[Maybe Trader_Jorge and Co. can give us some enlightening and thoughtful explanations (no typical condescending liberal bashing, if you wonder what it means) on why our hard earned tax dollars should be used to subsidize the energy industry, which is in no finanacial crises like the airline industry but has been making record profits (lately due to oil price increases).] House approves $14.5B energy bill http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/28/news/economy/energy_congress.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes Critics call legislation a giveaway to oil industry; Senate is expected to pass the bill Friday. July 28, 2005: 2:04 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House on Thursday easily approved an energy bill packed with $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives and hailed by Republicans as a major change in energy policy. Environmental and consumer groups criticized the legislation as a giveaway to an industry enjoying record profits with crude oil prices near $60 a barrel, while spending little on ways to curb demand or encourage renewable energy. The bill passed by a vote of 275 to 156. The Senate is expected to approve it Friday, just before Congress recesses for its summer vacation. President Bush is expected next week to sign the energy bill, which he called one of his top priorities in 2005. "This legislation will help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It will help address the root causes that have led to high energy prices," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Industry officials praised the bill. "For the first time, our energy policy is coming together," said William Kovacs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Other Republicans acknowledged it could not cut oil imports in the near term. The United States now imports 60 percent of its oil supply. "As long as we're consuming 21 million barrels (a day) and we're only producing 8 million, we're going to be importing oil," said Texas Republican Joe Barton, author of much of the bill. Billions to industry Of the bill's $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives over 10 years, nearly $9 billion is earmarked for oil and gas, electricity and coal companies. Less than $5 billion will be spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Republicans say it will revive the nuclear power industry by encouraging companies to build the first new plants since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Coal is another big winner in the bill, which offers incentives to cut pollution from coal-fired electricity plants. Oil and gas companies will get royalty relief for production from deep water in the Gulf of Mexico, an inventory of energy deposits off Florida and other states, and tax breaks for enlarging existing oil refineries. American farmers will benefit from the bill's requirement to nearly double U.S. ethanol use to 7.5 billion gallons (34 billion liters) by 2012. Ethanol, refined from corn, is added to gasoline to make it burn more cleanly. Consumer groups complained that the legislation would hand over billions in taxpayer dollars to the energy industry. The Public Interest Research Group said it calculated all the tax breaks, guaranteed loans and direct spending were worth $25 billion to energy firms. "This bill keeps the oil, coal and nuclear industry firmly in the driver's seat," said Anna Aurilio, a PIRG spokeswoman. Democrat Henry Waxman of California criticized last-minute items added to the bill after House and Senate negotiators halted debate. Among them was a $1.5 billion fund for drilling research that would benefit an energy consortium based in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Texas district, Waxman said. A spokesman for DeLay defended the fund, saying it was in the energy bill approved by the House in April. The measure was not in the Senate's version of an energy bill. Other Democrats said energy companies have ample profits to fund new projects and don't need more subsidies. On Thursday, Exxon Mobil Corp. (Research) reported a 32 percent jump in its quarterly profits to $7.64 billion. "Right now Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source," said Democrat Edward Markey of Massachusetts. "This bill is a political and moral and technological failure." The final version of the bill dropped some environmentally friendly measures, such as the Senate's requirement that the federal government find ways to cut oil demand and improve fuel mileage for gas guzzlers.
I suppose the only saving grace is that it passed by an overwhelming margin in the house. Why did so many Dems vote for it? Smells like pork from here.
Good question. I bet the same bunch voted for the Iraqi War along with the Republicans. OK, I digressed.
DeLay Still Up To Dirty Tricks Tom DeLay thinks the federal treasury is his personal piggy bank. DeLay slipped “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas” into the energy bill. But this isn’t a normal case of government pork. DeLay has completely dispensed with the democratic process. From a letter Rep. Henry Waxman just sent Speaker Dennis Hastert: The $1.5 billion won’t be administered by the government but by a private consortium in DeLay’s district: Hastert and DeLay need to explain themselves immediately. No member of Congress who takes taxpayer dollars seriously should vote for the energy bill until this matter is resolved. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/27/delay-dirty-tricks/ Seems DeLay slipped over a billion dollars of privately-administered pork for oil companies in his district into the energy bill after the bill was out of conference committee.
b/c we have essentially a one party system in place.....that's what makes all the bickering in this forum so laughable.....negligible issues of little significance get plenty of ink and debate while legislation and executive action that actually has consequence goes mostly unnoticed.....IMO, Clinton's admin was no different from GWB's or LJB's or FDR's or etc's.....GWB's 'black and white, wit us or aginst us' campaign actually appears to be quite a clever tool in helping create an artificial polarizing schism for the masses so they can focus on and root for their team, all the while being blinded to the forest for the trees..
There's a lot of truth in this. I definitely felt this way prior to the 2000 election and voted for Nader accordingly. However, I would argue that Bush Jr's administration has reached spectacular new heights of corruption and incompentence and that the country would be in significantly better shape had he lost that election. Even small differences in policy and competence can have huge real world consequences when your talking about control of the Congress and the White House.
GWB's tactics are a new breed. You can't compare him to Clinton, LBJ or FDR. Yes, you can probably find a couple examples but GWB takes it to a level never before seen. GWB preys on the lazyness by our media to not report, but rather regergitate. If the media actually "reports" something, then they are accused of being liberal. Since thinking for yourself is apparently an exclusive liberal trait. And that's GWB other strategy. Prey on the public's general lack of interest of thinking for themselves. Due to too little time and/or education (which is everybody), people just go with sound bites. Therefore, a compaign of misinformation is enough to cloud the water and American's are trained to "presume innocent unless proven guilty." Since it is nearly impossible to prove W of outright guilt, many people are too confused to sort through it all and fall for his likable demeanor. He's got good hair. It is clever. Frustrating but clever.
I suppose everyone likes pork. The bill probably includes several "investments" in blue districts/states. I suppose I'd vote for the guy who brought a bunch a jobs into my district too. Maybe our representative republic is a poor implementation of democracy. Maybe we need someone like Tony Montana in charge.
Why rich energy companies require federal subsidies to invest? I find it ironic that people who are opposed to social welfare would support corporate welfare.
Should be good for my wife's boss since he's an oil man. (which means more bonuses for her) Should also be good for my father in law...he's a farmer and grows corn. Yes. Boo ya.
Oh don't get me wrong. I think this is bad. I'm just admitting that I'm a hypocrite. If the pork $$ was going to go to my neighborhood, it would be hard for me to be against it because my personal interests may trump my social conscience. I would also whole-heartedly support a bill that gave me millions of taxpayer $$.
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)." "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." -- http://www.corporations.org/welfare/
I always figured that the Dems were against corporate tax-cuts, but for corporate subsidies and the Repubs were vice-versa. Maybe they met in a room once and agreed to a deal so they can both pay lip service.
What's the difference between corporate tax cuts and corporate subsidies? IMO, they are both coporate welfare.
Well I remember Republicans being frustrated with Clinton's perceived friendly treatment by the media and he was even termed the "Teflon President" as such. IMO, the media are simply whores who latch on to whoever has the power/dough/influence at a given point in time. Clinton never got scolded for Rwanda or Srbrenica for instance. We never heard anything about the war crimes committed in Kosovo under his boy Wesley Clark. He didn't get flak for the equities bubble that was no doubt aided by the several credit loosenings under his administration. Education deteriorated under his watch. It took him 6 years in office to finally get a global warming draft on the table and then it wasn't even brought before congress for review. And sure he raised top bracket taxes to 39.6%, but under his Democrat predecessor Carter it had been in the 60's. Not to mention, corporate tax rates actually fell under his watch. Drug cartels only got bigger and the prevelance of drug abuse only increased. To me, as long as the avg guy out there has money in his pocket, he's happy and content. They can go nuke the Grenadines tomorrow for missing an IMF payment or announce that Tom DeLay has just made Most Valuable Politician worthy of a $25 Billion bonus - and as long as Joe Middlebury sitting in Lawrence, Kansas still has his trusty Friday paycheck coming in he still won't give a rat's ass.
I suppose it depends on the scope and nature of the cuts. For example, I wouldn't necessarily equate an income tax rate cut to social welfare. In that case, GW "gave" billions to the working poor (and everyone else) when he created that 10 percent bracket. I suppose it's all semantics and you may very well be right. Bottomline is that this energy bill, offhand, seems like pork barrel shenanigans. But I do not know the details.
They probably should outlaw a whole lot more than that. They should also outlaw contributions by public employee unions.
