Republicans reject Obama's proposal to cut oil tax breaks

World Mar. 30, 2012 - 07:20AM JST ( 25 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

25 Comments

5

smithinjapanMar. 30, 2012 - 07:53AM JST

No surprises from the party of 'no' here. Doing what's worst for their nation, as usual.
1

FarmboyMar. 30, 2012 - 08:03AM JST

McConnell often takes the side of Big Oil, it seems: <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MitchMcConnell#Oilandcoalmoneyinpolitics >
7

FarmboyMar. 30, 2012 - 08:06AM JST

Sorry, the link above from www.sourcewatch.org doesn't show its content, which is as follows:

Oil and coal money in politics

Mitch McConnell received $305,600 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $147,000 of those dollars were from industry PACs. In total, McConnell accepted $474,658 from oil companies from 2000 to 2008, making him a leading recipient of oil money.[4] In addition to oil, McConnell has received $187,350 in coal contributions during the 110th congress. $78,250 of those dollars were from industry PACs. See above for oil and energy voting record.[citation needed]

According to Oil Change International, Mitch McConnell received a total of $1.27 million in donations from fossil fuel companies from 1999 to 2011, mainly Peabody Energy.[5]
1

LagunaMar. 30, 2012 - 09:24AM JST

A narrow majority voted 51-47 for the Democratic measure, but 60 votes were needed to move it forward.

"...the Democrat-controlled Senate,” McConnell said.

No party controls the Senate. It is gridlock.
3

paulinusaMar. 30, 2012 - 09:42AM JST

"Raising taxes on our energy manufacturers..."

"because they’ve got nothing— nothing but a phony proposal aimed at distracting people from the fact that they have nothing to offer.”

Twisted logic and doublespeak. It's only about blocking any energy proposal put forth while at the same time protecting a special interest.
3

TumbleDryMar. 30, 2012 - 09:46AM JST

While handouts/subsides are common to Democrat policies, I have a hard time understanding why the Republicans allow subsides to oil companies (and for the military industrial complex for that matter) if they make record profits over the years. Want less government? Start from there. Companies should not be able to give donations because they are not more than legalized corruption. Also, their should be a cap on campaign finance.
-11

RomeoRMar. 30, 2012 - 10:17AM JST

This is Obama's way: pointing fingers at others, but never at himself.

Hey, Obama, wasn't it YOU that stopped the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to Texas? Yes, yes it was.

Hey, Obama, wasn't it YOU that said many times on video that you wanted gasoline prices to go up so the American people would get off gasoline? Yes, yes it was.

Hey, Obama, wasn't it YOU that has stopped the permits of public lands for oil and gas drilling? Yes, yes it was.

Obama is the problem, not the oil and gas industry.

RR
-5

SerranoMar. 30, 2012 - 10:34AM JST

Sen Robert Menendez: With their votes, Republicans said loudly and clearly that they're on the side of Big Oil"

Big Bad Oil, right, Menendez? LOL. You could also say Republicans are pro-business.
4

ElvensilvanMar. 30, 2012 - 11:06AM JST

@RomeoR

So you favor the oil and gas industry over Obama's plans to switch to renewable sources of evergy?

First and foremost, Obama has not stopped the Keystone project, but delayed the decision whether or not the project was in the nation's interests or not. Part of the project would pass through some large natural habitats and natural reserves.

Next is the issue on lessening gasoline dependency. Oil and gas are not the only sources of energy.

Again, decreasing oil and gas explorations. Is it such a bad thing? Why should we rely on them, specially when there are other alternatives?
8

LagunaMar. 30, 2012 - 11:18AM JST

Hey, RR - maybe Obama could do something about record-high energy prices in Asia and Europe as well! Would increased energy production in North America at the expense of the environment only lower energy prices there, or would producers sell to the highest bidder, thus ensuring additional production would only be a drop in the ocean?

The United States is already at historically high levels of oil and gas production thanks to the previous administration; how has that worked out? Fracking has already resulted in environmental damage that will reveal itself in time, and prices are still high. Clearly, domestic production is important, but not at the expense of the environment, and it will not have a significant effect on prices.

Anyway, RR, the article is about tax breaks for energy production. These types of tax breaks should only be used to spur private industry into activity deemed crucial for the nation - and that would not otherwise be undertaken. Hydrocarbon extraction certainly does not meet that definition.
0

SushiSake3Mar. 30, 2012 - 11:28AM JST

Amazing - I just don't get why posters like RomeoRamen would want ever-increasing billions of taxpayer dollars to be shovelled into the gaping troughs of the oil industry.

I'll bet Romeo is also a cheerleader for the GOP's War On Women.

But, of course, s/he won't admit it. :-)
-6

Lieberman2012Mar. 30, 2012 - 11:51AM JST

More diversion and demonization from Obama.

smithinjapan

No surprises from the party of 'no' here. Doing what's worst for their nation, as usual.

Much bigger news than this cherry-picked story about susbsidies is that the House recently rejected Obama's latest proposed budget 414 - 0.

IOW, Obama failed to get even a single Democrat vote in support of his massive tax and spend lunacy.

Party of No? Our Democratic-controlled Senate has not passed a single budget since Obama took office. The nation has been without an official budget for over a thousand days. If a state governor governed with such cavalier contempt for the citizens he swore an oath to serve he would probably face impeachment.
5

WeaselMar. 30, 2012 - 12:34PM JST

Welfare to corporations is still welfare.
-6

sailwindMar. 30, 2012 - 12:51PM JST

These types of tax breaks should only be used to spur private industry into activity deemed crucial for the nation - and that would not otherwise be undertaken.

Drilling for oil is an expensive proposition in the first place, you have that pesky "come up dry problem" after sinking millions of dollars into a well that might or might not have oil or gas. The tax breaks spur the activity to take the risk after all even if they come up dry. That is why they have been deemed crucial for the Nation for over 100 years now to spur the oil industry.

Hydrocarbon extraction certainly does not meet that definition.

Disagree, that why the subsidies have been in place over 100 years in the first place through all previous administrations.
2

WeaselMar. 30, 2012 - 01:46PM JST

The tax breaks spur the activity to take the risk after all even if they come up dry.

I call BS on that. Risk and reward is part of the game; otherwise, they wouldn't in it. The only thing that spurs such activities you wrote is the prospect of becoming profitable and wealthy - not holding out their hat asking for a handout from the tax payers to help pay for their teenager's third Veyron Bugatti.
4

LagunaMar. 30, 2012 - 02:06PM JST

There is a very simple test case for this, Sailwind: Would such economic activity cease in the absence of subsidies? Would producers just chuck in the towel even in the existence of historically high energy prices?

If the answer is no, then these subsidies are corporate giveaways, pure and simple, tossed out by the party that claims America cannot afford to take care of its poor and elderly.

So what do you think, Sailwind? What would happen to energy production in the US if these subsidies ceased?
1

zurcroniumMar. 30, 2012 - 02:39PM JST

The oil industry gives 98% of its political funds to the republicans. The republicans are in the pocket of big oil and dirty coal. Its that simple. With gas prices so high, oil companies profits massive the republicans if they could, if they controlled the Senate, would give more tax breaks to the oil industry. Middle class worker, you pay more, big oil, you pay less. That is the republican math when it comes to the oil industry and people who work for a living.
-2

sailwindMar. 30, 2012 - 03:39PM JST

So what do you think, Sailwind? What would happen to energy production in the US if these subsidies ceased?

President Obama has already answered that question awhile back.

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,” Obama told a group of Brazilian business leaders in May
0

oberstMar. 30, 2012 - 03:41PM JST

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.58708950389.94319.659155389#!/photo.php?fbid=10150694263532708&set=a.136077452707.110998.12185972707&type=1&theater
2

FadamorMar. 30, 2012 - 11:11PM JST

Fact: Big Oil has been making record profits, even in these uncertain economic times. This is true even WITHOUT an oil sands pipeline or drilling on public lands. This is true even though fossil fuel usage has been DECREASING. If your sales are going down, yet you're STILL setting records for profits, then a question for Big Oil: "Why do you need government subsidies to help set these record profit levels?"

An answer: "We don't, but if our profit margin goes down, the money we've been pouring into the Republican coffers will go down as well. Your move, Senator/Congressman."
2

gelendestrasseMar. 31, 2012 - 01:31AM JST

I think fadamor just saved me a bunch of typing. That is exactly what goes on. I'll add that the irony of people who are against welfare for the poor vote in favor of welfare for the rich. What ever happened to earning your own keep?
-1

The Truth MattersMar. 31, 2012 - 02:19AM JST

Hey, Obama, wasn't it YOU that stopped the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to Texas? Yes, yes it was.

NO, it wasn't. It was the people of Nebraska who said it will not run over our water source. But don't let your Obama Derangement Syndrome get in the way.

Hey, Obama, wasn't it YOU that said many times on video that you wanted gasoline prices to go up so the American people would get off gasoline? Yes, yes it was.

NO, it wasn't. That was Fox News implanting nonsense into your brain. There's plenty of space so they don't have a hard time.l

Hey, Obama, wasn't it YOU that has stopped the permits of public lands for oil and gas drilling? Yes, yes it was.

Yes it was. Because he honors something called a contract unless you want to kick the Native Americans around some more? What do you have against indians (aside from their not being lillly white)? Obama is the problem, not the oil and gas industry.
-3

RomeoRMar. 31, 2012 - 12:54PM JST

What about the record profits this government gets off of these oil companies?

This is just more stupidity by the Obama Administration.

RR
0

MadvertsMar. 31, 2012 - 04:55PM JST

"Drilling for oil is an expensive proposition in the first place, you have that pesky "come up dry problem" after sinking millions of dollars into a well that might or might not have oil or gas."

Sounds like the Chevy Volt all over Sail. Heh.
0

lostrune2Apr. 02, 2012 - 07:39PM JST

What about the record profits this government gets off of these oil companies?

Just keep it and pay back its debts.