Stop the Demagoguery on Oil & Gas, Mr. President

That was quite a performance Thursday at Prince George's Community College when President Obama spoke on energy issues. He repeated so many Big Green energy myths that even the most obsessive environmentalists must surely have been exhilarated. One of those myths deserves particular attention because it is at the core of Obama's "clean energy" agenda for America's future. As he so frequently does, Obama repeated the misleading assertion that America has only 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves but uses 20 percent of all the oil consumed every year.

That claim is at such variance with the facts that even some liberal mainstream media people are beginning to question it. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post Fact Checker column, for example, concluded yesterday that, while "on the surface, the president's numbers are correct, based on official government data," they are actually "two bits of information that bear little relationship to each other." Thus, Kessler categorized Obama's claim as a "non sequitur fact."

Kessler is right because Obama's 2 percent figure represents only "proven reserves," which represent a narrow slice of what is actually underground. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the 2 percent equals about 22 billion producible barrels. Obama would be more honest with Americans if he instead cited the government's estimates of "undiscovered technically recoverable oil," of which there are 140 billion barrels. How much of that becomes available depends mostly on technology. With the development of horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other new technologies, however, there is little doubt Americans will get the vast majority of those 140 billion barrels.

But to appreciate the true magnitude of as-yet untapped oil resources in or near the United States, consider these facts: The Institute for Energy Research reported last December that government data puts the total recoverable resources in North America at more than 1.7 trillion barrels. "That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania," according to IER. "To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the present needs in the United States of seven billion barrels per year for around 250 years."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...esident/376061

Wow - and listen to this utter lie by our President.

Obama Tells Congress To Eliminate 'Outrageous' Big Oil Tax Breaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq5ZdyiGYF4

"You can stand with oil companies or you can stand with the American people". Wow, off the charts......................

Oh, the lie? Oil companies get our tax dollars? 4 billion of our tax dollars subsidize the oil industry??? So Oil companies tax us? No, only governments tax us.

Even Though There ARE NO Oil Company Taxpayer Subsidies...

Barry And His Clueless Minions Continue To Make Believe So To Pander For Votes

Obama frequently says Americans “need to end our $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.” The latest Democrat bill would have repealed some $2 billion of what Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and others call “subsidies” and “special tax breaks” for Big Oil.

That’s baloney – shameless demagoguery that will inflict further damage on our struggling economy.
Subsidies are cash payments from government to the private sector. Money is taken from the 51 percent of Americans who still pay income taxes – and transferred by legislators and bureaucrats to companies and activities that “deserve” or “require” these wealth transfers, because the recipients perform an important service and/or could not remain in business unless subsidized with other people’s money (OPM).

The petroleum industry does not receive “subsidies” to produce oil and natural gas. It doesn’t even get “special tax breaks” or outright tax credits. What are falsely described in these terms are actually tax deductions for costs incurred by companies in the process of exploring, drilling, producing and refining the oil and natural gas that energize this nation’s economy and living standards.

These tax deductions are equivalent or similar to deductions claimed by every US business, large and small, for things like facilities depreciation, equipment, utilities, payroll, and research and development. They are intended to ensure that businesses, like individuals, recover their costs and get taxed only on their net incomes. For oil companies those deductions include:

• Geological and geophysical costs, for exploration to assess prospects prior to drilling;
• Intangible drilling costs – equipment, labor, fuel and supplies associated with drilling expensive wells;
• Expensing “tertiary injectants,” water and chemicals injected into older wells to keep them producing;
• Domestic manufacturer’s deductions of up to 6 percent of income earned from extracting oil and gas (farmers, manufacturers and other producers can deduct up to 9 percent of earned income);
• Percentage depletion allowance, allowing for gradual recovery of up-front investments in a petroleum (or iron, gold, limestone, et cetera) deposit that is gradually extracted and depleted. The allowance is not available to “integrated” companies that produce, refine and market oil.
White House, congressional and eco-activist claims that repealing these deductions will generate “billions in new revenues” reflect an abysmal grasp of basic business, economic and behavioral principles.

Legitimate tax deductions are hardly subsidies, but always remember that the Obama crony-crew has such a difficult time figuring out what taxes are that most of them disremember to pay THEIRS.

Using that as a bellwether, I guess we can say that the crooks on Obama's staff who've been found to be tax cheats are simply being subsidized by the American people. Affirmative Action is one thing; even more special rules for special people is another...that's okay but legit deductions are verboten. Now I see.

http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.c...l-company.html

The date of this article? May 27, 2011. The tactic? If you say it enough, it becomes true. Sadly most don't understand this.

Barack Obama: Let’s Lower Gas Prices By Raising Taxes On Big Oil

In his weekly address today, President Obama alleged that the oil industry “receives” some $4 billion in subsidies from the federal government, and that these subsidies should be ended.

“In the next few weeks, I expect Congress to vote on ending these subsidies,” said the President. “And when they do, we’re going to put every single Member of Congress on record: They can either stand up for oil companies, or they can stand up for the American people.”

First, saying that oil companies “receive” subsidies from the federal government is just plain inaccurate. We can argue about whether or not it’s good policy, or whether it’s policy that is overly friendly to the oil industry, but letting the oil industry keep more of their own money is not the same thing as giving them other people’s money.

Second, however you want to characterize these “subsidies” (or, more accurately, tax deductions), eliminating them is only going to raise the cost of doing business for oil companies. That means less development, fewer jobs and higher prices for the products they provide, most notably gasoline.

A president can’t both declare a policy war on the oil industry and claim he wants to make the prices of the goods that industry provides cheaper.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/bar...es-on-big-oil/

More presidential lunacy for your viewing pleasure complete with a video. Ha! He talks about "placing bets" LMFAO. Bet on something we "need" or bet on your ideology? We all know where the latter got us.................

May 16, 2011 4:00 A.M.

End Big Oil Subsidies?
This ruse has nothing to do with savings.
By David Harsanyi

So Democrats have discovered a new way to stem out-of-control federal spending: “End Big Oil subsidies now!” The position isn’t exactly courageous. Nor is it exactly honest.

This week, the Washington Post reported that the Senate Democrats’ new tax agenda “is focused on ending subsidies for big oil companies,” allowing voters to direct some of that populist rage over gas prices where it belongs: Republicans. By raising the issue, Democrats hope to put the GOP in the uncomfortable position of defending “some of the world’s most profitable corporations, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.”

In truth, these oil giants are taking advantage of features of the U.S. tax code that are available to most corporations, and of a broad tax break that exists to encourage investments in the manufacturing sector. Even if we accept that these are “subsidies,” we can take comfort in knowing that Washington will periodically incentivize industries that produce something rather than paying them to produce nothing — as is the case with some farmers and nearly all clean-energy outfits. Further, the industry still pays an effective tax rate of 48.4 percent, compared with 28.1 percent for all other S&P Industrials, according to economist Mark J. Perry.

And some of us, believe it or not, aren’t completely grossed out by the notion of profit — even a lot of profit. Strong earnings are good news not only for those dastardly Oil Barons, but for the millions of people who depend on the industry for their employment, as well as the vast number of Americans who rely on investments in oil to bolster their pension funds, retirement funds, college funds, and so on.

An industry as useful, wide-ranging, and essential to the economy as fossil fuel is inevitably going to entail talk of “billions.” Oil corporations are indeed “highly” profitable, averaging around a 7–8 percent profit margin the past few years — but they’re less profitable than government, which hauls in a higher margin on, for example, gas taxes.

How much would Harry Reid and friends save Americans by ending these tax perks? In five years, an estimated $18 billion. To put this savings in perspective (and we’ll get back to how president Barack Obama would like to spend . . . er, “invest” this money), the federal government borrows around $28 billion every week. To make this kind of trivial savings the focus of a high-profile plan to is to engage in transparently political gotchas.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the sponsors of the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” in the Senate, says: “We’re going to face a lot of resistance when we try to take a few billion dollars in free taxpayer money away from them.” As is typical of the Left, McCaskill seems to believe that giving a company tax breaks is tantamount to giving that company taxpayer money. But who exactly does she believe is going to pay for a tax increase, anyway, if not consumers?

Granted, Republicans would do well to support removing — across the board — tax incentives that skew competition. Eliminating these subsidies is the consistent free-market position. And $18 billion is $18 billion — if it’s used to alleviate the debt crisis.

But it won’t be. Obama would rather divert “those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” In other words, Obama plans to reroute the money to a clean-energy market that not only is already massively subsidized, but has increased the cost of power.

So, in the end, this ruse has nothing to do with savings, nothing to do with bringing down the price of gas, and everything to do with casting government as moral arbiter of energy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...david-harsanyi

Ain't that last line a hoot? Yeap, the Big Bad Federal Government, The Ultimately Powerful Federal Government. This is precisely why liberals love the Federal Government. It can FORCE individuals to comply with their policy. It can MANDATE individuals to do things they may or may not wish to do on their own free will.

Obama goads Congress to end tax breaks for large oil companies

By Olivier Knox | The Ticket

President Barack Obama on Thursday pressed Congress to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies that are pulling down record profits, arguing that Americans hit with soaring gas prices should not also have to prop up firms that can easily "stand on their own."

"It's like hitting the American people twice. You're already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress up until this point has thought it's a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

"It's not like these are companies that can't stand on their own. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profit. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies' profits," Obama said.

The president's remarks came as the Senate, in a procedural vote, beat back a measure that would have rolled back the tax breaks. The bill fell shy of the 60 votes needed to advance, getting a 51-47 margin that saw Democrats join Republicans in opposition.

High gas prices pose a potentially serious election-year threat to Obama, threatening the fragile economic recovery and hitting Americans in the wallet. Experts blame the pain at the pump on soaring demand in fast-growing economies like China, India and Brazil, as well as instability and uncertainty in the Middle East. But public opinion polls show Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the issue.

Obama's remarks showcased two of the main themes of his re-election campaign: Running against Congress and staking out a populist economic stance.

There is little a president can do over the short term to lower gas prices, but Republicans have seized on the issue to assail Obama's energy policies. House Republicans on Thursday struck a preemptive blow at the White House, circulating a March 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service suggesting that the president's proposals could actually result in higher gas prices and a greater reliance on imports.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...153416100.html

More Lies by our President. "The tactic? If you say it enough, it becomes true. Sadly most don't understand this. "

There Obama Goes Again

He hates fossil fuel, and he hates success.

As Ronald Reagan famously said, “There you go again.”

Of course, Reagan was blaming Jimmy Carter for launching false attacks during a debate. And that line was so effective, it not only helped Reagan win the debate, but a presidential election that would change American history.

But “there you go again” can apply equally to President Obama. Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.

Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he’s extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.

What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar? I don’t know which is more important to the president — the fact that he hates fossil fuel, or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state.

But here’s what I do know, factually.

Oil companies have an effective corporate tax rate well above 40 percent. And they operate within one of the highest-taxed industries in America. According to the Tax Foundation, for more than 25 years, oil and gas companies have sent more tax dollars to Washington and state capitals than they earned in profits. That’s a fact.

Single-handedly, oil and gas companies finance over 10 percent of non-defense discretionary spending within the U.S. budget. According to the Wall Street Journal, ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy firm, paid out $59 billion in total U.S. taxes over the five years prior to 2010 while earning only $40.5 billion in domestic profits.

And Obama wants to raise taxes on conventional-energy firms by somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion? Whatever happened to the supply-side principle that if you tax something more, you get less of it?

But with gasoline prices headed towards $5 a gallon, and with oil prices over $100 a barrel, virtually the whole country outside of the White House wants more oil, more retail gas for the pump, and more energy supplies everywhere in order to bring prices down. Raising taxes won’t do it.

Make no mistake about it: Fossil fuel is going to drive the American economy for decades to come. Green energy is not.

Obama’s other line of attack is that oil companies shouldn’t get any subsidies. They made too much money for that. Well, I’m against oil subsidies. There’s about $90 billion worth in the federal budget. Better to end them, slash corporate tax rates across the board, and let the free market decide energy policy and production.

But on the subject of subsidies, so-called renewable-energy subsidies (think Solyndra) are 49-times greater than fossil-fuel subsidies, according to studies by the Congressional Research Service. And the Congressional Budget Office says renewable green energy received 68 percent of energy-related tax preferences in fiscal year 2011, while fossil fuels got only 15 percent. Additionally, oil, natural gas, and coal received 64 cents per megawatt hour in subsidies, while wind power alone received $56.29 per megawatt hour. That’s 100-times what fossil fuels got.

By the way, the so-called subsidies that Obama is talking about are really depreciation write-offs for investment. Oil companies get a 6 percent deduction from income. Most manufacturing industries get 9 percent. And every company in the economy is eligible for faster investment write-offs.

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100 percent cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences, and carve-outs. That would be an unbelievable job-creator.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-larry-kudlow

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM&fstype=ii

That link goes to Exxon's Income Statement. Public companies are required to file these documents with the government. It is a legal document. Please look at income "before" and "after" tax and you will catch the drift of the author above.

‘Godzilla’ government: the Prez finally gets it


President Obama is finally figuring out how to use government — namely, to hurt people we don’t like.

In response to higher gas prices, for instance, Obama is pushing for an end to oil subsidies — take that, oil companies! And with the bad economy leaving ends tight for many folks, he’s out to enact his “Buffett Rule” tax on the wealthy.

Now, you can’t come up with even a science-fiction scenario in which higher operating costs for oil companies will lower gas prices, or where taxes on the rich will provide more jobs — but that’s not the point. The point is that people don’t like oil companies or the wealthy. And the president’s willing to hurt them for us.

So by focusing on these things, has Obama given up on helping us? Probably — but only because he’s gotten smart about government.

Think of the federal government as Godzilla. If you sent Godzilla to feed the hungry or help find someone a job, he’d fail and leave a huge swath of destruction in his path. But if you told Godzilla, “Hey, go step on that guy!” he’d do a great job.

Similarly, the government has always been pretty sketchy at helping people (except for just handing them money), but hurting people we don’t like is its core competency.

What’s Obama’s one big popular accomplishment? That Osama bin Laden was shot in the head and chucked in the sea (adhering to strict Islamic standards on sea-chucking).

If the way to bring bin Laden to justice was to get him a job and decent health care, Obama never would’ve been able to sate our lust for vengeance. But shoot a guy in the head — that, the government can actually do.

So, with a re-election fight on his hands, that’s what Obama is focusing on.

Trying to improve the jobs situation and save the economy has been a disaster so far. We’re drowning in debt and trying to convince ourselves that if we just got to 8 percent unemployment, things wouldn’t be so bad. But now Obama is going to govern smartly and just focus on hurting the right people.

This gets to the last several paragraphs: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...M6Kdu8GIvt5zfI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM&fstype=ii

That link goes to Exxon's Income Statement. Public companies are required to file these documents with the government. It is a legal document. Please look at income "before" and "after" tax and you will catch the drift of the author above.

---

That's worth another look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

That's worth another look.

---

$31,051,000,000 income tax expense according to their income statement (legal document required by government. Here's another look from Yahoo.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

That's 42% of their earnings going to various taxes. 42%.