RE: Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On The Way Out, Ron
November 15, 2012 at 1:55 pm
(This post was last modified: November 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm by Darth.)
Criminalise OPEC? huh? Good luck with that one.
So this oil exploration and subsidy bill... jan 2007...
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm (your link), click on the full quotes section, leads to this:
Now, was it a vote on just the title I, or do all those 3 come as a package?
Im under the impression it's all 3 as a package, so it's the removal of a tax deduction for domestic oil (and whatever title II does, charging oil companies more for their mining leases in the gulf of mexico (why not elsewhere?)?), but the creation of a subsidies for other energy? But what are the sizes and what forms of energy? Ethanol? Also, congressional research reports on wikileaks seem to think that the bill (at least the later senate amendment) would allow for some of that money to go right back to oil companies... (I looked up Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve, was one of the first links to pop up). The initial bill http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr...0hr6ih.pdf seems to say that only the funds raised by titles I & II can be used for title III.
I'd be interested in seeing exactly who the title III recipients were going to be... it doesn't seem to say...
It seems to me that saying "Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies" is disingenuous, "voted no on a piece of legislation with no net change in subsidies**+ (an increase in charges that are then used to fund subsidies, which would make it a net increase in subsidies*), and then making the recipients of the funds raised a bunch of yet to be decideds (but trust us)" might be a better way of putting it **. Seems suss to me.
*I'm still not entirely sure about title II, rest seems clear(ish), this point depends on what title II is.
**let's not get into tax break = subsidy, it doesn't, but that's not the point of the argument, even when calling the tax break a subsidy, which this bill eliminates, the result still seems to be either a no change or an increase in subsidies.
Rest of them don't look unlibertarian (which is why I harped on about this one, which did appear unlibertarian as first reported) =) (A libertarian case can be made for a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's not what was on offer was it)
So this oil exploration and subsidy bill... jan 2007...
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm (your link), click on the full quotes section, leads to this:
Quote:Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.
...
Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN); Bill HR 6 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-040 on Jan 18, 2007
Now, was it a vote on just the title I, or do all those 3 come as a package?
Im under the impression it's all 3 as a package, so it's the removal of a tax deduction for domestic oil (and whatever title II does, charging oil companies more for their mining leases in the gulf of mexico (why not elsewhere?)?), but the creation of a subsidies for other energy? But what are the sizes and what forms of energy? Ethanol? Also, congressional research reports on wikileaks seem to think that the bill (at least the later senate amendment) would allow for some of that money to go right back to oil companies... (I looked up Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve, was one of the first links to pop up). The initial bill http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr...0hr6ih.pdf seems to say that only the funds raised by titles I & II can be used for title III.
I'd be interested in seeing exactly who the title III recipients were going to be... it doesn't seem to say...
It seems to me that saying "Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies" is disingenuous, "voted no on a piece of legislation with no net change in subsidies**+ (an increase in charges that are then used to fund subsidies, which would make it a net increase in subsidies*), and then making the recipients of the funds raised a bunch of yet to be decideds (but trust us)" might be a better way of putting it **. Seems suss to me.
*I'm still not entirely sure about title II, rest seems clear(ish), this point depends on what title II is.
**let's not get into tax break = subsidy, it doesn't, but that's not the point of the argument, even when calling the tax break a subsidy, which this bill eliminates, the result still seems to be either a no change or an increase in subsidies.
Rest of them don't look unlibertarian (which is why I harped on about this one, which did appear unlibertarian as first reported) =) (A libertarian case can be made for a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's not what was on offer was it)
Nemo me impune lacessit.
