Conservatives block landmark renewables law.
By on Jun 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Conservatives block landmark renewables law.
Senate conservatives “blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies. Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened GOP filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill.”
UPDATE: The New York Times: “The oil industry and its supporters in Congress scored a big victory this afternoon as Senate Republicans blocked a package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been paid for by the major oil companies.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened GOP filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill.
What ever happened to those “Up or Down Voteâ„¢” Republicans?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pmActually the bill was tax increase. It should have been shit canned.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pmFor the record, I am a huge fan of massive government borrowing and spending, especially in the form of hand outs for our most profitable industry. Especially when I own stock in those companies.
Someone tell me, why should we rescind the tax cut that we give the oil companies? What puprose does that serve?
I suppose you liberals will want to give the money to starving children, or other money grubbing bums like that. Those people have nothing to offer. The oil companies keep our economy moving.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pmHARRY REID!?!?!?!?
Feel free to threaten the ‘nuclear option’ on the filibuster you pussy!!!
June 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pmJim Wooten in the AJC has this story about an energy bill pending in the Senate that may make life a lot harder come 2016 for everyone:
Get ready for Congress to solve the energy problem just as it has previously solved the illegal immigration problem. A bill being debated in the Senate this week is described by some of its supporters as “far from perfect†but “a good start.â€
A good start, yes, to higher gas and food prices, to new taxes and to forcing consumers to pay for high-cost “renewable†energy sources — solar and wind, for example — that are to energy independence what bicycle trails are to traffic-congestion relief.
The Senate bill, grandiosely and falsely dubbed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, should come with a section prohibiting price gouging — by Congress. The legislation “could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline consumers,†according to Heritage Foundation researchers. “A review of S. 1419, including the just-completed section on tax changes, reveals that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon (the early May national average) to $6.40 in 2016 — a 104 percent increase,†write Heritage Foundation researchers William W. Beach and Shanea Watkins.
“Gas consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 and $3.79 a gallon for gas in 2008 after adding in the estimated impact of the Senate energy bill. By 2016, all states can expect gas prices in excess of $6. As a result of S. 1419, consumers would spend an average of $1445 more per year on gasoline in 2016 than in 2008,†they write.
With the the concurrence of the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, and others (Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Pat Roberts of Kansas, all Republican), the committee is proposing $29 billion in new taxes on oil companies. The tax is to subsidize wind and solar power, hybrid vehicles and biofuel. The bill calls for a sharp increase in the use “renewables,†including heavily-subsidized ethanol, up from 8.5 billion gallons next year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. And it requires, too, that utilities would be required to buy at least 15 percent of their energy from wind, solar and other “renewable†sources.
Ethanol requires more energy to produce than it generates as fuel, to say nothing of the water required for irrigation in areas like drought-stricken South Georgia. It’s subsidized by taxpayers with a 51-cents per gallon tax credit, and it’s subsidized again at the pump with a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Go figure.
The provision, too, that would “protect†consumers from “price gouging†is an invitation to price controls. And that’s an invitation to economic disaster. This comes, incidentally, despite the fact that no reputable studies establish that price gouging has occurred.
Borders were made secure and the illegal immigration problem was solved in 1986. And now the energy problem is about to be solved, too.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pmHey Republics, what happened to “this deserves an up or down vote”. Do you know that you guys have either filibustered to threatened to filibuster more things in the first six months of this new congress than the Democrats did during the entire 109th Congress?
What are you, a bunch of hypocrites? Don’t answer that, we all know the answer.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pmone can only hope for a sudden death for someone trying to guarantee this country has one
June 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pm“Actually the bill was tax increase. It should have been shit canned.”
I love how you Republics call going back to a tax rate before a tax cut a “tax increase”. I am also appalled at how you Republics think. It’s usually “I got mine and the hell with the rest of you”. Hopefully there is a special place in hell waiting for you and your ilk.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pmFrank J,
Your right about it being a tax increase. How dare the democrats attempt to take duly earned money out of the pockets of the most profitbale companies in the world. How dare they roll back the welfare chekcs we have been giving them during the last 6 years. THey earned those welfare checks through solid campaign contribuions and even better lobbying.
That’s the free market. I love it!!
June 21st, 2007 at 2:30 pmYeah, but why are Democrats allowing GOPers to threaten a filibuster on this issue? Democrats must tell the GOPers to back off or do the “nuclear option” to end filibustering rules.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pmDear Frank J.
I love you and I want you to have my children. Let’s get Foley on board and come out of the closet screaming!!!
Yours Forever,
June 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmFrank, you quote the Heritage Foundation as a source? LMFAO!!! Priceless. Are you really that clueless? No, don’t answer that. It would be too embarassing even for you.
Jake, you crack me up!
June 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmJake,
I still haven’t come to grips with my self-loathing yet. When I do decide to come out of the closet, I’ll look you up…and down…and up…
June 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmHead in the sand republicans who would rather protect their assets in exxon than promote a healthy environment for their own constituents and their constituent’s kids and grand kids. All for them, none for you.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pmJay Randal,
Right on!!!
Why is it the Democrats are still playing softball while the Republican are playing hardball.
The Republican agenda here is so obvious. They are going block all good legislation no matter how much their own constituents want it passed, (who wouldn’t support repealing the oil industries welfare checks) Then they are going to call the Democrats deadbeats that can’t get anything done.
They better get on it!!!
June 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm13…
Did I say “look”? I meant LICK
June 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm#12. What’s wrong with qouting the Heritage Foundation? I also value Dr. Suess for his medical expertise.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pmFrank J,
Perhaps I could ’suck’ you into to coming out now?!?!?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pmOh, Franky J… xoxo
I just love your wit. I can’t stop thinking about your neo-c*ck!
XOXO — ALWAYS,
June 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pmThese sorry Saudi supporters are really looking more and more like allys of Osama bin Laden. They are harming America… They are harming our national security… They refuse to go after Osama. They refuse to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for 911. Traitors is what they look like to me.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pmSo when Republicans are in the slight majority, everything they want gets passed. When Democrats are in the slight majority, just about everything they want doesn’t get passed and things the Republicans want (black check for Iraq, etc.) does get passed.
What’s the deal, Democrats?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm21: The president is the “deal”. Much easier for a slight majority to get their way when the president is of the same party.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pmI suppose it’s that Dems aren’t as coersive as the thugs are. I don’t know which is better, having them do things according to what they are supposed to by the constitution (which virtually no longer exists) or acting like mafia hit men, which is how the GOP usually behave. That and selling out to the corporate interests is a deadly combination for US.
When something FINALLY passes, the president vetoes it. The Dems have not had any of the bills veto proof at signing. There are no middle of the road GOP people anymore. It’s either one way or the other and it’s NEVER anything that would be good for the populace of this country.
Another sad day for our republic. It’s a slow and painful death we are experiencing.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pmOH, by the way, what I wrote in #23 is the reason we can’t impeach. We can’t get any friggin bills passed, is there ANY way we could get votes for impeachment?
I think if 99% of the populace wanted impeachment, it wouldn’t happen because you have to have the votes, and until the republicans that have been elected hear from THEIR constituates, nothing will change (and even then, if their voters can’t pony up the cash that the lobbyists do, well, f*ck us all).
June 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pmReid (D – NV) votes against and Boxer doesn’t bother to vote.
Nice.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pmThat’s because idiots who don’t understand economics think the tax is a good thing. Th companies wont be paying the tax, WE will. Any tax they end up paying, will be added to the cost of the products they provide to us. All that happened was the cost of gas didn’t go up proportinate to the tax in this bill.
IDIOTS!!
June 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pmHow embarrassing. Reid really needs to break out the desperate “up or down vote” rhetoric that the Republicans were so fond of last time.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pmDouglas G. – you sir are a f**king moron.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pmThis is another example of how the Congress can’t seem to accomplish anything worthwhile because of the opposition by the Republicans. I also saw a story that 25% of the people in America disapprove of the job Congress is doing, but the Democrats are being blamed for not getting any meaningful legislation passed, when it seems to be the Republicans that are blocking the attempts by the Democrats (and maybe a few Republicans who are actually listening to their constituents) to achieve the goals set out by the Speaker at the start of this year’s session.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:32 pmI remember seeing a debate on CPAN a few years back. Can’t remember what the issue was, but it involved children. To emphasize their point Democrats held up photos of the children of their constituents. Republicans help up photos of their children and grandchildren. It is my definition of the difference – Republicans think only of themselves.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:32 pmRepublicans love oil only. So whatcha gonna do when it’s all gone, Republicans?
Republican answer: “Who cares? Let our children and their children worry about that. All we care about is money, money and money. Greed is good.”
June 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pmIf you expect change from the status quo do not put any faith in the dems or the reps. They are effectively the same party, lobbied to by the same groups, and beholden to the same interests (i.e. not the voters).
2006 showed a change in voter action. We changed (or thought we had) the balance of power. If Americans want their country back, we have to hold our elected officials accountable and vote them out of office. ALL career politicians need to go and all it takes is people going to the polls. Frankly, all the Dems who were elected to office in 2006 on an anti-war agenda and still voted to fund it should go ASAP. Don’t worry about hurting their feelings or whether they’ll get work after they leave office. They’ll do fine with their pensions and health care plans, both of which are way better compared to what their constituents get, if they get anything.
http://www.kickthemallout.com
June 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pmAs long as we can invade countries and take their oil, we don’t need to invest in renewable energy sources.
Borrowing from foreigners to finance wars – good.
Taxing the energy industry to become independent of foreign sources of energy thus ending the need for war – bad.
Repealing the Estate Tax to create permanent dynasties – priceless.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pmHey Republics, what happened to “this deserves an up or down voteâ€. Do you know that you guys have either filibustered to threatened to filibuster more things in the first six months of this new congress than the Democrats did during the entire 109th Congress?
Prove it!
June 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pmYeah, but why are Democrats allowing GOPers to threaten a filibuster on this issue? Democrats must tell the GOPers to back off or do the “nuclear option†to end filibustering rules.
I guess you don’t realize that the “nuclear option” required a ruling from the Vice President. Idiots!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html
June 21st, 2007 at 4:26 pm