Washington, D.C. -- The Big Five oil companies -- Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and Phillips -- may be hoping that the end of the world actually occurs on May 21. Then they can say proudly that they went out bloodied but unbowed. Big Oil kept $40 billion in undeserved tax subsidies, in spite of the unprecedented profits and wealth they reported this quarter. At the end of the week, their lobbyists could have stood proudly in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, had they chosen to do so.
But in the perhaps more likely event that the world does not end on May 21, and should the oil companies end up caring about their long-term bottom lines, the future does not look so bright. After an unprecedented lobbying effort, a narrow majority of the U.S. Senate voted to end those tax giveaways. 52-48, with two Republicans, Mainers Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, breaking ranks with their Republican colleagues, and three Democrats -- Ben Nelson, Mark Begich, and Mary Landrieu -- voting with Big Oil.
Now, in the U.S. Senate -- as in horseshoes -- close counts, so the oil industry dodged the bullet. Once again the Republican minority invoked the filibuster requirement of 60 votes to block action. But once Congress comes together on a budget resolution -- which admittedly may be some time away -- a simple 51 votes can decide subsidy issues, and Big Oil is in Big Trouble.
The usual oil industry hole card -- campaign finance bribery -- has already been played. Those who voted to continue the subsidies received on average more than $370,000 in campaign gifts from oil, while those who voted against received only a fifth as much.
Perhaps more heartening was a solid rebuff of the Tea Party/Drill-Baby-Drill caucus, when the Senate voted 57-42 to reject Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's "Drill-Baby-Drill" amendment, with five Republicans joining the Democrats to block McConnell's idea.
A few points stand out:
Big Oil can no longer muster majorities in the Senate.
The Senate rules still prevent the majority from taking even the simplest steps to solve the nation's problems.
The Republican leadership in the Congress is utterly insincere in claiming to worry about the deficit. Not only are they opposed to tax increases on American billionaires, they are opposed to tax increases on the oil-producing governments of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Some of the subsidies they defend flow to foreign governments, at the expense of American taxpayers.
If the world doesn't end on May 21, keep these ideas in mind. The Drill-Baby-Drill caucus wants you to forget them.
Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope
And fyi we all know who makes the most money from Oil – it’s the government not the oil companies – and always has been – and do absolutely NOTHING for it.
I think they are against cutting subsidies that keep jobs in the US that all big companies get – including oil.
The real problem is not 2.1 Billion – it’s the fact that idiots in the environmental movement have cut off drilling. The increase in demand will drive prices up and cost consumers and industry hundreds of Billions. So I say. Take the damn 2 billion and lets get on with getting domestic supply up - that will have the biggest affect on the price
Big oil and republicans have used that excuse as well and there is no statement showing job growth within oil. Under a real capitalist economy the subsides shouldn’t exist and I am tired of the guys preaching they are true capitalist while pushing for government to step in and provide welfare for big oil companies who don’t need it. I am criticizing the republican hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another.
Now, did you know that big oil is only responsible for about 10% of all the new oil wells and natural gas wells drilled here in the U.S.?
Forbes Magazine recommended ending the oil tax subsidies and so did big oil in 2005. Want to know why Forbes wanted to get rid of the oil tax subsidies? Forbes said our current system was to inefficient (that's Wall Street code for needed mergers, acquisition's, and lay offs).
Now most of the drilling subsidies don't go to big oil because believe or not the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) per Forbes.
http://gcaÂptain.com/Âsmall-compÂanies-stayÂ-gulfs-deeÂp?24447
Now do we really want to make Big Oil bigger?
They are UN-AMERICAN, and have proven that they DON'T care about America or Americans; and they DON"T care about the national debt NO MATTER WHAT the hypocrits say.
Republicans who voted for big oil and against everyone else should be voted out in 2012!
First let's just look at Carl's 1st paragraph, "Big Oil kept $40 billion in undeserved tax subsidies" where did he get this number? It's a half truth on two accounts 1st it's over 10 years but the bigger half truth is Big Oil does not get that much of the whole pie anyway! Most don't realize that there are over 300 oil companies drilling in just the Gulf of Mexico and Big Oil does not qualify for most of these tax breaks because of the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM). Interesting article out of Forbes Magazine. FORBES was arguing to get rid of those tax breaks SO OIL COMPANIES WOULD CONSOLIDATE AND BECOME MORE EFFICIENT! That's Wall Street code for mergers and lay offs! The question is does two half truths become a LIE?
The next question becomes why would the Sierra Club be supporting Bills in congress that benefit Big Oil? Why in 2005 did all of Big Oil say it did not need the tax subsidies?
Interesting point Big oil only drills about 10% of the oil and natural gas wells in the U.S. How much happier would Big Oil be without all those competitive oil companies.
Point's to think about.
I could look it up myself, true, but if you've already done the research work, please share.
http://gcaptain.com/small-companies-stay-gulfs-deep?24447
as for the $40 billion it's $4 billion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/30/tax-breaks-oil_n_855844.html
The problem is they are a couple of decades from being cost competitive except for Hybrid cars. And electric cars (if you can afford it) for short distance driving.
Our best bet for the near term, in cutting fossil fuel use is nuclear.
But the “green†movement has had an effect. The dopes effectively stopped US drilling for easily reachable offshore oil and forced the rapid expansion of dirty “tar sands†oil.
Congratulations.
Does it make sense to have your drug dealer control your economic life?
One of the fatal flaws of having a puritanical view of free markets is to assume the objectives of a corporation are aligned with the public good. They aren't. They have a primary objective to maximize shareholder value. There is nothing wrong with that so long as that objective does not adversely impact society. Government does have a role in making sure this does not happen.
Define outdated? Is it when a cheaper and more efficient alternatives comes along? How do you define efficient? Typically it is viewed in a micro sense, but factor in the defense related costs and the environmental and health costs and fossil fuels are not nearly as cheap as most people believe. Oil companies do not pay for many of those costs.
Of course this is being politicized same as welfare queens are politicized. They both serve as a lightning rod to galvanize support.
It’s the same for any product. The idea that you can “collect†societal costs for any product and justify action is just silly.
Take steak for example. Cows produce methane (greenhouse gas) – their meat is loaded with fat and clogs arteries. The cost of this is hundreds of Billions a year in deaths and heart attacks, and other illness -. So tell me this. How much would that steak cost if we added in all the “costs†to society?
The argument is ridiculous on its face.
What's the deficit again?
How much is being cut from education?
I drive a natural gas car, it makes our cities cleaner and cost me $0.025/mile in fuel cost compare that to a scooter or an electric car.