Dems plot to get $21B from Big Oil

[Auburn85 434]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E9FC1A3D-22E4-4321-A11B-2DA722C497E7

By: Darren Goode

Senate Democrats announced a proposal Tuesday to repeal $21 billion in tax incentives over 10 years for the five biggest oil and gas companies and use that money to reduce the deficit.

The plan goes after some of the same industry tax incentives that Democrats and President Barack Obama have been targeting for years. The message is also largely the same as when gas prices hit $4 per gallon three years ago: Taxpayers don’t need to foot the bill to help companies earning tens of billions of dollars in profits annually.

“This bill … presents some pretty simple questions for policymakers: Do you think working class families should be the only people sacrificing to lower the deficit?” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) told reporters. “It’s time that the big five do the right thing for a change and pay their fair share."

Democrats are able to point to big profits earned by the five companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Texaco — during the first quarter of fiscal year 2011.

They are also banking on having a more salient message that the money going to the companies would help reduce the deficit — instead of Obama’s idea of putting it toward clean energy programs that would address gas prices by reducing oil dependence.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she would not have supported the measure if it went to any type of spending.

“There is more hot air surrounding this building about deficit reduction than any other topic right now,” said McCaskill, who joined Menendez and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) at a press conference in the Capitol Building. “And if we cannot end subsidies to the five biggest, most profitable corporations in the history of the planet … then I don’t think anyone should take us seriously about deficit reduction.”

“This should be the easiest step to reduce the deficit,” Brown echoed.

Democrats will still have to answer the question of what they are proposing to do to address gas prices — despite the general consensus that there is little, if anything, lawmakers can do at least in the short term.

“It is dishonest for any of us to say that there’s some magic wand that can be waved and bring down gas prices, unless of course we want to have government price fixing, which I don’t think any of us are interested in doing,” McCaskill said.

Menendez and Brown touted the idea of tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, while Brown also mentioned efforts to clamp down on oil market speculation and Democratic legislation allowing the Justice Department to take action against oil cartels, like OPEC, on antitrust grounds.

Republicans have emphasized expanding domestic oil and gas and other energy production. The House on Tuesday is primed to give approval to the second of three GOP bills on the calendar this month that would expedite and expand offshore oil and gas drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Democrats and the White House over gasoline prices Tuesday morning, labeling them as little more than Jimmy Carter groupies.

“Democrats need to stop deflecting attention from their own complicity in our nation’s overdependence on foreign oil,” McConnell said at the Nuclear Energy Assembly conference in Washington, D.C. “They need to end an approach that hasn’t changed since the Jimmy Carter administration.

“Just like Carter, they’re more interested in using this crisis [of gas prices] as an excuse to push for higher taxes than they are at solving the problem itself,” McConnell said. “And just like Carter, they’re underestimating the frustration of the American people.”

The Democrats’ bill would repeal the Section 199 domestic manufacturing tax deduction for the companies, which Menendez said would amount to about $13 billion over a decade.

It also modifies “dual capacity” foreign tax credit rules that hit the companies for another $6.5 billion, he said.

Other tax incentives repealed in the bill include the tax deduction companies can earn on intangible drilling and development costs, including wages, fuel, repairs, hauling and supplies needed for the drilling of wells.

A deduction regarding capital investment — including the actual costs of discovering, purchasing and developing the well — is also limited, and royalty relief granted in 2005 energy legislation is repealed for some deepwater oil and gas production.

Industry officials say going after the tax incentives will be bad for jobs and the economy.

“More taxes would do nothing to lower prices," said Brian Johnson, senior tax adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. “They would, however, hurt the economy by reducing energy investment and the new jobs that would flow from that investment."

[Tigermike 3,426]

Senate Democrats announced a proposal Tuesday to repeal $21 billion in tax incentives over 10 years for the five biggest oil and gas companies and use that money to reduce the deficit.

They’re trying to repeal tax breaks, but only for the oil industry. Why eliminate tax incentives to only one industry? Democrats - laying politics with American jobs.

Here is a little info for you to chew on:

Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry.

We constantly hear dimocrats whine about the loss of manufacturing jobs, yet here they are pushing for tax changes that will likely kill good high paying manufacturing jobs in a critical industry. Not only that, but as API’s chief economist, John Felmy points out they will also hurt our economy in other areas and possibly lessen our energy security by driving future jobs off shore:

[T]he more we invest here, the more we produce, the more we have improved energy security and, really importantly, it reduces he trade deficit. And for every reduction in the trade deficit means that’s dollars that aren’t lowing abroad and can be spent here, and adds further to the U.S. economy that we desperately need.

We are in some dire economic times right now, and we have an activist government that is saying one thing but doing another. It is telling us how critical jobs are to our economy on the one hand while, in two very important examples, doing everything in their power to discourage large American companies from creating them.

The oil business isn’t the only target of the dimocrats BS. Jim McNerney, CEO of Boeing, covers the NLRB/Boeing debacle in the WSJ – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has gone to war against another U.S. manufacturing corporation – Boeing. Here’s a company doing precisely what you’d expect the administration would applaud if they at all believed their rhetoric about "jobs, jobs, jobs":

Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina. Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner exceeded what we could build on one production line and we needed to open another.

This was good news for Boeing and for the economy. The new jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the domestic footprint of the nation’s leading exporter and make it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China, Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state burdened by double-digit unemployment—with the construction phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.

Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp has been transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered, 1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand new workers are hired and being trained to start building planes in July.

It is an American industrial success story by every measure. With 9% unemployment nationwide, we need more of them—and soon.

But Obama and the dims have to pay back the unions for their part in the last two elections don't they?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So oil companies, even with record profits, can't absorb these costs and must depend on taxpayer handouts to do the groundwork to make billions?

[RunInRed 16,992]

I don't understand why anyone, regardless of party, would support the notion that oil companies need taxpayers subsidies. Given our fiscal situation, it's beyond ludicrous and it needs to stop.

[Tigermike 3,426]

So oil companies, even with record profits, can't absorb these costs and must depend on taxpayer handouts to do the groundwork to make billions?

I don't understand why anyone, regardless of party, would support the notion that oil companies need taxpayers subsidies. Given our fiscal situation, it's beyond ludicrous and it needs to stop.

They’re trying to repeal tax breaks, but only for the oil industry. Why eliminate tax incentives to only one industry? Democrats - laying politics with American jobs.

I don't care if they get them or not. But why only the oil companies? The congress set up these subsidies & tax breaks for any and all. But now they want to cut out only one industry, the one they have demonized for years.

Don't play favorites and don't play "let's get the big bad oil companies cause their our favorite whipping boys". If you are going to cut them out, cut them out for all!

And I can't see how anyone can look at this and think it's anything but political.

[Raven_tiger 5]

Because we all know that if oil companies lose their taxpayer subsidies, then they will raise their gas prices (and other petroleum derived products). The result will be people/companies/govts will start investing in alternate forms of energy, wait they wouldn't do that to themselves would they???

[Tigermike 3,426]

Because we all know that if oil companies lose their taxpayer subsidies, then they will raise their gas prices (and other petroleum derived products). The result will be people/companies/govts will start investing in alternate forms of energy, wait they wouldn't that to themselves would they???

What is that alternate forms of energy that is going to work and be readily available and in quantities needed?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So oil companies, even with record profits, can't absorb these costs and must depend on taxpayer handouts to do the groundwork to make billions?

I don't understand why anyone, regardless of party, would support the notion that oil companies need taxpayers subsidies. Given our fiscal situation, it's beyond ludicrous and it needs to stop.

They’re trying to repeal tax breaks, but only for the oil industry. Why eliminate tax incentives to only one industry? Democrats - laying politics with American jobs.

I don't care if they get them or not. But why only the oil companies? The congress set up these subsidies & tax breaks for any and all. But now they want to cut out only one industry, the one they have demonized for years.

Don't play favorites and don't play "let's get the big bad oil companies cause their our favorite whipping boys". If you are going to cut them out, cut them out for all!

And I can't see how anyone can look at this and think it's anything but political.

Probably because tax breaks of this scale should be reserved for nascent industries, or to help struggling but important industries...not to subsidize an industry that is insanely profitable and only moreso due to high oil prices. Two of the top three most profitable companies in the US thus far in 2011 are oil companies. BP, even with the billions they've had to pay out in clean up and restitution payments in the Gulf (not to mention the PR hit) was incredibly profitable. In other words, they don't need the tax breaks and they should not be threatening to ship job elsewhere if they don't get them.

If we're going to be serious about debt reduction, tax breaks to already hugely profitable companies make no sense.

[RunInRed 16,992]

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc5ef33b" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=43016391^300065^686019&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc5ef33b" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=43016391^300065^686019&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

[Tigermike 3,426]

So oil companies, even with record profits, can't absorb these costs and must depend on taxpayer handouts to do the groundwork to make billions?

I don't understand why anyone, regardless of party, would support the notion that oil companies need taxpayers subsidies. Given our fiscal situation, it's beyond ludicrous and it needs to stop.

They’re trying to repeal tax breaks, but only for the oil industry. Why eliminate tax incentives to only one industry? Democrats - laying politics with American jobs.

I don't care if they get them or not. But why only the oil companies? The congress set up these subsidies & tax breaks for any and all. But now they want to cut out only one industry, the one they have demonized for years.

Don't play favorites and don't play "let's get the big bad oil companies cause their our favorite whipping boys". If you are going to cut them out, cut them out for all!

And I can't see how anyone can look at this and think it's anything but political.

Probably because tax breaks of this scale should be reserved for nascent industries, or to help struggling but important industries...not to subsidize an industry that is insanely profitable and only moreso due to high oil prices. Two of the top three most profitable companies in the US thus far in 2011 are oil companies. BP, even with the billions they've had to pay out in clean up and restitution payments in the Gulf (not to mention the PR hit) was incredibly profitable. In other words, they don't need the tax breaks and they should not be threatening to ship job elsewhere if they don't get them.

If we're going to be serious about debt reduction, tax breaks to already hugely profitable companies make no sense.

Yeah I understand instead we should be granting that corporate welfare to favored, less effective, less efficient, more costly (covered by less effective and less efficient but some people can’t make that connection) and certainly not currently producing much power, GREEN energy companies.

Actually, we don’t want to create just ANY jobs you know, we want to create Green Jobs, that will require massive subsidies, and make more segments of the population dependent on more government handouts to keep their companies afloat. If we can manage to unionize the green companies in the process, so much the better.

This is political from start to finish, from top to bottom. It's the dems playing to their base.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Nothing but this...

Least we forget who these Liberals really are, and what they really want...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Yeah I understand instead we should be granting that corporate welfare to favored, less effective, less efficient, more costly (covered by less effective and less efficient but some people can’t make that connection) and certainly not currently producing much power, GREEN energy companies.

Actually, we don’t want to create just ANY jobs you know, we want to create Green Jobs, that will require massive subsidies, and make more segments of the population dependent on more government handouts to keep their companies afloat. If we can manage to unionize the green companies in the process, so much the better.

This is political from start to finish, from top to bottom. It's the dems playing to their base.

I'm trying to have a serious conversation here. Join me won't you?

I'm not advocating giving tax breaks to a rat hole of inefficiency. No where in there did I suggest we should target crappy companies that can't make it with tax breaks. All I'm saying is that if you're going to give tax breaks to an industry, the last place on earth that deserves or needs one is an industry that effing prints money on its own without your help. That sort of thing should be reserved for situations where we have an industry that's critical to the American economy but is struggling to restructure itself and modernize, or a nascent industry that is the wave of the future but we want to help ramp up sooner to give our country a leg up internationally...stuff like that. Or remove the tax breaks altogether. But there's no defense for giving $20 billion of taxpayer money to companies that flat out don't need the help.

[Tigermike 3,426]

Yeah I understand instead we should be granting that corporate welfare to favored, less effective, less efficient, more costly (covered by less effective and less efficient but some people can’t make that connection) and certainly not currently producing much power, GREEN energy companies.

Actually, we don’t want to create just ANY jobs you know, we want to create Green Jobs, that will require massive subsidies, and make more segments of the population dependent on more government handouts to keep their companies afloat. If we can manage to unionize the green companies in the process, so much the better.

This is political from start to finish, from top to bottom. It's the dems playing to their base.

I'm trying to have a serious conversation here. Join me won't you?

(I've been in it so cut out your snide BS remarks Mr. Sanctimonious.)

I'm not advocating giving tax breaks to a rat hole of inefficiency. No where in there did I suggest we should target crappy companies that can't make it with tax breaks. All I'm saying is that if you're going to give tax breaks to an industry, the last place on earth that deserves or needs one is an industry that effing prints money on its own without your help. That sort of thing should be reserved for situations where we have an industry that's critical to the American economy (oil isn't critical to the American economy?) but is struggling to restructure itself and modernize, or a nascent industry that is the wave of the future but we want to help ramp up sooner to give our country a leg up internationally...stuff like that. Or remove the tax breaks altogether. But there's no defense for giving $20 billion of taxpayer money to companies that flat out don't need the help.

And all I'm saying is they made the rules and this is nothing but the left pushing their agenda of bashing the oil companies. That's all nothing more nothing less.

None of these are "subsidies", other than intangible drilling costs but they are effectively identical to NRE (Non-Reoccurring Engineering) costs written off by Apple, Intel, and Microsoft.

Did any of you happen see CNBC’s "Fast Money" the other night, the gang was discussing the amount of cash that Apple now has on hand. With a caption of "Apple has more cash than God", they commented that Apple now has $65 billion in cash, and expect them to have $100 billion by year’s end.

I wonder when Congress will notice, but then again Apple has been very friendly with the democrats. Will they play favorites?

It's simple, Obama has gone into total campaign mode early. His base loves to hate on "Big Oil" so he and his lackeys in congress are fanning the flames early. It is as simple as that.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

(I've been in it so cut out your snide BS remarks Mr. Sanctimonious.)

Your non-serious, snide reply must have masked the effort. My bad.

(oil isn't critical to the American economy?)

Reread what I wrote instead of parsing it to fit a retort. I said critical to the economy BUT ALSO that it's struggling. Oil is critical. The oil industry is not struggling. They're booming.

And all I'm saying is they made the rules and this is nothing but the left pushing their agenda of bashing the oil companies. That's all nothing more nothing less.

Who is this "they?" Congress made the rules. It's quite possible the particular rules that gave tax breaks to oil companies were pushed by Republicans originally. But it doesn't matter.

None of these are "subsidies", other than intangible drilling costs but they are effectively identical to NRE (Non-Reoccurring Engineering) costs written off by Apple, Intel, and Microsoft.

I'd be glad to go through all these tax breaks and we can sift out what applies to all companies and what applies mostly to oil companies.

Did any of you happen see CNBC’s "Fast Money" the other night, the gang was discussing the amount of cash that Apple now has on hand. With a caption of "Apple has more cash than God", they commented that Apple now has $65 billion in cash, and expect them to have $100 billion by year’s end.

I wonder when Congress will notice, but then again Apple has been very friendly with the democrats. Will they play favorites?

It's simple, Obama has gone into total campaign mode early. His base loves to hate on "Big Oil" so he and his lackeys in congress are fanning the flames early. It is as simple as that.

No, it's simpler than that. The American people are getting screwed on energy prices right now. Global supply is plentiful. More than enough to meet demand. Speculators are irrationally driving up the price of oil. Oil companies benefit from that drive up and are the most profitable companies in the world. On top of that, they get huge amounts of tax breaks to the tune of $21 billion. When people are getting bent over at the pump AND subsidizing the screw job, they get pissed and politicians react. Gasoline is critical for most people to have good jobs, for goods to be transported and so on. Apple's products are a luxury item. They can't essentially hold the American people by the short hairs because people don't need iPads or iPhones. People need to put gas in their cars and get to work.

[bigsixfive 336]

The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies

t’s easy to take shots at oil companies, especially when gas prices are rising over $4 per gallon. Playing the role of David against an enormous corporate Goliath is a great way to score political points, so it’s no wonder that President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have issued a clarion call for the end to oil subsidies as a way of wreaking revenge against those they say are responsible for the high cost of energy.

The truth, though, isn’t as simple as the good-versus evil fable the left would have you believe.

On Wednesday, five Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the CEOs of the country’s five largest oil companies declaring, ”f we are truly serious about cutting our deficit, it is imperative that we start by getting rid of wasteful and ineffective corporate subsidies that have outlived their usefulness.”

The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.

There’s another problem with the left’s crusade against the oil industry. The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Curtis Dubay explain that the broad calls for an end to oil subsidies is really code for targeted tax hikes against companies they don’t like:

The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500.

To make matters worse, the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget would increase the price of oil and gas for American consumers, according to the Congressional Research Service. Loris and Dubay conclude:

Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. However, Congress should not punish the oil and gas industry with targeted tax hikes, nor should it reward other parts of the energy industry favored by the Administration.

There’s much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our country’s domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits.

Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but it’s not a long-term solution to America’s energy problems.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/13/morning-bell-the-truth-behind-oil-subsidies/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Access to the reserves is not a solution, as it circumvents the intention of the reserves while merely creating a temporary market disruption by artificially lowering costs. Nevertheless, facts point to this being a political move.

And to quote Mark Levin: "Record profits? RECORD PROFITS? WHAT'S THEIR NET?!?!?!"

[Tigermike 3,426]

(I've been in it so cut out your snide BS remarks Mr. Sanctimonious.)

Your non-serious, snide reply must have masked the effort. My bad.

(Reread what I wrote instead of parsing it to fit talking points of the democrats.

I haven't been taking up for big oil. My point has been they made the rules and now they want to change the rules to get at their favorite bad guy. If you think they care one little $hit about "the little people" you are more naive than I thought possible.

But it's been obvious for some time that demagogueing the oil industry during this election cycle was going to be the way they went. They appreciate you carrying their water.)

(oil isn't critical to the American economy?)

Reread what I wrote instead of parsing it to fit a retort. I said critical to the economy BUT ALSO that it's struggling. Oil is critical. The oil industry is not struggling. They're booming.

And all I'm saying is they made the rules and this is nothing but the left pushing their agenda of bashing the oil companies. That's all nothing more nothing less.

Who is this "they?" Congress made the rules. It's quite possible the particular rules that gave tax breaks to oil companies were pushed by Republicans originally. But it doesn't matter.

None of these are "subsidies", other than intangible drilling costs but they are effectively identical to NRE (Non-Reoccurring Engineering) costs written off by Apple, Intel, and Microsoft.

I'd be glad to go through all these tax breaks and we can sift out what applies to all companies and what applies mostly to oil companies.

Did any of you happen see CNBC’s "Fast Money" the other night, the gang was discussing the amount of cash that Apple now has on hand. With a caption of "Apple has more cash than God", they commented that Apple now has $65 billion in cash, and expect them to have $100 billion by year’s end.

I wonder when Congress will notice, but then again Apple has been very friendly with the democrats. Will they play favorites?

It's simple, Obama has gone into total campaign mode early. His base loves to hate on "Big Oil" so he and his lackeys in congress are fanning the flames early. It is as simple as that.

No, it's simpler than that. (No it's not.) The American people are getting screwed on energy prices right now. (And what happens to prices at the pump when and if the dems get their way? What was the price per gallon Obama really wants to push to? $6.00) Global supply is plentiful. More than enough to meet demand. Speculators are irrationally driving up the price of oil. (Well if it's the speculators pushing the price what could or should be done about it?) Oil companies benefit from that drive up and are the most profitable companies in the world. (Do they have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit? Do they have a responsibility to their employees to make a profit in order to KEEP the jobs?) On top of that, they get huge amounts of tax breaks to the tune of $21 billion. (How much do they spend to explore, find and drill the oil deposits? How much do they spend to produce the fuel?) When people are getting bent over at the pump AND subsidizing the screw job, they get pissed and politicians react. (If those people get pissed they should vote out the asswipes who helped cause the problems.) Gasoline is critical for most people to have good jobs, for goods to be transported and so on. Apple's products are a luxury item. They can't essentially hold the American people by the short hairs because people don't need iPads or iPhones. People need to put gas in their cars and get to work. (No $s***. And Apple is contributing heavily to democrats. But the point is Apple is making and keeping obscene amounts of money. Obviously they are screwing people to do that.)

It's obvious making a lot of money is not what gets yours and the lefts pants bunched up. It's who makes the money.

How many people are employed by oil companies? I'll answer for you.

The oil industry in the US, both directly and indirectly is responsible for over 9 million jobs. ExxonMobil employs about 84,000 people directly world wide. In the US, that part of the total is 35,000. Now just imagine if, instead of doing everything in their power to stand in ExxonMobil’s way, the government actually allowed drilling and production the result would be more jobs and more revenue for government. And also more job opportunities in the pipeline in both the near and extended future. Jobs here.

I'll say it again since it went over your head.

What is it the democrats in congress are doing? They’re playing politics with American jobs. In essence they’re trying to repeal tax breaks , but only for the oil industry. Specifically:

Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry.

The more we invest here, the more we produce, the more we have improved energy security and, really importantly, it reduces he trade deficit. And for every reduction in the trade deficit means that’s dollars that aren’t lowing abroad and can be spent here, and adds further to the U.S. economy that we desperately need.

Those are extremely important points, points that are being virtually ignored by the democrats and the Obama administration in their headlong rush to "punish" big oil for "excess profits" and more importantly, as a means of taking the political heat off themselves and their absurd and self-defeating economic policies. Somehow they believe that if they tax the oil industry more, then gas will cost less.

To be fair, the oil business isn’t the only target of the dims nonsense, Boeing is being targeted by the dems and the unions. Jim McNerney, CEO of Boeing, covers the NLRB/Boeing debacle in the WSJ A company creating jobs and Obama sends the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)to war against them. And we have discussed that in these forums. No it wasn't discussed that was another subject the dims here chose to overlook.

[RunInRed 16,992]

TM - This isn't about punishing anybody. It's about not subsidizing an industry that by all accounts, doesn't need the help.

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil. Which is is it?

If the GOP wants any one to take them seriously on their budget plans, they best rethink their position on this one.

[Raven_tiger 5]

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil.

What does hypocrisy mean again???

[bigsixfive 336]

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil.

What does hypocrisy mean again???

As TM has stated over and over, and plain as day I might add:

The proper thing to do is end all subsidies, not just those given to a subset of an industry.

No one here is fighting tooth and nail to preserve subsidies. Subsidies contribute heavily to unequal competition, and they provide knobs for government to pick the winners and losers of their political choice - not the choice of the free market, or the choice that best benefits the American people.

Actually, I take that back. There are people here fighting tooth and nail to preserve subsidies, as long as those subsidies go to anyone but <spooky> big oil <\spooky>.

[Tigermike 3,426]

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil.

What does hypocrisy mean again???

Look in the mirror.

[Raven_tiger 5]

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil.

What does hypocrisy mean again???

The proper thing to do is end all subsidies, not just those given to a subset of an industry.

Even farm subsidies???

[TitanTiger 20,708]

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil.

What does hypocrisy mean again???

The proper thing to do is end all subsidies, not just those given to a subset of an industry.

Even farm subsidies???

Yes, at least at a certain level. ConAgra doesn't need them.

[Tigermike 3,426]

TM - This isn't about punishing anybody. It's about not subsidizing an industry that by all accounts, doesn't need the help. (RR I'm sure you believe that, but Obama has shown time and time again that he is in lock step with partisan politics. Everything he does is political. Everything. And as I have said before in this thread he is already in HD campaign mode. And this election cycle who is the bad guy that he and the dems will demagogue? The oil companies. This is all about punishing someone and that someone is the one industry the dems love to hate.)

One minute you guys are for less spending and less government intervention, the next you are fighting tooth and nail to preserve American taxpayer funded subsidies to big oil. Which is is it? (Go back and read what I have said over and over. ELIMINATE THEM ALL!!! Not just the for the industry you hate.)

If the GOP wants any one to take them seriously on their budget plans, they best rethink their position on this one. (What choosing which laws you will obey? Changing the rules in the middle of the stream for the one you hate?)

How many times do I have to say it - End all subsidies, not just those given to a subset of an industry.

The left hates big oil and that is all this is about. Drumming up their base to start the election season. And it doesn't matter how many 'little people' get trampled in the process.

[Tigermike 3,426]

OBAMA’S PHONY OIL COMPANY TAX

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

In a desperate effort to divert anger from his Administration over gas prices and to stop people from focusing on how his anti-drilling policies have caused us to be so vulnerable to these price fluctuations, President Obama is pushing anti-oil company rhetoric, demanding increases in oil company taxes. He is confident, in doing so, that the Republican aversion to any tax increase will lead them to shield big oil and incur populist wrath.

He’s right the GOP can’t approve raising oil company taxes and that their refusal to do so will raise the party’s negatives among a broad swath of the population.

But he’s dead wrong in believing that raising this issue will, in any way, make up for his failure to promote domestic drilling. Obama has been so outspoken in his demand that we move away from dependence on fossil fuels and so naively futuristic in depending on renewable energy to replace it, that the average motorist will still grit his teeth in anger at the president every time he gases up. People get that “drill baby drill” is the best and nearest term solution to high gasoline prices and they get that Obama is on the wrong side of the issue.

A more subtle point, lost in the debate, is that decreasing oil company tax breaks makes drilling and exploration more costly. But, in the current environment of massive oil company profits, this tax increase won’t matter much. It is best that Republicans keep this idea to themselves and focus, instead, on the need for more domestic drilling.

This would be a great time to expose Obama’s failure to issue oil drilling permits in the gulf, his opposition to ANWR drilling, and his refusal to allow horizontal shale drilling and fracking.

Obama is following a strictly left wing playbook as he gears up for re-election.

* He invites a rapper to the White House whose lyrics drive people up the wall

* He digs up his amnesty proposal for immigrants, an idea he failed to push when he could have passed it in 2009.

* He rails against oil companies as gas prices go up.

* He casts himself as the defender of Medicare in the face of a radical GOP and demands tax increases for the rich.

Class warfare, economic populism, and encouraging minority turnout are his re-election strategies.

Unfortunately for him — and fortunately for us — they won’t work. Each tactic drives up turnout among Republican voters too, more than offsetting his gains. And each creates the impression that Obama is anti-business which fosters the idea that he is prolonging the recession by his divisive rhetoric. Finally, every time he speaks like a candidate, he undermines his own presidentiality and weakens his hold on the office. People want a leader, not an advocate, as president.

link

[RunInRed 16,992]

Well, you specifically referenced Apple "since they have lots of cash" but to my knowledge, they don't receive federal subsidies. Your argument may have been easier to understand if you gave a few examples of other subsidies you want to eliminate.

Advancing the conversation, I'm not sure I'm versed enough to be on board with eliminating subsidies to all industries. There may be some areas, that align with our national objectives, that are worth encouraging.