Text 25278, 217 rader
Skriven 2006-11-19 12:41:18 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 25276 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Dems
============
Jeff Binkley -> All wrote:
JB> The Dems were either MIA or obstructionsts when Bush and Cheney tried to
JB> create
JB> a national energy policy. This is just typical democrat window dressing
to
JB> fool folks into thinking they are actually doing something...
JB> =====================================
JB>
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&T
JB> EMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-03-54-44
JB> Nov 19, 3:54 AM EST
JB> Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks
JB> By H. JOSEF HEBERT
JB> Associated Press Writer
JB> WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in
oil
JB> company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal
JB> that
JB> would boost alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to
JB> be put
JB> off until later.
This is all a lie. The US, for example, has twice the oil reserves that we had
just a year ago with the discovery of the new field in the Gulf. A test well is
delivering 6000 bbls a day.
JB> Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits
JB> or sharp
JB> increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground
JB> given
JB> the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
There are no windfall profits. If there were, you'd see equally large dividend
increases to stock holders. Most profits are plowed back into exploration and
development of new oil fields, which is tremendously expensive.
JB> Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over
JB> the first
JB> 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward
JB> greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar
JB> subsidies
JB> for Big Oil."
JB> Yet the energy plan being assembled by Pelosi's aides for the initial
JB> round of
JB> legislation is less ambitious than her pronouncement might suggest.
JB> For the most part, the tax benefits are ones that lawmakers talked of
JB> repealing
JB> this year when Congress struggled to respond to the public outcry over
JB> soaring
JB> summer fuel prices and oil companies' huge profits.
Putting gas back onto a pay as you go system, instead of the commodities future
market would remove a lot of the high prices and excess profit.
JB> Topping the list for repeal are:
JB> -Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil
JB> exploration.
They still are working under the assumption that oil is the fossil remnant of
prehistoric rainforest and dead dinosaurs. If we had more refinery capacity,
our fuel costs would come down dramatically.
JB> -A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic
JB> manufacturing. It
JB> allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this
JB> country instead of going abroad.
This is the program that enabled us to find (and double US deposits) and drill
a brand new field at 27000 feet deep under the Gulf southeast of New Orleans.
JB> Democrats say neither tax benefit should be needed for an industry reaping
JB> large profits at today's high crude oil prices.
JB> Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion
JB> and the
JB> refinery measure and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion,
JB> according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
JB> Other oil tax breaks probably will go unchallenged. That includes some
JB> passed
JB> by Congress only a year ago and others already targeted for repeal this
JB> year.
JB> For example, House Democrats have no plans to change a provision that
JB> allows
JB> oil companies to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by the way they
JB> calculate
JB> inventories. The Senate this year agreed to a repeal; the effort was
JB> abandoned
JB> amid House GOP opposition and an uproar from other industries that also
JB> benefit
JB> from the tax language.
JB> House Democrats also are shying away from tampering with more than $1
JB> billion
JB> worth of oil- and gas-related tax breaks, enacted last year. These breaks
JB> largely benefit small companies or gas utilities rather than the major oil
JB> companies now awash in cash.
JB> Nevertheless, the House and Senate are expected to push legislation
JB> early to
JB> force oil companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling leases that
JB> have
JB> allowed the companies to avoid paying federal royalties. The loss
JB> eventually
JB> could cost the government $10 billion, according to some congressional
JB> estimates.
JB> Other prime targets of House and Senate Democrats include:
JB> -Alleged price gouging. Proposals to create a federal price gouging law
for
JB> gasoline and other fuels probably will move quickly.
Numerous federal and state studies have found no evidence of price gouging
except for the odd gas station owner here and there. No organized, systemic
abuse exists.
JB> -More incentives and mandates to expand the use of ethanol and biodiesel
JB> as a
JB> substitute for gasoline. Requiring oil companies to phase in retail
JB> pumps that
JB> deliver fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
Ethanol is less efficient than gasoline. It takes more of it to produce the
same amount of useful work as gasoline. That means whatever savings are made
by buying less oil, are lost by having to create more ethanol to offset the
loss in efficiency. There is also a loss in the manufacture of ethanol. Then
there are the changes required to internal combustion engines so that they can
use ethanol as a fuel (over the 10% additive level), such as 85% ethanol fuel.
That means cars will cost more.
Then, since we have to divert grain (primarily corn) from food production to
fuel production, the cost of everything that uses corn goes up in cost. Some
experts have predicted that producing sufficient ethanol for fuel replacement,
would virtually wipe out the supply of corn needed for food stuffs and other
products made from corn.
JB> -Requiring power companies to produce a percentage of their electricity
JB> from
JB> renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Such a measure is a
JB> priority of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Senate
JB> Energy
JB> and Natural Resources Committee.
JB> -Extending energy efficiency tax credits approved by Congress last year.
JB> Most
JB> are scheduled to expire at the end of next year.
JB> -Expanding a tax break for buyers of gas-electric hybrid cars and
JB> offering more
JB> incentives for automakers to build greater numbers of the vehicles.
Hybrid cars have been a bust in the retail market because they don't deliver
sufficient savings OR performance to justify their cost.
JB> Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will take over as chairman of the House
JB> Energy
JB> and Commerce Committee, said he plans hearings on legislation to spur
JB> further
JB> production and distribution of ethanol and biodiesel, and promote
JB> conservation.
JB> But he suggested it will take time to produce legislation. "The process
JB> is a
JB> long one. It takes hearings, it takes fact finding," said Dingell in a
JB> telephone interview.
JB> On the Senate side, Bingaman probably will avoid writing a single broad
JB> energy
JB> bill, preferring to push through specific legislation. Among Bingaman's
JB> other
JB> goals are new incentives to spur renewable energy development and more tax
JB> breaks for conservation.
JB> Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if the country is to
JB> reduce its
JB> addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to
JB> develop
JB> more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and
JB> examine
JB> "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."
JB> Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate
JB> Democrats
JB> and will be one of the party's top strategists.
As usual, a lot of doubletalk and BS from the left, and little or no
substantive progress. But we've grown to expect that, right?
--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
* Origin: (1:123/789.0)
|