July 29, 2008
Union Leader Blog
Drew Cline
On its blog yesterday, The New York Times editorial board posted a misleading commentary about Sen. Judd Gregg in particular and New Hampshire in general. Following is my humble attempt at a response.
Under the condescending headline, “What’s the matter with New Hampshire?“, the editorial writers held forth the following:
“Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, set himself apart on Saturday — and not in a good way.
“He was the lone New England senator who voted to prevent consideration of a bill that would have released more than $2 billion for the low-income energy assistance program (LIHEAP) an estimated $27 million of which would have gone to help poor people in the Granite State.
“One oddity about his position is that Mr. Gregg was one of the bill’s original sponsors.
“The other odd thing about his vote is what it means for a group of cold, not especially well-off people: his own constituents.”
OK, stop right there. New Hampshire residents are “not especially well-off”? Since when? Last year New Hampshire ranked 7th in the nation in per-capita income.
The NY Times stereotypes rural America as poor America. It isn’t true. But at the Times editorial board, there’s no getting in the way of a good stereotype. Let’s continue.
“Most New Hampshire residents are concerned about the doubling of home heating oil prices in the last year, and for good reason. About 58 percent of the state’s households rely on oil heat to keep warm in the bone-chilling New Hampshire winters.”
Well, according to the state’s Office of Energy and Planning, the most recent figure is 55.3 percent. But who’s counting? I guess the Times simply assumed that since most NH households use home heating oil, “most New Hampshire residents are concerned about the doubling of home heating oil prices in the last year.” By the way, prices have almost doubled, but again, who’s counting?
“Unless prices fall significantly, they will pay nearly $1,000 to fill a tank of oil which might keep their homes warm for about a month during the coldest part of winter.”
How would prices fall significantly? By increasing supply. But The New York Times opposes Republican efforts to do that by letting oil companies drill offshore, even though offshore drilling has a 99.999 percent safety record.
“The energy-assistance bill failed 50-35, ten votes short of the 60 votes needed, after the White House threatened to veto the legislation and Republicans decided to use the issue to demand lifting the bans on offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
No, the bill didn’t fail. It’s still alive. The motion to vote on it immediately on Saturday, while the Senate Democrats’ own bill to crack down on commodity speculators was being considered, is what failed. And Republicans didn’t just decide to use the issue to demand more drilling. They offered to vote on LIHEAP if Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed votes on amendments to the speculation bill. Reid refused. He also refused to allow votes on amending the LIHEAP bill.
I wonder if the Times is aware that the LIHEAP bill was introduced 21 days before the speculation bill was introduced. Reid is the only senator empowered to bring bills up for a vote. Why did he wait a month to bring the LIHEAP bill up for a vote, and then do it during consideration of the speculation bill, which he had scheduled first?
He did it because he knew an unquestioning press would report that Republicans voted against LIHEAP expansion. And sure enough, The Times reports exactly that and does not question why Reid sat on the supposedly “emergency” LIHEAP bill for a month before bringing it up for a vote.
“No matter that additional drilling would do little to lower the price of gas at the pump or oil in the furnace, and certainly not in the short term.”
Again, not true. A large future boost in the energy supply would likely have an immediate and significant impact on prices. Such a large future boost in the energy supply would come from expanding offshore drilling and nuclear power. (More nuclear plants in the Northeast would reduce the need for home heating oil here. That is one of the amendments Republicans wanted to offer to the speculation bill.) But The Times doesn’t want to allow policies that would actually lower oil prices. Instead, it wants more federal subsidies. Go figure.
“A few years ago, in his book ‘What’s The Matter With Kansas?,’ Thomas Frank asked why the largely blue-collar voters of Kansas regularly voted for Republican elected officials who worked against their economic interests.”
Neither Frank nor the Times gets that blue-collar voters in places like Kansas understand that high-taxes and big government work against their interests, not for them.
“Now, the same question could be asked about New Hampshire. What are the state’s voters thinking, sending a Senator to Washington who is working to ensure that they or their neighbors won’t be able to afford to turn on the heat this winter?”
That’s just shockingly ignorant. Did Gregg really work “to ensure” that Granite Staters “won’t be able to afford to turn on the heat this winter?” Considering that A) he co-sponsored the bill to double LIHEAP funding, and B) his vote on Saturday was not to kill the bill, but to stick to Harry Reid’s original calendar, which had the LIHEAP bill going after the speculation bill, the answer is obviously “no.” The bill remains alive and can be brought back up for a vote. So, what, exactly, was Sen. Gregg’s sin, in the eyes of the Times editorial board?
Apparently it was voting against Harry Reid’s scheme to postpone indefinitely any vote that might result in higher domestic energy production and lower energy prices. (And that includes, by the way, votes on Democratic proposals to clamp down on oil speculators.)
The New York Times editorial board evidently hates, or at least has a low opinion of, New Hampshire. It continually writes ignorant and hostile pieces about this state. This is only the latest. It sure won’t be the last. It would be nice, though, if members of the board bothered to try to understand this state, its people, and its issues before writing about them. It would help, too, if they tried to understand legislation in Washington before writing about it.