ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Tax Subsidies

Alyssa

Video Game Companies, Taxes, And The Greater Good

Reading yesterday’s blockbuster New York Times piece on the tax incentives available to the American video games industry, it’s interesting to see how moralism about video game content creeps into what should be a pure policy debate:

The United States government offers tax incentives to companies pursuing medical breakthroughs, urban redevelopment and alternatives to fossil fuels. It also provides tax breaks for a company whose hit video game this year was the gory Dead Space 2, which challenges players to advance through an apocalyptic battlefield by killing space zombies…The company with the defiant sales slogan, “Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2,” in effect gets financial help from moms and other United States taxpayers to reduce its federal tax bill…Video game industry officials say that by improving technology, they are indirectly helping society at large. Dean Zerbe, national managing director at Alliantgroup, said that the military had used some video game technology to train soldiers and pilots. Electronic Arts said it donated some games to the military, schools and charities.

As Matt points out, of course the actual point here is that subsidies to the video game industry, or other industries, don’t really achieve what we want them to, not that it’s anti-social to decapitate space zombies (How else are we going to achieve an appropriate level of readiness for the apocalypse?). It doesn’t really shock me, though, that other industries would try to shift the discussion away from jobs and taxes to the merits of the product, just like moralists who don’t like video games insist on no evidence that consoles are training grounds for killers. But insisting that video games aren’t really an important source of innovation, or aren’t really a legitimate art form hasn’t stopped the industry from getting huge (or benefitting from subsidies because it’s protean enough to fit into several subsidy categories) — it just makes moralists and industrialists feel better.

But if we’re going to look at the end product, not just jobs created and taxes paid, other industries might want to get worried. You can complain all you want that video games are anti-social, but there’s a lot more proof that the oil industry does concrete harm to our country than video games do.

Economy

Bachmann Still Claiming Income From Federally-Subsidized Farm She Insists She Doesn’t Benefit From

A few months ago, the Los Angeles Times pointed out that virulenty anti-government spending Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was receiving income from a farm that collected federal subsidies. Bachmann responded by claiming, “the farm is my father-in-law’s farm, it’s not my husband and my farm. My husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm.” However, Bachmann claimed income from the farm on her 2009 financial disclosure form.

As McClatchy noted today, Bachmann — all her protests aside — claimed income from the farm again in 2010, which were filed last week:

Despite repeatedly asserting that she has never received income from a family farm that has drawn federal subsidies in the past, Rep. Michele Bachmann again listed the farm as a source of income when she filed her 2010 personal financial disclosures late last week. Bachmann, R-Minn., also reported that the farm had more than doubled in value since 2009. [...]

Bachmann’s financial disclosures paint a different picture. Since 2006, she has reported receiving between $37,504 and $120,000 in income from the farm, including between $5,001 and $15,000 that she disclosed for the 2010 calendar year.

Bachmann also reported that her farm doubled in value over the past year: “In 2009, Bachmann listed the farm as an asset worth between $100,001 and $250,000. In her 2010 forms, Bachmann valued the farm between $500,001 and $1 million.” The counseling clinic that Bachmann runs with her husband has also received federal funding.

NEWS FLASH

EIA: Subsidy Rate For Wind Power Has Dropped 90 Percent | In 2007, wind power received federal subsidies, as defined in a new Energy Information Agency report requested by pro-fossil Republicans, “of approximately 1.4 cents per kilowatthour,” Lowell Feld reports at Scaling Green. “In 2010, this figure — excluding ARRA money — fell to just 0.14 cents per kilowatthour, a decline of 90 percent. Solar power subsidies per unit of output also fell during that time period, by about 9 percent. Overall, clean power (defined as wind, solar and geothermal) subsidies per unit of output fell by a whopping 66 percent between 2007 and 2010.”

Economy

Budget-Cutting California Republicans Demand End To Welfare While Collecting Farm Subsidies

California Republicans, cutting education "welfare" while raking in taxpayer subsidies

As states continue to cope with budget shortfalls, the same pattern repeats itself over and over again. Republicans refuse to raise revenues — opposing tax hikes on the ultra-wealthy or ending wasteful tax loopholes for corporations — thus forcing budgets to be closed by targeting the most vulnerable: students, middle class families, the elderly, the unemployed, etc.

California is no different, as GOP legislators in Sacramento refused to budge on tax increases, which forced savings in Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D-CA) new budget to be found solely through draconian cuts. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, cuts to higher education alone will force a nearly 18 percent bump in tuition for UC students. Yearly budget cuts have more than doubled the price of public college in California since 2005.

But as California Republicans rail against “welfare” and wasteful government spending, an investigation by ThinkProgress has found that many of the state’s leading GOP legislators are themselves millionaire recipients of taxpayer money:

State Sen. Ted Gaines (R-Roseville) and his wife Assemblywoman Beth Gaines (R-Roseville) say they are staunch opponents of government spending. In an opinion piece about the state budget, Ted Gaines complained about the size of the California government and the number of “welfare cases” in the state. The Gaines family owns a profitable insurance company and several farms. Disclosures show that the Gaines family farms have received over $40,000 in federal farm subsidies.

Assemblyman David Valadao (R-Hanford) has called for “shrinking the size of government,” and refused to support any tax increases to stop cuts to education. Two farms owned in part by Valadao have received $808,832 in federal farm subsidies.

– Commenting on the budget, Assemblyman William Berryhill (R-Modesto) said the agreed-upon cuts didn’t go far enough and urged even less spending on “social welfare programs we can’t afford right now.” According to disclosures, Berryhill is a part-owner of a farm that has received over $7,000 in federal subsidies. Moreover, Berryhill owns up to a million dollar stake in WestAmerica Bancorporation, a bank that received (and later paid back) an $83 million bailout from the government.

California Republicans often claim that spending constraints on the state level should serve as a model for fiscal conservatism for the nation. But as our analysis shows, many anti-government, anti-welfare California lawmakers are more than happy to receive taxpayer money when they benefit from it.

Climate Progress

In Twitter Town Hall, President Repeatedly Emphasizes Clean Energy Future

In yesterday’s Twitter town hall, President Obama spent a significant amount of time describing his vision for a clean energy economy. He said “we know” that clean energy manufacturing “is going to be the future,” and emphasized that his administration made “the largest investment in clean energy in our history through the Recovery Act.” He also mentioned the need for a smart, efficient electric grid and reducing tax subsidies for oil companies.

In a response to a question about oil dependence, Obama complained that “we have not seen a sense of urgency coming out of Congress.” He said he was “committed” to increasing domestic oil drilling, although the United States “can’t drill our way out of this problem.” With that caveat, the president called for a goal of reducing oil use in steps, mentioned his higher fuel economy standards, and said the Detroit bailout involved having the companies “start focusing on the cars of the future instead of looking at big gas guzzlers of the past.”

In an oblique, mangled reference to global warming pollution, Obama said reducing oil use would “drastically cut down on our carbon resources.”

CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENT

We’ve got to have a top-notch infrastructure to support advanced manufacturing, and we’ve got to look at sectors where we know this is going to be the future. Something like clean energy, for example. For us not to be the leaders in investing in clean energy manufacturing so that wind turbines and solar panels are not only designed here in the United States but made here in the United States makes absolutely no sense. We’ve got to invest in those areas for us to be successful.

So you can combine high-tech with manufacturing, and then you get the best of all worlds.

ADVANCED BATTERY MANUFACTURING

I want to promote alternative energy everywhere, including oil states like Louisiana and Texas. This is something that I’m very proud of and doesn’t get a lot of attention. We made the largest investment in clean energy in our history through the Recovery Act. And so we put forward a range of programs that provided credits and grants to startup companies in areas like creating wind turbines, solar panels.

A great example is advanced battery manufacturing. When I came into office, advanced batteries, which are used, for example, in electric cars, we only accounted for 2 percent of the world market in advanced batteries. And we have quintupled our market share, or even gone further, just over the last two years. And we’re projecting that we can get to 30 to 40 percent of that market. That’s creating jobs all across the Midwest, all across America.

And whoever wins this race on advanced battery manufacturing is probably going to win the race to produce the cars of the 21st century. China is investing in it. Germany is investing in it. We need to be investing in it as well.

SMART GRID INFRASTRUCTURE

It’s estimated that we have about $2 trillion worth of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt. Roads, bridges, sewer lines, water mains; our air traffic control system doesn’t make sense. We don’t have the kind of electric grid that’s smart, meaning it doesn’t waste a lot of energy in transmission. Our broadband system is slower than a lot of other countries.

OIL SUBSIDIES

The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.

REDUCING OIL DEPENDENCE

Reducing our dependence on oil is good for our economy, it’s good for our security, and it’s good for our planet — so it’s a “three-fer.” And we have not had a serious energy policy for decades. Every President talks about it; we don’t get it done.

Now, I’d like to see robust legislation in Congress that actually took some steps to reduce oil dependency. We’re not going to be able to replace oil overnight. Even if we are going full-throttle on clean energy solutions like solar and wind and biodiesel, we’re going to need oil for some time. But if we had a goal where we’re just reducing our dependence on oil each year in a staggered set of steps, it would save consumers in their pocketbook; it would make our businesses more efficient and less subject to the whims of the spot oil market; it would make us less vulnerable to the kinds of disruptions that have occurred because of what happened in the Middle East this spring; and it would drastically cut down on our carbon resources.

So what I — unfortunately, we have not seen a sense of urgency coming out of Congress over the last several months on this issue. Most of the rhetoric has been about, let’s produce more. Well, we can produce more, and I’m committed to that, but the fact is, we only have 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. We can’t drill our way out of this problem.

What we can do that we’ve already done administratively is increase fuel-efficiency standards on cars, just to take one example. That will save us millions of barrels of oil, just by using existing technologies and saying to car companies, you can do better than 10 miles a gallon or 15 miles a gallon. And you’re starting to see Detroit respond. U.S. car companies have figured out, you know what, if we produce high-quality electric vehicles, if we produce high-quality low gas — or high gas mileage vehicles, those will sell.

And we’re actually starting to see market share increase for American cars in subcompact and compact cars for the first time in many years. And that’s partly because we increased fuel-efficiency standards through an administrative agreement. It’s also because, as part of the deal to bail out the oil companies, we said to them, start focusing on the cars of the future instead of looking at big gas guzzlers of the past.

BIOFUELS

I’m a big supporter of biofuels. But one of the things that’s become clear is, is that we need to accelerate our basic research in ethanol and other biofuels that are made from things like woodchips and algae as opposed to just focusing on corn, which is probably the least efficient energy producer of these various other approaches.

And so I think that it’s important for even those folks in farm states who traditionally have been strong supporters of ethanol to examine are we, in fact, going after the cutting-edge biodiesel and ethanol approaches that allow, for example, Brazil to run about a third of its transportation system on biofuels. Now, they get it from sugar cane and it’s a more efficient conversion process than corn-based ethanol. And so us doing more basic research in finding better ways to do the same concept I think is the right way to go.

NEWS FLASH

New Ad Challenges Paul Ryan’s Dirty Oil Ties | Today, the League of Conservation Voters launched a new television ad using ThinkProgress video in Wisconsin’s 1st District calling out Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for his recently exposed conflict of interest for defending oil subsidies while his family receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil company payouts:

“Congressman Ryan should stop asking Wisconsin taxpayers to continue funding massive government handouts to the most profitable oil companies,” said Navin Nayak, LCV senior vice president of campaigns, “especially when his family stands to benefit from some of those same companies’ earnings.”

Climate Progress

Kyl Defends Taxpayer Subsidies For Richest Oil Companies

Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued that budget talks should not include the reduction of oil and gas subsidies. Kyl, who abandoned budget negotiations with the White House this week, claimed that eliminating $2 billion in annual subsidies for the richest oil companies — instead of slashing programs that feed the poor and protect the middle class — would “hurt the American consumer”:

First of all, if you want gas prices to rise and pay more than $4 at the pump, go ahead and do this. That is not what we should be about right now. That kind of tax increase is going to flow right to the consumer. Everybody knows that. Secondly, you are picking out one industry in the United States, an industry that employs almost 10 million people, represents 7.5% of the Gross Domestic Product. You’re saying to them you are not going to get the same tax treatment that all other manufacturing corporations get in the United States. So we’re going to punish you, because you make a lot of money. It’s also true with those big profits, they have enormous costs of investment. Of course, you covered the issue of how much it costs to put one of those platforms out in the middle of Gulf of Mexico. Billions of dollars. Big money all the way around. You’ll hurt the American consumer if you impose more taxes on them.

Watch it:

Kyl is not telling the truth about oil and gas subsidies:

Eliminating Oil Subsidies Won’t Raise Gas Prices. Eliminating Big Oil’s subsidies would have very little effect on gas prices. The subsidies have little to no influence on the investment decisions oil companies make, especially with the price of oil around $100 a barrel. Instead, the tax breaks simply pad oil profits, and are funneled into “obscene” executive pay schemes and shareholder payoffs. Even the American Petroleum Institute, which opposes cutting the subsidies, has admitted that eliminating subsidies wouldn’t affect gas prices.

The Oil And Gas Industry Employs About 700,000 Americans, Not “Almost 10 Million”. A report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute in 2009 estimated the the oil and gas industry involves only 2.1 million direct jobs with 7.1 million indirect and induced jobs. But even the 2.1 million jobs figure is grossly inflated. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, oil and gas drilling — the industries directly affected by most of these subsidies — only employed 63,012 jobs in September 2009, the most recent reporting period. U.S. Department of Labor 2007 statistics indicate the drilling and production of oil and natural gas, plus support activities directly account for 425,025 jobs. If sectors such as oil refineries and natural gas distribution are included, even though they are unaffected by drilling subsidies, the total increases to 743,825 jobs. According to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data from 2009, the drilling and production of oil and natural gas directly generates 799,100 jobs.

Taxes aren’t dollars that disappear, and the payment of taxes isn’t a punishment for successful businesses, like the oil industry that gets over $7 billion in subsidies a year, far more than the Obama administration has proposed cutting. Taxes paid go back into the American economy, supporting the long-term investments that make the United States the richest nation on earth.

For example, taxes support public universities like Arizona State, where Kyl earned his bachelor’s and law degree. Taxes pay for the electoral system that Kyl joined as a member of Congress in 1986, where he has been taxpayer-funded ever since. Then again, Kyl has also directly received $333,332 from the oil and gas industry in political contributions over his career. Maybe he is just concerned about protecting his own personal oil and gas subsidies, which he receives on top of his taxpayer salary.

Climate Progress

Oil Subsidies-Denier Rep. Rob Bishop Finally Acknowledges Some Special Giveaways To The Oil Industry

Earlier this year, we reported on video that showed Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) denying the existence of billions of dollars in special oil industry tax subsidies. While many Republicans have protected the special giveaways in vote after vote in Congress, Bishop’s denial of their very existence marked a peculiar type of oil industry promotion.

Since the story, Bishop has received further scrutiny. The activist group “Bishop’s Blunders” has caught more video of the congressman, this time finally acknowledging at least some of the industry’s targeted tax breaks. Watch it:

As the video notes, while Bishop has inched closer to the truth, he still isn’t telling even a fraction of the full story. Bishop, who has received hefty donations from oil and gas companies for his campaign committee, omitted subsidies like the deduction for “tertiary;” the enhanced oil recovery methods subsidy ($67 million over ten years); and the percentage depletion allowance for owners of oil wells ($10 billion over ten years).

Politics

Norquist Slams GOPers For Voting To End Ethanol Subsidies: You ‘Popped Your Cherry’ On Tax Hikes

This afternoon, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to end $6 billion in subsidies for ethanol, with 34 Republicans joining the 73-27 majority to end tax breaks and protective tariffs for the corn-based fuel industry. The effort was led by Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), with strong support from members of both parties.

But despite usually strong bipartisan backing, not everyone is happy. Beyond to the expected dismay of the ethanol industry and corn state senators, one powerful man in Washington is worried his grip on GOP lawmakers is slipping. As the Hill reports:

As such, the vote could also represent a setback for influential conservative Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), who said a vote for the plan would violate the anti-tax pledge most Republicans have signed unless paired with a separate tax-cutting amendment.

Nealy every Republican lawmaker in Washington has signed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, in which they vowed to never raise taxes, unless offset by other tax cuts. But Feinstein’s bill ends ethanol’s tax breaks without cutting taxes elsewhere, so Norquist dubbed it a “tax increase.”

And Norquist is livid. In an interview with the National Review, the influential lobbyist slammed Coburn, with whom he’s publicly feuded for some time, for taking Republicans’ tax hike “virginity”:

Norquist [said the vote was] essentially a gateway drug that would inevitably lead to additional [tax] increases down the road. “He said, ‘Ha ha, popped your cherry, lost your virginity. Now give me $2 trillion in tax increases,’” Norquist says. “As soon as they voted, he turned around and called them sluts. Guys like that didn’t get second dates in high school.”

Coburn had his own harsh words for Norquist, saying the vote was a clear rebuke of the ATR head:

“That’s 34 Republicans who are willing to say this is more important than a signed pledge to ATR,” he told reporters after the vote. “I think you all think [Norquist] has a whole lot more hold than I think he has.” Then, in a follow up statement, he added: “Taxpayers should be encouraged that Republican senators overwhelmingly rejected the ludicrous argument that eliminating tax earmarks is a tax increase.”

Indeed, even Coburn — one of Congress’ most conservative members — and some of his colleagues realize that the die-hard refusal to ever raise taxes espoused by Norquist and many Tea Party activistic is no way to govern. But now that Republican senators have voted to end ethanol subsidies, will they do the same for subsidies to the oil industry?

Climate Progress

GOP Rep. McClintock Predicts “We’re Going To See A Strong Movement” Among Republicans Towards Ending Oil Subsidies

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Faith and Freedom Conference in Washington, DC.

Three times this year, House Republicans voted unanimously to protect subsidies for oil companies.

But as the GOP faced a major voter backlash, especially during times of immense profits for oil companies, one conservative Republican spoke out in March against continuing oil subsidies: Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA).

ThinkProgress spoke with McClintock after his speech today at the Faith and Freedom Conference to elaborate on his call to end oil subsidies. McClintock said such subsidies are “distorting” the price of oil and called for getting “rid of all the subsidies.” When asked why other fiscal conservatives weren’t standing with him in this cause, McClintock was optimistic, predicting that more Republicans would soon be joining him. “We have to reach out to folks from time to time, but when you do, they get it,” said McClintock. “I think we’re going to see a strong movement in that direction.”:

KEYES: Back in March, you came out in favor of ending oil subsidies. Can you just walk us through that decision a little bit.

McCLINTOCK: Sure. Prices include a tremendous volume of information. Oil prices include transportation costs, alternative fuel costs, bribery rates in Venezuela, demand in China. Whenever we subsidize any product, we are distorting that information which is absolutely critical for consumers to make rational decisions. So we ought to get rid of all the subsidies and allow those prices to convey accurate information to consumers so that they can make accurate decisions about where they are putting their dollars.

KEYES: Are you worries at all that there aren’t more fiscal conservatives on the right who are joining you in this?

McCLINTOCK: I’m not worried. They didn’t call them self-evident truths for nothing. We have to reach out to folks from time to time, but when you do, they get it. I think we’re going to see a strong movement in that direction.

KEYES: Do you think that more Republicans might be joining you soon on this?

McCLINTOCK: Yes, I do.

Watch it:

Still, despite McClintock’s harsh words, he was one of many Republican congressmen who criticized oil subsidies but then voted to protect them.

Check out ThinkProgress’s video compilation of GOP hypocrisy on oil subsidies.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up