Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did Obama back Cheney and vote to give oil companies $14.5 billion?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 07:40 AM
Original message
Why did Obama back Cheney and vote to give oil companies $14.5 billion?
I guess when he says uniter he means unite the oil companies with our money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Fact Check: Energy Bill Raised Taxes On Oil Industry Overall
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 08:51 AM by AtomicKitten

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/11/america/Democrats-Fact-Check.php

WASHINGTON: Hillary Rodham Clinton has challenged rival Barack Obama on his record on energy policy, prompting Obama's campaign to counter that it was Clinton who voted against improvements in automobile fuel economy and promoting renewable fuels.

THE SPIN:

"On the campaign trail, Senator Obama talks about clean energy. But in the Senate he voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies. When he faced a tough choice, his support for a clean energy future turned out to be just words," said Clinton at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa.

Obama's campaign said Clinton "voted against renewable fuels and higher CAFE (auto fuel economy) standards until she started running for president" and that the bill Obama voted for "actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation's history."

THE FACTS:

Both sides refer to votes on an energy bill Congress passed in 2005. In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill and Obama voted for it.

It is a stretch to call it "Dick Cheney's energy bill," a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president's energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away. Its broad new benefits for nuclear power and the coal industry mirrored Cheney's priorities, however.

Although opposed by environmentalists, many Democrats viewed the final bill as the best compromise that could be achieved in a GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton at the time said she opposed the bill because it did not do enough to cut reliance on foreign oil and address global warming.

Clinton's claim that the bill "was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies" also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax. The bill's $14.3 billion in energy tax breaks mostly went for renewable energy and efficiency programs and the nuclear and coal industries, both of which are prominent in Obama's home state of Illinois.

Obama is correct when he says Clinton voted against renewable fuels and auto fuel economy. During the 2005 energy deliberations, Clinton voted against an amendment that would have required an increase in the federal auto fuel economy standard, known as CAFE; Obama voted for it. The measure failed, 28-67.

Clinton opposed the energy legislation's mandate for more ethanol use as a gasoline additive But on that, she was not alone as Northeast and West Coast senators worried the ethanol requirement would lead to higher gasoline costs outside the Farm Belt. Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both now Obama supporters, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also voted against the energy legislation as did California's two Democratic senators.

In late 2007, as they geared up to begin running for president, both Clinton and Obama voted for boosting auto fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, and for a huge expansion of ethanol use as part of the energy bill passed by Congress. President Bush signed the bill into law last December.



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/youve_got_mailers.html

Mailer says Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies," another distortion. By the time Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

* snip *

The mailer further charges that Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies." Obama did vote for the 2005 energy bill to which Clinton refers. But as we've said more than once before, her claim that the legislation resulted in large tax breaks for the oil industry is misleading.

In fact, the bill President Bush signed into law in 2005 actually raised taxes on the oil industry overall. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Energy Policy Act "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years."research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. You beat me to the post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. and without caffeine!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Nice spin
But the fact is only 20% of the 14.5 billion went to renewable-energy development.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/08/08/little-energy/

When House and Senate negotiators met to hammer out a compromise version of the bill in conference committee last month, it was predictably stripped of nearly all its environmentally ambitious provisions, including one requiring utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. What's left is a dizzying $14.5 billion in energy-industry subsidies, only about 20 percent of which will go to renewable-energy development.

Harder for progressives and enviros to swallow was the support it got from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Nice moving the goalposts.
The OP claims the energy bill had tax breaks, however, as you can clearly see fails to mention those were offset by almost $3 billion in new oil industry taxes, thereby increasing oil industry taxes overall.

Just like I said. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. Y'know, you really should go read the bill.
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 07:58 AM by C_U_L8R
The answers to all your questions are there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why do you keep spewing the same lies?
after they have been proven lies over and over again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. So he really didnt vote for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Good lord. Read the bill and open your eyes.
Or at least read the factcheck article. Pushing this lie after it has been proven false only makes you look foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
godai Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. $2.6 billion in tax breaks...offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 08:37 AM by godai
While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. I see allot of fact check stuff here about the off-set of taxes. And the prescience of BO...
for 'hopefully' pulling up on those mean old oil robber barons. In an energy environment, in no small measure because of such legislation; where Exxon alone has racked 36bil/yr, the highest corporate profits in the history of corporate America, by way of $10.7 billion 4Q profits and such, a little ole offset of "nearly $3 billion in oil taxes" is piker stuff. And the oil companies know it. They just found a new, young, fresh, up & coming senator willing to come their way maybe for well less than that. Besides, any American corporation worth it's salt has floor after floor of 3-piece tax attorneys that will whittle that $3bil down to squat...that's the American way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC