Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Climate Hawks Tell Super Committee To Kill $122 Billion In Oil Subsidies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 10:59 AM
Original message
Climate Hawks Tell Super Committee To Kill $122 Billion In Oil Subsidies

Climate Hawks Tell Super Committee To Kill $122 Billion In Oil Subsidies

A group of 35 progressive climate hawks in the House of Representatives want the special deficit committee to end Big Oil subsidies worth $122 billion over the next 10 years. In a letter to committee chairs Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and 33 other House Democrats ask for the end of the subsidies because “the United States can no longer afford to give away billions of dollars every year to corporations earning billions of dollars in profits”:

In the current budgetary environment, the United States can no longer afford to give away billions of dollars every year to corporations earning billions of dollars in profits and costing American taxpayers twice: at the pump and through the tax code. We urge the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to consider eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels as an excellent source of deficit reducing savings. According to a coalition of organizations, eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuels industry could reduce our national debt by up to $122 billion over ten years.

Welch and Blumenauer are members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. Their letter adds their support to the request made by leaders of 52 national and state organizations on Oct. 5 to the super committee to end “government handouts to the oil, coal and gas industries.”

The list of subsidies includes:

    $43.5 billion in federal tax subsidies to oil and gas companies

    $2.5 billion in federal tax subsidies to coal companies

    $1.3 billion tax credit for refineries

    $9.5 billion in royalty-free oil and gas leases

    $52 billion in “last in, first out” accounting for inventories, a tax credit that disproportionately helps the oil and gas industry

    $10.5 billion dual capacity tax credit, which also largely benefits oil and gas companies
more


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Super Committee tells Climate Hawks:
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. And for good measure a resounding fu*k you and yours
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Eliminate ALL corporate subsidies
including Oil, Banks, Auto, Corn, Sugar, Pharma etc.
The only subsidies worth keeping are high level research activities, which can only be accomplished with government sponsorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Etc.
"Eliminate ALL corporate subsidies including Oil, Banks, Auto, Corn, Sugar, Pharma etc."

...includes airline.

Still, I find the eliminate all corporate subsidies response to ending subsidies for one of the most profitable and damaging industries to be specious.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Some of these subsidies should be more targeted. For instance
Auto should be targeted toward environmental autos only. This would encourage change. Government money should only be used to bring about a goal that works for the people not for the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. It is better to set environmental standards for all
Edited on Thu Oct-20-11 05:11 PM by golfguru
than hand out subsidies to select few. The best corporations will find a way to achieve them based on what people will buy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. This
Edited on Thu Oct-20-11 05:23 PM by ProSense
"It is better to set environmental standards for all than hand out subsidies to select few. The best corporations will find a way to achieve them based on what people will buy."

...is not really an argument. It's trying to make a point using vague statement without looking at the realities.

When you say "set environmental standards," are you really advocating a slew of new regulations and increased government enforcement?

I could get with that.

Do you support nationalizing the oil companies and banks?

That would work.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Which countries are doing well with nationalized
industries? How about right here in good ole USA? Amtrak? Post Office? Are they doing great with nationalization? I don't think so.

I would rather have environmental standards set for auto emissions, much stricter than they currently are. And you do not need a government agency to regulate. I take my car to the emission testing facility run by a private outfit and it is a smooth operation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I understand proportion means a lot
but once they start giving subsidies to any industry, then there is no end to lobbying by others for their share. Who decides who gets how much. It is better to eliminate all. Then we have a equal playing field. JMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Then
"I understand proportion means a lot but once they start giving subsidies to any industry, then there is no end to lobbying by others for their share."

...start with the dirty and highly profitable industries that pose the greatest risk to the the environment and people's health.

I mean, it's not like I haven't heard people argue that the airline deserve subsidies, but high speed rail doesn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC