Kuster and Swett release ads focused on economics

Democratic candidates Ann McLane Kuster and Katrina Swett both recently released new television ads, ramping up the primary race in NH’s second district.

Both ads focus on the economy and creating jobs, with Swett making some silly puns with her last name. Not sure why she mentioned lobbyists after last week, but overall, the ads seem pretty similar.

Kuster takes the offensive on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan

As if the Democratic race in NH’s 2nd district weren’t already contentious enough, Ann McLane Kuster held a press conference this morning, slamming her opponent Katrina Swett on her position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Aligning her opponent with former President Bush, Kuster said the U.S. policy in Iraq may have decreased the country’s ability to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. Read the full press release here.

While the two Democrats have fairly similar stances on most issues of domestic policy, international affairs is an area in which they differ.

Karen Langley of the Concord Monitor wrote a good story looking at their differences, but essentially, Swett supported authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq and President Obama to sent a troop surge to Afghanistan, while Kuster supported neither.

The difference is one that has not received much attention from the media — which has largely focused on the lobbying accusations flying on the left side of the race. It is an important policy distinction between the two candidates, and deserves scrutiny and examination.

However, whether Kuster should be slamming Swett on the issue less than a week after the lobbying shenanigans is more unclear.

Kuster certainly needs as much press coverage as she can get right now (a July poll showed that 88 percent of voters had never heard of her). But it adds to the existing perception that the Democratic race has become bitter and ugly.

NH Democratic Chairman Ray Buckley has already warned Kuster and Swett that their fighting will only serve to boost moderate Republican Charlie Bass. The frontrunner seems to have dodged any direct attacks or scandals in this race so far, and is doing well in the polls.

Will any voters pick a Democrat after this battle is over? With a month until the primary and things just heating up, it’s looking less and less likely.

—

Swett was registered as lobbyist, Dem fight picks up

After Katrina Swett has spent months criticizing Democratic opponent Ann McLane Kuster‘s work as a lobbyist, reports have surfaced that Swett’s name appeared on several federal lobbyist registries in the 1990′s.

I have written previously that I think voters would respond positively if Kuster were more candid about her extensive lobbying background. But when it comes to obfuscation of lobbying work, it seems that Kuster is no longer alone.

“It’s kind of like, if you register to vote, but don’t vote, you’re not a voter,” Swett told the Union Leader‘s John DiStaso in describing the significance of her lobbying background.

While reporters will certainly spend time trying to discern the significance of Swett’s work as a lobbyist  – a word that has taken on a life of its own — the revelation looks terrible for Swett.

The issue is less about the semantics of what constitutes lobbying, and more about perceived honesty and transparency in a race that has taken an ugly turn.

“Credibility matters,” writes Dean Barker of the blog Blue Hampshire.

This news makes Swett look silly for slamming her opponent on the issue, and her quote comparing it to registering to vote seems weak at best.

Swett was quoted by the Valley News in June as saying “My background, the work I have done, I have not, you know, been a lobbyist,” but her name is on the 997 federal Lobbying Registration form as vice president of Dick Swett Associates, Inc.

Read the full Union Leader story here.

Kuster has lobbied for almost 20 years, representing groups such as Dartmouth College, NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire, New Hampshire Independent Schools, and several pharmaceutical companies.

She has preferred to call her work advocacy rather than lobbying, and has been criticized by Swett for misleading voters about her background.

As a blogger from Red Hampshire wrote, “Today is a great day for who ever is the Republican nominee in the 2nd district.”

Kuster’s communications director Neil Sroka was quick to issue a statement today:

CONCORD, NH –  Kuster for Congress Communications Director Neil Sroka today released the following statement in response to the news that Katrina Swett has been a Washington lobbyist, despite her repeated denials of exactly that.

“Katrina Swett has been caught clearly deceiving voters about who she is. Despite all her frequent public objections to lobbyists, it turns out Katrina herself was a registered Washington lobbyist.  She even owned a federal lobbying firm, and for the last fifteen years she and her husband, former Congressman Dick Swett, have represented numerous multinational corporations.  Swett’s dishonesty and hypocrisy about her own background is stunning, and it leaves many questions unanswered.”

—

Kuster unveils green jobs plan

Democratic candidate Ann McLane Kuster announced today a green energy jobs plan that she said could create between 5,000 and 7,000 new jobs in the state in the renewable energy sectors.

Kuster, who was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, has made job creation and clean energy development top issues in her race for New Hampshire’s 2nd district seat.

“These are not the jobs of tomorrow – they are the jobs of today,” she said.

Kuster’s plan outlines five steps she would take to create jobs and support clean energy without increasing the deficit.

“Instead of adding to the deficit, I would cut it by cutting subsidies to big gas and oil companies,” she said.

Kuster served on the New Hampshire advisory board for the Trust for Public Lands, and was instrumental in convincing lawmakers to ban the burning of construction debris in Hopkinton. Her husband Brad is an environmental lawyer.

Kuster’s plan:

1.     Pass comprehensive energy legislation that will provide incentives for businesses to use and produce cleaner forms of energy. Washington deadlocked on comprehensive energy legislation last week.  Kuster will help change Washington and fight for national legislation that rewards the use and production of cleaner energy.   Her plan protects middle class families by using rebates or tax incentives to prevent any increase in electricity costs.

2.     Double federal support for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) of clean energy technologies. Kuster supports doubling our investment in clean energy RD&D to $8 billion a year, and making the existing R&D tax credits permanent. Both of these actions are critical to ensuring that the United States remains a leader not only in the creation of new clean energy technologies, but also in the development of new business and manufacturing processes that cut costs and increase efficiency in ways that speed the movement of new products from the lab bench to job-producing production lines.

3.     Support clean energy manufacturing jobs by extending the 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax credit and expanding the use of the Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.  The 48c advanced manufacturing tax credit, has already helped increase the production of clean energy products throughout the country and is estimated to have helped create nearly 60,000 jobs overall. New Hampshire excels in advance manufacturing and we can take advantage of those programs better than most other parts of the country.

4.     Create Clean Energy Business Zones to take advantage of our state’s existing clean energy employers. Based on the successful Empowerment Zone concept, Clean Energy Business Zones would provide $1.2 billion in tax incentives to create centers of excellence and innovation on clean energy technology that would help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs in New Hampshire communities from Nashua to Berlin.

5.     Pay for these investments by shutting down taxpayer subsidies for the big power companies. We can save $45 billion in the next ten years by cutting special tax deductions, preferences, and credits currently received by multi-billion dollar oil companies alone, and another $20 billion in the next five years by preventing taxpayer-subsidized loan guarantees to new nuclear power plants. It makes no sense to continue these taxpayer-funded subsidies, especially considering the companies that receive them are some of the most profitable businesses in the world.

—