Obama calls for rolling back oil 'tax breaks'

Source: Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says it's time to roll back "billions of dollars in tax breaks" for oil companies and use the money for clean energy research and development.

Obama made the comments Wednesday in prepared remarks for a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

He said the catastrophic Gulf oil spill shows the country must move toward clean energy by embracing energy efficiency, tapping natural gas and nuclear power and eliminating tax breaks for big oil.

Obama said that the Gulf spill "may prove to be a result of human error - or corporations taking dangerous shortcuts that compromised safety" - but that deepwater drilling is inherently risky and America cannot rely solely on fossil fuels.




Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060202350.html

Yes, I'm talking to you DU.

Just because he brought it up in a speech doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Obama never just talks, you should probably know that by now.

Not much done.

And, since so much corporate money is stashed off-shore by means of entities to juggle funds to tax havens, it's probably lot of rhetoric without much likely windfall for the Treasury.

And is currently being implemented nationally. It is already helping seniors save money. Sorry havocmom, but that's a really bad example.

Fact is, if Obama was a corporatist (as much of DU still claims) he would have NEVER even considered saying this, let alone mean it.

He is the opposite of a corporatist and it blows my mind that people here still reject this fact even with the benefit of knowing his record.

Snap the hell out of it.

I can call my dog a WWI Fighter Ace. Doesn't make him one.

These guys who are now singing obamas praises really need to look at the truth.
It took the worst ecological disaster in american history to get this guy to do the slightest democratic thing like simply make the oil company's pay their fair share. And if it weren't for this oil spill, there is no way in hell he would be TALKING about doing this.Sorry if I don't bust into tears of joy for this super-progressive obama. lol.
And I cannot believe that someone actually brought up healthcare reform as an acheivement. There was no reform. Only tax-payer subsidys for clunker for profit insurance being FORCED on all americans. And if you dare have a good insurance plan, then you get a caddilac tax.
reform by bunghole! We will never have real reform until peoples health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations.
I voted for obama, and have went to town defending him. But i just don't know how any more. I cannot support conservatives, even if they are labeled as democrats. And so far, obama is far more right than left in my opinion.

Absolutely spot-on. :thumbsup:

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

BO - meeting with heads of big pharma and promising them that drug costs would not be targeted
BO - taking signle payer off the table
BO - keeping in huge tax breaks for millionaires
BO - not supporting tough Wall St. rules
BO - ending federal moratorium on coastal drilling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BO - stating deep water drilling necessary

If he walks like a corporatist, sounds like a corporatist and supports corporatists actions, what do you suppose he is?

Why a no-chicken?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCluyRJnldo&NR=1 (about 3:30 in) Classic Brothers.

And no, Obama doesn't support Bush's tax cuts for the rich and will let them expire as he has stated many times.

I really don't think you understand what a corporatist is (which is odd, since we just had one for 8 years).

Obama is NOT anti-business, which is a good thing.

Are you claiming Obama isn't letting Bush's tax cuts expire?

second, strawmen are for the birds...

Third, by definition any corporatist is also "not anti-business." So that does not tell us much, does it?

In fact if we are to be anal about grammar funny things happens with disingenuous perversion of terms (ala the whole "pro-life" crowd), since you used a double negative... which in English leads to an affirmative. Thus converting Obama not anti-business stance in a pro-business stance, which ironically is the very definition of a corporatist.

And yeah, that last sentence was a joke. But I am just illustrating the runaway doublethink (aka. wanting to have it both ways) some of you display.

Cheers.

At least not the political definition of the word.

Main Entry: cor·po·rat·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1890
: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
— cor·po·rat·ist \-p(ə-)rə-tist\ adjective

That defines BushCo, not the Obama administration. Not even close.

LOL

He deals with corporate entities.
His health care reforms did not re-structure health care delivery and access in any sense of the word.
They were designed for the corporate entities that existed already.
The structure of the health care industry was corrupt, and is corrupt now. Nothing has really changed.

His bank reforms do nothing to re-structure the financial services industry at all.
He has proposed no institutional reform at all.
To say that he and the people who support him serve the people in any direct sense of the word is wrong.
What is indicated is this:
he believes that to serve corporate entities, profit or non-profit, is to serve the people.
That is why nothing of an inventive or revolutionary nature can come from this Third Way president.

Obama is the president of the United States, which means he is a corporatist.

That is the #1 job requirement.

To become the president you need money from corporations and most become beholden to them if you want to get re-elected. All presidents want to get re-elected.

Until the SCOTUS stops screwing us, I can't see anyway around it.

If I am wrong here plz let me know.

same with any other stand he's taken.

did he give to corporations during his campaign?

that the whole thing is a joke. Sorry, but it's an awesome example.

...not to mention a shiny new $6k yearly deductible. Now we cant afford to see a doctor....and we have insurance....and this is AFTER the so called 'HCR' was passed. What is wrong with this picture? The HCR does nothing at all to stop insurance companies from gouging.

But it DOES contain 'all the republican ideas.'

HCR does nothing and it is a joke.

I agree with everything you said!

Here is an article on just that fact:

REPORT: Insurance company rate hikes driven by greed, NOT underlying medical costs
By: Jason Rosenbaum
Tuesday March 2, 2010 11:00 am

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/32767

The insurance companies have been taking an incredible amount of heat lately for their stunning rate increases. Anthem kicked things off with their 39% increases in California, but these were not isolated hikes. WellPoint, Anthem’s parent company, is increasing rates by double digits in at least 11 states. And other big insurance companies are hiking rates in at least half a dozen more states.

Insurance company CEOs have been called to testify before Congress, with more hearings to come. This has put the industry on the defensive and they’ve taken to the media to deflect criticism and explain their rate hikes. Their spin centers on one talking point, elucidated by Angela Braly, CEO of WellPoint, in today’s Wall Street Journal:

WellPoint Inc. Chief Executive Angela Braly is facing her biggest test yet as the nation’s largest health insurer comes under fire for its plans to raise rates as much as 39% in California.

So far, Ms. Braly has chosen to fight back. Instead of issuing a Toyota-style apology, she is turning her critics’ argument around, citing rising health-care costs driven by doctors and hospitals, which she says aren’t addressed by current health-overhaul bills.

The strategy, on display last week during a contentious House hearing focused on the rate increase, could get another airing Wednesday, when Ms. Braly and other top health-insurance executives are expected to appear before the Obama administration’s top health official to discuss health-care premiums.

(more at link)

...............

Makes one wonder where these top health officials are and why we haven't heard anything out of these hearings!

Reform -- NOT.
HealthCARE -- NOT.
Turning the IRS into a collection agency for corporations -- YES.

Republicans got EVERY ONE of their 'ideas' in HCR. We got a couple token crumbs. Do the math.

Obama IS a corporatist all the way! It was not health CARE reform, it was health INSURANCE reform.

I have no health care, no insurance, was hoping for SOMETHING. No dice.

This should not be on this thread tho. We should start a new one on HRC, or Obama as a "bought out" president, whatever.

Obama is not in anyway the OPPOSITE of a corporatist. Just look at the donations he received for his campaign.
A whole lot of money came from corporations, yes you probably felt good donating to him as an individual, but thecorporations have him in their deep pockets.

Do your research. Google is a tool to be used.

Then apologize to havocmom.

Do you have some kind of proof of this.

Our tax dollars will be subsidizing BP to around a trillion a decade.

"You don't have to give up your current oil addiction if you like it. But everyman woman and child in this country will be mandated to purchase gasoline. if you can't afford it, the government will subsidies you so you can buy it."

Is that the plan?


What about Obama health care plan wasn't corporatist?


The insurance industry liked it, big pharma liked it, and so did the AMA. Wake up! "It's a cookbook!"

(OK, my last sentence is for comic relief.)

But the fact is the corporations love themselves some Obama.

I by no means hate everything that he's done, I'm just getting exhausted trying to pull him over to the left a little bit.


Or do you think the teabaggers are correct when they paint him as a lefty? I think the teabaggers are wrong. what do you think?

bargaining chip stinks.

folks here would still hate Obama for something...Take what you can get bc the GOP will be back in control of this country thanks to a combination of a high % ignorant Americans who vote against their economic well being because talk radio says to, folks that believe in Bronze Age Myths and my fellow Liberals who think they know much better than Obama how to handle our current political climate despite his enormous accomplishments in just one year.

We all have opinions and that is mine!

... however, the whole contortionist approach by some of you who think Obama is impossible of doing anything wrong is getting reaaaaaally hard to follow.

Obama can not be criticized because not enough time has passed to fully comprehend the genius of his policies, except when he has done plenty of great things which are self evident and thus no "waiting" time is necessary for the proper "comprehension" of the greatness of this administration's policies in that case. Is that the gist of it?

He is a human, and as such... he is capable of making plenty of mistakes. And a lot of this administration's policies come from a center-right frame, thus they may not be all that agreeable to some of us lefties. Not a hard concept to grasp, really.

So let's stop pretending that Mr. Obama can have it both ways: we can't pretend he is an FDR populist with the teflon coatof Reagan's policies. That is waaaaay too out there in the doublethink field for even Mr. Orwell himself.

Re: Obama can not be criticized because not enough time has passed to fully comprehend the genius of his policies, except when he has done plenty of great things which are self evident and thus no "waiting" time is necessary for the proper "comprehension" of the greatness of this administration's policies in that case. Is that the gist of it?

Duh, you sure got that one right! Loving it. And I do enjoy reading what everyone here has to say.

And I'm sure that could be just the start of the *speechify and then toss* actions that have happened.

you know exactly what the poster means, stop playing see no evil hear no evil, speak no evil.

I'm all for this, I think we should stop socializing the cost of oil.

"The first thing I'll do when I get into office is get us out of Afghanistan." --???

By making that statement, he scored big points. If Congress doesn't support it, he can say he was outnumbered by Congress. I don't mean to be cynical, but talk is cheap.

"calls for" a lot of things. I've come to regard his calling for something as pretty much a surefire guarantee that it'll never happen.

Examples of things he "called for" and hasn't at least tried to impliment in the context of Congress.

Go.

But, like the birthers, no amount of evidence will be believed by those who refuse to see it.

THAT IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE

but some people lack the courage to face reality

It's really sad that you have to ask this.

Freddie and Fannie ahead of us --

Hedge funds and Derivatives --

$1 TRILLION a year in simply interest on the debt -- while we're told we can afford

two Treasury bankrupting wars but not MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!

Appointees are all corporatist -- Rahm Emmanuel/DLC corporate wing --

Some of which happened before Obama took office. I see you blamed Obama for Bush's debt too. Awesome.

None of these things are specifically "corporatist" (like giving 100% tax breaks to billion dollar corporations), they're part of the ongoing recovery after BushCo fucked up EVERYTHING.

Capitalism is the general term for all of the economic corruption and crime

we are suffering -- not a "mishmash" at all.

Even regulated capitalism is still exploitation of nature and humans.

Unregulated capitalism is organized crime.

You're also continuing to ignore Obama's embrace of corporate leadership in his

cabinet -- the very people who created the economic timebomb.

Least of all Rahm Emmanuel of the DLC corporatist wing.

Bush did F-up everything -- with a lot of help, unfortunately, from Democrats who

went along with his wars, etal.

But, after '06 -- and Pelosi telling us that "Dems were elected to end the war" --

Dems continued to refinance them and NOT end them.

There's video on that one . . . btw.

That kind of dilutes the point, don't you think?

I guess only Obama can do actual anti-corporist things and be accused of being a corporatist. Thanks MSM.

It was anti-corporate action -- but it saved the system of corporate economics = capitalism.

And those capitalists used their wealth to gain increasing control over our people's

government by pre-bribing and pre-owning candidates and elected officials.

So -- yes -- increasingly, presidents have been more corporate.

While Ike advised us of the dangers of the MIC, it was at the end of his service --

and it was merely a warning, without recommendation about what could or should be done.

Ike had been betrayed often by the MIC/intelligence. In fact, he included "intelligence"

in his MIC comments, but that was removed twice.

JFK was reversing this control over government -- however. And he was assassinated.

LBJ gave them their war -- helped prevent the nationalizing of oil -- protected the MIC.

Nixon began a right wing reversal of New Deal regulations/laws -- the first attacks on

The Fairness Doctrine began with Nixon. Overturning Brettonwoods Accords, for another.

And, Nixon's general prevalent corruption of government, naturally, increasingly attacked

a people's government, undermining it in many ways.

Ford was certainly there for sinister reasons -- serving the establishment -- after helping

to keep the cover up going re the coup on JFK. Ford had long been financed by the CIA

which raised right wing money from any source possible. Some of that info began to come

out after Bill Buckley's death.

Carter -- was trying to reverse some of the damage, however, some very damaging things re

war/corportions happened during his term -- See: Brezezinski re creating Taliban/Al Qaeda

and "baiting the Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type

experience." Carter was helpful re trying to subdue control of government by oil industry,

Carter succeeded in assessing a "Windfalls Profit Tax" on industry after the "shortages" --

but I'd suggest they finally won the overall war with Carter.

Reagan and Poppy Bush . . . on and on . . .

As we often say, the leaders we are given are given to us by the establishment - TPB.

That is certainly true of Obama.

or changed or really addressed any of BushCo's ideas either.

Maybe talked, maybe mentioned, lip service!!

One trillion spent in Afghanistan, not all on his watch, undoubtedly, but that pays for single payer HC.

Not for the people, but for corporations.

You have been given enough proof, now its your turn, prove us wrong!

Give us examples. Forget taxes or tax cuts, Repubs do that, give us good concrete examples that support your thoughts.

take off the blinders.

.....because he is taking some heat on the oil spill. However......better late than never.

He said the catastrophic Gulf oil spill shows the country must move toward clean energy by embracing energy efficiency, tapping natural gas and nuclear power and eliminating tax breaks for big oil.

If Obama were not a corporatist, he would be talking about solar and wind energy.

Solar energy is not as corporatist. I have a roof with southern exposure here in Los Angeles. If I could afford to put solar panels on my roof, I could probably produce a pretty hefty amount of electricity, enough for our small home and some to put back into the grid. I would love to do that, but I don't have the money. That's where the government could help out in a meaningful way.

If you think solar energy is unrealistic or too expensive, come out to the Mojave Desert, visit the Joshua Tree area for example, and see for yourself just how much solar energy could be harnessed there. It's so dry, so sunny, and nearly uninhabitable for humans. Solar energy is clean. If we did the research, we could find a way to produce it cheaply.

Believe those working on electric cars were also talking about solar-energized batteries soon.

corporations.

Same with those electric vehicles. Built by...corporations.

High efficiency electric batteries are being researched and produced by...you get the picture.

However, at least we'd have the advantage of no longer having the pollution from

burning fossil fuels.

They're headed towards owning "water" now . . . why not the sun -- !!!???

:)

It makes him pro business, and pro renewable energy.

What's wrong with that?

Seriously, do you really want a president who wants to halt all business in this country?

We need to move on to a more sane and humane system of economics --

you can't have democracy without economic democracy --

capitalism isn't it!

Capitalism isn't even about competition . . . it's about KILLING the competition --

i.e., monopolies.

"Bus-i-ness" is simply trade . . . has always been there -- sea shells replaced by dollar

bills. But the COSTS now of this "bus-i-ness" suggest that we would have been better off

without the industrial revolution which has created polllution of the planet, much of it

we cannot recover from. Capitalism has resulted in great loss of nature - - great loss

for the masses -- and profits for the few.

It has also brought with it aggression and violence vs labor/humanity.

The President doesn't want anyone exploited for profit, but Bush (the corporatist) did.

This concept really isn't difficult to understand.

I don't think you can actually speak for what Obama wants --

except we do have his words . . . which support gas and nuclear vs more natural,

renewalable means of energy.

Nor is there any commitment to alternative energy -- government subsidy for electric

cars or huge new investments in solar/wind.

But, if you don't want to be exploited -- if you don't want nature/planet exploited --

they you should see the need to move on from capitalism/corporatism.

I hope he follows through on this, though. We'll see.

energy to feed back into the grid. I would be perhaps somewhat, probably fully independent with regard to my electricity needs. That would be great.

Re If you think solar energy is unrealistic or too expensive, come out to the Mojave Desert, visit the Joshua Tree area for example, and see for yourself just how much solar energy could be harnessed there. It's so dry, so sunny, and nearly uninhabitable for humans. Solar energy is clean. If we did the research, we could find a way to produce it cheaply.

I lived there for a while as a child (Yucca Valley) and I was there again several times in the last few years because my former partner inherited a homestead there (Wonder Valley near Twenty-nine Palms). I used to go with him sometimes when he went there to work on the house.

There is a wind farm not far from the area already, and you're right that it would be an ideal location for solar farms. It's just barely inhabitable for humans, so there will never be any great population density. The Mojave Desert could generate a whole lot of non-polluting energy for a relatively small investment.

cannot see the truth. It's hard to admit we've been sold a bill of goods, easier to just deny, deny.

you guys lose this type of back and forth everytime. It doesn't work... you just allow repliers to outline what they already have numerous times regarding this charge that Obama is corporatist. And each time the charge becomes much more valid.

Everytime Obama gives a speech it's like it reboots people's heads. We all know he talks tough but action is what counts.

What happened to the public option?

We are going to stop giving you money back?


Really? Well hopefully our government will be doing more than that. Perhaps Obama should push Rahm to pull out the stops and slap up the blue dogs so that they will actually stop blocking legislation that removes the caps on maximum damages (75 million dollars per the Oil Production Act of 1990)

Blah blah blah. Seize their damned assets if necessary. Git-'er-done, dammit!

Only Saint Ralphie can save from this Corpocalypse!

:D

and Big Coal (even some so called liberal Dems). Obama has a huge fight on his hands and I wish him luck. He is going to need it.

Now everybody just go back to sleep and dream it's really gonna happen, 'cause that's the only way you'll see it take place... :shrug:

back then the "crisis" was an OPEC squeeze. The U.S. government told us the same things, except for eliminating tax breaks for big oil.

Where is the mention, never mind monetary support, for deployment of existing wind and solar technologies?

to learn to count. :rofl:

Only joking. :hi:

;-)

Imagine is instead of oil slicks drifting toward marsh lands, it was goodbye Philadelphia (Oyster Creek nuke plant), and radioactive debris clouds were headed toward New York and New England. And of course Exelon Corp would say the same kinds of things as BP: 'This is a drop in the atmosphere' 'This was not something we could have foreseen' 'The sick clean-up workers probably just have food poisoning'

Be bold Obama. Do the right thing. For all our futures!

We will be hearing more of this red meat talk to placate the liberal/progressive base, but count me in as skeptical as to if any of it will actually happen.

J

was bought long ago.

...a strong energy/climate bill.

Just called mine and will keep calling every week.

Well...DUH!

Sheesh, like this takes any thought?

And while you're at...why not take a look at the other multi-national f*cking corporations. All of those that paid no taxes or only a pittance.

huh? Could you do that do?

Tree-hugging, damn socialist!

I like it.

This is a good step forward. . .and better late than never!

No, I don't like everything O does but he's certainly learned his lesson about oil drilling and he will do a double take on nukes, is my prediction, after this disaster.

:woohoo:

permeate the Internal Revenue Code. They are an abomination to honest working Americans -- and they are sacrosanct.

K&R

Let's end the Bush tax cuts and corporate welfare of all sorts while we are at it.

...would be sending this thread to the mail at whitehouse.gov.

Little late Mr. President.

Do it. Forward steps. TRY. YES.

Everything is an uphill battle for Obama. He's settled for some things I didn't want him to settle for (hell, I settled for my ex-husband and was with him for two decades before I broke free!!!)...so there is always hope that things CAN change and in the long hard process, BE better.

I cannot imagine what having the alternative party in power would have done to us.
I cannot imagine what having the other party in power in the future would do to us.

I back Obama.

The Fourth-Quarter Player!!!

John Elway was one of the best, I lived in Denver at the time, it was nice to watch, I have been to many many games and saw those great comebacks!

I'm tired of listening to him talk. Do it and then crow about it, fercrissakes. I'll give you all the support in the world. I'm just sick and tired of his talking. I can predict sunny skies and rainbows, too, but it doesn't mean squat. People are tired of promises. Just go out and get the job done. That is all. Cheers.

Yeah,well he's saying a lot of things but where's the action ? Talk is cheap and so on...

The absolute craven stupidity of this Administration is collosal.

There is a county called Germany that has bought every single Solar Cell from Nanosolar for the past 4 years. Yes, this company can produce gigawatts worth of high efficiency solar cells on a printing press in one production run.

This company has received funding from the U.S. Government too.

You want to buy one of these super inexpensive panels? Forget it, their entire stock is shipped overseas to be assembled into panels, because aparrently they have more efficient robots in Germany.

While Solar Energy is ignored, Obama beats his chest about Nuclear expansion while beating the war drum regarding Iran seeking to expands it's use of Nuclear energy to replace it's dwindling Oil reserves and crippling air pollution.

And Bio Diesel? Chu has been spounting of on "BioFuel Version 2.0" which requires untested GMO organisms from Monsanto and the heavily fellated Biotech Industry.

This administration is a total, unabashed disaster. Corporate America at it's most Blatant.

Obama seems to think another Chernobyl is now more acceptable than the current Gulf Disaster, or that Corporate shortcuts would never hinder the development of Nuclear Energy, or "Clean Coal"

Wake up people.. This version of Propagandists and leaders are missing the skill and finesse of all the other Propagandists that were able to get us to believe the BS they foisted upon us. This batch is so stupid it's painful, and they are going to befoul the Earth in the name of Corporate profit.

If Congress agrees to roll back the tax breaks to oil companies, What is to stop the oil companies from passing the costs back on to the consumers in the form of higher prices?

Subsidies help hide the actual cost of fossil fuels and causes people to make bad economic choices.

and I am a slave to gas because their is no alternative fuel for me to use to get to work your answer is to suck it up? So tell me what sacrifices do my family have to make for this that those rich ass people that pay the same amount for gas that I do won't have to make?

The real answer is that the Government should nationalize the oil industry and ration gas based on your income level. Oprah would be paying about 10k per gallon and I would pay about a dollar that would be fair and then Oprah would feel my pain and maybe we would all be able to agree that renewable energy is the answer.

and your "real answer" is just AN answer. and not a very good answer I think.

I don't believe you have a right to gasoline you can afford. Healthcare yes, food yes, housing yes but there are things that you will not be able to afford and that's not a violation of your rights.

And while you're at it Mr. Obama.. you might remember (consider).. that less that 2% of the MEGA LARGE GLUTINOUS CORPORATIONS pay any income tax AT ALL!

SO this November when you decide that "Grandma can eat Cat Food" and you decide to take away her Social Security and Medicare .. you might want to consider getting the bigs guys to fork over a few pennies from their TRILLIONS.... fer chris' sakes already.....

I am glad to hear it.

Obama has a thing for 'republican ideas'. They take the forefront over Democratic/progressive ideas. The HCR bill is a prime example. Obama bragged that 'all of the republican ideas' are included in HCR yet the Democrats who elected him got a couple token crumbs.

If you want to know what will happen, look at the 'republican ideas.'

HCR is toothless because it contains all of the 'republican ideas'.

A nuclear accident would be worse than the Gulf oil spill. Furthermore, longer time to get nuclear plants online mitigates against their being a solution to US energy demands. Furthermore, natural gas is not only limited but also in geographic areas that are unfriendly to the US - nations along the Caspian Sea.

Obama should be endorsing renewables like solar and wind power.

It must come from management compensation and shareholder dividends.

Obama’s Drill To Nowhere

"....Here’s why Obama’s political move to open up our coasts to more drilling is wrong.
1. Opening up offshore areas to drilling hurts efforts at a climate deal – not helps. On March 23, ten coastal state Senators wrote a letter to the ad hoc Senate climate crew of Kerry-Lieberman-Graham warning that they “cannot support legislation that will . . . put our coasts at greater peril”. They note the environmental concerns that offshore drilling presents, but also highlight the unfair proposal of allowing coastal states to keep a sizable portion of the royalties rather than share that revenue with all states and taxpayers. The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.), Robert Menendez (NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Barbara Mikulski (Md), Ben Cardin (Md), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Ted Kaufman (Del), Ron Wyden (Ore), Jeff Merkley (Ore) and Jack Reed (RI).

snip

......Opening up “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030“. The Energy Information Administration estimates that if the ban on drilling remains in place, that “the average U.S. price of motor gasoline price is 3 cents per gallon higher” than if we open these areas to drilling. That’s because the US isn’t Saudi Arabia: we sit on only 1.6% of the world’s oil reserves, while the Saudis have 20%. Dumping our little pond of oil into the giant sea of global reserves can’t make a significant dent on our imports or impact prices


......taxpayers on existing drilling leases is unfair. Now, we’ve written extensively about this over the years. Because of a bureaucratic oversight by the Department of Interior during the implementation of the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, oil companies that secured leases in 1998 and 1999 were exempted from royalties, regardless of the prevailing market price of oil. Recent lawsuits have exposed more leases going back to 1996 to this same loophole. This stands in stark contrast to other, similar leases, which require the payment of royalties if the price of oil exceeds a certain threshold. The day the bill was signed in November 1995, West Texas Intermediate oil was trading at $18.28/barrel. With oil now trading at roughly $80/barrel, these companies have been and will be extracting very valuable energy from public land without paying any royalties to American taxpayers. The GAO estimates the loss to the US Treasury of more than $50 billion over the life of these royalty-free leases – a huge subsidy for Big Oil. And investigations have found serious problems in the management of the entire royalty program.

As recently as August 25, 2009 - when President Obama submitted his Mid-Session Review budget to Congress – he recognized this fleecing of the taxpayer by Big Oil and proposed a “Levy tax on certain offshore oil and gas production” as a back-door way to capture some revenue from these no-royalty leases, raising $6 billion over a decade.........But in Obama’s budget submitted in February, the Administration has now dropped this offshore tax on Big Oil (you can see the itemization of repealed oil & gas tax breaks on page 30 of 88 at the above link, with the new levy tax now gone)......Obama puts a lot at risk with this offshore drilling plan and gets little reward. What a disappointment.

http://publiccitizenenergy.org/2010/04/01/obamas-drill-... /


*******************************************************************************************************************



BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, but U.S. Missed Chances to Act

snip

......The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP, which was leasing the drilling rig that exploded in flames on April 20 and sank two days later. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead.

The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was “a spill of national significance,” and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.

The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful.

By Friday afternoon, she said, the Defense Department had agreed to send two large military transport planes to spray chemicals that can disperse the oil while it is still in the Gulf.

Officials initially seemed to underestimate the threat of a leak, just as BP did last year when it told the government such an event was highly unlikely. Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry, the chief Coast Guard official in charge of the response, said on April 22, after the rig sank, that the oil that was on the surface appeared to be merely residual oil from the fire, though she said it was unclear what was going on underwater. The day after, officials said that it appeared the well’s blowout preventer had kicked in and that there did not seem to be any oil leaking from the well, though they cautioned it was not a guarantee.
BP officials, even after the oil leak was confirmed by using remote-controlled robots, expressed confidence that the leak was slow enough, and steps taken out in the Gulf of Mexico aggressive enough, that the oil would never reach the coast.
(The NOAA document on a potentially far larger leak, first obtained by The Press-Register in Mobile, Ala., was described by an agency spokesman as simply a possibility raised by a staff member, not an official prediction.)

Some oil industry critics questioned whether the federal government is too reliant on oil companies to manage the response to major spills, leaving the government unable to evaluate if the response is robust enough.

“Here you have the company that is responsible for the accident leading the response to the crisis,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “There is a problem here, and the consequence is clear.”

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/01gulf.html?ref=sc...

still wrong, President Obama.

compared to "clean coal", deep ocean oil, and the various and sundry sands.

do not make it "clean".

Nuclear is an awful solution and it is only a matter of time before we have a disaster there and have to wonder what we will have to pay to clean that mess up.

No, no, no!

"David Pimentel" argument -- or maybe even a "James Howard Kunstler" argument.

I am a Michael E. Klare reader -- and I think we will be involved in another resource war before we have even extricated ourselves from Afghanistan

cuz I'm stoopid. But if one thinks of the embodied energy that goes into places like that. We built a nukular power plant in my region in the '70s. My step dad was a pipe fitter there for years. Twenty years. It took TWENTY frickin' years to build that thing and was touted as saving everyone so much money on their energy bills once it was on-line. My mom still lives there and her energy bills are through the ceiling compared to ours a state north. Everyone there complains.

And ultimately, where do we take out the garbage?

whose water is being fouled by tritium.

at Bettis Atomic Power Lab; and Shippingport sits right at the end of Runway 28R at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) -- used to fly over it about twice a month for most of my working life.

We had much more trouble with heavy metals in the coal mine drainage befouling our Monongahela and Ohio Rivers

but --- in high school chem lab (in Pittsburgh PA where we had coal mine drainage in our Monongahela River drinking water) we used to do "micro analysis" of our drinking water.

• Definitely measurable boiling point elevation with pre-sputnik high school chem lab tools.
  
• Definitely measurable freezing point depression, again with pre-sputnik high school chem lab tools.
  
• Solids were recovered on high school chem quality filter paper.
  
• I lost three dogs to cancers (liver, kidney) during my school years.
  

The down stream coal mine drainage was not health for children or other living things,

Based on the above, I would conclude ....

compressed natural gas and biofuels.

I do have to commend the President for killing Yucca Mountain (Nevada resident, here). :)

He'll be remembered in the history books as the black Bill Clinton.

:woohoo: Is he finally learning? "Leave him; he'll learn." :evilgrin:

I've got "Defending Obama's Inexplicable Inaction Fatigue".

Who in the fuck is advising Obama? Cheney Sleeper Cells in the White House?

"We don't have enough Democrats to get it passed in the Senate."
You mean 59 isn't enough, well, try doing it with 57. Or 56. How about 55?

refunded to big oil in the form of subsidies, with a nod, wink and a handshake seen off camera.

That's one step closer than we were before.

then a corporationist in my opinion. I believe our country is still a democracy with 3 branches of government involved in law-making. In order for him to get anything through the legislative branch he has to give up a lot.
Would you be happier if Obama had an excellent healthcare bill that never became law?

You just don't get many chances like this to promote a progressive platform. As far as pragmatism goes, I think you start out high and then you will get more of what you want. The President has a lot of persuasive power and is like the leader of the Democratic party. I certainly don't blame everything on Obama. But we'll never know how the health care bill would have turned out if he insisted on the public option, an idea that does well in the polls. And while he had a lot on his plate (stimulus, health care, etc.) and oil rig safety could easily have fallen through the cracks, he didn't have to announce more offshore drilling when the regulations were so weak from Bush. The taking away of tax breaks is a good step; now put it into action.

He's been in office 1.5 years now... I know what to expect from him regarding a "progressive platform".

Nothing.

I think there have been disappointments for sure, but he has my support in tough times.

Seriously?

:)

Initially my feelings were the same as yours, but with the republicans sticking together,like super glue, and voting "no" on everything, he had no choice but to cave into conservative democrats and Lieberman.
In retrospect,I do think he made a mistake by not submitting his own proposal on health care. Though I understood his rationale...not wanting to make the same mistakes the Clintons made with their proposal...he just went overboard in the opposite extreme.

caved to the President. On big votes, you've got to get the party together. Thanks for seeing my point of view, though. :hi:

Whether you eventually agree or disagree with someone, you should start by trying to understand their point of view. Granted, if it is not reciprocal all bets are off. I believe you need to be open-minded entering any discussion, otherwise you are no better than the many whose minds are closed tighter than a vault....cough, cough, tea, cough, partiers.

Triangulation.

Because the self-interest of everyone profiting from oil is about to weigh in. And the MSM will cover everything it wants us to hear, like the well-oiled machine that it is.

All the answers are here. We just need to get the people who care more about their short-term self-interest out of the way.

Big Oil will claim that years of tax cuts are now inherent and non-negotiable in their budgets, and guess who will make up the difference in their profits?

Until someone - anyone, gets a major slap down by the government, these companies will simply find newer ways to screw us over (Credit Card Reform?)

Good move Mr. President!