Monday, August 06, 2007

So, the Democrats stiffed the oil companies...

...to the tune of $16,000,000,000 for the ostensible purpose of funding government-paid grant toadies and other political whores scientists to research ways to put the oil companies out of business "alternative energy" sources.

Unlike the congressional Democrats, though, the oil companies can't just print money; they actually have to earn it by selling stuff because, also unlike Congress, they can't run in the red year after year after year. In order to come up with this $16,000,000,000 extortion payoff tax, they're going to have to... Class? Anyone? Bueller?

That's right, they're going to have to raise prices on their products to generate the additional revenue. This is going to make gas and fuel oil more expensive. Any bets on how long it takes the Dems to cry "GOUGING!" when the starveling poor their electoral base can't afford to buy fuel?

(H/T to KdT.)

21 comments:

  1. *sigh*

    I wish I had something to say about this, but apathy has taken over. How sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hooray! It's 1973 again!

    Lines form around the block, people. 5 gallon limit per car, as long as the supply lasts.

    Rabbit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nah. Price controls will start before 1973 ever happens again.

    The line will be even longer.

    When will politicians learn that fiddle-fucking with laws that attempt to penalize "profit-takers" or distort the market for most any commodity is sure to have dire consequences?

    When?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It rolls back about $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry to finance these incentives."

    I don't personally see how making oil companies pay to a corporate tax bracket more in line with what other industries do is a bad thing. Tax breaks to the large, established oil companies have been one of the biggest barriers to market entry for not only new technologies, but simply smaller firms who want to get a foothold. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems to me to be getting rid of a government imposed market distortion, not creating a new one. (Granted that all corporations in the US have to pay taxes, I would prefer they are all held to the same standard.)


    But come on, all jesting aside, 16B is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the market. Shit, Exxon alone has had bigger quarterly profits than that (and keep in mind, their gross income is very high compared to their profits due to their low operating margins). This is just political grandstanding to make their voters happy. Their "incentive" packages aren't going to do shit, and the price increases (which would actually drive innovation and entry into the market) are going to minor, at best. 1973 it ain't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "This is just political grandstanding to make their voters happy"

    A) Stupid electorate.

    B) Ignorant, lying bastard politicians.

    The price that we all pay to the damn Gummint in this country is too high, as is. If markets are to work (and they do, though not to everyone's liking all the time) then it behooves the Gummint to keep their jackboots off of the neck of those who produce.

    If ever there were a lesson in how to raise higher revenues, it is that a lower RATE tends to create HIGHER revenues. All else is just as you said, grandstanding in front of a bunch of ignoramouses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can the house pass a tax like that? Doesn't it have to go through the Senate and the President? Or is my knowledge of US government deficient?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ivan P. said...
    "Maybe I'm missing something..."


    You are.

    Hey Tam, how much you payin' for a pack of smokes now?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe I'm missing something ...

    Fail.

    Corporations pass all expenses that they can on to the consumer. If ALL oil companies are taxed, then all of them will pass this cost on to us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Hey Tam, how much you payin' for a pack of smokes now?"

    Somewhere between "extortion" and "highway robbery"; three bucks and change. I figure I'm making the insurance payments on some trial lawyer's Benz and covering the utility bills of a lobbyist's time share in the bargain...

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...oh, wait, scratch that. That Sin Tax money is going to help poor victims of eeeevil Big Tobacco, right?

    My bad...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tam said...
    "Somewhere between "extortion" and "highway robbery"


    Yup. But hey, that'll never happen at the pumps because of all the money the oil companies are making, right?

    Pause for big "pfffffffffffffffffffft", and....


    Just wait until the "you've ruined the earth/I have lung problems because of your carbon-laden air" lawsuits start to fly. Or, they try to pay for universal health care with oil taxes...

    ReplyDelete
  12. And by the way, when's the last time black rain/snow fell in the northeast or the UK? And our air quality is supposed to be worse now?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don't forget the rider where all utility companies have to generate 15% of their electricity from "renewable" resources such as wind or solar by 2020, regardless of the feasability in that area, or face stiff penalties.

    "Why aren't you windless bastards making electricity from wind?!"
    "All our politicians are currently in Washington. We're suffering a hot air deficit."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah they stuck it too us. Great idea, lets raise the taxes on big oil, so we will naturally pass on the costs to you all as higher gas and oil prices.

    These were tax incentives that were given to encourage us to invest in domestic when the prices were low. Now they take them back. Now what country is this? Venezuela? Is she going down with Penn to talk to Hugo and get more ideas how to increase oil production?

    Is Pelosi going to nationalize the oil industry next?

    You guys are right though, we will just pass the costs on to you in terms of higher prices for the products. I guess that is how the dems are going to make you all green. Price the product out of your ability to buy it. Kind of backhanded but I guess it will work.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to tax hunters to make up for all the dead birds the windmills kill.

    "We're raising taxes on sporting goods to set aside more habitat to protect birds, whose populations have drastically declined over the last few years. It's the fault of global warming/cooling and all you suburban people and your tract housing, mind you. What? Now you listen here, I don't want you to bring up the big pile of dead birds around the wind farms again. Wind is 100% environmentally friendly."

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Somewhere between 'extortion' and 'highway robbery'; three bucks and change."

    From Monty Python: "Ah! Looxury!"

    It's been over five bucks a whack up here in The Vampire State, for years.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Three bucks a pack?

    Quit complaining. It's $9 in NYC. It hasn't been $3/pack here since the 80's.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Last I heard, they'd torn down the wall and guard towers, and you guys were free to leave.

    Wait, my bad, that was East Germany...

    Just kidding... Ow! Stop hitting me!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I pay five bucks a pack for the privilege -- so far -- of living on my father's land, which is the most beautiful place on earth to me.

    There's a lot to these calculations, and much of it is very difficult to make clear to others. We all have values like that, I'd bet.

    Besides: the whole bloody project is going to hell as fast as it can, Tam. I get around, and I know what I'm looking at.

    As long as I'm going down with the ship, I like my view of the sunset here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Besides: the whole bloody project is going to hell as fast as it can, Tam."

    You shouldn't let it kill your sense of humor, though. Might as well go out laughing if you gotta go. That's my plan, anyway. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Should you come around
    No more pain and no regrets
    Watch the sun go brown
    Smoking cobalt cigarettes"


    ("King of the World" -- Steely Dan)

    It's not exactly the right context, but I like the allusion to certitude.

    I do laugh as hard and often as I can, but when things snap into deep focus like that sometimes, I get distracted.

    Onward.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.