LOL, I was just going to edit my post when I saw yours Iceberg, but I'll post a new one.
I saw your first link when I was composing this post, it's from Apr.15, 2005. The second link of yours talks about tax structure from 1991 (the OTHER Bush
). I agree that some reorganization of the tax code may be necessary, but you have to remember that in '91 General Electric paid ZERO in taxes, yet people still bought their TVs and VCRs (although I have no idea why!!!
) Yes, ANWR would not create much oil, however as a total energy package it would help the natural gas situation. There is talk about Canadian oil sand lately that looks VERY promising. Not sure how they do it, maybe put the oily sand in a centrifuge?
From CNN.com Apr. 26 2006 during the $70/barrel times
Bush seeks to curb oil tax breaks:
Abstract:
"Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks," said Bush, a longtime tax-cut advocate. "Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of the energy companies."
Bush also repeated earlier calls for speeding up the process for building new gasoline refineries as well as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil exploration.
He called on Congress to expand the tax credit for hybrid vehicles, making all buyers of the fuel-efficient vehicles this year eligible for federal tax credits, rather than having caps on the number of vehicles eligible for the tax break.
Same day, different news source, The Washington Post:
GOP Blocks Measures Boosting Taxes on Oil Companies' Profits
(Bush opposed to three Senate provisions in the proposed legislation)
Abstract:
The biggest of the provisions would change accounting rules that apply to oil in storage. Currently, oil companies
are allowed to calculate the taxable value of their inventories based on the value of the oldest stocks, when oil may have been worth $30 a barrel. But much of the inventory may have been pumped from the ground when oil was selling for more than double that. Critics say that understates the value of the companies' oil supplies purely to lower their tax payments. Another would prevent oil companies from deducting from their U.S. taxes the royalties paid to foreign governments. The third, which would repeal the provision in last year's energy law allowing companies to write off in two years the cost of geological exploration, received new life after Bush's speech, Senate tax aides said.
Those measures were first proposed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to pay for a $500 tax credit to defray home energy costs. In letters to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Snowe suggested yesterday that the Senate oil tax measures be taken out of the broader tax bills and passed separately to pay for alternative-energy development.
But the Bush administration has strongly opposed Snowe's measures from the start, especially the accounting change, which would hit the five major oil companies to the tune of $4.3 billion in two years. In letters to Congress on Feb. 23, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow used underscored text to stress that "the President's senior advisors would recommend that the President veto the legislation if this provision remains."
Giving tax breaks to big oil doesn't seem to lower prices at the pump. Tax breaks certainly isn't the reason why GE TVs are cheap. That is caused by minimalistic engineering and offshore manufacturing. But people need to remember that NOT giving tax breaks to big oil does NOT translate to lower oil prices either, just more income for Congress to spend. And will they spend it on you? And how do you expect big oil will make up for the $4.3 billion loss? I'll leave that up to your imagination. Which is the lesser of two evils?
