House GOP all vote to protect Big Oil subsidies

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day.  ThinkProgress has the story.

As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against (approximately a dozen Democrats joined the GOP). A similar vote two weeks ago to recoup $53 billion in taxpayer funds from Big oil was also voted down, largely along party lines. The former CEO of Shell Oil, John Hoffmeister, recently said Big Oil doesn’t need subsidies “in face of sustained high oil prices.”  From 2005 to 2009, the largest oil companies have made a combined $485 billion in profits.

— Josh Dorner, in a TP cross-post.

Related Post:

16 Responses to House GOP all vote to protect Big Oil subsidies

  1. catman306 says:

    Whores! (Can I say that?)

    Will this be mentioned in the main stream media?

  2. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    A little bit will flow back in campaign ‘contributions’. Of course the politicians are also invariably rich so will have fossil fuel shares, directly or covertly. And, who knows, like in Australia, the politicians will be eligible for jobs as ‘consultants’ on a million a year or some such, when they retire, or perhaps a relative or two will do. Every capitalist state is just as much a kleptocracy and just as dire an example of crony capitalism as Egypt, the only difference in the West is that it is longer extant, better organised and of no interest to the MSM opinion makers, ie brainwashers.

  3. Scrooge says:

    Well did anyone expect anything different. This is just spitting in Americas face. The tea baggers will say thank you master may I have another.

  4. Dana says:

    Wow. Reducing the deficit is such a high priority that we must slash funding to schools, sciences, etc., but we can’t touch tax breaks on the rich or Big Oil subsidies.

    Just stunning.

  5. Lou Grinzo says:

    Below, I will say everything I can about this (non-)news that Joe will allow on his site:

    — begin comments ——
    — end comments ——

  6. David B. Benson says:

    Lou Grinzo @5 —


  7. Tim says:

    Just another day at the office for the servants of the oligarchy.

  8. Jay Alt says:

    Last night I caught 5 minutes of talk radio host Mark Levin who offered his ‘explanation.’ –

    Obama Admin wrongly emphasizes Clean Energy instead of oil.
    Other nations are engaged in a global hunt for petroleum while we ‘waste time’ on CE.
    This explains high oil prices at US pumps . . . $%^& anger . . . #$@! outrage. . .

    (You may now loosen your head clamps)

  9. CW says:

    Limosine welfare queens those oil companies …

    and those Republicans, such corporate socialists …

  10. Prokaryotes says:


  11. jyyh says:

    What Lou Grinzo said.

  12. John McCormick says:

    So, this means we can kiss off repealing fossil fuel subsidies. The House repugs shoved it back in our faces in one ‘swell foop’.


    Jogn McCormick

  13. ron says:

    So why didnt the democrats do this when they had all the power?

  14. pete says:

    because they are whores as well.

  15. JKR says:

    Do you know where the actual text of the motion to recommit is? I can’t find it on Thomas. Typically Ron Paul votes against oil subsidies so I am assuming the way this was written raised other issues, but I need to read it to find out.

  16. JKR says:

    Nevermind, I found it, and it was not voting for or against subsidies, it was a vote on tax cuts. Ron Paul is a tax cut opportunist and will vote for them any time, anywhere. He thinks the income tax is morally wrong. Those are not subsidies. Pretending they are is pretending the government owns all our income and allows us to retain some. That theory is extraordinarily backwards to most of the country, just fyi.