Windfall Profits Tax Killed By GOP, Give-Aways Continue Unmolested

Senate Republicans have once again protected their patrons in the oil industry from a windfall profits tax:

The Senate fell nine votes short of the 60 required to proceed to debate on the Democrat-sponsored energy measure, which would have erased $17 billion in tax breaks for oil companies over 10 years and created a levy on "unreasonable" profits collected by the five largest U.S. oil companies. Only six Republicans voted to move ahead.

Of course we'll have another bite at the apple next year, likely with an increased Senate majority and a President Obama, who's already promised to make the petro-kings pay:

I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.

But for all the sturm und drang about the windfall profits tax, nobody is raising a peep about this $53 billion rip-off:

If oil and natural gas prices stay as high as they've been in recent months, the government could lose as much as $53 billion over the next 25 years in energy royalties because of an adverse court ruling, according to congressional auditors.

The Government Accountability Office said in a report released Thursday that the soaring price of crude oil and natural gas also means the windfall that companies will enjoy from the court ruling also could increase by billions of dollars.

In October 2007, a federal court ruled in a claim originally filed by Kerr McGee Corp. that the government cannot require companies that are exempt from paying royalties on oil and gas taken from federal land and waters to pay them if market prices reach a certain level.

And how did we get ourselves in such a ridiculous situation?

The case is based on a claim filed by Kerr-McGee, which was purchased by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., in 2006.

Anadarko had argued successfully that the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service had overstepped its authority when it imposed royalties on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico under a royalty relief program enacted by Congress in 1995.

Congress at the time provided the royalty break for deepwater exploration to encourage energy development in those areas. The Interior Department contends it had the authority to lift that royalty relief once prices reached a certain level -- prices that are far below what crude oil and natural gas is now costing.

I'd like to see some legislative action to stop giving away publicly owned petroleum to the oil profiteers for free. How 'bout you?



Display:


Re: Windfall Profits Tax Killed By GOP, Give-Aways (none / 0)

Wow that is the type of shit that makes me furious.

If they are extracting resources from OUR PUBLIC LANDS, we as citizens of this country should see a BENEFIT.

Instead it is just another fucking giveaway.

I love how the right argues that progressive tax systems are a form of wealth redistribution, but they don't care as long as wealth is being redistributed upwards.

Fuck these people. Seriously, how can they live with themselves.


by Jon Niola on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM EST

Re: Windfall Profits Tax Killed By GOP, Give-Aways (none / 0)

I totally support minimizing or eliminating subsidies and tax breaks we're giving to companies making these kind of profits.

That said, I don't see why we should be going after them for "windfall profits".  Everything I've read indicates that the oil companies have extremely similar profit margins to other industries (about 10%) -- it's just that they are moving such vast amounts of product that they end up making lots of money.  Also, when the product more than doubles in price, that 10% profit also more than doubles.

Still, it's not like they're gouging customers by increasing their profit margins, and I don't see why we should penalize companies simply for being successful.


by ChrisKaty on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM EST

Boggles the mind (none / 0)

Remind me again why we're basically letting the Republicans filibuster everything without them actually, you know, filibusting?  We got 51 votes on this; that should be enough.

Harry Reid is a disgrace.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST

Pete Domenici (none / 0)

My Senator, Pete Domenic, was as always at the forefront of this.  Not surprisingly, he has received more money from the oil and gas industry than any other industry in his career.

Wonder if its' the same for others here with Republican Senators who voted against this.


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:03:29 PM EST

I'd like to see... (2.00 / 1)

The Senate go back to historical rules that required a real filibuster rather than this lazy, virtual version we have today.  If you want to prevent a bill from being voted on, stand there and read the damn phone book!  

Anyone can roadblock a bill these days, it seems.  The American people aren't stacking Congress with Dems because they want gridlock.  We demand action!  And RESULTS!


Let's elect a Dem President!
by SpanishFly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST

Re: I'd like to see... (none / 0)

We need to change the senate rules to do away with the filibuster completely. The tyranny of the minority is worse than the possability of the tyranny of the majority. 51 votes should be all that's needed to enact legislation.


by Quinton on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tomorrow ... tomorrow (none / 0)

The sun will come out tomorrow ...
Yeah sure, once again the minority repubs schools the Democrat party.
by usedmeat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:09:21 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.