iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Republicans Block Extra Taxes On Oil Companies

Gopoil

H. JOSEF HEBERT   06/10/08 10:19 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

But Republican leaders said the Democrats' plan would do harm rather than good _ and they kept the legislation from being brought up for debate and amendments.

On world markets, oil prices retreated a bit Tuesday but remained above $131 a barrel. Gasoline prices edged even higher to a nationwide record average of $4.04 a gallon.

At the Capitol, Democratic leaders needed 60 votes and they got only 51 senators' support, including seven Republicans who bucked their party leaders. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state tied closely to the oil industry, was the only Democrat opposing the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted in favor of the measure, but for procedural reasons changed his vote to "no" so that he could bring it up again.

"We are hurting as a country. We're hurting individually as Americans ... and the other side says, `Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue,'" complained Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Average citizens are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with Washington," said Schumer.

GOP opponents argued that little was to be gained by imposing new taxes on the five U.S. oil giants: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhillips Co.

While these companies may be huge, they don't set world oil prices and raising their taxes would discourage domestic oil production, the Republicans said of the Democrats' plan.

"In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan _ higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The bill's supporters argued that their proposal was different from the windfall profits taxes of the early 1980s that thwarted domestic production and led to a rise in imports. The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they said.

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday.

Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy.

Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster _ a longshot at best _ and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it.

But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks.

The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand.

In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

In an attempt to dampen oil market speculation, the legislation would require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would provide authority to regulate U.S.-based trading in foreign markets. And it would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

After Tuesday's defeat, Democrats did not rule out pushing the issue again.

"This was politics at its worst," complained Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "This was a refusal to debate the biggest problem confronting the American people. ... That takes nerve."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

WASHINGTON — Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the ...
WASHINGTON — Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the ...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,273
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (36 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:10 AM on 06/13/2008
OK, try this solution:

Semi-nationalize the US Oil. It works like this:

(Numbers are just an example...your mileage may vary.)

The oil is a national resource that can be sold to the oil companies. If the oil costs $5/barrel to extract (All that oil is gone...peak oil is a myth?), the government sells that oil to the oil companies for $45/barrel. New extraction cost = $50/barrel. The oil that costs $20/barrel to extract is sold to the oil companies for $35/barrel. New extraction cost = $55/barrel. $50/barrel oil now costs $60 to extract, and so on. (They'll still extract oil at $60 to sell at $130)

The money is given to the taxpayers -- people, not corporations.
(It's currently being done in Alaska)

How's that?

(Now it's not a tax...it's a fee.)
06:51 PM on 06/11/2008
BushCo, the most Oil industry heavy administration in history,

presides over the Iraq Middle east destabilization war crime, admittedly for OIL.

Bush appeases, kisses, holds hands with, give Nukes to, gives weapons to...

The country and family most involved in the 9/11 attacks:

The Bin Ladens and the Saudis.

Follwing the money...Who benifited most from 9/11 and the Iraq War crime?

The Bin Ladens, the Saudis and BushChenyOil cronies inc..

And some of you people want to believe that there is no intent, but just supply and demand or peak oil, or some other fantasy.

BushCo robbed the world, right in front of your face!

Wake up.
01:19 PM on 06/11/2008
Exxon-Mobil's 2007 tax bill:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion
10:11 AM on 06/11/2008
Thank you. I have to leave but I have learned some things here very clearly. Obama's stated energy plan is literally... for us to drive bicycles.

That every single liberal commenter, has no plan whatsoever and is emphatic that we do not drill for oil, build a refinery or nuclear power plant and we need to stop using coal. That liberals will twist themselves into knots, throw out conspiracy theories and say whatever is necessary to justify not exploiting our own resources.

That's something every single American needs to be aware of about the Obama camp.

I can honestly say that this was the most amusing blog I ever commented on and the weirdest shit I ever saw. I have been emailing this link as a chain to as many people as I possibly can.

Thank you for your honesty and profound oddness.
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu! Rin! Ka! Zan!"
12:29 PM on 06/11/2008
The only oddness in the room, Red, is your own peculiar stubborn inability to comprehend the concept of renewable, sustainable sources of energy, of *doing things differently* from how we've done them before, in short, of your all-too-typical conservative mind's inability to comprehend the necessity for change, and the stubborn resistance to same to the point of self-delusion.

As I have said before, I honour your 30 years of service to our country, I empathize with your sufferings at the hands of the VA, but I can only pity you when it comes to your inability to adapt to a world on the brink of profound, unavoidable, and inevitable change.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen
01:34 PM on 06/11/2008
LMAO!!
photo
aristippe
no more oil for war
01:16 PM on 06/11/2008
The is no amount of oil in the U.S. that could move prices significantly!
01:36 PM on 06/11/2008
Now how would I have ever guessed you might say that?
09:19 AM on 06/11/2008
I still maintain that it's simply "supply and demand". Tax on the product on whatever "unreasonable" is won't work. I simply don't understand why we don't, starting TODAY, start converting our infrastructure to natural gas vehicles. It's a proven fuel system, in Las Vegas they run the buses and other city vehicles on it - "Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (Nasdaq:CLNE) has been awarded the contract to supply compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel and provide operations and maintenance for two transit fueling stations in Las Vegas, Nevada by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC). The RTC is both the transit authority and the transportation planning agency for Southern Nevada.

The two RTC stations currently fuel more than 50 CNG buses and paratransit vans serving the greater Las Vegas region. A total of 45 new CNG buses are on order for delivery in 2009." I'm sure Vegas isn't the only place it's been proven. The US has 167 Tcf (trillion cubic feet) of natural gas reserves and Canada has 92 Tcf, Mexico 30 Tcf. Only when we have a choice for consumers will you see the price of oil drop. So why don't we do it?
07:52 AM on 06/11/2008
The tax would just get passed on to us anyway.
01:42 AM on 06/11/2008
Get used to being blamed for these sorts of national calamities.

Liberals spent decades fighting against the drilling of oil wells. How has that worked out for is?

Liberals have spent years fighting every effort to deal with terrorism. See how that works out for you folks after the next 9/11.
02:15 AM on 06/11/2008
And Republicans have been running our country for 11 years now (including 9/11). See how that has worked out for "US".
07:55 AM on 06/11/2008
Typical Lib math.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
02:35 AM on 06/11/2008
Blah, blah, blah!

Sheesh man! Your RHETORIC is so uniformed it's a shame that ignorance isn't terminal!

Haven't your heard? America wants "reasoned discussion" now, not finger pointing and partisan politics.

Your guy (and in fact your whole ideology) had 8 years of getting everything he asked for, and it came crashing down.

Get over it, and try to learn from it. The "business as usual" line ain't gettin' it!
02:47 AM on 06/11/2008
Uninformed? Reasoned discussion? I don't see any evidence here of reasoned discussion. How many decades have we been trying to drill in Anwar? Exactly what party facilitated the banning of drilling off all of our coasts and fights it to this day?
Do you see many people on this blog that describe themselves as progressive or liberal arguing that we ought to drill a god damned oil well, sparky!?

Blah, blah, indeed.
02:50 AM on 06/11/2008
ANWAR... at it's most OPTIMISTIC predictions would yield less than a 6 month supply of crude.... & the contracts are ALREADY in place to sell ALL of it to JAPAN.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
01:34 AM on 06/11/2008
My God! The level of ignorance on this discourse is astounding! On BOTH SIDES!

I hate to point out the obvious, but;

WE are WHERE WE ARE, RIGHT NOW, after 8 years of a Republican OIL MAN running the country and getting EVERYTHING he asked for from the Congress and the SUPREMES!

You Republicans can't very well point fingers at the Democrats!

WE are WHERE WE ARE, RIGHT NOW, after having hit PEAK OIL in the U.S. almost two decades ago, and then having a Democratic President, Congress, and Supreme Court for the entire first term of that administration, and no significant changes were made by that administration in regard to the CAFE or energy management.

You Democrats can't very well point fingers at the Republicans!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
01:47 AM on 06/11/2008
Now, some reality:

Peak oil is a fact in the U.S. Look at any production charts, projection charts, exploration charts, or any other chart produced by an unbiased source. Oil production in the U.S. has been declining for over two decades now, and any "NEW FINDINGS" will not bring it back to the level that it was prior to peaking out.

Peak oil in the rest of the world has either just occurred (production has been on the decline for the past several years and no "NEW FINDS" over large enough fields to bring us back to the "peak" of a decade or so ago), or it is occurring in the very near future (if they were to find some "massive" field somewhere, it would bring production back to a new peak, but it wouldn't last long, and the industry doesn't really expect this "MASSIVE NEW FIELD" to be found anytime soon).

The simple reality is; For every gallon of "NEW" oil that is found today (in the entire world), we (the worlds population) are consuming 3 gallons. I don't know about any of you, but I've never seen anything that is being consumed at a rate of 3 gallons, and replenished at a rate of 1 gallon, ever end up INCREASING in reserve. If you know a way that can happen, please let the oil companies know, they've been trying to make that happen for a long time now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
01:56 AM on 06/11/2008
I've seen reference to "Supply and Demand" economic explanations (with questions of "HOW DOES THIS NOT APPLY"). The answer is both simple and complex. It does apply, and it doesn't!

IF we could reduce our consumption, below the rate of discovery, and below the rate of refinery capacity, the price would indeed likely come down, BUT (and that is a big BUT), supply and demand economics were designed to describe MANUFACTURED GOODS (i.e. things that we can make as many of as the demand requires), but OIL IS A FOSSIL FUEL and THERE IS A LIMITED SUPPLY OF IT ON THE ENTIRE PLANET! Much like Gold, Silver, Diamonds, and other PRECIOUS commodities; as the quantity available is USED UP, the PRICE WILL INCREASE! Unfortunately, unlike the aforementioned "precious commodities", Oil is not recyclable or renewable! It is no longer a question of "SUPPLY AND DEMAND" in the normal sense, because the DEMAND WILL ALWAYS BE GREATER THAN THE SUPPLY unless you can find an ALTERNATIVE!
02:48 AM on 06/11/2008
Some MORE reality......

There's more oil in shale & sand deposits in North America than ALL of the oil yet pumped... only the cost of extracting it is not economically viable.

THIS is why the big 5 producers have colluded in artificially jacking up the price (value) of crude so as to make the extraction of shale / sand deposits worthwhile, even as it would render the environment similar to the surface of Jupiter.
01:32 AM on 06/11/2008
Any rise in taxes will be passed on to you so I do not think its a good idea.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
02:45 AM on 06/11/2008
Apparently the concept of "Government Regulation" is not well understood by you.

Taxes can be levied, and prices can be capped at reasonable levels.

$30 Billion in PROFITS for ONE YEAR is simply OBSCENE!
03:01 AM on 06/11/2008
SEE!! I knew exactly where you were going! You start out by letting us all know that you have all the answers and that both the democrats and republicans are at fault.

Then, the first damned thing you do is start spouting a liberal democrat agenda. This particular comment is just amazingly ridiculous and entirely fails to take into account profit margin or capital investment. Just, that you don't like this really really big number and as a democrat, you figure you're entitle to a cut.
12:34 AM on 06/11/2008
Nationalize the American Oil Companies don't tax them take them we can do it legally and still pay investors and trade it on the market...

Then we could cut costs by 30-35% from day one and still have $50-60 Billion per year to develop alternate energy sources and new technologies and create a huge Economic Boom, that will benefit every American...

The nations who are doing best all have state run a Oil Industry..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SirReal1
02:42 AM on 06/11/2008
Your point is not relevant to this discussion because the countries you are citing are all "OIL EXPORTERS"!

We are long past the point in U.S. reserves where we could ever HOPE to be an exporter of crude oil.

We are a consumer nation now, we import more of EVERYTHING than we export.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spiffarino
Ahh...feel the burn.
03:22 AM on 06/11/2008
I disagree. Oil companies can't reasonably be nationalized because we aren't a net producer of oil.

What the government needs to do is put up a few billion dollars and get bids from private contractors to build new refineries. At the same time, they should change the laws that allow oil speculators to put only a few dollars down on a barrel of oil rather than paying full price. If they have to pay the full load, they won't be so interested in trying to jack up the price.
03:27 AM on 06/11/2008
Good comment.
photo
imusintheevening
With,without,who'll deny it's whatthe fights about
12:10 AM on 06/11/2008
The Dems need to learn how to sell. It should not be called a windfall tax but a refinery investment incentive. How would the repugs refute that?
11:19 PM on 06/10/2008
does anyone know what the price of gas is in Russia?
11:31 PM on 06/10/2008
Why do you ask? Is somebody planning on a trip?
12:30 AM on 06/11/2008
A gallon of gas in China is $2.50..not sure about Russia..
10:36 PM on 06/10/2008
Do any of you really believe that this Senate bill would have made it to the floor of the House? Even the House leadership, what there is of it, said this dog wouldn't hunt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2warvet
I have nitrogen narcosis, what's your excuse?
10:48 PM on 06/10/2008
Stop confusing the issue! It is all about how much Republicans hate America, oil is just a way the leftys get to bash them today.

Besides if they were serious about high oil prices, they would start drilling here instead of paying billions to nations that hate us. Oh yeah lets not forget their "magic bullet" fuel that will appear and stop world hungar, global warming, cure aids, and vanquish the Republican party to never, never land!

Sorry leftys, but our nation runs on oil whether you want it to or not. Drill here, drill now!
11:09 PM on 06/10/2008
Now hold up a minute. Your party has had the reigns of the white house and both houses of congress and the supreme court for a long long time. You also had the backing of all the special interest lobbyist plus half the democrats in congress. Why didn't you do your drillin then. Who stopped you? Did those mean Democrats stop you from drilling. Oh,Boo,Hoo,Hoo.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaddup
11:54 PM on 06/10/2008
Have you noticed since the Rebublican party died all their dead trolls keep wandering over here?
11:03 PM on 06/10/2008
I don't see politicians, from any party, solving the oil problem. What will it take to mainsteam the electric car.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2warvet
I have nitrogen narcosis, what's your excuse?
11:05 PM on 06/10/2008
Better battery technology than we have now.
10:31 PM on 06/10/2008
I hope you are noting how easily the Rs blocked that bill.
They can get away with THAT, now while the country is being strangled by Bushco's oil cartel.
That's how easily they'd block IMPEACHMENT.
10:42 PM on 06/10/2008
Pelosi did them the favor from the git go.
11:20 PM on 06/10/2008
Objective perspective? Lol.