[OBAMA] Why are we not investing in the energy sources of the future, just the ones in the past, particularly if the energy sources of the past are highly profitable right now and don't need a tax break?

[SUITERS] President Obama delivered his proposed 2012 budget to Congress this past week, and it includes $8 billion for clean energy projects. Also included, $36 billion for nuclear loan guarantees, $550 million to the Energy Department's ARPA-E program. This is the program that promotes innovation. Getting cut -- fossil fuel subsidies, down $3.6 billion.

The Republicans, of course, have a very different take on our energy future. For this year's budget, they want to cut $3 billion from the EPA, as well as a $107 million cut to climate change funding. Some very big differences here. Joining us for this week's MIX to discuss all this and more, "energyNOW!" contributor Frank Maisano. He is a senior principal at the international law firm Bracewell Giuliani, which represents a number of power utilities and also renewable energy firms. And "energyNOW!" contributor Daniel Weiss. He's a senior fellow at the left-leaning think tank Center for America Progress. Good to have you both back with us.

Let's dive right into this budget process. Frank, is the president putting too much money, too much emphasis on clean energy?

[MAISANO] Certainly, the president is outlining his priorities in clean energy, advancing renewables, and advancing electric vehicles, and some nuclear, and things like that, all at the expense of the oil and gas industry, who really take it on the chin in this budget.

[WEISS] This is an "invest and grow" budget. President Obama is investing in innovation, in ARPA-E to develop advanced technologies, in high-speed rail, in wind and solar technologies. This is a budget for the future.

[SUITERS] Funding everything across the board sounds like a nice idea, but the reality is, someone has to lose. Is it oil and gas right now? Is it fossil fuels overall?

[MAISANO] Certainly, fossil fuels and oil and gas are not on the president's priority list. Of course, he's not the one who decides, in total, what happens. Certainly, we've heard, not only from Republicans a much different take, but we've also heard that from Democrats as well.

[WEISS] The oil and gas industry in this country is incredibly profitable. The five biggest oil companies have made $75 billion in profits. Their federal effective tax rate is about half that of your average citizen. We're cutting out $3.5 billion from them. Easily, they can afford it, when the five biggest companies alone made $75 billion last year, after making a trillion dollars over the last 10 years.

[MAISANO] Certainly, the budget cuts that are going to happen are being pushed by a group of folks who feel like budget reductions are necessary to balance the budget. We can't pay for it all.

[WEISS] But shouldn't the big oil companies, that made a trillion dollars in profits over the last year, they made $75 billion last year, at a time when the rest of America was suffering. We had 9.5% unemployment. We've got record numbers of people on -- Shouldn't they kick in?

[MAISANO] It's easy to attack oil companies when they're paying a significant amount of taxes already.

[WEISS] They pay less taxes than the average family.

[MAISANO] That is not true.

[WEISS] You can look it up -- the effective tax rate is about 10% for ExxonMobil last year.

[MAISANO] That is definitely not true.

[WEISS] Look at Citizens for Tax Justice.

[MAISANO] They're contributing to state taxes, taxes at the pump --

[WEISS] So are people getting benefits from other programs.

[MAISANO] And, in fact, they're big, big taxpayers, and certainly, if you attack oil companies, the people who are going to end up paying are you and I. We're already getting more dependent on foreign oil because we're blocking a lot of offshore drilling, a lot of...

[WEISS] Actually, Frank, that's not so.

[MAISANO] ...Domestic energy.

[WEISS] The Energy Information Agency predicts that the amount of production is going to grow twice as fast over the next 10 years compared to the demand.

[SUITERS] Let me step in and try and solve this argument, Dan, because just this past week -- we talked about this in Plugged In -- The Wall Street Journal reports ExxonMobil is having a difficult time finding oil. What's the solution? Do we need to get off of oil? Do we need to drill in more and new places or a combination of both?

[MAISANO] Well, I certainly think that one of the problems that the oil industry is having now is this political... and areas, and secondly, regulatory challenges that they're facing in areas where we should be drilling. We've got vast amounts of oil in Alaska, We've got vast amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that have been off-limits for the last year, basically, because the Interior Department doesn't want to issue permits.

[WEISS] One bad oil spill can ruin your whole decade. But it's also important to note that in the western Gulf of Mexico, three out of every four leases that have been leased have not been developed. Maybe there's oil there, maybe there's not, but they own leases that they're not developing. Let's focus on those places. Why would you drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Would you put up a dam in the Grand Canyon to get electricity?

[MAISANO] I'll tell you this, Dan, I'm not a geological engineer, but I can tell you that if those oil companies at $100 a barrel are not drilling in those regions, there's probably not a lot of oil there. So the reality is --

[WEISS] Then why do you want to drill there?

[MAISANO] We're drilling where we can drill and there are more opportunities out there. If we want to really get off foreign oil, we've got to do a lot of things --

[WEISS] But here's the problem --

[MAISANO] We've got to do what Dan's talking about, both the demand side, and move electric vehicles forward, absolutely -- we also have to get the development side moving.

[SUITERS] I'll give you a shot in just a second, Dan. I want to catch our breath for a moment, because we're starting a new segment this week on theMIX, a chance to talk about what got your blood boiling this past week -- other than each other. What really fired you up this week, Dan? Was it a policy move, a statement made by someone on the Hill?

[WEISS] What got my blood boiling is that the Republicans in the House want to cut money that goes to low-income people to help them pay their electric bills...

[SUITERS] LIHEAP.

[WEISS] And goes to low-income people to help them weatherize their homes to make them more energy efficient. At the same time, they're keeping billions of dollars, $3.5 billions in tax cuts, for ExxonMobil and some of the other richest corporations in America. So we're cutting money for the poor and making sure we keep the money for the well off. That really makes my blood boil.

[MAISANO] I really think what got my blood boiling this week is the fact that sometimes the administration is saying one thing and doing another. I know that's hard to believe, that politicians would be saying one thing and doing another. At the time that this administration is demanding more renewable energy, more clean energy, more wind power, their Department of Interior just released a wildlife guideline system that is absolutely detrimental to developing resources like terrestrial wind, perhaps even offshore wind, as we get into the investigation. And this was after a three-year stakeholder process that included industry, environmental groups, that included regulators. They just completely disregarded that and put out what is a very onerous guideline that will, in fact, delay the development of renewables.

[SUITERS] Maybe a microcosm of what's going on behind closed doors on the Hill right now. Daniel Weiss for the Center for American Progress. Frank Maisano with Bracewell Giuliani. Thanks again, gentlemen. Good to have you with us. Phew! Wipe off that sweat. That was good.