About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC's Gibson touts Bush's "new" call to reduce oil dependence, ignores similar calls in previous four addresses

February 01, 2006 7:16 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On Good Morning America, Charles Gibson characterized as "new" President Bush's call, in his January 31 State of the Union address, to end dependence on foreign oil. However, in every prior State of the Union address since 2002, Bush called on Congress to pass his energy proposal, saying the United States needed to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of energy.

12 Comments

On the February 1 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-host Charles Gibson characterized as "new" President Bush's call, in his January 31 State of the Union address, to end America's dependence on foreign oil. Gibson stated that "if there was anything new in the speech, it was his [Bush's] call for an end to America's addiction with foreign oil, a calling for a reduction on America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil of 75 percent in 20 years." However, in every prior State of the Union address since 2002, Bush called on Congress to pass his energy proposal, saying the United States needed to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of energy. Bush signed that plan into law in August 2005.

Nonetheless, some analysts have concluded that Bush's energy plan will do nothing to decrease oil dependency.

During his January 31 address, Bush asserted that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. ... Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

But, contrary to Gibson's suggestion, Bush's statement was by no means his first reference -- in a State of the Union address -- to a need to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

From Bush's February 2, 2005, State of the Union address:

Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.

From Bush's January 20, 2004, State of the Union address:

Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run -- so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

From Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address:

Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment ... A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car -- producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.

Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

From Bush's January 29, 2002, State of the Union address:

Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.

The Washington Post reported on July 30, 2005, that the final version of the 2005 energy bill "includes an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms of energy -- including oil and gas," and, at the same time, that "[e]co-friendly measures to tighten fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and take a stand against global warming were deleted as well." In his January 22 Los Angeles Times column, national political correspondent Ronald Brownstein echoed the Post's analysis, noting:

The federal Energy Information Administration [EIA], in its most recent long-range projection, estimated that market pressures would increase automotive fuel efficiency only modestly over the next quarter-century. As a result, the EIA projects that by 2030, the U.S. will import 62% of its oil, up from 58% now. That means another generation of subsidizing -- and remaining vulnerable to -- regimes that threaten our security.

That's why the energy bill Bush pushed through Congress last summer was such a disappointment. Tilted mostly toward subsidizing domestic producers, the legislation contained some incentives for efficiency. But it also extended a legal loophole that allows automakers to claim greater fuel economy than they achieve. The net result, according to calculations by the nonpartisan Alliance to Save Energy, is that the bill will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by a grand total of: nothing. Zip. Zero.

Moreover, as the weblog Think Progress noted, EIA data illustrates that 66 percent of oil consumed in the United States originates from foreign sources, up from 58 percent in 2000, the year before Bush took office.

From the February 1 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

GIBSON: if there was anything new in the speech, it was his call for an end to America's addiction with foreign oil, calling for a reduction on America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, 75 percent in 20 years.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (February 01, 2006 9:23 pm ET)
         

      the media has dutifully fallen in line by presenting this as some bold new step by our fearless leader. there is nothing new about this and the fact that it is 20 years into the future shows bush is not serious. big oil doesn't want cars getting better mileage and bush is their front man. our protector bush doesn't really care that we keep sending money to countries that give it to groups trying to kill us. how far do you think bin ladin could get without saudi oil money? the speech was another bush dog and pony show and the press falls all over themselves praising it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by west1 (February 01, 2006 10:06 pm ET)
         

      Yes, Bush keeps calling for a reduction in the use of "foreign oil", but fails to push for a reduction of the use of "oil". Signing legislation for increased tax deductions for Hummers, is that Bush's way of addressing the foreign oil dependence problem?

      Info on SUV tax deductions

      Gibson: "calling for a reduction on America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, 75 percent in 20 years." Yeah, and Bush will be gone out of office in 3 years so he doesn't have to worry about keeping this campaign promise. Sounds like Bush's man on Mars pledge.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tina1 (February 02, 2006 12:08 am ET)
         

      West1,

      You might want to do a little research before you post something. I'm referring to Tax Break on Hummer's that you talk about.

      First of all, the tax break was designed to spur the economy back in 2002. Do you remember the recession after 9/11 ... actually it started in 2001, but thats another issue.

      The tax break was intended to help construction business owners, ranchers and farmers. Accountants found a loophole in the new tax law which SUV owners took advantage of.

      THE TAX LOOPHOLE HAS BEEN ALREADY BEEN CHANGED. (2 years ago) Which is why you should do some research before you start posting things you know nothing about. In fact, the loophole was changed back in 2004. I guess you missed that. lol ...

      [link to www.aluminum.org]

      Bush increased tax breaks for Hybrids. I never hear the media talking about this. Wonder why that is?

      Yes, Bush increased the tax breaks for new 2006 Hybrids .. $3,150 tax credit for a Toyota Prius $3,600 tax credit for Honda Civic GX $2,600 tax credit for Ford Escape Hybrid

      [link to money.cnn.com]

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 02, 2006 12:53 am ET)
           

        ...those tax credits begin to be phased out once the manufacturer sells 60,000. just another attempt to make bush look like he's doing something.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ellington (February 02, 2006 10:47 am ET)
           

        Perhaps you'd care to comment about this? It was published after the changes you laud so much were made:

        [link to www.selfemployedweb.com]

        One point that must be considered is the fact that depreciation deductions for these heavy SUVs will always be greater than depreciation deductions for regular cars or the smaller SUVs. For example, if a Realtor were to purchase a $47,000 Escalade and use it 100% for business, the entire $47,000 would be deductible over the life of the vehicle. And $25,000 of that would be deductible during the first year. Compare that to the purchase of a $47,000 regular car, and the maximum depreciation deduction over the first five years of business use equals $15,000 to $16,000. In effect, all Congress has done is to decrease the first-year write-off of these large SUVs.

        Or this?

        [link to www.ucsusa.org]

        While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Bear (February 02, 2006 11:01 am ET)
           

        Tina1 says: “The tax break was intended to help construction business owners, ranchers and farmers. Accountants found a loophole in the new tax law which SUV owners took advantage of”

        Bologny! The tax breaks were created to help the auto Industry. The SUV’s are the most profitable, for the American Auto Industry. Admittedly some construction businesses, ranchers and farmers use SUV’s in their businesses. However the most useful vehicles are pick up trucks not $100,00 Hummers and Cadillac Escalades. If it was truly for the those businesses than the tax break would have been limited to Pick up Trucks or like vehicles (i.e. flat beads, small dump trucks, utility vans etc.)

        As far as hybrid vehicles are concerned, as usually Bush is behind the curve. Al Gore proposed those same breaks 6 years ago and George Bush made fun of him.

        I think you’re the one that needs to do your homework.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by deeznuts (February 02, 2006 1:28 am ET)
         

      Anything Bush said about energy or oil dependence is "filler", "gravy", a gimme. It's the "well, I can't NOT talk about SOMETHIGN other than Iraq, or else I'll look stupid".

      Remember how we were goin' to Mars not too long ago?

      Bush cares about the environment like a rapist cares about his victim.

      With the WORST environmental record in the history of the American Presidency, he has the huevos to pull these comments out of his behind?

      Unbelievable. The man has no shame.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by deus_ex_machina (February 02, 2006 10:04 am ET)
         

      MMFA actually expects these highly paid media personalities to do basic homework before they say something on the air! It's an outrage!

      Good Lord, do you know how hard it is to pull down a six figure salary these days? It takes hours upon hours of one's time just to sit down with your accountant to figure out how to get out of paying the Alternative Minimum Tax.

      Who has time to do a Google search or even tell one of your staff to do it for you before he types up your script on the TelePrompTer?

      You lefties need to get in touch with media reality.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by deus_ex_machina (February 02, 2006 10:16 am ET)
           

        Sorry, that's seven figures, not six.

        Anyhow, I just wanted to ask: Is this oil independence going to take place before or after we go to Mars? Just asking.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by ellington (February 02, 2006 10:53 am ET)
         

      Charles Gibson on Good Morning America - brought to you by:

      oil companies.

      Because $10 billion in profit last quarter for Exxon-Mobil sounds like a lot...

      ..but these days, $10 billion just doesn't go as far as it used to.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rufus t firefly (February 02, 2006 11:53 am ET)
         

      ...a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about some REAL money! Bush addressing the oil/energy issue would be more laughable if his policies didn't fall so heavily on the backs of the average folks. I'm surprised that more people aren't up in arms about the obscene profits being made by those who basically wrote this administration's energy policy. Anything he says on this topic is lip service designed to give the talking heads the opportunity to point out his new "initiative". A big chunk of the people in this country seem to have suspended their logic on this. You'd think that $2.50+ per gallon would have caused a little more outrage against Big Oil, the Bush family business for generations.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (February 02, 2006 3:26 pm ET)
         

      "The Republicans, myself most of all, are addicted to power. We can't get enough of it! If you have a country with resources we can exploit, let's talk turkey! Boy, I love turkey, and dressing, especially with those little crunchy green chunks, celery I think, I might be wrong, but I'm not 'cause I don't make mistakes, never have, never will..."

      Now that would have been noteworthy.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.