One way or another, Congress will end the subsidies for major oil companies, Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) told us last night:
There are at least five Republican colleagues, present members of the Senate, who have said in one form or another that these subsidies no longer are need and should be repealed. You know, there will be that moment -- and their words versus their votes. And hopefully they'll join us.
But I'm convinced we're going to do this, because whether this is done through my legislation or whether this is done as part of any debt ceiling vote, which we'll insist on, or whether it's done as part of any budget vote, we are going to eliminate these subsidies.
Senator Menendez and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) teamed up in challenging the oil executives on Capitol Hill yesterday. One of the executives, Jim Mulva of ConocoPhillips, refused to apologize for his company's press release calling an end to the subsidies "un-American." Overall, the U.S. provides about $4 billion a year in subsidies to energy companies. Democratic senators have been pushing to end at least the $21 million or so now going to the big five: Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.
Folding an end to the subsidies into a vote on the debt ceiling would up the ante considerably. The pressure is already on House Speaker John Boehner to raise the debt ceiling, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joining Democrats in calling for it. Speaker Boehner has been demanding $2 trillion in spending cuts as part of that vote. Senator Menendez is saying, essentially, that Congress could start by cutting the subsidies for wealthy corporations.
Leave a Comment:
Isn't everyone getting tired of this flood of Exxon/Mobil ads on RM's online site? The sly smile on the guys face looks like he knows this is more to harass people who would not support fracking. I'm tired of shutting off the sounds 4 or 5 times each time I want to learn some real truth!
I'm more annoyed by the Chevron ads that play on the broadcast. "Where do your profits go?" "Every dollar and more went into the community."
No it didn't - then they wouldn't be profits. That's what that word means, that the money didn't go back out. If more money went out than went in, your books would've shown a loss.
Yes. How can we get rid of it? I E-mailed them repeatedly.
I totally agree Stephan. Does ExxonMobile really think that hammering viewers with ads is going to change anybody's mind? I'm sick of the smiling scientist telling me how great E/M is and what wonderful work they're doing to solve our energy problems. Yeah, right. I want green energy!
Doesn't the government collect 42 cents in taxes per gallon? Exxon Mobile only made 7 cents per gallon this last quarter. Sure, end subsidies and end the gas tax. The government is making six times the profit per gallon that the oil companies are...
eap1: the Fed collects 18.4 cents per gallon, and then the states each have different gas taxes. http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp But the misleading thing here is the idea that the gas companies only make 7 cents per gallon.
But the real problem is that you're conflating revenue and profit. The Fed. Govt. pulls in 18.4 cents in revenue per gallon and (at $4/gallon and an average state tax of around 20 cents per gallon) the gas companies make about $3.61 in revenue per gallon.
The oil companies end up making 7 cents per gallon in profit after covering their overhead. At 18.4 cents per gallon the US Government doesn't make even remotely enough money to cover their overhead, and so we run a multi-billion dollar deficit every year.
One of our biggest problems in the national discourse is that we don't think of money the right way. We talk about this stuff as though there are easily comparable quantities - lump sums that are either bigger or smaller. But most of the time we're really talking about rates, ratios, adjustments, and projections. In order to stay on the same page, we all need to be very careful about understanding the differences between debt vs. deficit and revenue vs. profit.
And also, on another point of comparability - the US Government is not a business. It doesn't ever make profit, it builds a surplus. That 18 cents per gallon isn't going to fund a CEO's yachting excursion. That 18 cents per gallon ensures that you have roads on which to drive your cars, bridges to get you over the river, and police that keep the highways safe.
Just to add to Maus_Malone's awesome comment, it is worth noting that currently 100% of the revenue received by the federal government from fuel taxes are used to fund transportation related projects.
For those playing the partisan game it is also worth pointing out that fuel taxes were first proposed by, and passed under, a Republican president (Hoover) at 1 cent per gallon. Between 1956 and 1982 the tax increased to 4 cents under President Eisenhower (first 3 cents, then a 1 cent increase in 1959 that was intended to be temporary but that President Kennedy decided to keep). The gas tax was increased from 4 cents in 1982 to 9.1 cents under President Reagan, from 9 cents to 14 cents under President H. W. Bush and from 14 cents to 18.4 under President Clinton, which is where the tax level currently remains.
[Source: US Department of Transportation (2011) < ]
Profit v revenue is a good point. The government makes zero profit. "the government collect 42 cents in taxes per gallon [but] Exxon Mobile only made 7 cents per gallon" is factually incorrect and is a manufactured falsehood intended to mislead.
Yeah eap, it takes a real mensch to say that oil companies aren't making ENOUGH money. Are you thinking that if you keep speaking in their defense they'll sprinkle some cash on you?
Speaking of revenue, Corporations only contribute 9% of all Federal revenue, compared to 83% paid by citizens in federal income and payroll taxes.
83% should buy us a lot of say-so, shouldn't it?
Corporations take the money they DON'T spend on taxes, and spend it manipulating the legislature to get their way. Seems to me if they are not going to make JOBS in the economy, they should be paying a lot more of the tax burden instead. Either-or. Make jobs, or pay taxes.
Covah, prove it. I can prove my stats. Money cleared after all the dust has settled, Exxon 7 cents per gallon, government 42 cents. There's no deception there. That's reality. Learn math.
How dare the government swipe that 42 cents! And the roads get built for free by elves.
I want to hug Robert Menendez. Thank you so much for this piece.
That's my Senator! Menendez doesn't get on TV often but it's kinda cool to see one of your own representatives making a splash.
Also, it's hilarious that part of the oil subsidy goes to offset the high cost of trucking. Why is trucking expensive? Because of the high price of fuel. We're giving the oil companies subsidies so that they can buy their own product.
I agree Maus! Having been a Jersey girl my first 33 years then moving to Oregon,it gives me a bit of a sense of pride when I see my (past and present) representatives standing up for our country on an issue like this ( Menendez and now Ron Wyden). I only wish the Democratic Party would put their foot down more.
Will the Dems reject the anti-gay DOMA amendments that the lovable Republican party has included on the defense spending thingy?
so Phillips 66 and Kendall motor oil is now off my shopping list
Repub never cut anything but only when a Dem is in offices. As for Boehner wear is his brains about the debt celling you just don't play with this. The debt celling has inplace when we won are freedom from the British.
How is giving subsidies to rich corporations that are seeing record profits while cutting spending on the poor and destitute an 'American' thing to do? How can the President of ConocoPhillips call ending subsidies to them Un-American? Really? Why is that? You keep raising gas prices and, suddenly, profits go up too! Imagine that! And you want us, the tax payers who you keep raising prices on, to give you money on both ends? Excuse me - but F*** Y**!! You don't deserve it and you don't need it.
It's about dang time the Dems grew some. Or as some would say, they are putting on their big boy/girl pants and taking care of some business.
I absolutely loved Rache''s 8 questions she would ask Orrin Hatch if he appeared on her show. Of course, the fact that she has revealed these questions in advance, and shown them to be unanswerable without appearing to be a total tool of the oil industry, means he will never show up.
Hatch was on Morning Joe this morning, and it was basically the same old drill, baby, drill crap, with some variations. He was asked if oil companies should use the leases they have before getting new ones, and he said yes, but then went into all sorts of excuses that totally negated that yes....you know, we all know where the oil is....Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, off the East Coast, (after saying they needed to explore to find oil). I thought Jay Rockefeller did a good job on them yesterday too, asking them exactly how much profit they would have to make in order not to need the subsidies, after playing back the CEOs testimony from 2005 before Congress, when oil was at $55 a barrel, saying they didn't need the subsidies anymore. Why do they need it now when oil is near $100 a barrel?
Hatch, like many other Republicans, does not want to appear on a "hostile" show where he might be asked hard questions that require more than the usual Republican slogans. That is the problem with a lot of people in the media. They are afraid to offend guests because they might not appear on the show again.
Orrin Hatch has always been an enigma to me. Sometimes he is so sensible, other times he just seems to go off the deep end. I wonder if there is such a thing as political bipolar syndrome? If so, I want the naming rights!
Okay..I'm agreeing with Stephen on this one...I am sick to death of this Exxon commercial. That guy just makes me want to punch him. I also turn the sound down when he comes on. It just pisses me off. Is there anyone I can email to voice my displeasure? Anyone know? They need to get this ad OFF of the Maddow show...
Not much you can do if the commercial is on TV. However, you are watching on-line, right click on the box to the left of the screen with the advertiser's info, options appear, the top two are "embed code" and Watch on Maddow Show. Click Watch on Maddow Show, a new window will appear, bypassing the commercial. "X" out the window with the commercial and enjoy.
My wife hates political stuff so I watch the MSNBC line up online solely. Personally I find the commercials for BP (We catchin' big shrimp, we catchin' pretty shrimp) equally offensive.
Thanks for the info DQ....I didn't know you could do that.
I also watch online exclusively....I work in the public sector, so I can't afford cable ;) heehee just kidding...everyone knows that us public workers are flush with cash, right? I tried to find a way to bypass the commercials but couldn't get there.
Ditto on BP...those ads are distasteful. Expecially since there are still beaches that they won't let anyone on due to the tarballs. I'm assuming that is still true.
What about the Democrats who are going to vote against ending these subsidies? Landrieu and Begich (Alaska) are going to vote to filibuster the bill.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/12/2213482/alaska-sen-begich-stands-firm.html
No surprise there. All the politicians in LA and AK sold their souls to the oil industry years ago. Landrieu was pushing the administration to end the drilling moratorium in the Gulf even before it was imposed, despite the fact that the BP spill was still destroying the livelihoods of tens of thousands of her constituents. What's the big deal about a massive economic and ecological disaster in her state compared to the hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions she receives from her pals in the oil industry? We all know that when corporations say jump, politicians only ask "how far?"
The GOP just can't stop stepping in it, can they? First they throw in with the Ryan plan, which has been shown to be voodoo economics on steroids and amphetamines. Like the Walker "kill unions and balance the budget" plan, the Ryan budget won't save one red cent and wreak more havoc on the economy. Now, they want to push further into the land of political stupidity by threatening to vote against the debt ceiling. The GOP has now become the Wile E. Coyote of politics.
I say that if any company (or group of companies in this case) can earn a net profit of TENS OF BILLIONS in the first quarter of the year, then they don't need ANY assistance, tax breaks, or otherwise, FROM ANYONE!!!
Boo-freak'in hoo that you have to go get the oil in "harder to find spots" - hell, you're probably going to raise the price of gas on us to cover those costs anyway. Cry me a freak'in river already!!!
No other industry gets similar subsidies, which could be redirected towards innovative green energy, or elsewhere; or at the very least to reduce the deficit.
It's such a rush that Democrats and a few Republicans are finally making a stand against favoritism to the oil tycoons at the cost to our country. But I'm conflicted about anyone using the debt ceiling vote as leverage.
CNN was on this morning when I turned the TV on at about 5AM Pacific time. They showed some excerpts from the hearing with a comical slant. To further fluff it up their air head reporter on the show summed up the whole thing in a few simple words. She spoke of the economic issues and jobless problems in our country and said "it's all about money...just fighting about money".
Well what a brainless comment. It is about corporate greed for power and money, about influence over our elected representatives who pay for their election war chests by doing favors for corporate donors. It is yet another example of the boldness of corporate CEO's and their lack of morals and common sense values. It is about how Americans have to watch their elected representatives represent those corporate interests and not their electorate anymore.
It is also about CNN and other so called news stations that are more interested in reporting humor with simple fluff explanations without digging out the real story. No wonder it is so hard to watch other news stations. The truth may be hard to take, but if we don't face it and deal with it we will all be taken for a ride.
What about asking a few hard questions like Maddow does. Would there even be a budget problem if the wealthy and the mega corporations paid taxes at the rates the working folks did? Why would intelligent people like our senators even have to discuss these tax gifts to such profitable corporations at a time like this? It is a no-brainer, and if your senator does not see it that way, they are just being bought off like some third world puppet.
Harsh, no not nearly as harsh as the CEO's today who would not even apologize for their calling people like me Unamerican. Senator Charles Schumer would like an apology, I think they owe us all much more than an apology.
JC
Los Angeles
90% of Americans think that speculators are responsible for high oil prices and 100% of speculators think that no matter what Americans will keep guzzling gas. It is up to the consumer to show the speculator that oil futures are not a good buy, do this by going easy on the pedal, drive the speed limit to burn less and if changing cars get the car or truck that will meet you needs with the highest fuel economy in it's class. get something smaller if you can, get the smaller engine if you don't really need the big engine, go hybrid or diesel if you can. there are speculators in every commodity market, not just oil, capitalism and free markets allow for speculators, the speculators are not doing anything wrong but when a commodity like oil goes sky high they do signal what the consumer is doing wrong. Yes end tax subsidies for the oil companies it won't make any difference in the price at the pump, but yes the rest of the noise about this is a dog and pony show. Every American burning more than they need to, to get around is to blame. The speculators just ride our coat tails.
I think the last couple of times that gas hit $4/gallon, we saw a big decrease in the amount of driving done, and the amount of gas sold. Supply and demand would say that would cause the price to drop, but of course, it didn't, just kept going up. Oil has dropped tremendously in the past two weeks, but on Tuesday here, our gas jumped nearly 20 cents per gallon. Even OPEC acknowledges that when oil gets too high, the world economy suffers, and they try to up production. Unfortunately, oil companies willfully ignore the consequences of their actions....massive profits are the only thing they care about, and if they have to wreck the economy to make them, then so be it.
I believe US consumers of gasoline are no longer responding to $4 gas by cutting back on driving or becoming more fuel-efficient. Sure they complain, (even Rachel complained about filling her vehicle costing more than $75) but will they change? Will they buy higher mileage vehicles and ditch their oversized pick-up trucks and obscene SUVs? I would like to think so, but I won't be surprised if consumers do nothing special until gas prices get to $5 or $6 per gallon.
Actually, there was a report earlier this week that gas consumption has dropped quite a bit since gas hit the current levels, and gas supplies are rising....hence, the continued increase in gas prices, which is totally contrary to supply and demand. Let's face it, the oil companies are criminals, the worst of the worst. I don't want to wish ill on any of them, but China treats their criminals a lot differently.
Uffdaguy is correct, the current gasoline price level has correlated with a decrease in demand:
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/05/demand-for-gasoline-falling-as-prices-rise/#more-38940
However, some interesting research suggests that Dutchie may be correct in the aggregate:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/study-rising-gas-prices-dont-impact-consumption/
The impact of higher gasoline prices is extremely regressive since it is largely the same regardless of income level.
We Liberals are a cruel people! I'm going to have nightmares now when I think of those five poor big oil CEOs having to drink generic beer instead of the good stuff. The generic beer is so...what's the word I'm looking for? Un-American.
And I think that Rachel should wear a different hardhat every day on the show now. People should start sending her hardhats! And Rachel could wear special hardhats for important news stories...Monday could be the hardhat with a flashing red light and siren on top, Tuesday could be the beer bong hardhat, with Orrin and Hatch juices instead of beer, etc.! Rachel just looks plain hot in that hat! And as a bonus, it really seems to tick off crusty old white guys! Bwahaha!
Negotiations have become hostile hostage taking. Most of the people here know the Constitution, but there it is, the powers of Congress, which includes taxing and borrowing, regulating commerce, provide for the general welfare, uniform rule of naturalization, etc.
U.S. Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
At some point, the mantra needs to change to : "Get big corporations off our back."
The big oil co. people could hold back on there yearly raises and such and turn the profit back into the pubic purchase....but greed has them by the nuts....no one person should be making what they make.
We have an alternative minimum tax for individuals and some duductions are phased out for high income individuals. Couldn't those same concepts be applied to corporate taxation to assure that there is at least some contribution forom our largest corporate citizens?
On a different soapbox: Rachel, Next time you are talking about taxation of high income individuals, please consistently add one word to the discription: those with TAXABLE income of over $250,000. Everyone knows that wealth people can hire accountants to find ways to hide or shield income from taxation. So these taxes would not be paid by all people with over a quarter million in income for a year, but only those with incomes way over $250k who can't figure out ways to avoid taxation.
Its about time the Democrats start doing something...don't hear from anyone much about what they are doing....go get us some money and JOBS!!!!!!!
Get us some money that belong to us..oil money and tax the rich then the rest of America will start growing again not just the rich..............
Last night Rachel invited Orrin Hatch to come on her show, to discuss the oil subsidies. And of course we know that he will not do that unless we put his feet to the fire. So here is my suggestion, lets start a campaign on Face Book urging him to accept her most gracious invitation? Hey it worked with Betty White!
But Betty White is actually loved by people. Orrin is only loved by corporations.
I,m not interested in spreading love for the senator, I just want him to answer Rachel's questions. I like many others are sick and tired of him taking pot shots at the media, and then run and hide.
Are the Teabaggers on board with these subsidies to the richest corporation in the history of the world? Maybe somebody should try to get the Teabaggers to chime in on this. If they throw a little hissy fit the Republicans will jump in a second. Surely the Teabaggers cannot justify subsidies for these slimeballs.
You misunderestimate the flexy and bendy qualities of a Teabagger. I'm absolutely certain they can find justification for oil subsidies. Remember, these are the people who told Congress to keep the government's hands off of their government healthcare!
Rachel, I wear a hard hat at work occassionally. Now I need you to tell me where I can get a sticker that I can put on my hard hat that reads "Liberal mouthpiece in a HardHat". That would soooooo round out the look that I'm going for when I have to wear it. Thanks.... ;)
And if I can't get a sticker...I may just have to use a black Sharpie. :)
There is some question whether certain stickers degrade shell integrity, and once on it should stay as solvents are a "no no". There are decals and stickers made specifically for hardhats, though. Perhaps you should supplement your income.
@lock: I'm sorry....What????
It is not only sunlight exposure that weakens hardhats. The chemicals in cleaners and some decal/sticker adhesives can degrade the strength of the shell of the hardhat. Some stickers can act as electrical conductors and OSHA has restrictions on where you may put them. Stickers make it difficult to inspect hardhats for degradation (the shine becomes dull).
I was suggesting you start a specialty sticker business. Sorry confusing, I was tired.
The key to successful entrepeneurship is finding odd demands that have no supply. Liberal Flash (like buttons or stickers) for Hard-hats that are OSHA approved? That is a niche with promise! Cyn, if you pursue that or if anyone else wants to do something similar, T-shirt slogans, bumper stickers, buttons...gimme holla. I slogan good. Here's one for hard-hats. The Labor Movement IS Social Justice. Economy = National Security.
One vote for hiring DQ. He could cross-function as the "Progressives' Party Planner". He has qualifications.
You guys are cracking me up...I was really just joking. ;) Altho, I DO wear a hard hat, I work in the public sector so my hat has "City of ......" on it. And there is NO WAY they would allow me to put any kind of political sticker on it.
Too bad...I'm thinking tho, that I will make one up on the computer, tape it to my hat long enough to get a pic, then send it to Rachel. ;)
My question is: how will conservatives flip this to make the dems look like socialists?