Think Washington subsidizes Big Oil the most? Think again

Not that this will stop the Obama administration from decrying giveaways to Big Oil — facts have never much bothered this bunch before — but a new government report shows there’s big money to be had in energy subsidies, mostly for fuels other than oil and coal.

The Congressional Budget Office compiled federal tax-credit and spending data since the Carter era and found that, lately, the vast majority of the corporate welfare is going not to fossil fuels but to renewable energy:

CBO energy subsidies chart

In case this picture isn’t worth a thousand words to you, CBO summarizes the trend neatly:

Measured in 2011 dollars, the cost of energy-related tax preferences more than doubled between 1977 and 1982 and then fell dramatically between 1982 and 1988, in part because of declines in tax rates and fuel prices… . The cost of energy-related tax preferences grew gradually between 1988 and 2005 and averaged about $4 billion a year from 2000 to 2005. That cost (including outlays for grants in lieu of tax preferences) has risen sharply since then, to an average of $20 billion a year from 2009 through 2011.

In 2011, renewable energy accounted for 68 percent of the tax preferences — almost seven times as much as energy efficiency got and more than four times as much as fossil fuels — and all of the direct subsidies. That’s about $7 of every $8 devoted to federal energy subsidies. Worse, the analysis toward the end of the report suggests these subsidies are being given in a highly economically inefficient way.

Even during most of George W. Bush’s tenure, fossil fuels did well to get half of the handouts. Note that the vast majority of the dough renewables got during his years went to the ethanol boondoggle — through tax subsidies which, finally and mercifully, ended after last year. Yet, in the past few years, ethanol has been matched by giveaways to other types of renewable energy. In fact, this chart more or less reflects the general problem with federal spending over the past decade-plus: Things got bad enough toward the end of the Bush era, but they have exploded out of all semblance of control under Obama. As the CBO authors also noted:

In 2009, DOE received $39 billion for support of energy technologies (after accounting for rescissions [sic] and transfers) — roughly 17 times the average annual appropriation for the preceding decade. That funding included $27.6 billion in budget authority provided under ARRA and $11.4 billion in regular 2009 appropriations.

Note the two bits I put in bold. There was a huge upswing in energy spending in 2009, and not only because of the “stimulus” package. That $11.4 billion in regular spending was the highest of any year since 1980, and it dwarfed the spending in the preceding 10 years.

I favor eliminating any and all corporate welfare, including to fossil fuels. But this report ought to put paid to the notion that we are subsidizing Big Oil to the hilt while ignoring “cleaner” energies.

Ought to — but it probably won’t.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

129 comments Add your comment

ByteMe

March 8th, 2012
11:04 am

In case some like Kyle don’t get the difference: big oil is wildly profitable. Why give tax credits and preferences at all to a wildly profitable industry?? You give tax preferences to encourage the kind of behavior you want. Giving it to home-grown investments in future energy options makes good sense because we are either going to lead or follow and wouldn’t you rather lead? Giving it to wildly profitable old-style options is foolish.

Of course, there are some who don’t want to give tax investments to any private enterprise and that’s reasonable too, provided you are ok with no longer complaining about “What’s Obama doing about high gas prices?”

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
11:10 am

ByteMe: Like I said at the end of the post, I’m fine with ending Big Oil’s subsidies. Let’s just not pretend they’re the chief recipients of federal energy handouts. (Btw: 6.2% margins = “wildly profitable”?)

And there are plenty of opportunities to address gas prices on the regulatory side, and the president is decidedly not taking advantage of them.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
11:14 am

If we are going to offer subsidies, we should at least do it on the back end so that we the tax payers would receive the advantage of lower prices….If that is not going to be the case, then cut it out all the way…. The oil campanies make huge Gross Profits… Let them invest a larger percent of that gross into R&D….Their bottom line will not be as fat, but hey….thats the way the free market works right????

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
11:18 am

Kyle……Link me over to any artilce you wrote in the Spring or Summer of 2008 when Gas prices spiked that said then president Bush was not doing enough to lower the prices of gas……. Just want to see if you were singing the same tune then…..

MPercy

March 8th, 2012
11:18 am

Also, keep in mind that in the case of the oil industry the vast majority of the “handouts” come in the form of deductions against income for the depreciation of equipment–depreciation that *every* *other* manufacturer can and does also take.

Compare that to the renewables, which are largely handed actual cash money taken from taxpayers.

ghp_fan

March 8th, 2012
11:19 am

I think subsidies to Big Oil has most often been mentioned with the frame of reference being that they didn’t need the subsidies, not that they were the largest recipient of government subsidies.

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:20 am

And let’s not forget things like this:

Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail

“President Obama’s Department of Energy helped finance several green energy companies that later fell into bankruptcy — but not before the firms doled out six-figure bonuses and payouts to top executives, a Center for Public Integrity and ABC News investigation found.

Take, for instance, Beacon Power Corp., the second recipient of an Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009. In March 2010, the Massachusetts energy storage company paid cash bonuses of $259,285 to three executives in part due to progress made on the $43 million energy loan, Securities and Exchange Commission records show. Last October, Beacon Power filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/story?id=15851653#.T1jbzoem-Ch

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:22 am

Or this:

Another Obama-Backed Green Energy Company Goes Bankrupt
Ener1 is third company that received assistance from stimulus package to go bankrupt

“Clean energy appears to be a harder sell to Wall Street than Main Street. Ener1, the parent company of a electric car battery maker that received a $118 million grant from the Obama administration, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy yesterday.”

http://www.investorplace.com/investorpolitics/another-obama-backed-green-energy-company-goes-bankrupt/

Ernest T. Bass

March 8th, 2012
11:22 am

Think Washington subsidizes Big Oil the most? Think again

Why are we subsidizing them at all ?

Especially when they are recording record profits ?

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:23 am

Or this:

GM laying off 1300 due to low Volt sales

“”Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand,” GM spokesman Chris Lee said. The car company had hoped to sell 45,000 Chevy Volts in America this year, according to the Detroit News, but has only sold about 1,626 over the first two months of 2012.”

Ernest T. Bass

March 8th, 2012
11:23 am

I think subsidies to Big Oil has most often been mentioned with the frame of reference being that they didn’t need the subsidies, not that they were the largest recipient of government subsidies.

Exactly correct. But facts have never much bothered this bunch before

MPercy

March 8th, 2012
11:24 am

By far the biggest “subsidy” people claim has been given to the oil industry is the government claiming revenues that they are not entitled to by contract.

Some years ago, when leasing oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico and on federal lands, the government wrote the leases to include royalty payments. The royalty payments were reasonable based on oil prices at the time. But now that oil has quadrupled, the government is mad because the royalties were not written to scale with the price of oil. They have tried several times to void those leases and force companies to pay more.

When you hear someone talking about $40B in subsidies to oil companies…that’s what they’re talking about.

When you hear someone talking about $4B in subsidies to oil companies, most of that is really standard deductions for depreciation of equipment just like all manufactures can & do take.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
11:28 am

“and last the companies are permitted to deduct royalties they pay to foreign government, on the ground that royalties paid to a government are really a tax.”

From: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/05/the-us-tax-subsidies-for-oil-companiesposner.html

So we are subsidizing the expenses they pay to foriegn governments???? Really?!?!?!?!?!?

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
11:28 am

Inside Out @ 11:18: I was working in Europe at the time, so I didn’t write anything about gas prices in the U.S.

I can, however, find any number of instances where Democrats blamed Bush for the gas prices back then. That’s mostly politics, of course. There is one important way, however, in which there’s some actual substance: The new domestic oil production Obama has been touting owes to decisions made by Bush then, as well as by private land owners. If not for those decisions, supply would be lower and prices would be even higher. And they will be worse in the future because of the decisions Obama is making now about domestic production.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
11:29 am

Enter your comments here

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:29 am

“Why are we subsidizing them at all ?”

Why are we letting the gov’t pick winners and losers? Like Kyle said, get rid of all corporate welfare.

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
11:31 am

I might add to my 11:28: I was working in Europe at the time — and paying the higher gas prices there (roughly $8/gallon) that Obama’s energy secretary is on the record as favoring here. Which is one reason the Obama administration hasn’t been doing anything to boost domestic production.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 8th, 2012
11:34 am

Off topic but WOW:
Mitt Romney has lost every southern state thus far by at least 9 percent. Put together, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina have 300 counties. Romney has won nine of them, all urban or wealthy suburban areas. As CNN’s Peter Hamby first noticed, Romney actually came in third place in most Appalachian counties. Romney won Florida, but he won only three counties in the panhandle, the part most like the rest of the South.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/the_deep_south_is_irrelevant_in_the_2012_republican_party_primary_.html

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 8th, 2012
11:37 am

This is a good read – especially for all you haters of the Frank-Dodd bill:

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_real_way_to_hold_down_gas_prices/singleton/

A little-noted provision of that 2010 law, which was passed in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis, requires an even littler-noticed federal agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to establish “position limits” for commodity and swaps traders. I’m something of an obscure-securities-law buff, but even I wasn’t aware of that Dodd-Frank provision until this week, when the dependably progressive Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, got 67 congressional signatures on a letter calling on the CFTC to do its job.

carlosgvv

March 8th, 2012
11:44 am

Either by deliberation or by accident you have it backwards. It is Big Oil who pours money into the Republican Party in order to gain political favors. It’s no accident we have the best Congress money can buy.

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:46 am

Ah, yes. Price controls. Because they worked so well in the 70’s.

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:48 am

But the main reason oil (and other commodities) are still trading so high is because of the horrible monetary policy of the Fed that’s devaluing our dollar, which is what commodities throughout the world are traded.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 8th, 2012
11:49 am

You all see this?
The U.S. has become a net exporter of gasoline for the first time in fifty years
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147992053/u-s-a-gas-exporter-for-first-time-in-more-than-50-years

Don't Tread

March 8th, 2012
11:50 am

“the ethanol boondoggle” Yeah, no kidding.

Ethanol needs to be removed from gasoline. I’d pay an extra 10% for gas without ethanol in it.

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
11:50 am

“Either by deliberation or by accident you have it backwards. It is Big Oil who pours money into the Republican Party in order to gain political favors. It’s no accident we have the best Congress money can buy.”

^^Not intended to be a factual statement.

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
11:59 am

The US offers subsidies to Big Oil that amounts to about 5Billion a year…The oil companies have an annual tax Bill of roughly 5.2 Billion…..

So in essence, they are allowed to do business in this country, profit in this country and those on the right are willing to allow them to continue to do this with no contribution to this country…Sounds like they are great examples of the welfare queens that Your boy Newton Leroy is always whinning about…

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
12:05 pm

“Sounds like they are great examples of the welfare queens that Your boy Newton Leroy is always whinning [sic] about…”

Kinda like all those “green energy” companies Obama is giddy about (whether or not they actually can stay in business)

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
12:09 pm

Whether they stay open or close down Is neither here nor there for me..I do not want my tax dollars going to pay some clown to do nothing and get rich…….

Scott Droper

March 8th, 2012
12:09 pm

Sorry Kyle, but the chart can’t possibly be correct. Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle has 8.3 BILLION in FEDERAL Loan Guarantees. That’s a subsidy and the nuke part of the graph doesn’t reflect that. There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics! Come back with a pretty graph showing total dollars going to various types of sources.

@@

March 8th, 2012
12:13 pm

Obama’s clean energy is cleaning our clock.

Admittedly, I’m no economist, which is why I try desperately to protect what’s mine. Stephenson Billings hit on something I’ve been noticing.

But the main reason oil (and other commodities) are still trading so high is because of the horrible monetary policy of the Fed that’s devaluing our dollar, which is what commodities throughout the world are traded.

Whenever Bernanke speaks or is planning to speak, the speculators take notice.

“Crude was boosted by a story in the Wall Street Journal that the Fed was considering a fresh variation on its bond-buying program, once again raising speculation of further central bank stimulus,” said GFT markets analyst David Morrison.

“Investors are so desperate for signs of further Fed intervention that they are jumping on anything,” he added.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/markets/oil-rebounds-on-us-federal-reserve-stimulus-speculation/story-fn7j1dyq-1226293020283

In response to Kyle’s topic. I’m for ending ALL subsidies be they corporate or individual. It’s the only way we can call it fair. I’m willing to make an exception on small businesses. My hope for them is that they can expand and grow employing more people who will then spend more money.

Stephenson Billings

March 8th, 2012
12:19 pm

also doesn’t help that OPEC is hell-bent on keeping oil at about $100/barrel

Just saying..

March 8th, 2012
12:23 pm

Heavens! How on earth did these tax giveaways get through Congress?

saywhat?

March 8th, 2012
12:25 pm

Ernest T. Bass @11:23- Post of the day!

carlosgvv

March 8th, 2012
12:26 pm

Stephenson Billings – 11:50

Obama reportedly got about $77,000 from BP. Not exactly a game winning fortune. Also, believe it or not, there are other oil giants besides BP.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
12:34 pm

Ethanol subsidies should be ended. Stir the gas pot, Kyle the GOP appears to need something to scare folks with.

Do what??????

March 8th, 2012
12:37 pm

Big oil gave Obozo more money than any other candidate.

Do what??????

March 8th, 2012
12:37 pm

“Exactly correct. But facts have never much bothered this bunch before”

Stellar comment, cupcake. Try again.

Do what??????

March 8th, 2012
12:38 pm

” It is Big Oil who pours money into the Republican Party”

If you tell a lie enough times, carlos will eventually believe it.

@@

March 8th, 2012
12:41 pm

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
12:42 pm

“Why give tax credits and preferences at all to a wildly profitable industry??”

You don’t.

“You give tax preferences to encourage the kind of behavior you want.”

Losing money is the kind of behavior you want? :roll: ‘Cause that’s where the tax money has gone to, ByteMe.

“Giving it to home-grown investments in future energy options makes good sense because we are either going to lead or follow and wouldn’t you rather lead?”

I’d LOVE to see private industry lead – PRIVATELY.

“Of course, there are some who don’t want to give tax investments to any private enterprise and that’s reasonable too, provided you are ok with no longer complaining about “What’s Obama doing about high gas prices?”

Of course, there are some who don’t realize that one doesn’t have anything to do with the other, and is, in fact, a deflection from the article at hand.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
12:45 pm

Do What?? carlos will believe anything the daily DNC talking points memo tells him.

@@

March 8th, 2012
12:50 pm

And just so we all know, after bailing F&F out to the tune of $183 million, we’re paying to defend their sexual escapades.

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) — A watchdog agency said Wednesday that the legal tab for former leaders of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is at least $110 million.

And taxpayers have paid at least $47 million of it, according to an Office of Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency report.

And the total bill could be even higher since the inspector general report focused on only one particular legal case against Fannie Mae, and isn’t an exhaustive account of the housing giants’ legal bills, reportedly more than $160 million, according to a 2011 congressional hearing.

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

(ISH)

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
12:53 pm

Scott Droper @ 12:09: The CBO report only included tax subsidies and direct spending. But you’re correct that loan guarantees are another form of subsidy. The Energy Department says its guarantee program totals $34.9 billion, with $18.2B (52%) for renewable/alternative energy; $10.3B (30%) for nuclear; and $6.4B (18%) for everything else (mostly energy efficiency in the form of a loan to Ford). None of this is related to fossil fuels.

Add that money to the funds CBO reported, and the breakdown comes to:
58% renewables
20% nuclear
6% fossil fuels
4% energy efficiency
12% other

So, the ratios of renewables to efficiency and renewables to fossil fuels become even more skewed. I don’t think this changes my basic point: Subsidies to fossil fuel producers, while unjustified, hardly represent the bulk of federal energy subsidies.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
12:55 pm

Nothing gets the libtards going like popping their Bubble Of Willful Ignorance.

commoncents

March 8th, 2012
1:01 pm

Droper 12:09 “Sorry Kyle, but the chart can’t possibly be correct. Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle has 8.3 BILLION in FEDERAL Loan Guarantees. That’s a subsidy and the nuke part of the graph doesn’t reflect that. There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics! Come back with a pretty graph showing total dollars going to various types of sources.”

8 billion in guarantees doesn’t equate to 8 billion given out in one year. That means up to 8 billion can be given out over some specified time frame, which is likely several years.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
1:02 pm

The President of the US gets most of you tikes going.

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

March 8th, 2012
1:11 pm

Dear Kyle,

thanks for demonstrating per your chart that big oil and coal were indeed the biggest recipients of those energy-related government handouts until recently. At least you were honest enough to acknowledge that much. As for going forward, do you honestly think we have any choice but to try and curb our dependency on fossil fuels, for multiple reasons.

Cosby

March 8th, 2012
1:11 pm

Tax credits…seems as if we need to delete the 16th amendment, pass the fair tax and then see what happens.. subsidies by the Feds mean they gret t pick winners and loosers which i cannot fine in the constitution. Time to charge the elite DC criminals with crimes comitted and hang them!!

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
1:14 pm

“As for going forward, do you honestly think we have any choice but to try and curb our dependency on fossil fuels, for multiple reasons.”

Reasonable position.

Now where is it that government should be providing capital for such ventures?

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
1:15 pm

10%: Let me answer your question with a question: Do you honestly think we can curb our dependency on fossil fuels anytime in the next 2-3 decades?

Btw, maximizing the use of our own resources would eliminate (I assume) a few of the multiple reasons to which you referred.

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
1:17 pm

I would take the “curb the dependency” argument more seriously, btw, if there were a greater focus on energy efficiency than on investing in boondoggles in which one’s big campaign contributors just happen to have large financial stakes.

And no, I’m not accusing 10% personally of being a politician…

HDB

March 8th, 2012
1:19 pm

The reason why we are spending moer NOW for R&D into renewable energy is that this nation didn’t have the foresight to invest in it earlier! During the Carter years, tax credits for R&D and for homeowners who implemented renewable energy (which allowed homeowners to sell their excess energy to utilities) made the US the industry leader….primarily GE!! When Reagan removed the tax credits/tax deductions, the industry declined…and Siemens AG became the industry leader because the German government continueed the investment!! At the end of 2011 renewable energy in Germany provided about 20 % of Germany’s electricity production, with the largest contribution being made by wind power. Spain as a whole has the target of generating 30% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by 2010, with half of that amount coming from wind power. In 2006, 20% of the total electricity demand was already produced with renewable energy sources, and in January 2009 the total electricity demand produced with renewable energy sources reached 34.8%.

Some regions of Spain lead Europe in the use of renewable energy technology and plan to reach 100% renewable energy generation in few years. Castilla y León and Galicia, in particular, are near this goal. In 2006 they fulfilled about 70% of their total electricity demand from renewable energy sources.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
1:20 pm

If someone wastes gasoline by not using it effeciently, it not only cost them but it increases the cost to others also.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
1:22 pm

Investors don’t invest in things that people don’t want, that’s why Carter failed. Why invest in expensive energy sources when cheap, plentiful oil is on the market?

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
1:22 pm

“At the end of 2011 renewable energy in Germany provided about 20 % of Germany’s electricity production, with the largest contribution being made by wind power. Spain as a whole has the target of generating 30% of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by 2010, with half of that amount coming from wind power.”

And yet the two most vocal opponents of Cape Wind, one of the largest wind farms ever proposed in Massachusetts, were Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, both uber-liberal Democrat Senators from that state.

NIMBY trumps policy beliefs every time, doesn’t it HDB?

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
1:23 pm

HDB: If you’re going to cite Spain regarding renewables, you better talk about something more recent than 2009 and especially 2006. Since then, the solar bubble in that country — fueled entirely by subsidies — has burst spectacularly.

And if you think wind power has potential for eliminating fossil fuels, ask yourself this: What fuels the turbines when the wind isn’t blowing? And if you still don’t know the answer, ask yourself this: Why is a guy like T. Boone Pickens so darn interested in wind power?

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:24 pm

Kyle, this is old news, but only to the uninformed. Like the whole Democratic Party.

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

March 8th, 2012
1:26 pm

10%: Let me answer your question with a question: Do you honestly think we can curb our dependency on fossil fuels anytime in the next 2-3 decades?

Not without trying, Kyle. What motivation does a profit here, profit now, private industry have to even entertain the notion of alternative energy? Unless there’s a bigger profit in it.

Increasingly expensive oil through deeper water exploration, more hostile locations such as the arctic as well as the middle east and Africa, environmental costs such as the Gulf of Mexico, etc. What would you have us do, Kyle. Wait until the cost of oil dictates change and forces it through a less than optimal approach. Do you yearn for a Mad Max/Thunderdome world for your child in 10 to 30 years?

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:27 pm

Kyle, the liberal answer to your 1:23 about when the wind isn’t blowing is: batteries!

Of course, if you do the math, the country would have to buy about $800 Billion worth of batteries in order to rely on alternatives.

Liberals are insane and nothing can restore their sanity other than the eventual implosion of our economy.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
1:27 pm

Oh, yeah. And HDB? Castilla y León has a population of less than 3 million people. And their primary economic enterprise is agriculture. In other words – pretty damned backwater.

Let me know when they can supply the industrial energy needs of 300 million with their solutions.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
1:28 pm

If water in Atlanta get expensive will you blame the Atlanta mayor or the Gov of GA ?

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:28 pm

“Wait until the cost of oil dictates change and forces it through a less than optimal approach.”

When oil prices dictate (incentivize) change, which will then happen, THAT IS THE OPTIMAL APPROACH. Silly

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
1:29 pm

Or maybe a judge or FL or AL ?

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:30 pm

“will you blame the Atlanta mayor”

I blame shirley, not the current guy

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
1:30 pm

Like energy, where’s the plan ? Or just let money and profits sort it out…

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:31 pm

Germany is cutting their incentives too.

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:32 pm

“let money and profits sort it out…”

OPTIMAL solution.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
1:39 pm

Still waiting to read from one of the liberals on this blog where they think the government gets their authority to provide taxpayer money to promote private industries.

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

March 8th, 2012
1:43 pm

Seems as though there is a great deal of complaint of late regarding gasoline prices. What talk has been initiated as a result of this complaint? Talk of more domestic production for one. Is the claim that more domestic production will decrease gasoline cost to the consumer. If so, what evidence is there to support such a claim. What I see is increased extraction of higher cost oil now that oil prices have increased enough to support a profitable extraction. Hence, going forward, gasoline costs will only trend higher, barring discovery of some huge reserve of low cost oil or equivalent, unless demand falls dramatically as it did during the most recent recession.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
1:47 pm

T- the authority comes from the contributors to the lawmakers elections.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
1:47 pm

“Is the claim that more domestic production will decrease gasoline cost to the consumer. If so, what evidence is there to support such a claim.”

You may have heard something called “supply and demand” in between reading up on the collective works of Marx and Lenin.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
1:48 pm

Oh, so we ignore the Constitution because our politicians say so?

No wonder you’re an Obama supporter, Jefferson.

HDB

March 8th, 2012
1:54 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
1:22 pm

“Investors don’t invest in things that people don’t want, that’s why Carter failed. Why invest in expensive energy sources when cheap, plentiful oil is on the market?”

Because oil is a FINITE resource…and it will eventually run out! Plus, because we have become a net IMPORTER of oil from the Middle East, the US could be held energy hostage again as it was during the NIxon years.

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
March 8th, 2012
1:22 pm
“NIMBY trumps policy beliefs every time, doesn’t it HDB?”

No disagreement there!! If I had the finances, I’d put a windmill in MY back yard!! BTW, MidAmerican Energy in Iowa has wind farms….and produces almost 30% of its energy capability from wind…to cover a state of over 6M people. PG&E has a windfarm that can cover 50,000 homes….we can become more energy independent if we had the national WILL to do so!!

jm

March 8th, 2012
1:31 pm

“Germany is cutting their incentives too.” Why? Siemens is number 1 in wind turbine technology; it’s a profitable venture….so it doesn’t need the incentives now that it needed before!!!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
1:55 pm

If Obozo were not obstructing, the market would be producing domestic oil when the price was high enough to make it economical. His obstruction distorts the oil market and increases prices.

Obozo is responsible for rising gasoline prices.

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

March 8th, 2012
1:59 pm

“Is the claim that more domestic production will decrease gasoline cost to the consumer. If so, what evidence is there to support such a claim.”

You may have heard something called “supply and demand” in between reading up on the collective works of Marx and Lenin.

Now that you have managed to work in your quaint little poke and got that off of your chest, do you care to offer up any actual data from the real world.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
1:59 pm

“You may have heard something called “supply and demand”

I guess you did not get to the part where the oil companies own that oil that is produced and sells it on the open market….. Or the part where OPEC has stated that the are willing prepared to reduce their production to ensure that the world supply does not increase to a point that will reduce oil prices per barrel to a level below their expectations? See that the funny thing about the oil debate….There are other players involved that have more to say about the game than we do. you can get with the drill baby drill game if you choose, and thats fine, but until you are willing to accept that the only way we can win is to change the field, our energy policy will continue to fall flat. In other words, we can not win with fossil fuels..We have to change what we use in order to become independant….

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:02 pm

“Now that you have managed to work in your quaint little poke and got that off of your chest, do you care to offer up any actual data from the real world.”

Yeah, it’s called the free market economic system. Probably not covered in your studies of “American Idol winners and their impact on society” class.

HDB

March 8th, 2012
2:03 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
1:55 pm

Much of domestic oil capability was CAPPED in the 70s when oil companies decided that it was CHEAPER to import oil from the Middle East. That capability hasn’t been released YET!! Also, the moritorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf has been lifted!!! The DEMAND for oil in CHINA and INDIA plus the US is now EXPORTING gasoline is the cause of higher fuel prices. We are also in the summer crossover, in that refineries are transitioning to create the summer blends…….

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:03 pm

“Or the part where OPEC has stated that the are willing prepared to reduce their production to ensure that the world supply does not increase to a point that will reduce oil prices per barrel to a level below their expectations?”

See, if we have our own sources not part of OPEC, what they do won’t particularly matter, will they?

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
2:04 pm

HDB @ 1:54: The subsidies in Germany and Spain aren’t only or even mostly for producing turbines, etc. They’re for making the energy produced by those turbines cost-competitive. Those subsidies increasingly are going by the wayside.

The Euros are also increasingly giving up on crippling their economy to fight global warming/climate change/climate chaos/whateversoundsscariestthisweek. Of course, leave it to the American left to keep fighting for an idea that Europe has already proven not to work…

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:05 pm

“Also, the moritorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf has been lifted!!!”

Except that it hasn’t really.

The Disaster-in-Chief still controls the leases / permitting process.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:07 pm

“We are also in the summer crossover, in that refineries are transitioning to create the summer blends…….”

And why do we have “summer blends”, HDB?

The word your looking for begins with “G”.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
2:07 pm

T- when you assume…what does that tell us about T ?

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

March 8th, 2012
2:07 pm

Please explain to the class, rod, what happens to the free market laws of supply and demand in the case of a monetary loss associated with continued production at market price. You might wish to look into some of the more recent events including the closure of oil refineries that were capable of handling only sweet crude and natural gas production decline due to drops in natural gas prices. In short, supply will not increase unless demand at a profitable price increases.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 8th, 2012
2:07 pm

President Obama just gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a serious whupping. In the process, he greatly reduced the risk of a catastrophic war, made his saber-rattling Republican opponents look like idiots, and seriously weakened the powerful Israel lobby.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/obamas_aipac_trifecta/
mwuahahahahahaha

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:07 pm

I fail to see any assumption on my part, Jefferson.

Jefferson

March 8th, 2012
2:08 pm

T- you should respect the President of the US, the lack of is a reflection on you, not him. President Bush too.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:10 pm

Only a liberal columnist at Salon could declare a “whupping” from a series of mixed messages from the Disaster-in-Chief.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 8th, 2012
2:11 pm

Obozo is responsible for rising gasoline prices.

And the congress-imposed restraints on Iran have absolutely nothing to do with it?

Psst…bend over, here comes Israel.. Ooops, I mean bow down….

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
2:11 pm

Finn, if you’re such an Obozo receptacle that you believe he is the boss of Netanyahu, you may have a surprise coming.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:12 pm

“Please explain to the class, rod, what happens to the free market laws of supply and demand in the case of a monetary loss associated with continued production at market price.”

I’ll get to it right around the time a free market exists in the oil business, Ten Percent.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
2:12 pm

“See, if we have our own sources not part of OPEC, what they do won’t particularly matter, will they?”

Again…Thats where you are missing the point…..The Oil companies have no intrest in you paying lower fuel cost…They are selling to the highest bidder. Regardless of how much you say it when oil is produced here, it does not stay here. If China is willing to pay 1 penny more, then that where it goes…We are not like the Saudis or the Venezuelans…..we do not have a Nationalized oil company. That free market you keep speaking of is stacked against us in this case…We are behind the eight ball and the only chance we have to be energy independant is to Change our source of energy…Why is that so hard for you to understand?????

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
2:14 pm

Also: Sens. Jim DeMint and Mike Lee have introduced legislation to end all energy-specific tax subsidies, including those for oil and gas companies. If Senate Dems defeat it, does that mean they’re in the pockets of Big Oil?

HDB

March 8th, 2012
2:16 pm

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
2:04 pm

Question: if it’s thought that wnid power doesn’t work, then why is MidAmerican Energy in Iowa producing 30% of capability via wind….and the costs make energy more affordable in Des Moines, Ames, Iowa City…….(I used to live there!)…….

Why is PG&E in California investing in wind farms if it doesn”t work??

Answer: it complements the other sources of power (particularly nuclear)…and drives DOWN energy costs!! The more sources you have, the cheaper the overall cost!!

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
March 8th, 2012
2:07 pm

Nope…the word I’d use begins with “S” – smog!!!

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

March 8th, 2012
2:17 pm

I’ll get to it right around the time a free market exists in the oil business, Ten Percent.

I too anxiously await the end to government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry along with the elimination of the deployment of our military to areas considered strategically important based on the fossil fuel resources, etc.

And I was looking forward to your timely explanation of the laws of supply and demand and their limitations.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:19 pm

Oh, and here is what the President should have told Netanyahu:

Israel is a sovereign nation, in charge of it’s own destiny. If you wish to preemptively strike ANY of the countries currently threatening you, have at it. If you wish to use nuclear weapons, we won’t stop you. Turn Iran into glass if you so desire.

We’ll sell you whatever arms and materiel you want or need, including access to overhead imagery of any targets you want to hit.

But don’t come crying to us if you fail to take out your enemies, because actions have consequences on both sides, including those who would initiate war.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:22 pm

“Why is that so hard for you to understand?”

Understand it completely, Inside Out.

When will you ever understand that we don’t have a free market here in either the supply or demand side of the equation?

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:24 pm

“Answer: it complements the other sources of power (particularly nuclear)…and drives DOWN energy costs!! The more sources you have, the cheaper the overall cost!!”

Or there might be state and Federal incentives to do so, making them more affordable. I don’t know that, but do you know if it isn’t true, HDB?

[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

Kyle Wingfield

March 8th, 2012
2:33 pm

HDB @ 2:16: If they’re doing so grandly, why do they need subsidies?

Or maybe they’re doing grandly because of the subsidies that make the electricity they generate from wind competitive with that generated from fossil fuels such as coal. I don’t know about those companies in Iowa and California specifically, but that’s the case in Germany and Spain — which is the point I was making at 2:04.

HDB

March 8th, 2012
2:35 pm

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
March 8th, 2012
2:24 pm

Granted, there are both federal and state incentives for wind power…..that should SPUR development!!

….from MidAmerican Energy:

MidAmerican Energy began installing wind turbines in 2004 and is No. 1 in the nation in ownership of wind-powered capacity among rate-regulated utilities.

In December 2010, MidAmerican Energy announced it would add 593.4 megawatts of new wind-powered generation in Iowa. The projects included the 443.9-megawatt Rolling Hills wind project, located in Adair, Adams and Cass counties; the 119.6-megawatt Laurel wind project, located in Marshall County; and the 29.9-megawatt Pomeroy wind expansion project, located in Pocahontas and Calhoun counties. The final portion of the 593.4-megawatt expansion project was placed in-service by year-end 2011.

In January 2012, MidAmerican Energy announced it reached an agreement with RPM Access for the acquisition of the 103.5-megawatt Vienna wind project, which will be located in Marshall and Tama counties. MidAmerican Energy also announced agreements with Clipper Windpower Development Company for the acquisition of both the 200.1-megawatt Eclipse wind project, located in Guthrie and Audubon counties, and the 101.2-megawatt Morning Light wind project, located in Adair County. The three projects, totaling 176 wind turbines, will be complete by year-end 2012.

MidAmerican Energy’s other owned wind projects are located in Buena Vista, Carroll, Crawford, Floyd, Hamilton, Polk, Pottawattamie, Sac and Wright counties.

When the 2012 wind projects are complete, MidAmerican Energy will own 2,284.8 megawatts of wind generation, with approximately 29 percent of its total generation capacity powered by wind.

…..from Arista Power…..
http://aristapower.com/wind/modern-wind/government-incentives/

With the right policy support, wind power can grow to provide 20% of the United States’ electricity, and in doing so, support 500,000 American jobs. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 20% wind energy by 2030 scenario shows that rural land owners would earn more than $600 million a year through land lease payments that range from $2,000 to $4,000 per megawatt annually, and rural communities would see increases of as much as $1.5 billion annually in property tax revenues that can be allocated to fund schools, infrastructure, medical centers, and other public services.

Here’s an economic engine we haven’t even cranked up yet!!1

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
2:35 pm

Why is PG&E in California investing in wind farms if it doesn”t work??
——–

Uh, because the government mandated it?

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
2:38 pm

HDB
March 8th, 2012
2:35 pm
———-

LOL! And where will all that cash come from?

The pockets of folks who buy electricity, through higher rates.

Thanks, Democrats.

That Black guy

March 8th, 2012
2:39 pm

Scott Droper

March 8th, 2012
12:09 pm
Sorry Kyle, but the chart can’t possibly be correct. Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle has 8.3 BILLION in FEDERAL Loan Guarantees. That’s a subsidy and the nuke part of the graph doesn’t reflect that. There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics! Come back with a pretty graph showing total dollars going to various types of sources.
________________________________________________________________

You do realize that “FEDERAL Loan Guarantees” only come into play if the company defaults. Like all those “green” energy companies. Unless I’m mistaken, Plant Vogel has not defaulted, like all those “green” companies (i.e. Obama doners).

HDB

March 8th, 2012
2:46 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
2:35 pm

Why is PG&E in California investing in wind farms if it doesn”t work??
——–

“Uh, because the government mandated it?”

Or maybe……there’s MONEY to be made!!

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s 2011 solicitation for new supplies of renewable energy brought in more than 300 offers, a new record for the utility.

The offers are being reviewed to determine the most viable and cost-effective projects, the company recently announced.

“The highly competitive proposals we received offer affordable power to help us achieve the state’s renewable energy targets,” Fong Wan, senior vice president for energy procurement at the San Francisco-based utility, said in a news release. “The tremendous response to our request reflects the robust supplies being offered by the renewable energy industry, which California has fostered through its aggressive state mandates.”

Since 2002, PG&E (NYSE: PCG) has signed more than 110 contracts for about 10,000 megawatts of renewable power. PG&E now expects to be able to meet California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires all retail sellers of electricity to deliver 33 percent of their electricity by 2020 from renewable resources such as solar, biomass and small hydroelectric.

The utility expects to reach 20 percent this year.

PG&E now typically gets more than half of its electricity from “carbon-free” sources, including large hydro and nuclear power, according to the utility.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:48 pm

And would any of them be doing this if there weren’t Government-based economic incentives to do so, HDB?

Again, where does the government get their authority to promote private businesses with taxpayer dollars?

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
2:50 pm

“With the right policy support,”

And why do private industries need “policy support”?

@@

March 8th, 2012
2:52 pm

Never have truer words been spoken.

Of course, leave it to the American left to keep fighting for an idea that Europe has already proven not to work

With leftists the grass is always greener in someone else’s yard.

Can we just blow Greece off the face of the earth? Spain?

All a person has to do is go to “der Speigel” to see what a miserable failure their alternative efforts have been. There’s article after article. Some of the interviews are hilarious. Journalists “WTH’s goin’ on?”

The Alternative Option

Heck, the Europeans aren’t convinced their sacrifice has done anything to reduce C02.

2009 but probably still true today.

Germany’s renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country’s electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.

But there’s a catch: The climate hasn’t in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven’t prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.

Despite Europe’s boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue — as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

March 8th, 2012
3:05 pm

Kyle, I do think with all the deflection and changing of the subject, you’ve effectively put a stake through the heart of one of the left’s most cherished boogeymen they love to trot out with your column this afternoon.

Well played, sir! :D

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
3:11 pm

HDB, you merely showed how PG&E is meeting the government mandate.

Bottom line: Californians will pay more for electricity than if the government hadn’t interfered in the free market.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
3:17 pm

According to the Institute for Energy Research, states with “renewables mandates” have electric rates 40% higher than other states.

Thanks, Democrats.

HDB

March 8th, 2012
3:18 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
3:11 pm

Like Enron did in California?? That cost Californians more than PG&E’s move into wind energy!!
Bottom line: Californians ARE paying more for electricity because of a deregulated energy market!! Note the costs of natural gas in Atlanta…that’s skyrocketed because of a deregulated market!!

Old timer

March 8th, 2012
3:24 pm

I still have a problem with peoplemthinkingnanprofitnmargin of 6 percent being huge profits…..

Old timer

March 8th, 2012
3:25 pm

People thinking profit margins

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
3:27 pm

When California “deregulated”, they did it in a typical Democrat way (screwed up) and that’s what caused price spikes. For example, the government required all wholesale purchases to be made on the spot market. Dumb.

Thanks, Democrats.

HDB

March 8th, 2012
3:43 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
3:27 pm

Better check your facts; it was market manipulations that cause California’s problems…..particularly ENRON!!

…from wiki….

The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001 was a situation in which California had a shortage of electricity caused by market manipulations and illegal shutdowns of pipelines by Texas energy consortiums. The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state’s largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis’s standing. The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson (REPUBLICAN). Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California’s spot markets. The crisis cost $40 to $45 billion.

……THANKS, GOP……

HDB

March 8th, 2012
3:46 pm

LBB, here’s more………….

Part of California’s deregulation process, which was promoted as a means of increasing competition, involved the partial divestiture in March 1998 of electricity generation stations by the incumbent utilities, who were still responsible for electricity distribution and were competing with independents in the retail market. A total of 40% of installed capacity — 20 gigawatts — was sold to what were called “independent power producers.” These included Mirant, Reliant, Williams, Dynegy, and AES. The utilities were then required to buy their electricity from the newly created day-ahead only market, the California Power Exchange (PX). Utilities were precluded from entering into longer-term agreements that would have allowed them to hedge their energy purchases and mitigate day-to-day swings in prices due to transient supply disruptions and demand spikes from hot weather.

PG&E yard in San Francisco
Then, in 2000, wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices were regulated for the incumbents as part of a deal with the regulator, allowing the incumbent utilities to recover the cost of assets that would be stranded as a result of greater competition, based on the expectation that “frozen” rates would remain higher than wholesale prices. This assumption remained true from April 1998 through May 2000.

Energy deregulation put the three companies that distribute electricity into a tough situation. Energy deregulation policy froze or capped the existing price of energy that the three energy distributors could charge.[13] Deregulating the producers of energy did not lower the cost of energy. Deregulation did not encourage new producers to create more power and drive down prices. Instead, with increasing demand for electricity, the producers of energy charged more for electricity.[14] The producers used moments of spike energy production to inflate the price of energy.[14] In January 2001, energy producers began shutting down plants to increase prices.[14]

When electricity wholesale prices exceeded retail prices, end user demand was unaffected, but the incumbent utility companies still had to purchase power, albeit at a loss. This allowed independent producers to manipulate prices in the electricity market by withholding electricity generation, arbitraging the price between internal generation and imported (interstate) power, and causing artificial transmission constraints. This was a procedure referred to as “gaming the market.” In economic terms, the incumbents who were still subject to retail price caps were faced with inelastic demand (see also: Demand response). They were unable to pass the higher prices on to consumers without approval from the public utilities commission. The affected incumbents were Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Pro-privatization advocates insist the cause of the problem was that the regulator still held too much control over the market, and true market processes were stymied — whereas opponents of deregulation assert that the fully regulated system had worked for 40 years without blackouts.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
3:46 pm

Watch out HBD….” itty bitty barry’s” head may explode if he has to deal with real facts!!!!! LMAO….

HDB

March 8th, 2012
3:52 pm

LBB…and the end of the “tale”……

In a speech at UCLA on August 19, 2003, Davis apologized for being slow to act during the energy crisis, but then forcefully attacked the Houston-based energy suppliers: “I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put us all at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the Federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President Cheney to draft a national energy strategy.”

When the Enron verdicts were rendered years later, convicting Enron and other companies of market manipulation, Davis responded with the following quote:“

“Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, more than anyone, are the reason I’m talking to you now from this law firm.”

On November 13, 2003, shortly before leaving office, Davis officially brought the energy crisis to an end by issuing a proclamation ending the state of emergency he declared on January 17, 2001. The state of emergency allowed the state to buy electricity for the financially strapped utility companies. The emergency authority allowed Davis to order the California Energy Commission to streamline the application process for new power plants. During that time, California issued licenses to 38 new power plants, amounting to 14,365 megawatts of electricity production when completed.[2]

In 2006, the Los Angeles Times published an article that credited Davis’s signing of the long term projects for preventing future blackouts and providing California a cheap supply of energy with the increasing costs of energy.

In March 2003, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s long awaited report on the so-called “energy crisis” was released. That report mostly vindicated Davis, laying the blame for the energy disruption and raiding of California’s treasury on some 25 energy trading companies, most of which were based in Texas.

Inside Out

March 8th, 2012
3:56 pm

HDB….in 3….2….1……..SOCIALIST!!!!! MARXIST!!!!!!! COMMUNITY ORGANIZER!!!!!!!!……..BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!…………BUT NEWT SAID………… LOL

HDB

March 8th, 2012
3:57 pm

I know, I-O, I know…..LMAO!!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

March 8th, 2012
5:33 pm

Bottom line, HDB, is that Democrats and an occasional liberal Republican have run California for decades, so what happens there is thanks to libtarded policies.

They did a faux, libtarded version of deregulation and screwed things up.

Just like Obozo has screwed up health care for Americans and Democrats alike.

Just saying..

March 8th, 2012
8:32 pm

-”… if there were a greater focus on energy efficiency than on investing in boondoggles”

Influential GOP person: “I’m sure that conservation is a fine personal virtue…”

[...] Think Washington subsidizes Big Oil the most? Think again Think Washington subsidizes Big Oil the most? Think again “”Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand,” GM spokesman Chris Lee said. The car company had hoped to sell 45000 Chevy Volts in … Read more on Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

Joel Edge

March 9th, 2012
6:34 am

And we still don’t have a good way to store energy.

Just saying..

March 9th, 2012
9:17 am

Wow, this guy’s coachable. He’s a better campaigner:

“Since this president has been president, the cost of gas has doubled,” Romney said. “Not exactly what he might have hoped for, and he says ‘well it’s not my fault.’ By the way, we’ve gone from ‘yes we can’ to ‘it’s not my fault.’”
In Mississippi, Romney did try out some Southern charm, telling his audience he was “an unofficial Southerner.”

“I am learning to say y’all and I like grits, and things,” he joked. “Strange things are happening to me.”

Antonia

March 10th, 2012
12:21 am

Copy of the discharge is mailed by the bankruptcy court clerk for the debtor. In case you have not received the Bankruptcy court records or securely placed, not traceable in the moments of needs. You can find the same at http://goo.gl/rbveC to posses a copy of your bankruptcy discharge and and prove that your bankruptcy case is finished.

[...] Think Washington subsidizes Big Oil the most? Think again [...]

[...] that this will stop the Obama administration from decrying giveaways to Big Oil — facts have never much bothered this bunch before — but a new government report shows there’s big money to be had in energy subsidies, [...]