• Comment (2)

Barack Obama's Un-Fair Energy Taxes

March 13, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Pete Sepp is executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union.

Washington would be well served to revisit Webster's dictionary from time to time. In particular, politicians' understanding of the term "fair" often seems to fall far off the mark. Merriam-Webster's best-fitting online definition of "fair" in the context of policymaking—"marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism"—provides a reality check.

Tuesday, for instance, the White House is hosting a Department of Energy-led seminar for corporations on investing in renewable energy schemes through tax equity financing. Instead of being "free from self-interest," this event provides the latest illustration of the manipulative, politicized carrot-and-stick capitalism we've witnessed from this administration, particularly in the energy sphere.

[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]

Need another example? Look no further than the campaign trail and President Obama's promotion of a tax deduction known as "Section 199."

This portion of the tax law has been in existence since 2004 and is broadly available—used by U.S.-based corporations ranging from movie studios to auto manufacturers, from newspaper publishers to microbreweries. In fact, Reuters reporter Kim Dixon notes "the deduction has become so deeply embedded in the economy that one-third of corporate activity qualifies for it, the Congressional Research Service said in a report last month."

The wide applicability of this provision only makes the unfairness prevalent in the Obama administration's new corporate tax plan that much more apparent. Though the president wants to double Section 199 (currently 9 percent) for "advanced manufacturing," he is pushing to wipe it out entirely just for American oil and natural gas firms. This hardly seems "free from … prejudice, or favoritism."

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

The tremendous job loss that would occur as a result of the president's energy tax policies would be acutely felt not only by the families of those who join the ranks of the unemployed. Indeed, millions of Americans would suffer unnecessarily under even bigger fuel price shocks, which would be the result of politics rather than economics. It's difficult to comprehend how this kind of shared misery amounts to the benign "impartiality" most people hope for when they see the word "fair."

In the final analysis, perhaps Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary makes a useful companion to Webster's venerable contribution toward our understanding of language … at least when Washington's political class begins to chatter.

Tags:
corporate taxes,
energy,
economy,
oil,
gas prices,
energy policy and climate change

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Do you really think holding america hostage in the name of greed is really the best way to go? Just how much money will be enough. With oil profits through the roof, company heads pulling down tens of millions a year, and more money than they can figure out what to do with,they want to cry about paying a fair tax rate? The taxes we pay at the pump, on top of making sure that that you dont suffer is one of many things that are hurting the economy. Not to mention the strain it puts on the lesser people.

To threaten people with higher gas prices and greater unemployment than they already suffer at the hands of a country full of ceo's who like yourselfs are so desperate to try to out greed each other, that they dont think twice about bringing this country to its knees again to get the three things you and they want the most, more power, money, and to get that black man out of office.

What is it called when someone threatens someone else with harm to get what they want? Aren't there laws against things like extortion? Doesn't the Rico Act cover things like that? Most likely not, power does have its privledge,but doesnt this at least lean towards an act of treason?

Its reasonable to expect companys to prosper,and normally its reasonable to expect everyone to prosper as the companys do better, but thats not the way it works anymore. With companys finding more ways to get more work out of less people while giving less in pay and benefits, all the while increasing their own comp.packages and still having plenty of money left to pay high priced lobbying firms to trot up to D.C. and buy a few Republicans who are just as determined to destroy this country to get their power back as big oil and other corporations are to retain theirs.

The tax break that President Obama is asking to be repealed isn't gonna put a dent in your comp package, and there will still be enough to pick up a couple of extra congressmen if you just have to feel a little more powerful. Orr, you and your other corporate buddys could do something novel and use some of that power that WE paid for with OUR blood, sweat, and tears, to get behind Your President, see that the Republicans idea of doing things has never worked and its gonna take ALL of us to fix this mess.

Oh, by the way, I,m registered as a Republican,and I own stock in Exxon, Marathon Oil, Marathon Petrolium, and Royal Dutch Shell, and Chesapeake Energy Corp.

Ray Sigler of GA 1:13PM May 30, 2012

OIL DRILLING...

What’s the truth at the bottom of the emotional froth? The Federal Minerals and Management Service has estimated that the “natural” seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel is between 100 and 150 barrels of oil per day! Note, more oil seeps naturally into the waters off Santa Barbara every day then the oil platforms have spilled in 30 years! By way of anecdotal observation I note that many “old timers” from Santa Barbara have related that decades ago the beaches along the coast were covered with oil and tar, and that since the platforms began pumping the amount of oil on the beaches is a fraction of what it was 30 to 40 years ago. Studies done by U.C. Santa Barbara support the theory that the oil platforms actually reduce “natural” oil seepage in the sea.

Have you ever seen those old WWII movies where the submarines are firing torpedoes into oil tankers? . Well, thousands of ships were sent to the bottom from 1939 -1945. ALL of these ships were carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and, oil, not to mention men. The Exxon Valdez wouldn’t even compare to one month’s loss of oil during WWII. Another fact worthy of consideration is that you won’t find even one photograph of an oil covered seagull or an article discussing the “Environmental Tragedy” in newspapers of the day.

As a matter of fact, the site of one of the worst oil spills in history is Truk Lagoon. In 1944, more than 70 Japanese ships were sunk in an enclosed lagoon by American dive bombers. These ships carried vast amounts of chemicals, explosives and oil. Additionally, hundreds of high explosive bombs and shells and dozens of aircraft crashed into the lagoon during this same two day period. Despite this, what today would be deemed an environmental calamity, Truk Lagoon has one of the most diverse underwater ecosystems to be found anywhere in the world and is considered one the worlds premier dive sites. Oil still seeps from the dozens of Japanese ships.

The amount of oil spilled today are tiny compared to the massive spills of six decades ago and do not justify the current State and Federal regulations which border on insanity.

The off-shore platforms themselves, while unsightly, provide a home for thousands of sea creatures which could not survive in the natural, but barren surrounding ocean bottom.

Further, we should look at the question of increased drilling in Alaska. Numerous studies have shown little impact on wildlife. As a matter of fact, the caribou herds have grown dramatically in size since the construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Besides, if one can’t drill for oil in empty, remote, frozen tundra, then where, can oil wells be located?

Finally, diagonal drilling allows for as many as 30 wells to be drilled on little more than an acre. Compare that with the thousands of acres destroyed by a wind farm which produce only tiny amounts of heavily subsidized energy at great cost to wildlife.

Going Green Has Gone To Far!

R.L. Schaefer of CA 6:55PM March 17, 2012

On Energy

Perspectives from all sides of the burning energy issues of the day. Follow it on Twitter @USNewsOnEnergy

advertisement

Economic Intelligence

Return of the Predatory Lending Rip-Off

A pair of industry-backed bills would bring on a sequal to subprime-fueled predatory lending.

Latest Videos

advertisement