EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
People or Polluters: Ending Oil Subsidies
The number on every driver's mind right now is $4.
Gas prices are hovering around $4, and are well above that in some areas. However, there are some other, much bigger numbers that also merit attention:
$10.7 billion. $7.2 billion. $6.3 billion. $6.2 billion. $3 billion.
Those massive numbers are the profits -- from just the first quarter of 2011 -- of the five biggest oil companies: ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. All told, the big five oil companies reported $36 billion in profits for the first quarter of 2011, more than $200,000 every minute, and oil profits have soared in recent years as gas prices have skyrocketed.
Several factors make those record profits possible. Crude oil prices have jumped to around $100 per barrel. The industry is more concerned with cost than safety when building wells, often cutting corners to save money. And each year, the federal government gives about $4 billion to the oil industry to encourage it to do what it would normally do anyway.
Some of these lavish tax loopholes that give the oil industry this money began nearly a century ago, when Congress decided that it would be beneficial for the American economy to encourage the production of a new source of energy. As the industry -- and its lobbying operation -- expanded, so did the handouts. Today, the sector is so rife with giveaways that some companies earn a higher return on investments after taxes than before. What's more, most of the profits oil companies make, and therefore most of the money they receive in tax breaks, doesn't even go to exploration or drilling -- companies spend most of their profits buying their own stock to increase its value.
During the congressional debate about the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a barrel of crude oil sold for about $55. In April of that year, oil-friendly President Bush stated, "We don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives," and in a Senate hearing that November, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked the CEOs of the five largest oil companies whether they agreed with the president. Although all five said that incentives were unnecessary, the Republican-controlled Congress extended the subsidies in the final bill.
Six years later, with oil selling for nearly twice its 2005 price (and six times the $18 per barrel it cost in 1995, when Congress expanded subsidies to encourage offshore drilling), the handouts continue. But now, these same oil companies claim they wouldn't be able to do business without them. A ConocoPhillips press release last week called proposals to end the giveaways "un-American," and CEO James Mulva -- the same CEO who told the Senate that his company did not need incentives six years ago -- stood by the statement at a Senate hearing the next day. The oil industry also says that repealing these subsidies would raise prices at the pump, but oil prices are set by global supply and demand -- direct subsidies just pad companies' profits.
A widespread, bipartisan majority of Americans support ending oil subsidies, but House Speaker John Boehner is apparently opposed to making multinational corporations pay the same effective tax rate as average citizens. Boehner previously argued that the government shouldn't "pick winners" by helping emerging renewable technologies compete. Boehner's support for dirty energy handouts shows that he has apparently already picked the winner and placed his bet: oil across the board.
And where there are winners, there are losers. Far from making these companies pay their fair share, the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) would actually lower corporate tax rates while slashing support for those who need it most: the poor, the middle class and the elderly.
The whole debate boils down to a series of simple questions: what is the government's role? Who should the government support, people or polluters? Does the government exist to provide a safety net for the disadvantaged or to pad corporate profits?
It is indefensible for our federal government to demolish the social safety net that has made this country the economic and social wonder it has been for the last fifty years, while continuing to hand out more than $200 billion in subsidies to environmentally destructive industries. As income inequality widens and the country struggles with nine percent unemployment, it is no time for the government to end assistance to those who are struggling, particularly when wealthy oil companies have yet to pay their fair share.
In the time it took you to read this article, big oil made more than $800,000. So next time you fork over $4 for a gallon of gas, think about the $4 billion that Congress willingly hands to dirty oil each year. Which is the bigger outrage?
Update: The Senate last night voted on a bill to end billions of dollars worth of oil subsidies. The bill, written by Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), was defeated by a vote of 52-48, with 3 Democrats joining Republicans to kill the measure.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



9 Comments so far
Show AllThe GOP has been all over Newt the Grinch for throwing Ryan under the bus. Will there be similar outrage over the three Democrats who threw Obama under the bus, as well as the rest of us? Don't hold your breath.
Though Obama does continue to act like a non-vertabrate, he did call for the abolition of those subsidies. Louisiana, Alaska, and ?
Why are we throwing OBAMA under the bus? The word is "invertebrate" as in - the invertebrate found and got bin Laden. Newt is so stupid he threw himself under the bus. The outrage is with the GOP for voting down the ending of tax credits for oil which is an obsolete and finite energy.
"Update: The Senate last night voted on a bill to end billions of dollars worth of oil subsidies. The bill, written by Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), was defeated by a vote of 52-48, with 3 Democrats joining Republicans to kill the measure."
Funny, isn't it, how the Dems - the "people's party", the "Republicans opponents" - can't seem to defeat any legislation the Rethugs want, or pass any legislation that We the People want passed, regardless if they are in the majority or the minority. Hmmm......I'm going to go out on a limb here......could it be that the whole "2 party" thing is actually a bogus illusion and the D's and R's are actually ONE corporate party? Hmm? Eh?
Nah. I must be wrong. Vote Democrat in 2012!!!!!
Thank you. I have been saying that for years. During Bush, the dems sat on their asses and didn't block a single bill. Didn't bring any of the destructive things up in messages. Then they had the majority, but couldn't pass anything because the thugs blocked it. And now.............
Try saying that to the obamobots on DK and you are hr'd into oblivion.
You do know, don't you, that someone will come along and explain that the thing to do is replace those Bad ("conservative") Democrats with more and better Democrats-- and slowly but surely turn the tables on the wicked, greedy Republican cronies of Big Business.
Keep reachin' for that brass ring!
There is no longer even any pretense that these politicians represent the people. Something should happen soon, depending on how stupid people really are.
300 million frogs in a slowly boiling pot.
Continue oil subsidies vote:
O--Yes
O--No
Erich Pica (and most reporters) would have us believe that the vote was 52 nays and 48 yeas.
This is false.
Here is the truth.
52 senators voted FOR this bill.
48 senators voted AGAINST this bill.
Only the democrat-controlled senate can make 48 out of 100 a majority.
When the republicans are in control, there is no threshold of 60.
Deliberate fraudulence.
You've been had.
Again.
So let's get specific. Who were the three Democrats? And let's give credit where due -- who were the two Republicans who voted to end the oil subsidies?
Yes, it is a long gradual uphill climb to get our country back -- there's no other way. We have to get rid of those who don't serve the people's interests. Don't give up -- and BUY AMERICAN ONLY.