Dems go after $122 billion in oil subsidies

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The super committee that's supposed to be killing the country's deficit asked the rest of Congress to submit ideas for places to cut. Thirty-five members of Congress submitted a motion that would do away with oil subsidies worth $122 billion.

This idea comes from Democrats (and Democrats that Think Progress describes as "progressive climate hawks") so there's not a huge chance that the committee chairs are going to adopt this particular proposal. But $122 billion! If Republicans are serious about getting rid of the budget deficit, oil subsidies would be a good place to start.

straight to the source

• 35 Congressmen Move to Kill $122 Billion in Subsidies to Big Oil, Treehugger
• Climate Hawks Tell Super Committee To Kill $122 Billion In Oil Subsidies, ThinkProgress

[Obama 2012 1,714]

They aren'y subsidies...... No matter how much you may want them to be.

[The_Dude 1,142]

They aren'y subsidies...... No matter how much you may want them to be.

Massive tax break unique to the Oil Industry. Happy? But even the Heritage Foundation calls them an oil subsidy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They aren'y subsidies...... No matter how much you may want them to be.

The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill

OIL & GAS SUBSIDIES

Section 1329

Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323

Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6

This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342

Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345

Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346

Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4

Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383

Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

The royalty-in-kind provisions in this section allow corporations drilling for oil on public land to forgo paying cash royalties to taxpayers. Instead, companies provide an amount of the oil as an in-kind contribution to the federal government. Since federal land supplies one-third of the oil and gas produced in the United States, expansion of this program could have a significant impact on the federal treasury.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/article_redirect.cfm?ID=13980

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There are over $1.2 trillion dollars in tax spending anually. We're going to worry about $12 billion? That's 1%. Is that the best we can do?

[mawilson 2,133]

There are over $1.2 trillion dollars in tax spending anually. We're going to worry about $12 billion? That's 1%. Is that the best we can do?

I thought it was $122 billion. That's no small change.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I thought it was $122 billion. That's no small change.

Over a decade, yes? That's $12 billion a year.

[mawilson 2,133]

Over a decade, yes? That's $12 billion a year.

Ah - ok. The usual "over a decade" BS to make things look more significant than they are.

Obama's "historic cuts" that amounted to nothing and all that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ah - ok. The usual "over a decade" BS to make things look more significant than they are.

Obama's "historic cuts" that amounted to nothing and all that.

You got it.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill

OIL & GAS SUBSIDIES

Section 1329

Allows "geological and geophysical" costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323

Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery's capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6

This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342

Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345

Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346

Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4

Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383

Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

The royalty-in-kind provisions in this section allow corporations drilling for oil on public land to forgo paying cash royalties to taxpayers. Instead, companies provide an amount of the oil as an in-kind contribution to the federal government. Since federal land supplies one-third of the oil and gas produced in the United States, expansion of this program could have a significant impact on the federal treasury.

http://www.citizen.o...ct.cfm?ID=13980

Not subsidies. When you find real subsidies then get back to us. All businesses get these. Just come out and say it. You and all Socialists hate businesses and want the Feds to take over the economy and have a centralized command and planning. Cradle to grave Federal overseers.

Look no communist countries that tried this stuff made it work. I understand that you and your ilk think that since this is the U.S. that we can make it work but the odds are slim to none of that. To keep trying is to destroy this country and for what?

What is this the third time you have posted this false #######?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are over $1.2 trillion dollars in tax spending anually. We're going to worry about $12 billion? That's 1%. Is that the best we can do?

Democrats are trying to piecemeal the jobs plan. 12 billion annually would provide a significant boost in jobs. It's not an austerity measure.

Not subsidies.

You're being obtuse. Read it again. Wait. Nevermind. You RWN's can't grasp logic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Democrats are trying to piecemeal the jobs plan. 12 billion annually would provide a significant boost in jobs. It's not an austerity measure.

I get that. The problem with the Democrats is that they're trying to actually fund their initiatives. They should be more like the GOP and just spend like drunken sailors not worrying about where the money will come from.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Democrats are trying to piecemeal the jobs plan. 12 billion annually would provide a significant boost in jobs. It's not an austerity measure.

You want to take more money away from the one industry that is probably hiring more than anyone right now and will be doing so for the near future and maybe longer. Your idea of a boost in jobs is to take away business allowances that ALL business receive. You want to concentrate on the one business that maybe does more to finance this country than any other. If you take away a common business allowance then take it away from them all. It is more than wrong to take it away from one and only one. The Feds trying to pull this douche move will only be doing harm and not helping. It is this asinine stuff that is hurting the economy now.

What needs to be done is to stop spending so much. The Feds spending so much is harming not just the economy but causing inflation that hurts us all. They are bringing all the world down. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO STOP SPENDING WAY MORE THAN WE BRING IN. People have to be a frigging moron to not understand this or either someone that is evil and is trying to destroy this country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I get that. The problem with the Democrats is that they're trying to actually fund their initiatives. They should be more like the GOP and just spend like drunken sailors not worrying about where the money will come from.