But it's quite another, I think--and easily done--to say that we shouldn't be giving tax breaks to big, extremely profitable industries, don't you agree?
Like "Big Oil"?
Check this out, from Political Animal and The Washington Monthly this morning:
GET THE ENERGY SECTOR OFF THE DOLE.... With global warming deniers about to take charge of the House of Representatives, there would seem to be little hope for major clean energy legislation in this Congress. But all is not lost, argues Jeffrey Leonard in the latest issue of the Washington Monthly. Last fall's election let loose political forces that President Obama can tap to set us on a path to a sustainable energy future with a simple proposal: eliminate all energy subsidies.
Yes, eliminate them all -- for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. It will be better for national security, the budget deficit, and, believe it or not, the environment. Green energy sources get only the tiniest sliver of the overall federal subsidy pie, so they'll have a competitive advantage in the long term if all subsidies, including the huge ones for fossil fuels, are eliminated. In addition, deep trends in America's energy supply, including discoveries of huge natural gas reserves, will over time create favorable terrain for wind, solar, and other energy sources that liberals love -- but only if our entrenched system of subsidies doesn't gum up the works. And while getting the energy sector off the dole may have once been politically impossible, with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, the moment may finally be right.
From the original article Mr. Benen is referring to:
Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year. To put that sum in perspective, that’s more than the State Department’s entire budget. It’s also enough to send half a million Americans to college each year with all expenses paid. Energy subsidies undermine the working of the free market, and they make rational approaches to long-term energy challenges and climate change impossible. They are not an aid to energy independence or environmental stewardship. They are an impediment.
Doesn't this make sense?
Why should we give tax breaks, for pity's sake, to the oil industry? Does anyone think they won't make a profit? Who could be for keeping things as they are, I mean, besides the industry itself?
Libertarians, Conservatives, the Tea Party, Democrats, Consevatives, Liberals--everybody ought to be behind this.
And while we're at it, let me bring up here, yet again, why doesn't some Congressional representative bring up a bill to do away with tax deductions to any industry to take manufacturing offshore?
You know, sometimes things just aren't that difficult.
This is an example of two right here.
Link to original post: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027369.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html
Showing posts with label Steve Benen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Benen. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, May 24, 2010
Ain't dat just a danged shame?
Posted by stevebenen at 12:44 pm on "Crooks and Liars"
May 24, 2010
Republican National Committee Very, Very Low on Cash
This post originally appeared on Washington Monthly.
Since Michael Steele took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee, the party’s budgetary decisions have been the subject of widespread consternation, intensified by the fact that RNC fundraising has fallen far short of expectations.
These concerns have escalated in recent months, in light of expense reports pointing to unnecessary spending on private planes, limousines, catering, flowers, softball equipment, and an outing at lesbian-themed bondage nightclub.
A CNN report this afternoon will likely raise the anxiety levels among Republicans to new heights.
An internal Republican National Committee document obtained by CNN paints a damning picture of the committee’s financial standing compared to the past five election cycles.
The document, pulled together during a recent review sparked by concerns over RNC spending practices, said the committee had $12.5 million in cash on hand at the end of April.
By comparison, the average cash on hand at the end of April from 2002-2009 was $40.4 million. And that average includes the odd numbered years when there are fewer election contests.
May 24, 2010
Republican National Committee Very, Very Low on Cash
This post originally appeared on Washington Monthly.
Since Michael Steele took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee, the party’s budgetary decisions have been the subject of widespread consternation, intensified by the fact that RNC fundraising has fallen far short of expectations.
These concerns have escalated in recent months, in light of expense reports pointing to unnecessary spending on private planes, limousines, catering, flowers, softball equipment, and an outing at lesbian-themed bondage nightclub.
A CNN report this afternoon will likely raise the anxiety levels among Republicans to new heights.
An internal Republican National Committee document obtained by CNN paints a damning picture of the committee’s financial standing compared to the past five election cycles.
The document, pulled together during a recent review sparked by concerns over RNC spending practices, said the committee had $12.5 million in cash on hand at the end of April.
By comparison, the average cash on hand at the end of April from 2002-2009 was $40.4 million. And that average includes the odd numbered years when there are fewer election contests.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Don't say good things are not and cannot come out of Washington
Good news for the US.
To me, anyway, and, I think to anyone concerned nothing was going to be done after the collosal near-collapse of our economy in the last year.
"The House approved a Democratic plan on Friday to tighten federal regulation of Wall Street and banks, advancing a far-reaching Congressional response to the financial crisis that rocked the economy."
The good news is first, that they did something--they recognized that we need to protect consumers from fraud and abuse in our financial markets--then, second, that they instituted some protections. They went through with some regulation.
That's hard to do lately, in this country.
If there's bad news, it's that they felt they had to create a new agency to do it.
Why couldn't some division of the Commerce Department or some other, already-existing agency do this? That would have been far more preferable.
More agencies. More budgets. More spending.
But my favorite part of all this is the following--check this out from "The Party of No":
"But it's worth noting that just one year after Wall Street recklessness pushed the global economy to the brink of wholesale collapse, exactly zero House Republicans voted for watered-down safeguards, deeming them too onerous. Indeed, their unanimous opposition to Wall Street accountability came just a few days after the House Republican leadership huddled with more than 100 lobbyists to rally opposition to preventing Wall Street irresponsibility."
If this batch of Republicans didn't hurt our country so much, I'd love them for the humor derived from their hypocrisy.
Anyway, better this than having done nothing, by a long shot. That last tumble our markets and country took were far too dangerous.
And stupid.
To me, anyway, and, I think to anyone concerned nothing was going to be done after the collosal near-collapse of our economy in the last year.
"The House approved a Democratic plan on Friday to tighten federal regulation of Wall Street and banks, advancing a far-reaching Congressional response to the financial crisis that rocked the economy."
The good news is first, that they did something--they recognized that we need to protect consumers from fraud and abuse in our financial markets--then, second, that they instituted some protections. They went through with some regulation.
That's hard to do lately, in this country.
If there's bad news, it's that they felt they had to create a new agency to do it.
Why couldn't some division of the Commerce Department or some other, already-existing agency do this? That would have been far more preferable.
More agencies. More budgets. More spending.
But my favorite part of all this is the following--check this out from "The Party of No":
"But it's worth noting that just one year after Wall Street recklessness pushed the global economy to the brink of wholesale collapse, exactly zero House Republicans voted for watered-down safeguards, deeming them too onerous. Indeed, their unanimous opposition to Wall Street accountability came just a few days after the House Republican leadership huddled with more than 100 lobbyists to rally opposition to preventing Wall Street irresponsibility."
If this batch of Republicans didn't hurt our country so much, I'd love them for the humor derived from their hypocrisy.
Anyway, better this than having done nothing, by a long shot. That last tumble our markets and country took were far too dangerous.
And stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
