USuncutMN says: Tax the corporations! Tax the rich! Stop the cuts, fight for social justice for all. Standing in solidarity with http://www.usuncut.org/ and other Uncutters worldwide. FIGHT for a Foreclosure Moratorium! Foreclosure = homelessness. Resist the American Legislative Exchange Council, Grover Norquist and Citizen's United. #Austerity for the wheeler dealers, NOT the people.



We Are The 99% event

USuncutMN supports #occupyWallStreet, #occupyDC, the XL Pipeline resistance Yes, We, the People, are going to put democracy in all its forms up front and center. Open mic, diversity, nonviolent tactics .. Social media, economic democracy, repeal Citizen's United, single-payer healthcare, State Bank, Operation Feed the Homeless, anti-racism, homophobia, sexISM, war budgetting, lack of transparency, et al. Once we identify who we are and what we've lost, We can move forward.



Please sign and SHARE

Showing posts with label oil subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil subsidies. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

US Senate rejects bill aimed at five majors' tax deductions

May 18, 2011
Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor
 
WASHINGTON, DC, May 18 -- The US Senate refused to invoke cloture and effectively killed S. 940, Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) bill that would have denied the five largest US oil companies use of the foreign tax credit’s dual capacity provision, the US manufacturers’ tax deduction, the intangible drilling cost deduction, the percentage depletion allowance, and the tertiary injectant expense deduction.

The Senate voted 48 to 52 on May 17 to move the bill forward. The measure also would have eliminated suspension of royalties from deepwater production on the US Outer Continental Shelf and deep natural gas production, and would have dedicated any revenue the measure produced, once it was enacted, to reducing the federal deficit.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the defeat reflected Republicans’ priorities. 
“They would rather cut college scholarships, slash cancer research, and end Medicare than take away taxpayer-funded giveaways to oil companies that are raking in billions of dollars in profits,” 
he declared following the vote. 
“That tells you everything you need to know.” 

But three Senate Democrats—Alaska’s Mark Begich, Louisiana’s Mary L. Landrieu, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson—broke ranks and voted against the bill. “I didn’t support the Democratic proposal this evening, and I won’t be supporting the Republican proposal tomorrow because this isn’t about partisan politics for me. It’s about Alaska and our nation’s long-term energy security,” Begich said following the measure’s defeat.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said legislation that passed the US House last week and is scheduled to come to a vote in the Senate on May 18 is a better alternative. “If President Obama and his party are really serious about lowering [gasoline] prices, making us less dependent on foreign oil, and creating the thousands of jobs that American exploration is proven to produce, they would embrace our plan and stop pretending to care about a crisis they have done so much to create and, their latest public relations efforts notwithstanding, continue to ignore,” he said.

‘Focused on excuses’
 
“This administration has consistently pushed policies that actually make the pain at the pump worse,” said Sen. John A. Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Instead of supporting ‘all of the above’ energy production across our country, they’ve been more focused on excuses about why we shouldn’t use American energy.”

Oil and gas trade associations welcomed the Menendez bill’s defeat. “With this vote, we hope Congress will now turn to more constructive policymaking on energy,” said American Petroleum Institute Executive Vice-Pres. Marty Durbin. “Our nation needs to prepare for its energy future with policies that encourage more development of domestic oil and gas resources that we know our nation will need in the decades ahead.”

Durbin said raising taxes on an industry that already contributes more than $86 million/day in federal taxes and production fees would take the nation in the wrong direction and result in fewer jobs, diminished energy security, and less revenue for the government. “Instead, we hope the Senate will move forward tomorrow with S. 953 to move the debate forward on domestic energy production,” Durbin said.

Other business groups also cheered S. 940’s rejection. “Raising taxes on oil companies would end up ultimately hitting consumers’ wallets, and the Senate was right to reject this bill,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice-president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce. “Levying punitive new taxes and fees on America’s oil and gas industry would increase US dependence on foreign oil, increase costs to consumers, jeopardize US jobs, and erode economic competitiveness.

“Instead of targeting specific industries to offset or pay for its inability to affect sound fiscal policy, Congress should be focusing on solutions that will lead to a more secure energy future,” he maintained. “This includes increasing domestic energy production.”

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Why Oil Companies Don't Need Tax Subsidies

By Seth Hanlon | May 18, 2011

How big are the tax subsidies for oil companies? Why do we give subsidies to oil companies? Do big oil companies need these subsidies? Why should we eliminate tax subsidies for oil companies? What are the prospects for ending oil tax subsidies?
(transcript, mp4, YouTube)
See also:

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Schumer’s Deficit Reduction Steps: Millionaires Tax, Prevent Corporate Tax Dodging, Cut Wasteful Subsidies

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/schumer-deficit/


The Senate will vote today on H.R. 1, the House Republican spending plan for the remainder of 2011 that guts vital funding for education, job creation, infrastructure, anti-poverty programs, housing assistance, and more. The plan is not expected to pass the Senate, but neither is a version supported by Senate Democrats.

So the question of federal spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year will remain unanswered. But today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) presented an alternative to the House Republicans’ slash-and-burn approach to budgeting in a speech at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Noting that “today, we have to solve both our growth problem and our deficit problem together,” Schumer laid out a progressive plan to reduce the deficit.

First, Schumer revived his proposal from last year to institute a surtax on millionaires and billionaires. “I must say I noted with interest that in last week’s Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, the most popular proposal to reduce the deficit — out of 23 options surveyed — was a surtax on millionaires and billionaires,” he said.

Schumer also promoted closing the tax gap by cracking down on tax dodging and income sheltering by big corporations. “There is much we can do in the tax code to crack down on cheaters and vastly improve compliance,” he said. “Any credible deficit plan should tackle the so-called ‘tax gap’ — the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid — which has gotten as high as over $300 billion a year this past decade.”

He also advocated cutting the wasteful subsidies that are handed out every year to industries, including the oil and gas industries, that don’t need them. Schumer expanded on these ideas in an interview today with ThinkProgress:
All these kinds of subsidies should be on the table, but the one that sticks out like a sore thumb is oil and gas because the entire rationale for it is gone. It was passed, I think, when the price of oil was $17 a barrel, we had low production, and now of course, the price of oil is $100 a barrel.The subsidy, in economic terms, doesn’t mean anything other than to make some people wealthy who are already wealthy.
Watch it:
Schumer also pushed back hard on the notion that Social Security cuts should be a part of deficit reduction. In response to a reporter’s question, he said “Social Security doesn’t have any problems until 20 years from now,” adding that the deficit needs to be reduced long before then.