ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Oil Industry Using Tax Loopholes To Enrich Shareholders, Not To Explore For Oil

Louisiana Oil Rig ExplosionEarlier this month, the New York Times reported on the massive subsidies that the U.S. government hands out to oil companies, despite the industry’s record-setting profits in recent years. The tax breaks and loopholes even enabled BP to write off 70 percent of the rent it paid on the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and started the gulf oil spill.

However, attempts to curtail the subsidies have proved fruitless. Last month, an amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that “would have cut $35 billion in tax subsidies to Big Oil companies” failed to pass, 35-61. Every GOP senator voted against the measure. Lobbyists for the industry have so far been successful in “scar[ing] lawmakers into believing that ending subsidies…will wreak havoc on the American economy” even though “the evidence suggests otherwise.” The Treasury Department estimates that ending the subsidies would decrease domestic oil production by less than one half of one percent.

A new report from the Citizens for Tax Justice confirms that eliminating the numerous tax loopholes for the oil industry is a no-brainer:

In the wake of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the public and the media have turned their attention to some of the subsidies provided through the tax code to BP, the corporation that leased the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon drilling platform. The truth is that oil and gas companies have for years received a bonanza of unjustified tax breaks that serve only to boost profits for their shareholders. [...] To the extent that tax loopholes targeting the oil and gas industry boost their profits, there is no evidence that the additional profits lead the companies to explore for more oil so that they can increase the supply Nor does the current tax treatment of oil and gas companies encourage them to develop alternative energy.

Undeterred by unanimous Republican opposition to Sanders’ amendment, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is working on a bill that would end billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks. Perhaps his GOP colleagues will be persuaded by conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who today blasted corporate tax breaks like those we give to Big Oil:

In case after case, Washington’s web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores. We subsidize drug companies, oil companies, agribusinesses disguised as “family farms” and “clean energy” firms that aren’t energy-efficient at all. We give tax breaks to immensely profitable corporations that don’t need the money and boondoggles that wouldn’t exist without government favoritism.

With oil gushing in the gulf, BP’s profits soaring, and bipartisan support for ending oil industry subsidies — an act that is projected to save the U.S. government $45 billion over 10 years — it’s hard to believe that we’re still fighting to end them.

Charlie Eisenhood

Politics

Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano says Bush and Cheney ‘should have been indicted.’

Although Fox News legal analyst and former New Jersey district judge Andrew Napolitano is usually a reliable right-wing voice for the network, he has often criticized President Bush and his national security policies. When the law authorizing Bush’s wiretapping program expired in 2008, Napolitano railed against the program as an affront to the Constitution. He has also blasted Bush last year for authorizing the use of torture, saying that he had “committed a felony for each act of torture.” In an interview with Ralph Nader on C-Span this weekend, Napolitano said Bush and Vice President Cheney “should have been indicted” for torture:

NADER: What’s the sanction for President Bush and Vice President Cheney? [...]

NAPOLITANO: They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I’d like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you’re under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It’s a moral crime.

NADER: So you think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should even though they’ve left office, they haven’t escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted?

NAPOLITANO: The evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great Vincent Bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. The purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but I do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings.

Watch it:

(HT: Crooks and Liars)

Justice

Pentagon Pushes Back Against Claim That DADT Survey Could Lead To Segregation Of Gay Troops

This afternoon, in a wide-ranging discussion about the LGBT community’s reaction to the recently released survey about ‘Dont Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Department of Defense spokesperson Geoff Morrell vehemently pushed back against LGBT groups who have characterized the survey as “derogatory and insulting,” insisting that the survey was designed to inform the Pentagon about how best to repeal the ban against open service.

On Friday, Servicemembers United condemned the survey, saying it “stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design and will only make the Pentagon’s responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder” and has since unveiled a petition condemning the survey, which they pegged at “$4.4 million.” Morrell promptly defended the Defense Department’s questionnaire, saying, “We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that did not address these questions,” and suggested that the military might use the results from the survey to make “adjustments to facilities themselves,” prompting many to assume that segregation of forces was under consideration.

In an interview with Morrell this afternoon, the Pentagon spokesman told the Wonk Room that his comments were twisted and taken out of context and vehemently denied that the Defense Department was considering segregating the troops. “So what I said, I used the term ‘facilities adjustments’ and I think people have gotten carried away as to what that could mean,” he began:

MORRELL: So, when I was asked, about the, you know – this is in the context of “why are you even asking these questions?” – well, we’re asking these questions because in our engagements with the force thus far, this has been an area of some concern. Now we need to test it to see if that holds for—if it really reflects the concerns of the force, and which members of the force. Is it older members? Is it younger members? Are they, you know—which ones? And, and then along with this information, the working group will make some recommendations about how to deal with those concerns. It could be, as I said, who knows? This could be dealt with through education programs, through training programs, or it may require “facilities adjustments.” But no one, no one is considering “separate but equal” bathing or living facilities for you know, gay and straight troops. That’s just not ever a consideration.

Q: So that’s off the table.

MORRELL: Absolutely off the table.

Throughout our discussion, Morrell couldn’t understand why LGBT groups would interpret the survey as being offensive to gay people, insisting that the entire questionnaire was designed to minimize disruption once the policy is repealed. “It was not in any way, in any way, not designed to be offensive to anyone. What it was designed to do was to get us the best sense of how the force feels about this issue so we could make adjustments for implementation,” he said. “The intent here is to get the best understanding of how the force feels so that we can take measures to prepare for implementation. That’s what it’s about.” “It is abundantly clear to this working group that their marching orders from the Sec. of Def. are to determine how to implement a repeal of DADT. Their job is not to determine whether or not the force wishes a repeal to take place or not to take place. Their job is to prepare for that inevitability,” he added.

When I asked him how questions like, “Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?” or “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military?” got at how best to implement the policy, Morrell explained that they gave the military an idea of hurdles they would need to overcome once the policy is repealed.

Q: OK, so if the survey is bad, and that means if you get a lot of people that don’t like gays, what happens to the policy?

MORRELL: Well we’re gonna have to figure out how we overcome that. Whether it’s through additional training or education or recruiting techniques – I can’t tell you what the working group may or may not come up with. This is not in any way intended for us to find potential landmines that would cause us not to proceed with a repeal, but rather is to edify us about the kinds of challenges associated with repeal that would need to be dealt with post-repeal. I guess what I don’t understand here is why you and some of these others who are writing on this issue can’t take what we say at face value.

“I think it’s just difficult for people to believe that if when the survey comes back, it’s negative – you’re gonna have a fight in the joint chiefs with all those folks who don’t want to do it,” I said, to which Morrell responded:

MORRELL: You’re gonna have to take us at our word on that. But I would say to you this though, Igor. What do you want us to do? Do you want us to put our head in the sand and ignore concerns that have been voiced to us by the force? And so that when we are charged with implementing the repeal, we don’t have any of the information necessary to alleviate or mitigate some of these problems? It is better for us to ask some of these questions up front in as candid a manner as possible, to get as much information as possible, so we are prepared for this eventuality. It would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise.

The Department is also disputing Servicemembers’ claim that it “paid the research firm Westat the outrageous sum of $4.4 million to design and administer an email-based survey,” insisting that the true cost is closer to $850,000.

Politics

Gibbs Defends Berwick Appointment: We Won’t ‘Have The Viewpoints Of A Few Hold Up The Law Of The Land’

Last week, President Obama announced that he would be recess appointing Harvard physician Donald Berwick to be the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Conservatives — who have fear-mongered about Berwick’s praise for the British health care system — quickly attacked Obama for the move, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claiming that the president has attempted to “arrogantly circumvent the American people.”

Today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended Berwick’s recess appointment during the White House press briefing. When asked about the propriety of using recess appointments, Gibbs pointed out that, in the first year of the Bush administration, there weren’t any nominees stopped because the Senate failed to reach unanimous consent, but that under the Obama administration, that has happened 21 times.

Using the example of the GSA administrator, Gibbs noted that it took 10 months just to get a vote on the nominee; Republicans were preventing votes on nominees is simply about them “playing politics…just to stop things from happening”:

Q: You just talked about the badly broken process. Is using recess appointments to circumvent the Senate an example of that process?

GIBBS: It’s a result of that broken process, yes.

Q: Does the President believe that recess appointments should be used sparingly?

GIBBS: The President believes that we have to have people to run government effectively and efficiently. … The process should entitle one to quick disposition. That’s clearly not happening. … I used the example of the GSA nominee. In the first year of the Bush administration, no nominee had to go through the process of invoking cloture because somebody wouldn’t agree to unanimous consent. Basically, one person can stop this whole process. That’s happened 21 times in the Obama administration. … If it takes 10 months to get a unanimous vote, what is one left to believe the 10 months was about? Playing the kind of politics that people are tired of in order just to stop things from happening. [...]

There are aspects of the health care law that have to be implemented on a timeline that I’m sure many who oppose Dr. Berwick for political reasons did not want to see implemented. We are not going to have the viewpoints of a few hold up the law of the land.

Watch it:

Indeed, conservative obstruction of the federal appointments process has been at historically high levels. In the area of judicial nominees alone, Obama has only been able to have 36 percent of his nominees approved, while 91 percent of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s nominees were approved during the same time period. Meanwhile, Republicans have set a new historical record for use of the filibuster.

Climate Progress

Meet Polaris Applied Sciences, BP’s Shoreline ‘Eyes And Ears’

This post is part of the Wonk Room’s exclusive investigation of the private contractors working under BP’s control to respond to the foreign oil giant’s Gulf Coast disaster. The results of the investigation are being tracked at BP’s Contractor Army.

oil wave

“I am confident that we’re going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before,” President Barack Obama declared after visiting the oil-soaked region in June. The long-term restoration of the coast will require radical changes in waterway management, land use, and reversal of the global warming that threatens to inundate the subsiding shores — challenges independent of the toxic black tide of BP’s oil. However, cleaning up the toxic sludge is the first task on the path to restoration.

The task of deciding where the Gulf Coast shoreline needs to be cleaned of the Deepwater Horizon oil falls to BP contractors and government employees known by the jargon of Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team (SCAT) personnel. Working as rapidly as possible, teams survey contaminated beaches and marshes before cleanup crews are deployed, recommend the cleanup methods, and determine whether the cleanup has been as successful as possible. The work of the SCAT teams is a first step in the long-term natural resource damage assessments overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which determine the liabilities of BP for damage caused to the United States. This conflict of interest should be resolved by taking BP out of the loop — SCAT contractors should work directly for the government, using BP funds.

SCAT org chart
Incident Command organizational chart. Click to expand.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shoreline assessment manual, last updated in August 2000, the shoreline assessment teams are usually led by a Team Coordinator from NOAA Scientific Support, from the Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), Emergency Response Division. Field teams divide the shoreline with a grid, use overflights and direct examination to judge the degree of contamination, and establish the cleanup guidelines used by the hazardous waste cleanup contractors, from mechanically plowing oiled sand off beaches to dabbing oil off of marsh reeds with sorbent booms.

Under the guidelines of the Incident Command System, SCAT personnel are part of the Planning Branch, whose guidelines direct the cleanup workers in the Operations Branch. (The other branches of the Incident Command System are Logistics and Finance.)

In an exclusive email interview, Greg E. Challenger, Principal Marine Scientist of Polaris Applied Sciences, told the Wonk Room how his company is “working to help coordinate the effort of assessing shorelines and recommending cleanup out of Houma, Mobile and Miami.” Polaris, a private company of scientific experts based in Washington state, has worked for governments and the oil industry on dozens of oil spills, coral reef groundings, research projects, and disaster exercises since its founding in 1998. Mr. Challenger explained how SCAT are the “eyes and ears” of the coastal spill response:

SCAT systematically segments the shoreline by habitat type and oiling zones and characterizes the oiling conditions for Operations. After the recommendations and instructions go to Operations, SCAT will re-survey when it has been cleaned and make further recommendations or sign a shoreline off as complete. This sign off can only occur after oil is off the water and overall is process meant to prioritize sensitive or heavily areas for cleanup in a systematic way. Essentially the “eyes and ears” of operations on the shoreline.

Read more

Politics

Cantor To Host Job Fair With Employers Stimulated By Over $50 Million In Recovery Act Funds

Eric CantorHouse Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) has been one of the Recovery Act’s most vocal critics. After whipping his caucus into uniformly opposing the stimulus, Cantor has been the lead spokesman decrying the program as a failure. Ignoring evidence that that the stimulus is helping to turn around the economy, Cantor repeatedly says that it is “failing” to “create jobs.”

As ThinkProgress reported last year, despite his withering attacks on the stimulus, Cantor hosted two job fairs filled with employers hiring directly because of stimulus grants and programs. Tomorrow, Cantor intends to again host a job fair stimulated by jobs made possible through the Recovery Act:

– Cantor job fair employer AT&T has received two contracts totaling $837,550 from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer Bryant & Stratton College received contracts totaling $209,571 from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer Chesterfield County received grants totaling $406,773 from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer CSX Transportation received grants totaling over $5.7 million from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer Goodwill Industries International has received grants of over $6.4 million from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer Northrop Grumman Corporation has received grants of over $2.6 million from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer University of Richmond has received grants totaling $750,964 from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer Nationwide Insurance has received grants totaling $25,617 from the Recovery Act.

– Cantor job fair employer United Way of Greater Richmond has received a $61,125 grant from the Recovery Act.

According to a ThinkProgress review of contracts from the Recovery.gov website, employers at the Cantor job fair tomorrow have received approximately $52,716,129 from the stimulus.

While Cantor has tried to score political points slamming the stimulus as an utter failure, he has relied on it as a crutch to bring both private and public sector jobs to his district. Cantor’s GOP colleagues — who helped him try to kill the stimulus — have similarly gone back to their district to claim credit for stimulus programs. A ThinkProgress report released on the one year anniversary of the stimulus highlights over half the GOP caucus, 114 lawmakers, who voted to kill the stimulus then took credit for its success.

Yglesias

Military Spurring Research Into Self-Driving Cars

www.wired 1

One intriguing technological possibility in the transportation domain is the idea of “self-driving” cars—robot cars, basically—that could drive a route without the need for a human being to pilot the car. This kind of technology could potentially revolutionize the urban landscape. There would be much less need for parking in central business districts, for example, if commuters’ cars could just drop them off and go someplace where space is at less of a premium. Further along those lines, you can imagine a society that featured much less car ownership outside of rural areas, and much more dependence on a fleet of inexpensive driverless taxis.

But instead of reading about that, I found myself reading Spencer Ackerman’s piece about the US Army’s efforts to develop driverless trucks to reduce supply line vulnerability to roadside bombs, a major impediment to our efforts to establish vast networks of military installations in countries on the other side of the planet. My dominant thought when reading Peter Singer’s excellent book on military robots was that it’s a shame that the military is such a dominant driver of technical research in the United States. Automation technology is promising for military purposes primarily because it’s promising overall. But while Japanese robots clear snow and bolster the spirits of senior citizens, we’re working on warbots to facilitate missions we probably shouldn’t be undertaking.

Security

Sarah Palin Tells Bill O’Reilly What She Would Do About Immigration As ‘President Palin’

Last Friday, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly asked former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) what she would do about immigration if she ever became “President Palin.” Palin informed O’Reilly that she would do “whatever it takes” to secure the border, including “militarizing” the border with 10,000-15,000 National Guard troops and building a wall. However, Palin seemed less confident about what to do about the millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. She proposed requiring undocumented immigrations to register with the federal government in order to legally work in the United States — a step that would actually be part of comprehensive immigration reform:

O’REILLY: Now we have 12 million people staring at you. [...] Are you going to deport them, what are you going to do? [...]

PALIN: You’re not gonna give them a free pass. You’re not gonna say, ‘okay you and anyone else who wants scurry across this porous border between now and when we do finally get it fenced in and physically secured — we’re gonna give you a free pass.’

O’REILLY: So no amnesty?

PALIN: No amnesty! [...] Do we make them register with the federal government? Yes! [...] Let’s keep it simple and let’s say ‘no, if you were here illegally and if you don’t follow the steps that at some point through immigration reform we’re gonna be able to provide — and that is somehow to allow you to work — if you don’t do that, then you’re gonna be gone.’

Watch it:

Palin’s immigration platform unintentionally sounds a lot like the Democrats’ “Conceptual Proposal for Immigration Reform” that Republicans widely rejected:

Proponents of immigration reform acknowledge that we need to meet clear and concrete benchmarks before we can finally ensure that America’s borders are secure and effectively deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States. These benchmarks must be met before action can be taken to adjust the status of people already in the United States illegallythis proposal not only includes well-designed statutory provisions that will strengthen future enforcement, but also includes a broad-based registration program that requires all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes.

Ultimately, Palin’s responses to O’Reilly’s probing questions were fuzzy at best. Palin went back and forth between agreeing to give undocumented immigrants green cards because “there has to be that expectation that they will work” and saying American citizens need to be the ones with the “first shot” at jobs. Palin also reminded O’Reilly of how her “great political hero” Ronald Reagan signed off on legalizing 3 million undocumented immigrants in 1986. When O’Reilly pointed out that he “botched it,” Palin immediately backed away saying, “Exactly! We learn from history.”

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that Reagan signed off on failed to put an end to illegal immigration because it didn’t create a flexible policy to deal with the future flow of immigration or sufficiently deter employers from hiring undocumented labor. However, there are also some lessons to be learned from IRCA’s legalization program. “Even though IRCA was implemented during an economic recession characterized by high unemployment, it still helped raise wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small-business investments by newly legalized immigrants,” asserted the Center for American Progress in a report that was released earlier this year. “Taking the experience of IRCA as a starting point, we estimate that comprehensive immigration reform would yield at least $1.5 trillion in cumulative U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years.”

Politics

Fox News promoted Tea Party town halls because they made ‘better television.’

Bill Hemmer, a co-anchor of Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” program, revealed in a profile of him published today why his network decided to highlight last August’s violent, tumultuous congressional town halls. In an interview with Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, Hemmer discussed how his show’s ratings have grown over the past year and suggested that the program’s decision to promote Tea Party town hall antics was based on attracting viewers:

A turning point, in Hemmer’s view, came during the health care debate in the summer of 2009: “We covered those town hall meetings with greater vigor than our competition, and we were rewarded with viewers. It was better television.”

Another view is that Fox seized upon the footage of angry constituents shouting at Democratic members of Congress because it undermined the president’s push for health care reform. Hemmer begs to differ. “I don’t think it was anger toward the Obama administration,” he says. “It was an honest insecurity on the part of average Americans.”

As Mediaite’s Steve Krakauer pointed out in a post this morning, “It’s hard to argue that ‘better television’ didn’t also mean more polarizing, politically one-sided television.” When Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) appeared on Fox and Friends in April, he told the anchors, “You guys deserve more credit for marshaling that anger than the Tea Partiers do.” Fox News, of course, has an extensive record of promoting and hyping Tea Party and anti-Obama protests. Their advocacy may just be an effort to increase ratings, as Hemmer suggests; after all, NBC’s Chuck Todd said earlier this year that the Tea Party’s “favorable rating among Fox viewers is through the roof.” Then again, Fox’s enraptured coverage might just be part of the network’s stated goal to serve as the Obama administration’s “enemy number one.”

William Tomasko

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up