem Darcy.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 17, 2006 01:10 PM
3. Rarely has anyone worked so hard to turn themselves into a political footnote as ol' Darc.

Posted by: Hinton on August 17, 2006 01:10 PM
4. i always loved the liberal (evil) 'corporate welfare' shtick and dance;

when libs have their own side businesses, they deduct all they can as 'business expenses.' what they like is the 'corporate welfare' (deductions) THEY are allowed for their OWN little consulting businesses or spouse's business; the same tax breaks and deductions are used by most large 'bad' businesses; same rules--why the hate by libs? don't they like 'fair and equal?'

they also don't like to tell you that many if not all of the same self-righteous libs have funds socked away in retirement plans and savings comprised of the same 'evil' companies' stocks and bonds they hate; go figure;

Was that "Darcy" or "Farce-ie?"

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 17, 2006 01:19 PM
5. Ow! I bet Darcy's campaign will hear from the Cantwell campaign about this poorly considered goofball website.

She included the tired old Dem talking point,"We need a real leader who will fight for real solutions -- such as developing alternative energy sources". Like virtually all of the blather coming from the Dems there is not a hint of what they would actually do to achieve this lofty goal. My guess: raise gas taxes.

I wonder if Darcy realizes that oil is a commodity that is traded on the world market? I imagine she prefers the moonbat belief that the price of oil is set in secret by Dick Cheney and evil oil company executives. Which leads me to wonder how she would explain the significant drop in the price of oil today.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 17, 2006 01:54 PM
6. Bill- that would be an awesome spoof website of a democrat campaign.

Posted by: Andy on August 17, 2006 01:58 PM
7. In the past few years with the Oil Industry having their all time largest profits, how do YOU READERS here justify the Bush Administration giving Big Oil 14 billion worth of breaks? Thought so, no comments from the lemming brigade

Posted by: MtRainier on August 17, 2006 02:08 PM
8. "MTRainier" Did you even bother to read Stefan's post? It was noted that most of the $14B did not go to "Big Oil".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 17, 2006 02:25 PM
9. Anyone care to remind Darcy Burnout that "alternative energy sources" also include ANWR, off-shore platforms and shale oil within those alternative sources? -All within the US borders!
Oil shale reserves are estimated at 1.5 TRILLION barrels and all American owned.

Posted by: john425 on August 17, 2006 02:28 PM
10. MtRainier -
Scroll down to Table 1.

"As illustrated in Table 1, since 1977, there have been only three years (1980, 1981, and 1982) in which domestic oil industry profits exceeded government gas tax collections. In the remaining years, gasoline tax collections consistently exceeded oil industry profits, reaching a peak in 1995 when gas tax collections outpaced industry profits by a factor of 7.3.

Government profits more from oil that "Big Oil' does

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 17, 2006 02:33 PM
11. ....did that help you, there, MTRainier? Cat got your tongue? Sheesh. The real trouble is that most voters don't have the first clue about how much the guvmint takes from us.

Posted by: Danny on August 17, 2006 02:49 PM
12. Darcy Burner gets money from big tobacco.

Posted by: Michael on August 17, 2006 03:27 PM
13. Michael, since when is the baker's union the same thing as big tobacco? Just because Phillip Morris tells you that the union is who big tobacco is doesn't make it true.

Posted by: bops on August 17, 2006 03:36 PM
14. Did you happen to notice in the Gas Ad the PO box number in Carnation for Darcy is the same as the dial location of the Local "Air America Station" Gee I wonder if they are sponsor of her campaign like KIRO is?

Posted by: Huh? on August 17, 2006 03:45 PM
15. To breakdown the 14 billion:

*$3.1 billion for electricity reliability
*$2.9 billion for clean coal
*$2.9 billion for renewable and clean energy incentives
*$2.7 billion for energy efficiency and conservation measures
*$2.6 billion for oil and gas production and enhanced refining

How accurate is Darcy's add?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 17, 2006 03:48 PM
16. But it's what we've come to expect from a challenger who has no relevant accomplishments of her own, and who seems to have a low opinion of her voters' intelligence.

That's okay, I have a low opinion of her intelligence, too. And of the fawning idiots at Horseass, blatherwatch and the other lib blogs.

Posted by: Steve_dog on August 17, 2006 04:42 PM
17. This is why the Democrats love Darcy. Darcy can run screen for incumbents like Cantwell and Dicks. They would not be caught dead making such statements, but it's easy to hand them off to Naive Darcy because she's easily duped and has no record.

And, if needed, Darcy is just another sacrificial lamb to benefit Democrats. Until she actually gets elected ( a long shot ) Darcy's expendable for the cause.

Remember, with the Dems, the ends always justify the means.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 17, 2006 04:43 PM
18. I was for alternative energy sources before I was against it.

Posted by: Gary B on August 17, 2006 05:17 PM
19. As propaganda goes it's not too good, but you have to keep in mind that this is pretty close to the thinking of a lot of people out there. And not just Dems.

People ARE pissed about gas prices.

Posted by: deadwood on August 17, 2006 05:23 PM
20. She has just proven again that she has no integrity as she threw out another piece of lame propaganda. She can't prove it without implicating most of the Congressional Democrats from this state.

If she railed against oil companies profiteering from the high gas prices, she would have had more traction. It also shows that she is another dim bulb - not too smart when it comes to campaigning. Will the people in the 8th District fall for this kind of crap and elect her ? Maybe in McDermott's District, but over there, I don't see it happening. Now, watch KLOWNstein try to run with this - his ego is crusin for a brusin...

Posted by: KS on August 17, 2006 07:01 PM
21. I wonder if someone can do a FOIA on ConocoPhillips' 1040 and find out how much they paid in taxes? One of the things I love about politicians is that they LOVE to tell lies of scale. Let's pretend that all $14 billion of those tax breaks went to "Big Oil", whatever that is. How does that compare with their tax returns? The scale and magnitude in which corporations like this operate is usually just not something that most people comprehend. $14 billion might not even cover one large oil company's tax bill for one year - and we have several oil and gas companies just here in the states!

Most people have no idea of the size and scope of the government. I never really had a good picture just how much stuff the government has or does until I joined the military and loaded some ro-ro ships (roll on, roll off) after an operation. The sheer amount of gear (we're talking hundreds of hmmwv's, containers, tanks, ammo, comm gear, diesel tanker trucks, heavy construction equipment) that goes onto one of these ships and then you realize that it's just one ship - we have dozens more. And that's just one service! The smallest one at that...

$14 billion is a drop in the bucket, and Darcy should know that.

Posted by: Aaron on August 17, 2006 07:52 PM
22. I'm sorry... taxcuts are not giving money to "Big Oil"... giving money to "Big Oil" implies that it was the government's money to begin with. It's not. All taxcuts are is the government taking less money from "Big Oil" than before.

You can argue the merits of a taxcut all you want and whether it's proper given their profits, but it is not "giving money to Big Oil". Anyone who believes that is either very dumb, or a socialist.

This is just one more reason I can't wait to vote for Reichert.

Posted by: Mike H on August 17, 2006 08:13 PM
23. Ouch, there he goes with the 's' word.

Posted by: Mark on August 17, 2006 10:23 PM
24. Politicians certainally do have a way with numbers. Without defending Darcy on this one.

Reicherts states that 47,500 jobs are created for every 1 billion in road spending. His jobs/billion quote is attached to the press release on the Infamous Transportation Bill which passed with 286.5 Billion in spending in July '05.

Multiply 47,500 jobs by 286.5 = 13,608,750 total jobs.

There are about 7.5 Million unemployed in the country, our unemployment rate should be headed to zero if Reichert was telling the truth.

There are ~1M people involved in Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. Seasonally adjusted numbers from July '05 (when the bill passed) to July '06. Employment in this industry is actually down 1%. See for all the detail.

Recently Dave made the claim that a $2M contribution to a larger $16M dollar project would provide 2,000 jobs. This is a massive stretch of the truth as well. What the project will do is provide the infrastructure necessary to support 2,000 jobs, and the $2M is pork for probably Boeing.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 17, 2006 10:43 PM
25. Without discussing the topic. At hand. Polliticians do have cretainly a numbers with problem.

Like Yoda I do speak. Language lessons I could give to Headless Lucy.

Sequitar Non Am I. Do you?

Posted by: I Worship John McDonald on August 17, 2006 11:48 PM
26. +++

John MC,

Politicians historically get creative with numbers.

47,500 jobs for every billion spent???

Probably more like 1000 real jobs. And those 1000 require someone to work at the local McDonalds, the local bar, their cable guy. Mail man. Certainly their kids need teachers. Someone to deliver the newspaper.

I could keep going until we reached 47,500, but I have to get to work.

Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on August 18, 2006 07:33 AM
27. Oil companies need to be allowed to make tons of money now. If the state and federal government is going to step in and investigate them for price gouging with zero evidence (like Reichert wants to do) or propose windfall taxes (like the democrats are doing), then the businessmen in the oil business will put these financial risk factors into their Return on Investment (ROI) spreadsheets and decide to fund the fewer production projects that are have lower technical risks. Development of oil fields will progress at a slower rate and the price of oil will go higher. The price will rise until these added taxes and investigation risk are fully factored in the price of oil and supply and demand equalize.

Remember, Companies don't pay taxes, People pay taxes.

In other words, companies have to return greater than 6-8% to their investors per year in dividends, higher stock price, etc. Otherwise, the investors will put their money in bonds and other lower risk investments. In order to do this, they pass along these higher taxes and risks to their customers -- they really cannot do otherwise when they are in commodity business like oil. At this moment they are doing very well, but these oil guys have been through very tough times in the past were many of them lost everything in the two crashes over the past 20 years.

So if you want to ensure a soviet style economy and the economic depression that accompanies it, then manage the economy by limiting the upside potential and limit the downside potential by supporting failing company.

The best thing for Congress to do is require higher efficiency rating for automobiles, appliances, lights, computers, etc. This will limit oil demand (dominated by the middle east) and expand technology (dominated by the west), and it's something both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 18, 2006 08:33 AM
28. John McDonald,

So....did Darcy Burner seriously mis-represent the facts about the $14 billion, or didn't she?

I say she did.

Don't change the subject now, Johnny McD, I know you're thinking about it!

Posted by: Larry on August 18, 2006 09:26 AM
29. I actually see less problem with Reichert's number on 47,500 jobs for every billion spent than John-the-Reichert-hater's simpleton math. I can easily see that 47,500 collective jobs/opportunities per one billion, but then, it is not math when you get equate these jobs to the same number of unemployed warm bodies. John somehow fell into this logical fallacy and equated 13.6 million (47,500*286.5) to 7.5 million unemployed warm bodies.

Posted by: C. Oh on August 18, 2006 09:44 AM
30. Darcy Who? Never heard of her.

Posted by: Jamie Walker on August 18, 2006 10:51 AM
31. What will Darcy Do? Glad you asked:

"I support rolling back the billions in tax breaks and subsidies this Congress gave to big oil companies and I support stiff penalties for price gouging. I believe we need a plan for energy independence, and thatís why I support investing in alternative energy technologies that can create jobs right here in Washington State."

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 18, 2006 01:32 PM
32. Darcy's Mentor:
Rep. Emanuel [D-IL]:The United States House of Representatives, Nov 3, 2005

Mr. Speaker, middle-class families across this Nation are struggling to make ends meet. While housing and education prices are skyrocketing, wages have been held stagnant for the last 3 years. Now families can add energy to the list of out-of-control costs to their family budget.

Gas is around 3 bucks a gallon. Utilities are now predicting families could pay as much as 70 percent more to heat their homes this winter. Natural gas prices are so high the Energy Department is predicting the average family will pay $350 more this winter than last winter. Home heating oil, used by many in the Northeast and Midwest, is skyrocketing.

But while American families struggle with sky-high energy bills, oil and gas companies face a totally different problem: too much cash. For example, Exxon Mobil recently reported their profits increased by 75 percent. Their revenues: $100 billion. Shell Oil, earnings 68 percent up. Phillips, 89 percent up. B.P. Amoco, 34 percent rise in quarterly earnings.

American families are struggling with massive energy bills that cut into their living expenses, their college costs, and their health care costs, while energy companies are reaping huge, huge profits.

Henry Hubble, a senior vice president at Exxon Mobil said, "You have got to let the marketplace work." I agree with the executive from Exxon Mobil. Let the marketplace work.

But here is where we disagree. When they had an energy bill down on this floor, the oil companies got a $14 billion taxpayer-funded corporate welfare giveaway to do oil and gas drilling around this country. They got $14 billion for companies making record profits.

That is what we call corporate welfare. If they want the marketplace to work, give the taxpayers back their $14 billion. We should be not be subsidizing their business plans. Taxpayers are not in the business of helping companies making revenue runs at $100 billion a quarter where profits are up 89 percent.

The Congress, not Democrats but the Republicans in Congress, are cutting college loans by $14 billion, they are cutting nutritional programs for 40,000 kids, and they are cutting kids health care. Yet what have they held sacrosanct? $14 billion to Exxon Mobil. My view is what corporate America needs in the energy business is a little free market medicine.

We have seen nothing but corporate welfare around here in subsidizing the energy industry, and it is high time they get off the dole and started running their own business plan and stop asking the taxpayers to fund them. The only reason they do that around here is because, since 1980, the big oil companies have contributed $220 million to the Republican candidates for Congress, Senate, the Presidency, and their party. They have gotten a $14 billion return. You cannot get an investment return like that on Wall Street. It is 200 percent on their investment that they have gotten.

This Congress has given big oil $14 billion in tax subsidies. If that is not bad enough, there is a refinery bill where we ended up giving them another $2 billion that they did not even ask for. So with oil running at basically $3 a gallon at the gas pump, not only do consumers have to pay inflated prices to big oil at the gas pump, but on April 15 they get a bill because they have given them $14 billion in taxpayer-funded corporate welfare so they can do one thing: execute their business plans.

Well, I am suggesting they start doing a little more free enterprise in executing their business plans and stop relying on the taxpayers of America, who are struggling with sky-high energy prices, sky-high health care costs, and sky-high college tuition costs, just trying to struggle to make ends meet.

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 18, 2006 01:33 PM
33. Charlie

Don't buy their products. Live like a Quaker or how the Amish do. Take a break from the real world. The fact that this country is not a socialistic one, should be your first clue. USA is a country made up of free enterprise. You know the "melting pot". Where people can come from another country and start their own business. Even get SBA loan. So, I guess all I can say is SORRY CHARLIE......

Posted by: Chris on August 18, 2006 03:37 PM
34. Using the Data from SouthernRoots @ 15 above not only did Darcy throw Cantwell, Nicks and Larson under the bus, she apparently is for cutting "investment in renewable, clean energy". Funny for someone who brags about wanting to force utilities(see ratepayers) to provide just such energy resources via I-937, can she say "UNFUNDED MANDATE?". She will also start a Cantwell style dust up with Montana's extreme left wing Governor who is a big clean coal advocate. I'm sure he is for givng back any incentives for the development of THAT resource. Question.. What would Darcy do if faced with voting for an energy bill? Answer: Whatever Harry Ried tells her to do.

Posted by: Huh? on August 18, 2006 05:43 PM
35. at 32, Charlie the Tuna uses a quote: "...We have seen nothing but corporate welfare around here..."

oh--sorry--what about school breakfasts, school lunches, Section 8 housing, in-state tuition for illegal aliens, free medical care for illegal aliens, etc etc for all the 'downtrodden' (i.e. deadbeat parents and deadbeat residents)--who pays? me--the homeowner who busted my arse the fair way 'building "evil" wealth'

this is the pot calling the 'Prophet' Rep Emanuel (D-IL) Kettle 'hyprocrite,' not black.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 18, 2006 05:46 PM
36. So has Darcy accepted any donations/contributions from "big oil"?

She has alot of out of state contributions.

Posted by: Chris on August 19, 2006 10:37 AM
37. Huh? aka Village Idiot

Harry's in the Senate. Darcy is running for a seat in the House.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 19, 2006 01:44 PM
38. Harry's in the Senate, Gee got me there Liberal Insane John. Darcy would never listen to the Democratic Senate Minority Leader, she will take his money but not his advice is that it?

I'm glad she is running for the House, otherwise Riechert might have had a qualified opponent.

Still looking forward to Darcy's link to your web page in recognition of all of your good works and support Liberal Insane John. It must drive you nuts to know that you cannot vote in the 8th in this race, oh wait you already are nuts.

Posted by: Huh? on August 19, 2006 04:44 PM
39. "Big OIL?" how pithy; what about "Big Casinos" here in WA?--tax breaks & 'corporate welfare' a-plenty; their advantage? they have the folksy image of the native with a drum singing reverently at dawn; looks more appealing on TV than the wealthy, head-scarfed Arab type or a dirty oil rig in a bay;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 21, 2006 10:09 AM
40. I'm all for a portion of our country being tax free and where fireworks and firewater are legal. It's America the way America should be. You are just jealous Jimmie.

And for the rest of you -- you still haven't told me how the Transportation Bill created 13.6M new jobs, per Mr. Reichert's press release.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 21, 2006 10:14 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?