Friday, October 28, 2011
Steve Forbes on Obama's Anti-Oil Agenda
Steve Forbes: Obama’s anti-energy agenda kills jobs
“His reelection campaign in full swing, President Barack Obama is blaming obstinate congressional Republicans for his failure to advance a jobs plan in an economy that’s averaged 9 percent unemployment and crossed the $1 trillion deficit threshold for the third straight year.
Members of Congress on both the right and the left, however, stopped Obama’s American Jobs Act in its tracks. They recognized it for what it was: a glorified repackaging of tax increases that have rightly failed several times before. Undaunted, the White House and some of its strongest allies are coming back for more — adamant that the jobs landscape and our economy would improve if only Congress would pass a national energy tax.
Thirty-seven House Democrats and 14 of their Senate colleagues this month sent separate letters to the bipartisan supercommittee calling for an end to industry “subsidies” they claim would save the government $21 billion over 10 years.
Before beginning the eye roll for defending Big Oil, consider this: The influx of revenue expected from rolling back these fossil-fuel “subsidies” — close to $90 billion when factoring in the effects on related industries — is actually a national energy tax that will likely come straight from the pockets of American consumers.
By definition, government imposes a tax on an activity or product to discourage, not incentivize, it. Why, then, would the administration repeatedly target one of the only industries that’s actually creating jobs?
This blatantly contradicts the president’s pro-jobs rhetoric.
If the administration were serious about deficit reduction and accelerated job growth, it would partner with our domestic energy producers to help increase their employment base — which now encompasses more than 9 million affiliated jobs — by letting them expand their output. This, in turn, would expand their gross domestic product contribution, which averages $1 trillion annually.
Instead, Obama has cast the industry as a ruthless competitor for taxpayer handouts. If this seems exaggerated, take it from the president himself, in his address to a joint session of Congress last month.
“Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies?” Obama asked. “Or should we use that money to give small-business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both.”
What the president knows, but fails to divulge in making his case, is that U.S. oil and natural gas companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies. The provisions he’s targeting for repeal are the same tax credits and deductions available to a broad swath of other U.S. companies — including a domestic manufacturing credit and a measure to prevent double taxation on income earned abroad.
If the White House has a reasonable explanation for how raising taxes on one industry without broader tax reform can create jobs, I’ve yet to hear it.
Real tax reform that closes loopholes in favor of lower rates is an idea that I support wholeheartedly. That’s why I have long advocated the flat tax. In fact, I recently endorsed and continue to advise Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is now proposing his own version of the flat tax.
Repealing tax credits and deductions for only one industry, however, is the opposite of tax reform. It’s a classic Washington game of using the Tax Code to pick winners and losers.
Critics will predictably counter that the oil and gas industry, as a pillar of strength in an otherwise bleak economy, shouldn’t hesitate to pay more taxes.
This is preposterous. U.S. oil and gas producers now pay the federal government more than $86 million a day in taxes, royalties and fees.
The industry is taxed at an effective rate of 41 percent. For comparison, the average tax bracket for industrial companies is 26 percent. The oil and gas industry pays its fair share.
If the president were really interested in creating jobs and economic growth, he would support more domestic energy production rather than punitive tax increases.
Allowing domestic producers to responsibly develop abundant energy in offshore and onshore deposits, according to a recent Wood Mackenzie study for the American Petroleum Institute, would create more than 1 million jobs nationwide; channel an estimated $800 billion in additional government revenues; and contribute 10 million more barrels of oil and natural gas per day by 2030. Opening more areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic and Alaskan coastlines would allow companies to bring jobs back to the United States — instead of having to look abroad for investment opportunities.
Most Americans realize that additional government spending will not stimulate permanent job growth. If it did, stimulus Parts 1 and 2 would have cured our employment ills long ago.
If the administration were serious about job growth and deficit reduction, it would stand down from its “jobs” plan that would only further handicap an industry that stands ready to contribute thousands of new jobs.
Otherwise, cue the collective grumbling at the gas pump.”
Chattanooga Shale Isopach
Keystone Pipeline
Obama says he’ll address Keystone Pipeline concerns
posted at 4:05 pm on October 27, 2011 by Tina Korbe
printer-friendly
During an event with young people in Denver, one activist interrupted Obama’s remarks, urging the president to reject the project.Obama has been none too popular with his environmentalist constituency lately — not least because he hired Broderick Johnson, a former lobbyist for the Keystone XL, to be a senior adviser to his campaign. Given that, it’s difficult to envision Obama overriding the countless anti-pipeline protesters — including a number of celebrities — to throw his weight behind the Keystone project. He’ll probably just continue to hear their concerns and delay a decision.
“We’re looking at it right now, all right?” Obama replied. “No decision’s been made and I know your deep concern about it, so we will address it.”
Protesters who held up a banner reading: “Stop the Keystone Pipeline Project” were asked to leave.
But consider: By the Department of Energy’s own admission, access to Canadian oil sands could significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Some supporters for the pipeline have even made the case that construction and use of the pipeline is more ethical than the continued purchase of oil from a country that discriminates against women. Environmentalists insist the pipeline poses a risk to endangered species because spills could occur — but a State Department report has shown that to be unlikely. (Incidentally, in response to that report, three environmental groups sued the U.S. government this past Tuesday — another element of the Keystone drama that seems likely to push Obama to the left on this issue.) Perhaps most importantly, the pipeline will be a vehicle for the creation of thousands of jobs — the president’s purported top priority.
The only reason for Obama not to support the pipeline project is that it might cost him a few votes with lefty enviros. Oh, right. So, never mind. No wonder he’s delaying his decision.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Politics and Science Don't Mix!
I'm not picking sides on this, but it follows about how we get the right message out for the oil and gas business. At least we're not dealing with Occupy the Oil Fields.....must be too cold at Prudhoe and too hot in Saudi Arabia. That 9,000 year old joke is a million years old!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)