Democrats Prep Bill That Would Recover Billions From Oil Cos
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
it is about time we do SOMETHING to reclaim all of the oil company subsidies. unfortunately the oil lobby is way too powerful and this will most likely not pass, but at least somebody is trying to do something..
Reclaiming Oil Subsidies: Senate Democrats Prepping Bill That Would Recover Billions From Big Firms
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 55193.html
Seizing the moment, Senate Democrats are working on legislation that would reclaim billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and redirect the money toward developing cleaner and cheaper fuel sources instead.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced on Thursday that his committee is crafting a measure that would repeal major tax breaks for the five largest oil and gas companies, which reported huge spikes in first-quarter profits this week due to skyrocketing oil prices.
"Now is not the time to stand idly by while large oil and gas companies get billions of dollars in tax breaks -- now is the time to take concrete steps toward cleaner, more affordable, domestically-produced energy," Baucus said in a statement. "Reducing dependence on foreign oil isn't easy, but this plan puts us on a path toward a clean, affordable energy future that works for our planet -- and our pocketbooks."
The bill could be ready as soon as next week.
Democrats seem to have found their own source of renewable energy in some poorly-chosen words by House Speaker John Boehner, who in an interview with ABC News on Monday seemingly abandoned longstanding Republican dogma by conceding that oil companies "ought to be paying their fair share" and that the subsidies are "certainly something we should be looking at."
Boehner's staff and colleagues quickly corrected the speaker. But empowered Democrats were already in motion.
Capitalizing on Boehner's comments -- and anger about high gas prices, and first-quarter profit reports -- President Barack Obama and his press secretary called for immediate action Tuesday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) followed suit by pledging their support. "I'm going to try to get it done as soon as I can do it procedurally in the Senate here," Reid told reporters on Wednesday.
Democratic and environmental groups revved up their email lists. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even popped up a new website Thursday morning, dubbing the GOP's relationship with the petroleum industry the "R-Oil Wedding."
Meanwhile, the liberal thinkprogress.org website distributed a video in which House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) told a town hall audience that he favored ending oil subsidies. "[W]e propose to repeal all that," Ryan said of corporate welfare generally. Asked specifically about ending oil subsidies, he said "I agree."
But Ryan's office told Politico that the congressman made his comments in the context of overall corporate tax reform.
The American Petroleum Institute and the rest of the oil and gas lobby have historically had more than enough clout on Capitol Hill to fend off attacks.
In fact, many considered Obama's proposal to repeal the subsidies in his State of the Union speech in January to be dead on arrival. Congress had rejected similar requests in two previous budget proposals, even with Democratic majorities in both houses.
But the API seems to be getting increasingly testy as of late.
The group on Thursday called Baucus' plan "a proposal borne of desperation that would do nothing to reduce gasoline prices." API chief economist John Felmy said in a statement, "If Senator Baucus were serious about gasoline prices, he would focus on further development of our vast resources here at home which would create much needed American jobs, increase revenue to the government, and strengthen our energy security."
Baucus' office said his plan would bar the biggest companies from receiving a credit intended for domestic manufacturers, reduce their foreign tax credits for royalty payments to foreign governments and impose an excise tax on certain Gulf leases.
The billions of dollars recouped through those means would be used to promote demand for clean and domestic fuel, incentivize fuel efficient vehicles and build a clean energy infrastructure.
House Democrats have already introduced a bill that would eliminate $40 billion in tax breaks for big oil and gas companies over five years.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Exxon is kinda sorry it made $11B this quarter
PR offensive seemingly meant to head off public outrage over high gas prices
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42807557/ns ... ing_green/
NEW YORK — Exxon made almost $11 billion and practically apologized for it.
Sensing public outrage over gasoline prices that have topped $4 in some states, the company struck a defensive posture Thursday after posting some of its best quarterly financial results ever.
Exxon said it had no control over high oil prices. It said it's one of the biggest taxpayers in the United States. It cast federal subsidies as "legitimate tax provisions" that keep jobs at home, and cast itself as a victim of Washington scapegoating.
"They feel they have to demonize our industry," said Ken Cohen, Exxon's vice president for public affairs.
What's more, the company argued, it doesn't even make that much money selling gasoline.
Exxon's profit of $10.65 billion for the first quarter was its highest since it made $14.83 billion in the third quarter of 2008, a record for a publicly traded company. That was also a time of $4-plus gas.
The first-quarter results were also the best among the big oil companies, which have reported improved results this week.
As oil company profits approach levels of three years ago, when gas prices last spiked in the United States, the industry is fighting a renewed push from President Barack Obama and Democrats to end its $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies.
This week, the industry's lobbying group touted the 9.2 million jobs that depend on Big Oil and rolled out a study showing that oil and gas stocks are excellent investments for public pension plans.
Before it even came out with the quarterly results, Exxon pleaded its case on a company blog, saying it was not to blame for high gas prices.
Then Cohen took an unusual step and spoke to reporters after Exxon reported the big profits. He said Exxon pays more taxes than any other company in the Standard & Poor's 500 index — $59 billion in the United States over the past five years.
After taxes, the company earned $41 billion from U.S. operations during that period.
Drivers and politicians may still need some convincing. Gas costs more than $4 a gallon in eight states and the District of Columbia. The national average is $3.89 and has risen for 37 straight days.
At a time when most people aren't getting raises, gas has risen 81 cents a gallon this year. High gas prices ate into the nation's overall economic growth in the first three months of this year. The economy grew at a 1.8 percent annual rate, slower than the 3.1 percent at the end of last year.
Cohen has a point that Exxon doesn't control the price of oil or gasoline. Oil is traded around the world on public exchanges, and experts point out that the world is consuming more oil now than it did before the recession, raising demand. When oil prices go up at the exchange, Exxon sells oil for more money to refiners and other buyers.
Gasoline is made from oil. So while gas prices can rise and fall based on other factors, like refining problems or natural disasters, they generally go up as oil prices rise on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Exxon noted that only 6 percent of its profit came from refining and selling gas in the United States. Other parts of its business, like selling oil and natural gas overseas, accounted for much more.
Argus Research analyst Phil Weiss finds that argument reasonable. But oil companies will struggle to win over people as long as they're making billions of dollars every quarter, he said.
"They get these high profits and people get upset. That's what politicians respond to," Weiss said.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called for a vote on ending taxpayer subsidies to oil companies next week. "There is no reason American taxpayers should subsidize Big Oil's profits," Pelosi said.
The tax provisions at issue include some rules put in place as long ago as 1913 and more recent ones designed to encourage companies to invest in the United States.
For instance, a 2004 rule that gives oil and other companies a special deduction for their U.S. operations could save the oil industry $18.2 billion over 10 years. A rule that allows faster depreciation of the value of oil and gas wells could save independent companies — those that only explore and produce oil but don't refine it — about $11 billon over a decade.
Exxon officials said it would be unfair for Obama to end oil subsidies while keeping similar incentives for renewable energy. The Obama administration and clean energy advocates argue that profitable companies do not need special tax treatment while newer industries deserve breaks until they can establish themselves.
It's not likely, though, that Exxon would give up its subsidies if the government also removed them for solar, wind and other renewables.
"Getting into trade-offs is not really helpful," Exxon Vice President Bill Colton said.
Environmental groups say the industry needs no taxpayer help.
"Why does an industry that makes this much money need $4 billion in tax subsidies?" asked Bob Keefe, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Why can't we use that tax money to improve and expand other alternatives, increase vehicle efficiency, better public transportation that would reduce our dependence on oil?"
Exxon counters that the government shouldn't decide which energy companies succeed and which fail. Whichever fuel source "produces the biggest bang for the buck for the consumer" will be the one the market settles on, Cohen said.
The main reason the industry is doing well is that oil prices were up 20 percent from the same period last year. Exxon's profit was 69 percent higher than the $6.3 billion it earned a year earlier. Revenue increased 26 percent, to $114 billion.
The rise in oil prices allowed Exxon to make more money despite producing 3 percent less oil overseas, about 2 million barrels per day, partly because of storms in the Middle East. Exxon sold crude in international markets for about $101 a barrel, up 36 percent from a year ago. In the U.S., Exxon sold oil for about $93 per barrel, up 27 percent from a year ago.
Exxon's per-share earnings of $2.14 beat Wall Street estimates by 10 cents, but oil industry stocks fell anyway because investors fear that demand for gas, which has fallen over the past month compared with last year, will keep dropping in the United States.
The company has increasingly focused on producing natural gas, which it expects to replace coal as the second most important fuel source after petroleum within the next decade. Last year it acquired XTO Energy to become the largest U.S. natural gas producer.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Exxon noted that only 6 percent of its profit came from refining and selling gas in the United States. Other parts of its business, like selling oil and natural gas overseas, accounted for much more.
Exxon pays more taxes than any other company in the Standard & Poor's 500 index — $59 billion in the United States over the past five years.
Cohen has a point that Exxon doesn't control the price of oil or gasoline. Oil is traded around the world on public exchanges, and experts point out that the world is consuming more oil now than it did before the recession, raising demand. When oil prices go up at the exchange, Exxon sells oil for more money to refiners and other buyers.
also, if the price of gas is higher, less people are driving in the united states because they can't afford it. how can the world is consuming more oil now in a recession if less people are driving and buying gas?
i still do not think we should be giving them tax breaks if they are going to make such obscene profits.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I understand everyone "feels" that oil is a necessity, while Apple is not...GE's necessity is a little more apparent, but why crucify a company for staying profitable? Are YOU going to go into the ground and get out the oil you need? Cut those profits, and there is no oil, because there is nobody at the top that is being paid to run a company to go into the ground and get it out, expand that capability, etc. To say it is raping us with its excess "profits" is simply untrue, and a pretty ridiculous claim that I have never understood from you people. Sure, they make a large amount of money, but when you cut it down to a percentage, those "obscene profits" simply aren't anywhere near your claims.
If only you used your same ridiculous math with the rich and taxes...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I find that to be very funny. What a waste. I'm sure if the bill passed none of the above would ever happen.
now as far as oil companies profits...why is it their fault that speculators and investors are hedging their money against a poor dollar? They don't set the price and their profits shouldn't be looked at any differently than any other industry.
But I agree end the subsidies.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Plus, what is the government going to do with all of this additional money? It should be given back to consumers as tax breaks, but it won't be. Our wicked, corrupt government will just use it for its own end.
These are the questions that we should be asking, yet all we get are people wanting to punish the oil companies for high gas prices and profits. That is just childish and short-sighted.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and we are subsidsing them with billions of our tax dollars a year while they make windfall profits. it is absolute bullshit.
they can let us keep our 4 billion in subsidies and take from their profits to do the things they were doing with our money. just add it to their overhead costs...it is not that hard to do...they can afford it..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Remember, it is not just as simple as - how many more people do they employ in the US b/c we give them these breaks than if we didn't. It's also the dry cleaners, delis, public transportation, etc. that all that employment supports (plus all the taxes those entities pay).
So, while it is easy to quote numbers and say how disgusting! It's much more informative to dig deeper and determine if the financial support we provide is provided right back and then some.
I agree, maybe the best place to start is having an environmental record that is up to code to qualify for the subsidies...keep in mind that ending them raises the price of gasoline almost immediately, which is funny because it would only lead to higher profits for the oil companies...But always remember the oil companies do not set the price, just have access to commodity that benefits from weak dollar policies like quantitative easing...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
good stuff. problem is, we are in a vacuum here knows as a moving train. it's nice to see some reason rear it's pretty head. thanks.
think it through for a change
woot!
got any facts to back up your theory...?
you present as if you "dug deeper" but only seem be sharing the "don't tax the rich because they create jobs"...
edit:
I would also like the Republicans to prep bills to cut spending too (like they "pledged" last fall :( )
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is not theory. It is fact. I know what the truth is. I don't need to get it from newspaper articles. Do a little researsh yourself and challenge the simpleton ideas of the liberals. Just like Odumba not realizing there are reasons certain things are kept a secret (where's the transparency?!), or to keep Guantanomo open and try terrorists there instead of civil trials, etc. It all looks good from the surface. But, when you actually educate yourself, you'll learn a lot more.
Think of the rent on the buildings they lease or the money spent on buildings they own. So, on and so forth. It's really not that hard to think of things where they actually HELP the economy by providing a little incentive (little being an EXTREMELY relative term).
No it is not. It is cutting INCOME. Regardless of how you want to classify it, cutting an entitlement program, saves 100% on the dollar. Cutting subsidies to entities that provide jobs and money into the economy does not.
We would still want tax subsidies even if we cut expenses to $0 in order to make sure companies still want to do business here (whether it's State or Federal) to provide the kind of employment and ancillary income (including tax dollars) that feeds teh overall economy. I know Mom & Pop Grocery enjoys the money that comes from the folks that shop there that are employed by the local Exxon refinery.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
why are people against farm subsidies but for oil company subsidies? is makes no sense at all..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not to mention, Big Oil is bigger than Washington. Like Hell will they ever be regulated, downsized, or replaced or forced to change.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
THEY DONT SET THE PRICE!!!! you cannot just steal a companies profits on a commodity that is traded on the open market.
you can certainly stop giving them subsidies but that is different. going back and trying to tax them and take back money that was already given would be bull shit.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And then they would move all unnecessary jobs out of the US and minimize the taxes they do pay. They are a muli national company that doesn't need the US. And, you're right. Still make oodles of money. Good job, David Dinkins!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I asked for something to back up your "facts" and I get this...I have to admit, I'm having a hard time following your gibberish...
I will go slowly for you. We don't just "give" tax subisidies. We trade them in exchange for promises from the company that gets them. Giuliani "Disneyfied" Times Square this way, and it is now a clean, family friendly place instead of what came before it. AND a very good tax stream for NYC (even with the subsidies).
Now, as I said from the start, I don't know all the details of the Exxon deal, but I have to imagine employment was part of it. As in, we give you this, you maintain at least X number jobs in the US (with obviously far greater detail than that).
Now, Ms. A has a job in Arkansas with Exxon because of that. She pays taxes on her income (or maybe not if she's not making enough, but at least she's not on welfare SPENDING your tax dollars). Most days, she needs to eat lunch. So, she occassionally frequents the deli next door. She buys her sandwich and the deli owner thanks her very much.
The deli owner is thrilled because without that Exxon office next door, he'd be out of business. So, he can keep his deli open. Unfortunately, he has to pay taxes on his income. So, that sandwich Ms. A bought not only has sales tax that goes to the State, it is also income that gets taxed by the Feds.
So, now we have 2 buildings occupied either as a purchase or rent. Exxon may get another tax rebate on that in order to get that location. But, their build, rent or purchase $'s go to someone who then keeps a business that is taxed that would not have the building filled if not for Exxon. And, of course, the deli owner keeps his building occupied.
Now, if you want to do the research and argue that all that doesn't add up to the $4 billion in tax relief - then fine. That's a legitemate argument and we should be vigilant that we are "getting our monies worth." But, be assured, that tax subsidy is buying something and that value should not be ignored just because a company makes a profit.