You may have thought the Democrats controlled the Senate, but it became clear after Tuesday that the oil industry is calling the shots on Capitol Hill.
The oil industry got 48 Senators, including three Democrats, to continue handing over wasteful federal subsidies for oil drilling. That means a bill to end giveaways to the five largest oil companies failed to get the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. There were some hopeful signs, though. A majority of the Senate did vote to end the federal largesse, including two Republicans, Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
Still, the failure of the Senate to take this simple, common-sense step is staggering. Many Americans are paying more than $4 a gallon for gas. Our economy is still reeling from the worst recession in decades. And the federal budget is experiencing a deficit crisis of historic proportions.
Yet many lawmakers want to hand over our money to an industry in which the top five companies made $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone. This same industry received $51 billion in federal subsidies and favorable tax treatment between 2002 and 2008, and yet still they ask for the subsidies to keep flowing.
They expect Americans to pay twice for oil profits: once at the pump and once on tax day.
The subsidies are bad enough, but the Republican leadership is also trying to hand over more federal waters to oil companies. The House recently passed a package of bills that would make offshore drilling rules weaker than they were before the BP oil disaster and mandate drilling from Maine to North Carolina, off Southern California, and in the Arctic Ocean and Bristol Bay.
The Senate is poised to consider its own version of two of these bills on Wednesday, and while the measure is unlikely to pass, far too many senators are likely to vote for it.
I got a close-up view of the oil industry's influence when I served on the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Through months of exhaustive investigation, I saw that not only did oil companies completely outgun regulators in the field -- in terms of size, manpower, technical expertise and money -- but they also overpowered them in Washington.
The commission's report concluded that past efforts to tighten safety requirements or expand federal oversight were either "overtly resisted or not supported by industry, members of Congress, and several administrations."
It's no mystery why oil companies command so much power. They provide a resource our economy depends upon, but they also spread their money around Capitol Hill.
The industry spent more than $145 million on Washington lobbying in 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That doesn't include the millions of dollars the industry spent lobbying officials in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska and other states. Nor does it include the money spent on advertising designed to influence public opinion on climate change, offshore drilling, and fuel efficiency standards for cars.
The oil industry's influence on the political process is holding America hostage. Rather than giving handouts to fabulously wealthy companies that pollute our air and endanger our coastal communities, we should be investing in the clean, 21st century technologies that will save Americans money and cut down on dangerous pollution.
This fall, for instance, President Obama is slated to release draft clean car standards. If he raises them to 60 miles per gallon by 2025, we could cut driver bills at the pump in half. With gas at $4 a gallon, a car that gets 60 mpg would save the average American $513 this summer and $8,900 over the life of the vehicle.
These new standards would also reduce our nation's oil consumption by at least 38 billion gallons and cut at least 400 million metric tons of carbon pollution by the year 2030 -- the equivalent of taking over 100 coal-fired power plants off line. These are the kinds of solutions our lawmakers should be supporting.
We shouldn't be surprised that Big Oil keeps grasping for more taxpayer money and more access to the public's natural resources: they have received so much already. But we can be disgusted with the lawmakers who continue to hand it over in a time when so many American families are struggling.
This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.
tax write offs to help the economy deficit in this country, in view of their immeasurable
profit.
Congress supported tax write offs for the 5 giant oil corporations.
The Senate joined that with a vote as well.
It was a direct slap in the face of the Silent Majority to ignore and
give the oil companies power over our government.
If they control the government, they own our country as well.
A Martin Luther King idea fermented as a response to this on a smaller
scale, and that is to respond by not using Esso gas, since they made
the most money. It is non political - no leaders, baggers, dems, reps,
or blamers.
Facebook, and HP are a mass form of communication and I have no
idea how to get support for this small endeavor. If Esso loses even
a dollar it will be doing something, rather than nothing at all.
We can blame everything, everyone, and it means nothing if we
do nothing.
You must mean cars like the Chevy Volt...some solution that car is given the sticker price (41k). Like average Americans can afford replacing their cars with a GM price gouge like the Volt. This might be worth considering if the deadline for fuel efficiency were more like 2 yrs and the auto companies repaid their bailout by producing something not so outrageously expensive.
While Harry the Hypocrite and his fellow Democrats cry about the big oil companies profits old Harry is helping to screw the taxpayer again. As usual the Democrats are playing the game of “Its ok when we do it, but bad whenever our opponents do it”. Kinda like during the presidential campaign when Obama received twice the dirty money from “Wall Street” but yet they still bashed Republicans as those evil takers of Wall Street money. Harry and his friends “Do as I say, not as I do” politics are a joke. While they whine and cry and demand transpareny from corporate america they turn around and fight against transparency for there big unions supporters. They advocate for laws like the “Fairness Doctrine” aimed at muzzling conservative talk radio but have no problem with 95% of the media that happens to tilt in there favor. During the recent debate on what fat to cut out of the federal budget old Harry just could not bear to see his “Cowboy Poetry” earmark cut but raising taxes was ok. With the price of gold and other minerals skyrocketing why should’nt the companies many whom are foreign not be asked to pay there fair share. Its bad enough that friends of the Obama adminstration like G.E. don’t pay any taxes but why are we letting foreign corporate mining interests slide by scott free?
Last time I checked, roads and bridges are still crumbling and unemployment is at 9%.
Thanks for the Hope and Change.
Dear Senator Bedfellow,
I am writing to thank you for continuing the big oil subsidies. You have correctly gauged my mood as a voter, and addressed my biggest concern.
I don't care about having a job, or the cost of my health care. I don't care if my kids get a good education. I don't care if my family gets cancer from polluted water, or air... and I don't care if Miami is 20 feet under water 50 years from now.
What I care most about Senator, is that oil company executives get a big bonus at the end of this quarter. My fellow voters are with me... and you have taken our pulse and gotten it right for once! Bravo sir!
What this country needs most right now is for Exxon to be able to upgrade to the Gulf-stream VI jet.... who cares about any thing else!
Love,
The Voters
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/minerals-mined-federal-land-spared-taxes-aided-senator-reid/
giving tax write offs to the oil companies. Congress and the Senate
voted otherwise, so if we wait for elections, or send letters, it's
equally ignored.
Not using Esso gas stations as a non-political response can
mean more to these money hungry companies. It beats doing
nothing, and if you feel like it, you can blow your horn as you
pass it and go to another.
1- The bank accounts of corporations
2- The uterus
3- Marriage
how easy it would be to respond with how democrats are pro-choice except when it comes to
1. which light bulb i can buy
2. what fuel i put in my car
3. which socialist programs my taxes support
4. what health insurance I am mandated to buy, etc, etc, etc.
But that might be considered trite, so I will refrain.
Small government means- less government involvement.
Why do I have to explain the obvious to you?
What you say is not 'trite.' It is, however, a laughable list that demonstrates the myopia of the 'conservatives.'
but ourselves for the political agenda.
We keep waiting for elections and then we get millions of dollars
worth of tv ads to hype good government, and it stinks.
Goes for all the parties.
Now, the oil companies run our country and we keep up the
battle of divide and they conquer.
end the oil companies subsidies (4 billion) and cut 4 billion in return from the ethanol program.
Then use use the 8 billion for non bio renwables like solar and windpower.
As much as I cannot stand the republican voting ideology, I also understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Because I am all for fairness, I also oppose throwing money into converting food - food that could feed hungry people - into ethanol. We must stop those subsidies, too.
And while I agree that solar and wind and other such things are very cool, fair is fair - and this is all about "fair," right? So those subsidies have to end, too.
Let's have fair competition, without any money to be made in DC. That should curb the corruption and kickbacks and give us a much more honest Congress.
End all subsidies. All of them. 100%
May the best energy providers win.
Senate voted oil tax write offs.
Oil now controls the government.
So much for fair competition.
If you stop using Esso gas, it may be a
dollar less in their pockets and we can
respond to the takeover.
Actually, there's a convenient test for this assumption. It's available to anyone who drives a car.
Now, drivers as a group know that the faster you drive, the greater the cost/mile in gasoline. If you wish to save money on fuel, you can do so by driving slower. It's that simple. Drivers know this.
Now for the assumption test. Just go out and drive on any highway near your home. Pick one that you drive on from time to time. Drive a few miles, keeping at the posted speed limit, and observe the cars around you.
Is the traffic moving slower than it has in the past?
No?
Aha!
Your underlying assumption is flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_economy_vs_speed_1997.png
Science > anecdotal 'evidence'