46 Republicans Claim Wind Credits Too ‘Costly’ After Voting To Retain Billions In Big Oil Subsid

This week, 47 House Republicans urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to let them expire.
Although GOP districts hold 81 percent of the nation’s wind power capacity, Republicans are deeply split on investing in wind (Mitt Romney, for example, drew criticism from fellow Republicans for opposing the PTC). Boehner’s home state supports up to 6,000 wind jobs.

I wonder how those 6,000 people will vote this time. At least there's a few Republicans around seemingly not bought off by Oil.

Of the 47 Republicans asking Boehner to end the wind investments, 46 voted in March 2011 against closing tax loopholes that let Big Oil collect $4 billion in annual subsidies. The one outlier, GOP Rep. Richard Hanna, was a no-vote that day. According to OpenSecrets, these representatives have received a total $2.2 million from the oil and gas industry, in an election cycle where Republicans have collected 89 percent of the oil industry’s contributions. Republicans have maintained these tax breaks are “essential” to an industry posting record-breaking profits.

One would think closing tax loopholes would be helpful when faced with a 15 trillion dollar deficit, of course we all know that's never going to happen in the GOP.

Sure, a company that makes 31 billion dollars a year (Shell) really, really, really needs a couple more billion of our tax dollars. It's those damn poor people screwing up the economy!

Yet their letter claims wind is too expensive for investment. An excerpt reads:
Today, when the U.S. is more than $15 trillion in debt and borrowing $0.40 of every dollar it spends, we cannot afford to borrow money to subsidize the operations of a politically preferred technology. In the case of wind, doing so would not only be costly to taxpayers but ultimately would hurt consumers by distorting energy markets.”
The letter’s arguments echoes Americans for Prosperity’s campaign to end PTC. The Koch-funded organization called wind tax credits “deplorable.”

Hypocrites.

thinkprogress

interesting that theb largest donations from big oil goto the guys with R before their name,
acually big oil gives TWICE the "contributions" of any other group to the R leader

interesting how they say its NOT bribery

xploder

Yay!!!!!!!!!!

Another hate the GOP thread,Hate corporations thread, Hate "big oil thread".

Some people are so blinded by idelogy they never look deeper:

For instance:

n 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons1 (or 3.19 billion barrels2) of gasoline, a daily average of about 367.08 million gallons (8.74 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.38 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.

www.eia.gov...

367 million of gallons sold each and every day 365 days a year then figure in the Feds cut of 18.4 cents for each and every gallon sold.

Then figure in the states cut which works out to around:

66 million a day= 24 billion a year and what is the return of alternative energy?

That same alternative energy subsidized by that "gas tax" ?

Oh yeah....

Carry on.....

Not to mention some of these oil companies pay very little is not no taxes at all and get millions back in tax returns. It's a good thing the republicans are watching out for the little people. This is another reason why we need to take the money out of politics. And we can't say it's just the republicans because some democrats are just as bad. The money these politicians receive from oil companies should be viewed as bribes and they should be placed under arrest for betraying the trust of the people.

But is not bribery, its donations.......

Its amazing to me, how many cant nor do they want to see the corruption.

You feel safe with you iphone and ipad and are blinded by these goodies.

Its nothing more than a form of control.

If you smite the shepperd the sheep will be scattered.

What i mean is force the hand of those that follow blindly and you will see change.

Mindless sheep voting for souless politicians allow the system to fail the whole is biased

reply to post by buster2010

And we can't say it's just the republicans because some democrats are just as bad.

Absolutely correct.

reply to post by neo96


Pot meet Kettle?
How many democrat/liberal/left hating threads do you create a week? A day?
Don't dish it out if you can't take it Neo and also I'm pretty sure it's you that needs to dig a little deeper. Blind ideology indeed... ha.

Originally posted by neo96
Yay!!!!!!!!!!

Another hate the GOP thread,Hate corporations thread, Hate "big oil thread".

Some people are so blinded by idelogy they never look deeper:

For instance:

n 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons1 (or 3.19 billion barrels2) of gasoline, a daily average of about 367.08 million gallons (8.74 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.38 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.

www.eia.gov...

367 million of gallons sold each and every day 365 days a year then figure in the Feds cut of 18.4 cents for each and every gallon sold.

Then figure in the states cut which works out to around:

66 million a day= 24 billion a year and what is the return of alternative energy?

That same alternative energy subsidized by that "gas tax" ?

Oh yeah....

Carry on.....

In your little whinepost you never gave any reason why they should keep the subsidies. Why shouldn't the government get a cut? These oil companies pay next to nothing for the oil they get from America. These companies pay a higher percentage to foreign countries than they do to America.

reply to post by Kali74


There is a saying of don't bite the hand that feeds you and the state and federal governments make a killing off gasoline, and then they make even more a killing off government leases.

25 billion in 2007 is what they make 5 years later that cut has gotten even bigger.

How about alternative energy produce the returns of big oil instead of wasting billions on it?

Oh yeah get ready for alternative energys "surtax" to generate the lost tax revenue from oil, and get ready for increase prices on energy.

Takes a hell of a lot of money, and risk to drill a hole in a ground, then refine it then bring it to market and expect it to be consumer grade gasoline.

reply to post by buster2010


Really?

That 25 billion a year totally escape you?

Sorry folks, between 2002-2008 renewable fuel sources received about 29 billion in subsidies and Big oil received 71 Billion. That means that renewable sources received 29% of the subsidies over that time period. In 2010 renewable sources produced about 4% of our energy. Cen you tell me which one gets more money?

reply to post by neo96


New Investigation Finds Decades of Government Funding Behind Shale Revolution

The technological revolution allowing for the cheap extraction of natural gas from shale occurred thanks to more than three decades of government subsidies for research, demonstration, and production, a new Breakthrough Institute investigation finds.

Both directly and indirectly, the government was behind the critical moments and tools in the shale gas revolution - massive hydraulic fracking (MHF), 3-D mapping, horizontal drilling, and horizontal wells.

"I'm conservative as hell," Dan Steward, the former Mitchell Energy geologist whose company pioneered shale gas in Texas, told us. But when asked about the role of government, Steward told us, "They did a hell of a lot of work, and I can't give them enough credit for that. [The Department of Energy] started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement."

breakthrough.org

Payoff, both in terms of profit and production doesn't just happen in a few years... it takes time and investment. I have to wonder what would have happened to fracking for gas if it met the same opposition renewables has. We wouldn't have tap water that you can light on fire in some areas with a lot of fracking, because it never would have taken off.

reply to post by neo96


It's well-deserved hate and you can crow about it until the cows come home.

I see that you drink plenty of the haterade yourself, with your anti-Obama rants.

reply to post by neo96


I didn't say that either.

Nice try.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

reply to post by Kali74


Alternative energy has been around for centuries, Wind,Hydro even from the old country, Solar power in various forms the same.

Right up until the Carter adminstration that made "solar panels" en vogue. The difference that there has only been 1 energy source that has transformed this nation in to what people love or hate what it is.

For the ROI return of investment of Oil nothing else comes close.

reply to post by neo96


While I agree with you to an extent, Big Oil makes enough money that they do not need subsidies. Let the free market determine the value, remove subsidies, instead fund ideas on the merit of the science behind them. If a great alternative energy idea comes along let's develop it if it seems sound. Right now we are tossing out good money after bad on a lot of projects.

reply to post by Kali74


S&F
I never thought I'd live to see the day saving the planet was a bad idea.
*sigh*

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Kali74

 

S&F
I never thought I'd live to see the day saving the planet was a bad idea.
*sigh*

edit on 2-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

Utilities and consumer groups have complained the FIT for solar power adds about 2 cents per kilowatt/hour on top of electricity prices in Germany that are already among the highest in the world with consumers paying about 23 cents per kw/h.

German consumers pay about 4 billion euros ($5 billion) per year on top of their electricity bills for solar power, according to a 2012 report by the Environment Ministry.

www.reuters.com...

I believe Germany had an average of about 5gwh from solar, spending $5billion ON TOP of the bill. So that's $1billion per GWH in "subsidy".

You just made the Big Oil subsidy look mighty small. Oh and no idea why they claim a Nuclear Power Station produces 1gwh. The energy produced in Germany is not equal to 20 Nuclear Stations, it's more like 3 to 4.

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

Nice thread, by the way, on the correlation-causation issue. But I'm not sure that this issue of oil subsidies has been explored sufficiently. (Not that I can, but allow me to offer a few thoughts.)

Roughly 18% of the House Republicans (there are 240) want these "subsidies" to expire. That's not really a lot.

And why did I put "subsidies" in quotes? It's my understanding (and I'd love to be corrected) that these are all or mostly depreciation allowances. Every company with equipment or finite resources can, and does, claim depreciation on their taxes. This is not just an oil industry thing. It has a large effect on every company (depending on how the law is written, I didn't look it up).

What happens if the depreciation allowance is dis-allowed? The companies' taxes go up. And immediately thereafter they start charging more for oil and it's products. Some think that would be wonderful, some don't. We're knocking on the door of $4 per, here. I think that's enough for now.

What about giving the money to wind? If I offer you a dollar for a stick of gum, you'll snap it up. If I offer you twenty dollars for a full steak dinner, you might say yes. Sure the gum deal is less expensive, but you get a lot more from the steak deal. The gum is a bad deal because you don't get your money's worth, the steak is a good deal because you do. Investing in wind is, unfortunately, a bad deal for the same reason.

The idea that people are getting bribed needs a lot more evidence than supplied. There are perfectly good reasons to keep the subsidies with out bribery. And "Hypocrites?" I'd need that explained, too.

With respect,
Charles1952