Compare And Contrast Essay On Obama And Mccain

The 10 Biggest Differences Between Obama and McCain That Will Affect Your Daily Life


October 16, 2008, 7:00 PM GMT

When the polls open in 18 days, voters will be faced with a stark choice in presidential candidates -- a choice that ultimately comes down to one question: What do you want the next four to eight years of your life to look like? Because the next president will shape the issues that affect the way we live our day-to-day lives.

The future of Social Security, health care, education, income, employment, civil rights and democracy itself all hang in the balance. And the two candidates are worlds apart in their visions for the country.

From the fate of the Supreme Court to the future of Internet access, here are the 10 most important differences between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.

1. Who They Want to Tax

Tax cuts targeted at the wealthiest Americans during a period of runaway spending -- with hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- have resulted in massive federal deficits.

Both Obama and McCain say they'll control spending and cut taxes, but they are miles apart on the question of who would get those cuts.

According to an analysis of his tax plan by the Tax Policy Center, Obama would cut taxes on the 95 percent of filers who make less than $227,000 per year and raise taxes on the 5 percent whose incomes exceed that amount. Compared with current policy, Obama's tax plan would increase government revenues by $627 billion over the next 10 years.

McCain would make Bush's "temporary" tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans permanent. His plan would cut taxes on top earners by $23,000 per year. He would cut taxes for all other Americans as well, but his cuts would only be deeper than Obama's for those earning between $112,000 and $227,000 -- about 20 percent of the population. Compared with current policy, McCain's tax plan would decrease government revenues by $595 billion over the next 10 years, meaning that new spending cuts would be necessary to avoid growing the deficit even larger.

2. How They Would Shape the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court regularly hears cases on everything from personal injury to sexual harassment to environmental health -- cases that set legal precedents and can affect our day-to-day lives for decades, even centuries.

Our next president could name as many as three new justices for the bench. John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter are all likely candidates for retirement, which means the new picks would be replacing three of the court's four moderate- to liberal-minded justices.

If Obama becomes president, the political calculus of the court will probably stay the same. If McCain becomes president, you can count on an influx of conservative ideology.

First up on the chopping block would be Roe v. Wade. McCain has already promised that much. And if something happens to McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, takes his place, watch out. Not only does she want Roe overturned, she has made it clear that there should be no exceptions even in cases of rape or incest. Under her watch, a 12-year-old raped by her father would be forced to bear the child. For all of conservatives' talk about values, it's hard to imagine a worse way to start a family.

3. How They View Democracy

One of the biggest and clearest differences between Obama and McCain concerns voting rights. The Obama campaign believes in expanding the right to vote and has registered millions of new voters in 2008. The McCain campaign and the Republican Party believe in limiting voter turnout and have taken many highly publicized steps in swing states to suggest that Obama loyalists are plotting to vote illegally.

The McCain campaign has been criticizing voter registration efforts by the low-income advocacy group ACORN as an attempt to steal the election. The group registered 1.3 million voters in 2008, mostly young people, people of color and other working-class constituencies. State Republican parties, GOP prosecutors and sympathetic groups have been pursuing litigation and other legal tactics in key swing states -- notably Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan -- concerning the validity of voter rolls in order to create bureaucratic hurdles for election officials. This can only complicate the voting process on Election Day and create a climate to discourage new voters from casting ballots.

4. How They Want to Change the Health Care System

Middle-class Americans are now being priced out of health care. Nearly a quarter of Americans lack adequate health insurance to cover medical expenses, now the number one cause of family bankruptcies.

The current system is unsustainable, and the candidates' proposals for fixing it are as different as night and day. Obama's plan would drastically reduce the number of uninsured (from 47 million to about 18 million) and would require children to be covered; McCain's plan would have little effect on the uninsured population. Obama's plan would allow individuals who currently have employer-paid health insurance to keep their benefits; McCain's plan would begin the dismantling of the entire employer-paid system. Obama would create an additional social safety net: a public health plan that would give people without access to insurance through an employer or entitlement program like Medicare guaranteed coverage with the same comprehensive benefits that members of Congress now enjoy. McCain doesn't favor safety nets. Instead, he would place a $3.6 trillion tax on workers over the next 10 years and use revenue from that tax to give people a credit ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families) to purchase insurance on the open market. The trouble is, the average family policy costs $12,000, and it's much harder for an individual to negotiate good prices than an employer.

Perhaps most importantly, Obama's and McCain's health care plans reflect different philosophical approaches to human health. Obama has stated that he believes health care should be a right. McCain has stated that health care is a responsibility. That puts Obama in touch with the philosophy behind universal health care (guaranteed in every developed nation but ours) and puts McCain out of touch with the needs of everyone but the wealthy.

5. Their Plans for Iraq

An early opponent to the invasion of Iraq, Obama's current plan seeks a phased withdrawal that would last until 2010 -- although he has said he will revise his strategy depending on the facts on the ground. Beyond 2010, Obama says he will leave a "residual force" in place "to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel." He also intends to retain control of Baghdad International Airport and the Green Zone, and keep the U.S. embassy in place.

McCain has famously declared that the United States will remain in Iraq until "victory" is achieved -- even if it takes another 100 years. He has long refused to name target dates for troop withdrawals, claiming that it would be tantamount to giving terrorists a timeline for defeat. More recently on the campaign trail, however, he has claimed that Iraq can be "won" by 2013. Still, he has said he reserves the right to reassess the situation upon taking office.

6. Their Views on Energy

Both Obama and McCain talk a lot about a new energy future for the United States and weaning ourselves off dependence on foreign oil. But the two candidates have a different take on how to get us there.

While Obama has pushed for renewables like wind and solar, McCain has failed to make any meaningful move in that direction, missing all eight votes this year in the Senate to support renewable energy.

Instead, McCain strongly advocates nuclear power and believes it will play an important role in addressing climate change. While Obama has given lip service to the issue, saying he supports "clean and safe" nuclear power, McCain has pledged to "set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America."

The serious flaw in McCain's nuclear ambitions is that the world's leading scientists are calling for immediate action on climate change. Serious results need to occur in the next five to seven years, but a nuclear plant would take a least a decade to get on line.

Plus, experts from MIT and elsewhere say that more than 1,000 new nuclear reactors would be needed to come close to being a real solution to climate change -- an unrealistic goal, even if you ignore nuclear energy's other drawbacks of safety and expense.

7. How They Treat Our Vets

With American soldiers serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq -- and with thousands more scheduled to be shipped to Afghanistan -- the current burden on our military men and women is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs is in the midst of a scandal over its systematic blocking of veterans benefits and shocking attempts to cover up PTSD and suicide rates. The result is a serious health crisis among American troops.

Obama has helped pass laws designed to assist homeless veterans and improve care for wounded veterans. He has received an 80 percent approval rating from the Disabled Veterans of America and a B+ rating from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

McCain's record on veterans' issues is abysmal. He was given a D rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the Disabled American Veterans reports that he has voted for legislation benefiting veterans only 20 percent of the time. McCain voted against health care funding for veterans in 2003, '04, '05, '06 and '07. And unlike Obama, McCain refused to support the Webb GI Bill, which was critical to ensuring that soldiers who enlisted with the hope of eventually going to college would be able to do so.

8. What They Think America's Young People Should Know About Sex

The United States has some of the most frightening rates of teen pregnancy and STI transmission in the industrialized world: Each year, almost 750,000 teen girls become pregnant, and 1 in 4 teen girls has an STI. The Bush administration's response has been to fund sex-ed programs that don't actually teach kids about how to practice safe sex.

McCain agrees with the commander in chief's failed approach to sex education. When asked by reporters in March of last year whether he is in favor of abstinence-based programs, McCain replied, "I think I support the president's policy."

McCain's position is reflected in his voting record. In 2006, McCain voted against a Senate proposal that would have funded teen-pregnancy prevention programs and sex education about contraceptives.

Obama is a proponent of comprehensive, age-appropriate, science-based sex education. Obama supports the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act, which would devote federal funding to science-based, medically accurate and age-appropriate information about safe sex. He was also a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, a measure that would increase funding for family planning programs and sex-ed programs that combine teaching abstinence with methods of safe sex.

9. Internet Access

You couldn't ask for a clearer difference between McCain and Obama than the one on the issue of whether the Internet should be kept as an open public space. Quite simply, Obama is for preserving the open nature of the Internet, while McCain favors private control over it. Telecoms and tech corporations have stealthily positioned themselves to seize control of the Internet from the public, primarily through deceptive multimillion-dollar lobbying and PR campaigns that attempt to reshape public understanding of how the Internet works, who owns it and what role the private sector plays in keeping it open. In order to ensure that broadband networks are open to all producers and consumers of Internet content on fair and equal terms, Washington needs to enact a series of legal safeguards to protect from market encroachment on public space.

10. Their Views on the Global Market

Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain is calling for dismantling the trade regime built up over several decades during both Republican and Democratic administrations. But their big difference on trade policy is this: Obama rejects the idea that the status quo is acceptable, while McCain argues that we need much more of the same and that anyone who believes differently is a knee-jerk protectionist.

Obama has not sponsored the Trade Act of 2008, a bill being pushed by the Fair Trade Caucus, nor has he called for a dramatic change in the underlying philosophy that has guided policy makers in recent years. But he has criticized globalization that "favors only the few" and has called for amending NAFTA, if necessary, in order to protect American workers. He also favors closing tax loopholes that reward companies that offshore jobs, supporting firms that create U.S. jobs and improving transitional assistance for workers displaced by foreign trade.

McCain, on the other hand, supports current trade policy. He has argued against agricultural subsidies, a key issue for anti-poverty campaigners in developing countries, and suggested that "fast-track" authority -- which allows trade treaties an expedited trip through Congress -- is an overreach by the executive branch. But he insists that trade is all about opportunity, that NAFTA has had an "unambiguously" positive impact on the U.S. economy, and that the status quo must be continued.

The next president will influence everything from your Internet access to your ability to pay medical bills.

Synopsis (104KB)

Complete Analysis (60KB)

The following comparison of Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s energy and environmental plans comes from the statements of their plans on their official web sites. The text first indicates what the respective plans say on each topic, and then provides IER’s analysis of each topic within the program.

Table of Contents

Nuclear Power

Obama: Acknowledges that nuclear power is needed to meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Says it is necessary to address the security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation before expansion of nuclear power can be considered. Does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for waste storage. Will lead Federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. Will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry cask storage technology available [1].

McCain: Wants to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with an ultimate goal of constructing 100 new plants. Does not want to be dependent on foreign suppliers for nuclear reactors or plant components, supporting their construction in the U.S. [2] Supports Yucca Mountain and research into nuclear-waste reprocessing [3].

Analysis: Analyses of climate change proposals by EIA, EPA, NAM/ACCF and others have shown that nuclear power is needed to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals [4]. Nuclear power currently generates about 20% of the electricity in the U.S. [5] but over 75% of the electricity in France [6]. DOE has been working on Yucca Mountain as the waste disposal facility since 1987 but the process has been slowed because of opposition, and recently it was disclosed that it will not be opened before 2025. The Carter Administration banned reprocessing of waste, a “recycling” process. To require, as Senator Obama proposes, that waste storage and other issues be resolved before expansion of nuclear power can occur, would essentially remove the nuclear option from the generation mix in the near and mid-term period when technology options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions are limited.
Back to top

Windfall Profits Tax

Obama: Will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their windfall profits and use it to provide a rebate to help pay for higher energy costs to U.S. consumers. The rebate would be $500 per individual and $1000 per married couple and would be paid for through 5 years of the “tax” on oil companies [7].

McCain: Does not support a windfall profits tax, which “will hinder investment in exploration and new production.”[8]

Analysis: President Carter enacted a windfall profits tax in 1980. The Congressional Research Service indicated that the tax, which was repealed by President Reagan in 1988, lowered domestic energy production by 1.2% to 4.8%, resulting in increased foreign oil imports [9]. According to the Energy Information Administration, the major oil companies already pay a substantial amount of taxes, which in 2006, totaled $90 billion [10].
Back to top

Renewable Electricity

Obama: Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025. Extend the Federal production tax credit for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy [11].

McCain: Encourages the market for alternative, low carbon fuels such as wind, hydro, and solar. He believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently so that renewable energy no longer merits taxpayers’ dollars [12]. Does not believe in a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard; believes targets for renewables are best adopted at the state level [13].

Analysis: The production tax credit for wind and other renewables has been extended 6 times, and most recently by the “bailout” bill [14]. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia currently have renewable portfolio standards, but they differ widely on what they consider a renewable to be and the dates for the targets to be met [15]. Only Texas has met its targets for renewable generation [16]. There are areas, particularly in the south, which do not have good wind resources and would have a harder time meeting Federal targets [17]. Their utilities would have to purchase credits to make up for the shortfall in renewable capacity [18]. The “Renewable Portfolio Standard” is a semantic device, as it is not a standard so much as it is a mandate. By compelling utilities to produce or purchase a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, laws and/or regulations may be requiring consumers ultimately to purchase more expensive energy than they would otherwise choose to do in a free market. Making energy more expensive deliberately is a matter that deserves more public debate. Moreover, making energy more expensive in the U.S. affects American competitiveness in trade and other matters.
Back to top

Clean Coal Technology

Obama: Will provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero-carbon coal facilities, by instructing DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration [19].

McCain: Will commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies. When commercialized will also export them to developing world economies to promote an international green economy [20].

Analysis: Coal produces almost 50 percent of U.S. electricity [21]. Climate change studies by Government and private agencies have shown that since carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology is not currently commercially available, most of today’s coal generating plants would need to be replaced by non-carbon or lower-carbon emitting technologies to meet greenhouse gas targets. This will come at a major expense to the U.S. economy [22]. DOE had been funding a Future Gen clean coal project, but has withdrawn support due to the huge increases in cost. Instead, DOE plans to support only the CCS portion of future projects [23]. The U.S. has the largest supplies of coal in the world. Any comprehensive energy policy must include coal given its predominant role in our electrical supply system.
Back to top

Domestic Oil Production

Obama: Wants oil companies to drill in the 68 million acres that they have leased but from which they are not producing energy. Promotes energy production in Bakken Shale in Montana and North Dakota, and in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska [24]. Contends companies could produce 4.8 million barrels more per day domestic oil if oil companies were currently producing on all currently-leased areas [25]. Supported limited Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy production in formerly-banned areas as part of a broader energy package including concessions for renewable technologies [26]. Opposes energy production in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) [27].

McCain: Wants to expand domestic oil exploration and production to the previously banned areas of the OCS to lessen U.S. imports of foreign oil, increase U.S. domestic supplies, and reduce the U.S. Federal Trade deficit [28]. Does not support drilling in ANWR at this time [29].

Analysis: Until the U.S. Congress allowed the OCS moratoria to expire at the end of September, American oil leasing had been prohibited on most of the OCS in the lower 48 states since 1982. The moratoria had limited energy exploration and production to a mere 3% of America’s offshore OCS lands. This made the U.S. the only developed nation in the World to restrict access to its offshore energy resources. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the outer continental shelf contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, both conservative estimates since bans on offshore leasing have made it illegal to explore [30]. It is now necessary to ensure that Congress does not reinstate the moratoria as they are threatening to do and that the leases are not tied up in legal disputes.

While neither candidate currently advocates exploration in ANWR, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the “1002 Area” contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil [31]. The 1002 Area is not designated as wilderness; there are no trees, deepwater lakes, or mountain peaks. The 1002 area could produce about one million barrels of oil per day, which is about 20 percent of our daily domestic production and would make ANWR the single largest producing field in North America [32]. It would also extend the life of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline, which is currently operating at 1/3 of its original capacity. ANWR would generate large amounts of revenue for the federal government from royalties, as well as corporate income taxes. For example, a recent Congressional Research Service Report found that developing ANWR would produce $191 billion in new federal revenues from corporate income taxes and royalties [33].

Additionally, the United States has significant quantities of energy potential in its onshore federal lands that are not leased, as well as in its oil shale deposits, the world’s largest. Unlike other energy sources which require subsidies and/or mandates, the use of government resources to meet our energy needs not only creates jobs, but also enormous quantities of revenue.

The claim that oil companies are deliberately withholding production on 68 million acres has been debunked and is no longer taken seriously by energy analysts [34]. Oil companies do not know exactly where profitable deposits of oil and natural gas will be found until they actually drill, and so naturally at any given time, a portion of leased land will not be in production. If the oil companies were truly withholding 4.8 million barrels per day, that would imply they were ignoring $140 billion in gross revenues per year (assuming a price of $80 per barrel). It would also be curious that oil companies were lobbying for the ability to pay for additional leases on previously banned lands, if they had already paid for access to more oil and gas than they wanted to sell.
Back to top

Alaskan Gas Pipeline

Obama: Wants to work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of this natural gas pipeline [35].

McCain: Believes in promoting and expanding the use of our domestic supplies of natural gas, including building the infrastructure needed to transport it [36].

Analysis: Natural gas currently supplies 23 percent of our energy needs [37]. Besides heating many U.S. homes, it is used for electricity production and in industrial processes. It is the least carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels. The Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas use will grow [38], and many studies have shown that natural gas is needed as a transitional fuel under scenarios to reduce greenhouse gases [39]. Alaska has 35 trillion cubic feet of known quantities of natural gas and experts expect the potential is much greater. These supplies of natural gas could be used in the lower 48 states if construction of the pipeline were undertaken.
Back to top

SPR or tax holiday

Obama: Supports releasing 70 million barrels of oil from the government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to increase oil supplies and reduce gasoline prices [40]. The light oil released from the SPR would be replaced later with heavier oil [41].

McCain: Opposes the use of the SPR to reduce gasoline prices, believing it should be used in the event of an emergency cutoff of imports. Instead, he suggested reducing gasoline prices by temporarily suspending the 18-cents-per-gallon Federal gasoline tax [42].

Analysis: The SPR was developed in 1975 as a response to the 1973 oil embargo against the West. The U.S., in conjunction with other OECD nations, keeps spare stocks of oil in case oil is used as an economic weapon. The President has the authority to release crude from the SPR in time of a national emergency. President Bush has done so in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, when offshore production facilities and refineries were temporarily closed for repair, replacing the crude once the facilities were operational. Both the SPR withdrawal and temporary Federal tax holiday would have, at best, short-run benefits, and they would come at the cost of reduced security against another oil embargo (for the SPR drawdown) and an increased Federal budget deficit (for the tax holiday). We believe that a better solution than either of these proposals is adding new domestic supplies from the more than 96% of government owned lands and waters currently not leased for energy. This achieves the goal of price relief for consumers, because increased supplies lead to lower oil prices, and it turns the two negatives of the Obama and McCain plans into positives: That is, increasing domestic production reduces U.S. vulnerability to foreign embargoes, and it also would provide extra revenue for the Treasury.
Back to top

Energy Speculation

Obama: Plans to enact legislation to close loopholes in Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations and increase market transparency [43].

McCain: Wants to reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market and provide oversight [44].

Analysis: Studies by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission showed that there was no evidence that speculators were responsible for high oil prices [45]. Also, if the price of oil were above the levels that fundamentals of supply and demand could support, there would be growing inventories, which there were not. Successful speculators actually make oil prices less volatile, by buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high (or ”shorting” when prices are high and then covering when prices are low). Major producers and consumers of oil use futures markets to “hedge” themselves against future volatility by locking in a fixed “futures price” of oil. Large investment funds provide liquidity to the commodities futures markets, and allow producers and physical consumers (such as airlines and refiners) to concentrate on their core businesses.

Government restrictions on investment in the oil futures market would only hurt consumers by making the oil market less efficient. New regulations will do nothing to ease oil prices in the long term [46]. Additional supplies help temper any speculation, also. Since President Bush announced the lifting of the presidential moratorium on July 14, 2008, oil prices have fallen by almost 50%. Congress’ decision to allow the OCS energy moratorium to expire October 1, 2008 has further sent a message to markets about American willingness to produce its own energy.
Back to top


Obama: Will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year, going beyond the 35 mpg requirement in 2020 mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [47].

McCain: Will enforce existing CAFE standards by increasing the penalties for not complying with the standards, which many auto manufacturers currently pay and add to the price of their cars [48].

Analysis: Like all markets, automakers will supply the market with vehicles that consumers demand. In the past, consumers preferred increased horsepower and larger vehicles rather than more fuel efficient and smaller vehicles. In the past, consumers have preferred more sport utility vehicles and light trucks, than smaller vehicles. Higher oil and gasoline prices have moved the car purchasing market to more fuel efficient vehicles, though some consumers still prefer the safety features in the heavier vehicles. The issue related to increasing the CAFE standard beyond the current legislated level is whether technologies exist to meet a higher standard. Also of note, by restricting consumer choice CAFE standards have lead to more deaths and injuries than otherwise because CAFE forces carmakers to build smaller cars than consumers would prefer. CAFE may save gasoline, but it costs lives [49].
Back to top

R&D and Tax Credits for Advanced Transportation Vehicles

Obama: Wants to mandate that all new vehicles are flex-fuel vehicles. Spend U.S. tax dollars on advanced vehicle technology; put 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles and conversion tax credits. Convert the White House fleet to plug-ins within one year of becoming President. Make half of all cars purchased by the Federal Government be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012. Provide $4 billion in retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and plant manufacturers so that new fuel-efficient cars are built in the U.S. rather than overseas [50].

McCain: Supports flex-fuel vehicles and wants automakers to make a more rapid switch to flex-fuel vehicles than their current commitment. Proposes a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development. Provides a $5,000 tax credit for purchase of a zero emission car and a graduated tax credit for other vehicles based on their carbon emission levels [51].

Analysis: Studies regarding tax credits show that they have limited ability to spur change compared to their cost to the U.S. Treasury and the American taxpayer. The Energy Information Administration, for example, evaluated the impact of tax credits on the energy system on both a cost and carbon emission basis finding their cost per unit high and their benefit to lowering carbon emissions and energy consumption low [52]. IER believes that prizes for technology development should be privately funded, not taxpayer funded. Prizes should be awarded by private foundations and they would receive the patent rights for their nonprofit.
Back to top

Electricity Grid

Obama: Will spend U.S. tax dollars on smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies. Will establish a Grid Modernization Commission to facilitate adoption of Smart Grid practices. Will instruct the Secretary of Energy to: 1.) establish a Smart Grid Matching Grant Program to provide a subsidy of one-fourth of qualifying investments; 2.) conduct programs to deploy advanced technologies for managing peak load reductions and energy efficiency savings; and 3.) establish demonstration projects [53].

McCain: Wants to upgrade the national grid to meet the electricity demands of the 21st century, including a capacity to charge electric vehicles. Promotes deployment of SmartMeter technologies that provide consumers with real-time energy consumption usage to encourage cost-efficient use of power [54].

Analysis: The candidates appear to be silent on the issue of grid instability related to delays, lawsuits and red tape associated with upgrading the grid and building sufficient power capacity to ensure grid stability. In a technology driven modern economy, this is a foundation of economic strength. A recent USDA study of rural community electric demands pointed out a need to double capacity in rural areas by 2020 [55]. The North American Electricity Reliability Council reports that the capacity margins (the amount of electricity necessary to maintain the reliability of the electrical grid) are low and could drop below target capacity margins as soon as 2009 in many areas of the country [56]. The Independent Service Operators throughout the nation predict looming shortfalls in production and transmission capability in urban areas, and new demands from non-dispatchable sources (intermittent sources like new wind and solar projects) only complicate that. Moreover, there is little discussion by the candidates about the inherent conflicts of siting new alternative energy sources.
Back to top

Energy Efficiency

Obama: Reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE’s projected levels by 2020 by setting demand reduction targets for utilities and more stringent building and appliance standards.

Establish a goal to make all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030. Establish a goal to improve new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent. Overhaul the process for setting appliance efficiency standards to eliminate the missed deadlines by the Department of Energy for setting updated appliance efficiency standards. Achieve a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within 5 years and ensure all new federal buildings are zero-emissions by 2025. Invest in cost-effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years. Provide resources to achieve a 15 percent reduction in federal energy consumption by 2015. Work with states to flip the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production. Commit to weatherize one million low-income homes each year for the next decade [57].

McCain: Will make greening of the Federal Government a priority by applying a higher efficiency standard to new buildings leased or purchased or retrofitting existing buildings [58].

Analysis: Both candidates support compelling the federal government to use less energy in its operations, strategies that may pay dividends for the largest consumer of energy in the nation. But these strategies will come at a cost. Already, some Federal buildings are kept uncomfortably hot in the summer, and uncomfortably cool in the winter to save energy. The imposition of demand reduction targets for the nation may result in significant additional economic burdens on consumers of energy which would affect consumer prices as well as the prices of the goods and service produced in the U.S. which must compete with other nations’ goods.
Back to top

Biofuels, Mandates, & Subsidies

Obama: Will require at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030. Will spend federal tax dollars, provide tax incentives and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies and their infrastructure. Will mandate all new vehicles are flex-fuel [59].

McCain: Believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as both an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumers’ choices. But, believes a level playing field is needed and will eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs, and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions that would provide better solutions [60].

Analysis: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022–15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels [61]. Currently there are no commercially-available advanced biofuels on the market. Based on the lower mandates in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007 [62] showed that economic levels of biofuels were projected to be 7.6 percent (or 14.6 billion gallons) of the 192 billion gallon gasoline market in 2030. Their Annual Energy Outlook 2008 [63], which incorporated the EISA mandate by requiring that the provisions of EISA be met, reached 32.5 billion gallons in 2022, slightly below the target due to the application of waivers and modification of credit volumes resulting from inadequate quantities of biofuels to meet the initial targets.

That forecast was also dependent on the commercial availability of cellulosic ethanol, which is not commercially viable today. Currently there are multiple mandates and subsidies that encourage the sale of ethanol. For example, in many areas of the country retailers are required to sell gasoline that is 10 percent ethanol to meet clean air regulations.

Also there is a 51 cents per gallon of ethanol subsidy for ethanol [64]. Without these subsidies and mandates, the ethanol industry would not have developed as much. This is especially true because there is less energy is a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of gasoline, it is more expensive to produce ethanol than gasoline, and there are other negative factors such as its impact on water and land usage and food prices. Mandating 60 billion gallons by 2030, 67 percent higher than the current mandate in just 8 additional years is making an already difficult task harder, and could have even more dramatic impacts on food prices and water and land usage issue.

Government mandates of any kind distort markets, and ethanol is no exception. The ethanol mandate is already leading to higher food prices [65]. Higher food prices have led to food riots around the world [66]. Increasing food prices are making life more difficult for the world’s poor, leading UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, to call using food crops to produce ethanol “a crime against humanity.”[67]

Not only are there serious human costs to the current ethanol mandates, but there are large environmental costs as well. Recent studies published in Nature argue that biofuel production releases 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace.”[68] Increased carbon dioxide emissions are not the only environmental harm biofuel production promotes. Biofuel production has also led to converting millions of acres of rainforest into biofuel plantations [69].

Besides the human and environmental products ethanol mandates produce, it is difficult to comprehend how it is possible to mandate the use of a product in the future that cannot presently be produced commercially, such as cellulosic ethanol. The U.S. has the world’s largest oil shale deposits, from which DOE estimates 800 billion barrels are recoverable. Currently it is not produced commercially, and no candidate has supported a mandate for its production by a date certain. The purpose of this comparison is to demonstrate that mandates are by definition, the government picking winners and losers as opposed to freely motivated individuals operating in a free market.
Back to top

Energy Technology Development

Obama: Wants to spend $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emission coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid [70].

McCain: Will spend $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technology. Will establish a permanent tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D, which will simplify the tax code, provide an incentive to innovation, make the U.S. more competitive with other countries, and remove the uncertainty facing businesses in their R&D decisions. Faces a level playing field for mandates, subsidies, tariffs, and price supports that promote the development of market-based solutions [71].

Analysis: Markets work better than government-directed programs to finding solutions to problems. This is because government programs are driven by political considerations not economic effectiveness like markets. Since 1978, the DOE has spent over $75 billion on research and development into various energy sources, and our energy problems are more acute than ever [72]. Far larger amounts have been dedicated to energy programs through the tax system, to the same end. During the same period of time, the amount of acreage made available for leasing for energy production to the private sector has plunged dramatically, with the ultimate result of less domestic production of oil and gas.

Meanwhile, permitting of electrical transmission lines, energy pipelines and energy facilities has grown more difficult and time consuming, and in capital intensive industries such as energy, time equals money, which the consumer of energy eventually pays. Even today, large subsidies for alternative energy generation exist on the one hand, while on the other hand, government laws and regulations have led to delays in the deployment of new wind farms or solar energy production facilities. Neither candidate has addressed the schizophrenic nature of the government’s policies upon energy production, transmission and use in the U.S.
Back to top

Energy Independence

Obama: Wants to save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined within ten years [73].

McCain: Wants to achieve strategic energy independence by 2025. Will continue to import oil from our North American neighbors, Canada and Mexico [74].

Analysis: Imports of oil from the Middle East and Venezuela were 3.53 million barrels per day in 2007 or 26 percent of our total oil imports of 13.47 million barrels per day [75]. The U.S. has sufficient domestic energy resources to replace these imported sources, as about 97% of offshore government lands and 94% of onshore government lands have not been leased for energy production [76]. Furthermore, our oil shale resources have not been touched, with over 800 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil that can be made commercially available with the properly structured Government leasing program. To meet the goals, the candidates will need to remove the red tape from Government restricting and/or delaying the use of these resources [77]. Government actions have for several decades led to severe reductions in the quantity and quality of government lands leased for energy production [78]. By letting energy exploration occur on much less lands, the government has been effectively stockpiling energy at a time when energy prices have hurt the American economy. Allowing more energy production is proven to make a significant difference in energy supplies, as the Energy Information Administration recently reported [79]. When more wells are drilled, more supplies are found. The candidates have not directly addressed this simple fact in a fashion that the American people can understand.
Back to top

Global Warming

Obama: Implement a cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Require all emission credits to be auctioned. Use $15 billion per year of the auctioned receipts to subsidize the development of clean energy and energy efficiency improvements. Use remaining receipts as rebates and other transition relief for families and communities. Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and make the U.S. a leader on climate change. Establish a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that requires fuel suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon content in their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years [80].

McCain: Implement a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 66 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Emission permits will eventually be auctioned to support the development of advanced technologies and reduce impacts on low-income American families. Will reform federal government research funding and infrastructure to emphasize the commercialization of low-carbon technologies. Will provide leadership for effective international efforts through actively engaging to lead United Nations Negotiations [81].

Analysis: Under a cap-and-trade system, there is a limit set on total greenhouse gas emissions. Each regulated entity is required to hold an allowance (essentially an entitlement) for the total amount of greenhouse gases they are allowed to emit. Allowances are distributed to emitters by some criterion (e.g. historic emissions), auctioned, or by some combination of the two. Entities are allowed to buy and sell allowances, creating a market price for them. Several cap-and-trade bills have been proposed in Congress, but none has passed to date. Many studies have been done on the various proposals. The studies show that mandates limiting GHG emissions will impose very large costs on the economy in terms of lost GDP, and higher costs to consumers, particularly in the cost of electricity [82].

Because the major growth in greenhouse gases are in developing countries like China, India, and the Middle East, U.S. emission reductions are likely to have little impact on global emissions. For example, if the U.S. were to eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, world-wide CO2 emissions would still increase by about 30 percent [83]. In addition, many economists argue that an appropriately calibrated, explicit tax on carbon could achieve the same long-run emissions reductions as a cap-and-trade program, but with less scope for corruption and with lower total compliance costs [84]. (IER does not endorse a carbon tax, [85] but it would be more straightforward than the “stealth tax” of the cap-and-trade approach endorsed by both presidential candidates).
Back to top


  4. Energy Information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007,, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,, and American Council for Capital Formation/National Association of Manufacturers Study of the Economic Impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act,
  5. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007,
  6. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual,
  9. Congressional Research Service, Energy Tax Policy: History and Current Issues,
  10. EIA, Financial Reporting System,
  14. Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007,
  15. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, page 27,
  16. “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” Robert J. Michaels, April 2008 Electricity Journal.
  17. For example, see this map showing the potential for wind generation and this map showing the potential for solar generation:
  18. Democrats Challenge Each Other In Battle Over Energy Bill, Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, September 11, 2007.
  21. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007,
  22. Energy Information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007,, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,, and American Council for Capital Formation/National Association of Manufacturers Study of the Economic Impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act,
  26. Comparing McCain, Obama energy plans, International Herald Tribune,
  27. Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington D.C.,
  29. Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington D.C.,
  30. Offshore Energy & Minerals Management (OEMM), The Minerals Management Service,, July 7, 2008.
  31. U.S. Geological Survey,
  37. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007,
  38. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008,
  39. Energy Information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007,, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,, and American Council for Capital Formation/National Association of Manufacturers Study of the Economic Impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act,
  40. Comparing McCain, Obama energy plans, International Herald Tribune,
  42. Comparing McCain, Obama energy plans, International Herald Tribune,
  45. Interim Report on Crude Oil, Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets, July 2008,, and{06B5DBFD-CC90-41A2-A3C0-6F18A3DBC03A}&dist=hppr
  49. See e.g., Sam Kazman, CAFE is Bad for Your Helath, Wall Street Journal (Nov. 13, 2005),04970.cfm .
  52. Energy Information Administration, Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative, April 1999, and Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative: Fiscal Year 2001, April 2000.
  56. North American Electricity Reliability Council, 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Nov. 16, 2007)
  61. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008,
  62. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007,
  63. Energy information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008,
  64. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008,
  66. CNN, Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket, Apr. 14, 2008,
  67. CNN, Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket, Apr. 14, 2008,
  68. The Nature Conservancy, Climate Change and Energy: The True Cost of Biofuel,
  69., Why is oil palm replacing tropical rainforests?,
  72. Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007,
  77. See, for example,
  78., and
  82. Energy Information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007,, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,, and American Council for Capital Formation/National Association of Manufacturers Study of the Economic Impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act,
  83. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2007,
  84. See for example Chapter 8, “The Many Advantages of Carbon Taxes,” in the prepublication proofs of Yale economist William Nordhaus’ book, A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), available at:
  85. See IER’s critique of Nordhaus’ case at:

0 thoughts on “Compare And Contrast Essay On Obama And Mccain

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *