Senate energy bill calls Bush's bluff on veto

[frigidmagi]

Reader says what?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats are calling the White House's bluff on a threatened veto of an energy bill by refusing to take out language that would remove tax breaks for big oil and gas companies.

The Senate's version of the bill, which modifies energy legislation passed last week by the U.S. House of Representatives, is scheduled to be voted on Thursday. It would repeal about $13 billion in tax breaks for mostly big oil companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp.

The White House has said the bill unfairly targets the oil industry and that President George W. Bush would veto the legislation in its current form.

Removing the financial breaks for big oil and gas companies accounts for more than half of a modified $21.8 billion tax package in the broad energy bill.

The main part of the bill would boost the fuel efficiency of U.S. cars and trucks by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, increase by five-fold the U.S. output of renewable motor fuels like ethanol to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 and reduce energy use in appliances and commercial buildings.

If the Senate approves the bill this week, it would return to the House of Representatives so that lawmakers there could vote on the Senate's changes to the bill.

The legislation's tax package is opposed by the White House, in part because it would end for big companies a tax deduction for domestic oil and gas production and also limit the ability of companies to claim foreign tax credits on their foreign oil and gas extraction income.

The American Petroleum Institute, the trade group that represents major oil and gas companies, slammed the Senate's substitute bill, saying it would result in higher energy costs for consumers.

"The tweaks the Senate has made to the counterproductive House energy bill will do nothing to produce more, much-needed oil and natural gas supplies for American consumers," the API said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hoped enough Republican lawmakers would support the legislation to obtain the 60 votes needed from the chamber's 100 members to block a filibuster of the bill.

"This is an opportunity for Republicans to stand with Americans who are paying more than ever at the pump, instead of with the big oil companies who are raking in record profits," said Reid.

Democrat Jeff Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, said White House top economic adviser Allan Hubbard told him this week that Bush wants an energy bill that does not have any taxes to pay for the legislation's renewable tax credit extension and energy efficiency programs.

"They're opposed to offsetting that revenue loss. They want to add (the bill's costs) to the deficit," Bingaman told reporters in a conference call on Wednesday afternoon.

The bill would treat renewable energy sources much better than the oil and gas sector, including extending the wind energy production tax credit for two years and providing a tax credit for eight years for commercial installation of solar energy panels.

In a move supported by the White House, Reid removed from the bill a controversial plan to require utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind power by 2020.

The White House had also threatened to veto the legislation over the electricity standard.

Here's what I don't get, the oil companies have annouced a year of record profits... After a year of record profits. WTF do they need tax breaks for? And as for 'oh this will rise gas prices' What like you were already doing!?!

NewsFlash you can't threaten us with jacking up the price of gas because you've been jacking up the price of gas for the last couple years without pause. The threat loses all value if we believe you're just going to do it anyway no matter what we do.

[B4UTRUST]

It's the same old song and dance it's always been, man. The rich get tax breaks, the poor don't make enough to really pay taxes and that broad tax bracket covering upper lower class to lower upper class that generally pays the big portion of taxes in the country anyway foots the bill.

And I do agree with you on the threat thing. Idle threats are meaningless when the person you're using them against knows they're idle. Oil companies saw we'd willingly pay two bucks a gallon a year and a half or so ago when Ivan came through and took out shitloads of things in the gulf, wrecking oil production down there which gave them an excuse to drive it up over $2. It never came back down because they knew we needed it the same way we need it now. Katrina does the same thing a year later, accompanied by "rising tensions in the middle east" and we have another quick price jack on top of the steadily rising cost of fuel. It his $3 in some places and never went back under for 83 octane. Again, dispite our bitching and complaining, they knew we'd pay it because we had too.

So what incentive do they have to keep prices down anyhow? We have a dependency on fuel so we have to pay the costs, no matter what they are. But the funny thing about the article is though if you read the API's comment you'll note they didn't exactly say that having the tax break would guarentee lower costs at the pump. They pretty much just threatened congress and the American people that if they don't get the tax break, they're going to drive up the prices. Now if they'll guarentee in writing that the'll drop the cost of oil back down to under $2.50 a gallon for 83 octane I'll happily write my congressman and tell them to push through the tax breaks. But I'd also like to see a stipulation in there stating that if the prices of gas do not fall beneath the indicated level within one financial quarter that the tax breaks are retroactively removed, meaning they owe taxes for the remainder of the financial year in addition to any taxes forgiven under the tax break.

Not that that will ever happen, of course. That would require enough people will balls telling their biggest backers to go fuck themselves.