Obama to call for $10-per-barrel oil tax to fund clean transport

[Teh One Who Knocks]

FOX News and The Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/pBl6m7d.jpg

President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday -- although Republicans were quick to declare the plan "dead on arrival" in Congress.

The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.

Obama is expected to formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. However, the proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.

"Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans.

Ryan went on to describe Obama’s plan as “dead on arrival” in Congress.

“The good news is this plan is little more than an election-year distraction. As this lame-duck president knows, it's dead on arrival in Congress, because House Republicans are committed to affordable American energy and a strong U.S. economy," Ryan said.

The White House claims the added cost of gasoline would incentivize the private sector to reduce the reliance on oil and to increase investment in clean energy technology.

The plan also saw opposition from advocates for the oil industry, who warned it would only harm consumers.

“The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader,” API President and CEO Jack Gerard:

“On his way out of office, President Obama has now proposed making the United States less competitive.” Gerard said.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Nathan Bomey, USA TODAY


http://i.imgur.com/vQuWObr.jpg

Consumers will likely pay the price for President Obama's proposed $10 tax per-barrel of oil, an administration official and a prominent analyst said Thursday.

Energy companies will simply pass along the cost to consumers, Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com, which tracks gas prices nationwide, said in an interview with USA TODAY.

Obama is set to propose the tax when he reveals his budget next week, as part of an effort to reduce carbon emissions and generate billions of dollars for mass-transit investments and self-driving vehicles. The new tax would be phased in over five years, and would apply to both domestic and imported oil.

"This is a per-barrel fee on oil paid for by oil companies," White House economic adviser Jeff Zients told reporters Thursday. "So they're the ones paying the fee. We recognize that oil companies will likely pass on some of these costs."

Although the tax is likely to run into political opposition from Republicans, it comes at the most politically expedient time possible: Rock-bottom oil prices could make the inevitable increase in gas prices that would follow a tax increase more palatable.

"Something like this would trickle down and be a $10 per barrel tax on motorists," DeHaan said. "This is not something oil companies are going to absorb."

That means a 15-gallon fill-up would cost at least $2.76 more per day. It would also affect people who use heating oil to warm their homes and diesel to fill their trucks. But Obama will also propose a relief fund for families affected by higher energy bills.

Of course, at a nationwide average of $1.77 per gallon on Thursday, gasoline is already cheap compared to historic highs. Environmentalists say a small price increase is worth it to help fight climate change and spur innovation.

Zients declined to elaborate on how the oil fee -- which is different from a gas tax -- would affect prices at the pump.

DeHaan called it a "bold" proposal that would be the most significant change in energy policy in recent memory.

Oil stock investors did not appear to be fazed when the news hit Thursday afternoon. Shares of Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell all closed up for the day.

Stocks for Delta, United Continental, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines rose on Thursday, indicating that airline investors aren't fretting about the potential tax increase.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

"This is a per-barrel fee on oil paid for by oil companies," White House economic adviser Jeff Zients told reporters Thursday. "So they're the ones paying the fee. We recognize that oil companies will likely pass on some of these costs."

:roll: Yeah...some of the costs

[Goofy]

:empathy:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

he is good at getting those companies to pay :roll:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

he is good at getting those companies to pay :roll:

And give all the money to green energy companies, because we all know what a great track record they have had in utilizing taxpayer money :tup:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Oil is at around $30 a barrel and he is going to tax that 33% :lol:

[RBP]

This is laughable. if those businesses are the future and so amazing, private capital would already be there.

Now, would I consider such a measure to be used to create large infrastructure projects that would actually create good construction jobs and spur growth? Maybe, but not $10.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Ashe Schow - The Daily Signal


http://i.imgur.com/WFWrWUC.jpg

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:


Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

[perrhaps]

This is laughable. if those businesses are the future and so amazing, private capital would already be there.

Now, would I consider such a measure to be used to create large infrastructure projects that would actually create good construction jobs and spur growth? Maybe, but not $10.

I would agree with a $3.00/barrel tax if the money raised was used solely to repair bridges and highways. Problem is, the money raised would soon be diverted to social engineering crap.

[RBP]

I would agree with a $3.00/barrel tax if the money raised was used solely to repair bridges and highways. Problem is, the money raised would soon be diverted to social engineering crap.

Agreed. That's why it would have to be a separate fund, not available to the general fund. I'd be okay as high as $5.

[deebakes]

:facepalm: