- ‹ previous
- 1928 of 8793
- next ›
Obama's First Policy Retreat?
Did Barack Obama just break his first campaign promise?
On the campaign trail, Obama railed against big oil companies. He often criticized John McCain for backing tax cuts that would reward ExxonMobil and other top oil manufacturers. But now Obama's proposal to apply a windfall tax on big oil has vanished... at least from his transition website. The President-elect's transition team hasn't explicitly announced it will drop the windfall tax plan, but a transition aide, commenting on the condition he not be identified, backed off the promise in an email. "President-elect Obama announced the [windfall profits tax] policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel," he said. "They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that."
The windfall profits proposal was deleted from the transition website almost three weeks before the eagle-eyed American Small Business League (ASBL), an advocacy group for small businesses, noticed the change and protested in a press release Tuesday. The plan was mentioned in a version (PDF) of the site that existed after Obama's election win. But when the transition website relaunched on November 8, references to a excess profits tax on the oil and gas industry were gone.
Obama talked about a windfall profits tax as early as April. As crude oil prices topped $110 a barrel, Obama promised to "put a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use it to help ... families pay their heating and cooling bills and reduce energy costs." And in August, the Democratic nominee issued a campaign ad that promised "a windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate." The windfall profits tax was a key point of contention between President-elect Obama and McCain in June, when McCain criticized Obama for the plan, calling it "dangerous".
ASBL president and founder Lloyd Chapman says he was "disappointed" and "surprised" that Obama dropped the windfall tax plan. He maintains that a reduction in the price of oil does not justify the policy shift. "There's not always a correlation between the price of a barrel of oil and what we're paying at the pump," Chapman said. "The oil and gas companies are clearly making excessive profits. They've taken advantage of the fact that there's no regulation of that industry and overcharged at the pump and hurt our economy. The excessive profits tax is based on the excessive profits they've made in the last eight years. The tax was to get some of that money back for the American people."
James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas and a frequent Mother Jones contributor, says that Obama's change of course "makes sense" given the dramatically reduced amount of money a windfall profits tax would bring in now. "You could still pass the tax but the revenue from it would be much less," Galbraith wrote in an email Tuesday.
Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil and gas industry, says that her organization hadn't heard any details of the Obama team's change in plans, but that the oil and gas lobby was happy to hear about it. "[API] is pleased that President-elect Obama is reevaluating his position, particularly considering the economic situation," Landry said. "The oil and gas industry has been one of the bright spots in the economy, and this would be a bad time to snuff out bright spots in the economy."
By the way, on October 30, ExxonMobil reported its quarterly earnings. It netted $14.83 billion, setting a national record for quarterly profits. Bright spot, indeed.
I believe Obama knows exactly what he's doing
(!) I expressly check to see if that failed post showed up! I swear it wasn't there until after the successful post!! !@#$%
(Completely off-topic: Did you know that that string of swear-replacement characters is called "grawlix"? Who'd'a thunk it? Thank you, Mort Walker!)
Little by little...
Bit by bit...
We see Bush-Lite exposed for what it is, was and always has been.
What are "excess profits"?
I guess maybe you want to pay a little more income tax because of your "excess salary"?
Look, do you want $8/gallon gas?
I'm glad it is no longer talked about. Taxing Windfall profits is not the solution.
Invest in clean energy and impose a higher tax on gasoline to pay for the research. The only for sure way to force people to think before driving is to have higher gas prices.
When the prices for gas are higher, more people will find it sensible to buy a car with better gas mileage. Now that gas is below $2.00 again, the rush for an economy car has mellowed out quite a bit.
This further confirms suspicions that Obama is one of the reptilian humanoids known as The Elite (AKA, The Global Elite, or the Babylonian Brotherhood). They are well known for their shape-shifting capability!
Elite campaigns are often funded by Big Oil because Big Oil provides the reptilian humanoids with petro-chemically derived life substances, preserving the Elite's Life Force.
"Government" Elites ensure the secret production of Life Force for "Business" Elites. These two groups then trade positions so the former "Government" Elites can be re-energized with Life Force!
The Elite are wholly consumed with Life Force and will ultimately do anything to get more and more of it! They are obsessed with the problem of how to extract all Life Force from the humanoid populace without exciting the humanoid fight/flight response!
OMG! Thanks for the smile.
For anyone eager to criticize, I'd like to point out that it would be more effective to wait until after he takes office. At this point, he hasn't fulfilled ANY of his campaign promises. Why focus on just one?
This strikes me as a rather stupid thing to hold against Obama. The whole point to a windfall profits tax was to punish the oil companies for punishing consumers at the pump. Since the gas price has dropped through the floor, owing to a drop in demand and the selling off of tons of oil commodities in the wake of our economic collapse, there's no good reason to implement it now.
I want a president who's less interested in being consistent, and more interested in doing things right, with real purpose and function.
There are a couple of points worth noting:
1.) The only way to invest in clean energy is to actually have the resources to do it. Presumably, this comes from revenue streams and most government revenue streams come from taxes.
2.) Obama hasn't taken office yet, but we should press him to ensure that he addresses soaring gas and heating oil costs.
3.) The windfall tax is an option, I suppose, but it's not the only option out there.
Sorry folks. As a committed liberal, I can't get on board with taxing oil companies more than any other company. American consumers complaining about high oil prices are like cocaine addicts complaining about high coke prices.
You want lower oil and gas profits? Then STOP using those products. Very simple. WE as consumers have far more power than the media (especially the broadcast idiots) would have us believe.
The profits of oil companies NEVER depends on the price of oil. The price of oil determines the value of their reserves, but integerated oil companies (as all majors are) can make their profits regardless of the price of oil. Exxon can make $15 billion in a quarter when the price of oil is below $50 a barrel. I believe that we should tax every barrel of imported oil to make the cost always be at least $80 a barrel. This would insure the viability of alternative energy, since domestic production can NEVER make up the difference (contrary to what most Republicans say, and most Americans seem to believe).
what's the point of a windfall profits tax? It's useless. Let them profit, just quit SUBSIDISING them with massive military expenditures. Tax the polution they produce, NOT their profits.
Reuters has a piece linked under today's news on www.RealityChex.com in which an Obama spokesman cites the drop in oil prices as the excuse. But it doesn't matter if the price is $1/bbl, if oil companies like Exxon are making billions overnight, that's a windfall.
It looks to me as if Nominee Jim Jones, whose "interest" in the relationship between oil & national security extends right to his board membership at Chevron, has already had his influence on Obama policy. (Stories on Jones on both "Linkenblogs" & "Cabinet Appts." pages of www.RealityChex.com.) I am not liking what I'm reading. Thanks for this important post, Nick.
When gas was pushing $6.00 a gallon and the oil companies were laughing all the way to the bank I agreed with a windfall profit tax as a way to funnel some of the excessive excesses back into the economy. It would have been a temporary tax in any event. Now that the prices are down the tax cuts for research and other non-issues afforded to the oil companies should still be revoked and regulations or legislation enacted to force at least three new refineries to be built at the co-expense of oil and government maybe like a 80-20 split (respectively).
For what it's worth, oil company profits are higher now than they were when gas was near US$5 a gallon.
But, anyone who's expecting Obama to actually keep any of his campaign promises is living in Fantasyland. Yea, he will be better than Bush - but who wouldn't? Even I would.....
...simply pragmatism at work.
Thank you for brightening my day.
Every week there is a new conspiracy theory about Mr. Obama..."Obama is one of the reptilian humanoids known as The Elite"
This is nice to know seeing how we all thought he was a Arab, Muslim, Socialist, Terrorist. I am on pins and needleds to see what else he morphs into by the end of four years. So now we know for now, he is an alien. Nice.
Windfall profits are a horrible idea, for any industry, at any time. We cannot expect the government to properly use that money, and for an industry with such dramatic historical ups and downs it is irresponsible handicap them for short-term big gains without recognizing the inevitable decline for which they must prepare. The oil companies need to be subjected to the same tax rate as other industries, no more, no less, and should not be punished for making good to their shareholders and employees in the last few years after taking many years of punishing losses to get to this point.
There are now no windfall profits to tax, so why the vicious attacks on Obama's character? Sounds like you're looking for a reason to hate him, or an excuse because you always have. Obama will be remembered as a great man while your type will be remembered as a societal problem similar to a bad skin disease that resisted all treatment. The racist disease will soon be all but gone in America! Thank God!
Hmmm, what are megalomaniacal, bigger than-life-Oil interest[s] flush with oodles of cash that no lowly wind fall profit tax would begin to diminish to do? Install [their] general to a top Obama post? Check. Can you say post election meeting with McCain? Who just so happened to have a good friend newly recommended NSA nominee General James Jones or sit-on-the-Chevron-board Jones. Coincidence? Maybe but unlikely. Nominee Jones wasted little time laying out the 'change' battle plan. Did anyone notice in some of his first post nomination comments his use of the word immediate followed by restarting Nuclear Power with new plant construction and begin off shore drilling? These were the lucky buggars at the top of t[his] list? Alternatives were mentioned further down. They were not described as immediate but phased. Some by 2010 but a goal of 2050 was not out of the question. Wow another 40 years BEFORE we as a country could be off oil...is that true? Welcome to the United States of Americrude version 5.0. 1.0 arguably began when Reagan removed [at the behest of ?] the solar panels from [Jimmy's] White House. How Sweet crude it is!
FIRST? FIRST? FIRST? Where on Earth have you guys lived? FISA, Patriot Act, eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, renegotiting NAFTA, having an actual timetable for troop withdrawl....good grief. This is not the first.
OMG!!!
The man isnt even PRESIDENT yet!! GOOD GOD!!!
What is wrong with you people.. you are worse than the hacks on the right! You are eating your own!!
Just sit back, shut up, and wait to see what he does!! GEEZ! This is just sick!!
You're already beating him down and he hasn't even taken the oath yet.
Give him a chance!!
Tony Smith observes: FIRST? FIRST? FIRST? Where on Earth have you guys lived? FISA, Patriot Act, eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, renegotiting NAFTA, having an actual timetable for troop withdrawl....good grief. This is not the first.
Oh, and then there was the promise to limit his campaign spending to the public funding system...
www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8758_obama_opts_out.html
Then there's his promise from his Senate campaign to "...at some point, say 'NO' to George Bush on his war funding". (He's said 'YES' to George Bush's war funding on every single bill that passed through the Senate.)
"Common Sense" demands that we: Just sit back, shut up, and wait to see what he does!!
...
Give him a chance!!
As I replied to "Robert" on another thread, when he suggested: I was thinking maybe we could give Obama a chance first?
"We've given him a chance.
We've elected him.
Now, we begin to see, rather clearly, which way he intends to direct his administration's efforts, and it's not the direction many of his most ardent supporters expected it would be."
"So: Protest Now, apply pressure NOW, or wait till the continuation of Bush's policies is a fait accompli, and protest then?"
"Which one do you think will have greater benefit?"
What you're suggesting is on a par with the suggestions we heard from the NeoCons who told us, as George Bush was finalizing his invasion plans for Iraq, putting troops onto ships, putting aircraft into forward staging positions: "Just keep your cool. No one is launching an invasion at this time. We're only preparing for the possibility that Saddam Hussein will force us into one."
Well, the anti-war folks who followed that advise and kept quiet no doubt regretted their silence later on.
If what we see shaping up indicates that President Obama will NOT be following the paths he led us to believe he would, while he campaigned for our votes, then I firmly believe NOW is the time to register discontent. Not after the deal is done!
I'm so glad I got my $500 we contributed to his campaign refunded after he caved on FISA.
He's going to be WORSE than Bush you can tell already: the lie pile is growing faster than Bush's ever did, and he's not even in office yet!
Gee...I was under the impression that Obama doesn't become Prez until Jan. 20th.
Your ignorance would seem less ignorant if you did less speculating and more reacting to actual things that have happened.
Last time I checked making a change to your website doesn't cause any laws to be enacted.
But then again...I've got common sense.
"I didn't know he was Prez yet" tells us: Gee...I was under the impression that Obama doesn't become Prez until Jan. 20th.
Then I guess maybe he shouldn't be so out-in-public making as big a stir as possible about his cabinet appointments, and having members of his staff make statements regarding what his policies are going to be.
Your ignorance would seem less ignorant if you did less speculating and more reacting to actual things that have happened.
Your blinders are showing.
Things ARE happening.
He's appointing people to very high level gov't policy-making positions, and making changes to the policies he said he'd follow while he was trying to land our votes.
Things are happening.
We're reacting accordingly.
Ignore in haste.
Repent in leisure.
Obama is simply doing what he's told by the elite behind the curtain. His job is to sugarcoat the globalist agenda. Bush/Clinton/Obama all share the same master.
Gwen notices: Bush/Clinton/Obama all share the same master.
He who has eyes to see, let him see, and he who has ears to hear, let him hear.
I appreciate the great point. But on the other hand, the way his transition team went about doing it smacks of secrecy and, quite frankly, wasn't the sort of thing I was expecting out of an Obama administration. It's the sort of thing I'd have expected of...oh, I don't know... Bush.
"By the way, on October 30, ExxonMobil reported its quarterly earnings. It netted $14.83 billion, setting a national record for quarterly profits"
Oh, the profits are there. Don't believe the hype for a second. This was what we in the hood call a "b*tch move" by yet another Democrat. We thought an Obama administration would have more cojones than that. Then again, he filled it with Clinton heads, an indicator of the corporate direction this administration seems to be headed.
Yeah, he hasn't even taken office yet, and in just three weeks he's done more in putting together a team than Bush has done as the first openly Fascist dictator of the USA the whole year.
Darlene, NO ONE rises to such heights of power in this world but what they are one of the Shape-Shifting Reptilian Aliens!
Everybody knows that!
Both Bill & Hillary are SSRAs!
Even the Queen of England is a SSRA!
David Icke has shown the world!![/attempted sarcastic humor]
Couple of things, when evualating any campaign promise the "situation on the ground" needs to be considered. Fact is were are in a different circumstance then we were in this summer. The economy is worse and gas prices are lower. So not only would a windfall profit tax net less government revenue BUT it would also require more political capital and be harder to tax.
Now I think that Obama should be called on this. If he's deviating from campaign promises he should explain why. If he has a reasonable explanation than so be it.
Let's see...
A: Obama-blinders-wearer "Common Sense" tells us, essentially, he hasn't done anything yet.
Then,
B: Obama-blinders-wearer "L.D. Freitas" tells us he's done more in putting together a team in three weeks than Bush did in a whole year.
Well, 'A' would be worrisome, given all the publicity he's soaked up over what he's been "doing", and announcing and all. And 'B' would be worrisome given the amount of damage George Bush managed to do without ever, apparently, organizing his minions.
You guys need to get together and get your stories consistent. Either he's been doing something (which I think he has, and I'm not liking very much of it) or he hasn't.
No..I want clean public transportation. I want goods transported with trains instead of semi-trucks. I want alot of things. But if Obama is NOT going to reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy, NOT going to tax big oil, and give the middle class (who's that?)a "tax cut"where is he going to get revenue to enact all these half-hearted social welfare programs?
Oh, that's right--the Dems never intended to do any of it. And, now the excuses will flow like crude oil---"less oil profits", the "Wall St Bailout" (which THEY enacted!), "cant reverse tax cuts in a recession". What good excuses!
No, he broke his first campaign promise back in July when he voted to support Telecom immunity and FISA extensions.
He's a liar from waaaay back.
Surely it is premature to criticize the taste of
tonight's entre before the chef arrives at the restaurant.
This is all good and well--but could you give us an alternative first? I take public transportation al the time--I live in an econom- ically depressed urban area. It is NOT fun!
But it could be. I went to a WorkCamp in Europe in college...I rode the trains all ove the continent. I had a blast. I suppose there is some reason we cant do that...of course there is.
Surely it is premature to criticize the taste of
the fish entre before the chef arrives at the restaurant.
Yes. We do want $8 a gallon if seven of it is building green infrastructure. If gas hit $10 a gallon, we'd all be charging our EVs with solar garage roofs, while a few miserable trogs would be glumly pouring a fortune into their vintage Hummer.
Lorijen suggests: Surely it is premature to criticize the taste of the fish entre before the chef arrives at the restaurant.
When you've sat down and ordered the fish, then you notice the people back in the kitchen are wielding plungers rather than spatulas, and the smell coming from the kitchen is clearly that of sh!t burning on the grill, it might be a good idea to ask just what the f'ck is going on in there.
congressive suggests: Yes. We do want $8 a gallon if seven of it is building green infrastructure. If gas hit $10 a gallon, we'd all be charging our EVs with solar garage roofs, while a few miserable trogs would be glumly pouring a fortune into their vintage Hummer.
As usual, you've just wished the poor drastically MORE poor with this wish.
How do people barely scraping by now, manage $8 or $10 gasoline to get from homes to their jobs? From what frivolous expenditures do they take the extra?
New EV's and roof chargers? How do they afford those?
Given that the poor more often than not are driving older, less fuel efficient cars (all they can afford) and the rural poor in particular are likely to have to drive some considerable distances to their jobs, with no other transportation options available, you're wishing for their demise.
Susan,
Nuclear Power is the only thing that well give this country freedom from high oil prices. Even the Coal Industry has its problems. All other forms of energy are but a drop in the bucket of our energy problems.
well duh! he's not breaking a campaign promise he's making the better decision by changing his original plan based on different conditions. why would he raise the price of gas by taxing it as its going down helping consumers, businesses, the average joe, and the economy to not shrink. the conservative media would love that one don't you think? that'd be his title next election, the guy that made driving more expensive as it got cheap. good liberal journalism isn't as reactionary as the conservative brand, its supposed to be more analytical. instead of suggesting hes being deceitful and "breaking a campaign promise" to create the illusion of being tough journalists, why don't you ask readers to think about why he would do that. he probably will tax them but in a more politically sound fashion, that won't come out of our pocket like ending the subsidies, grants and land concessions from bush and making them pay for damage to the environment and their own security, when he's actually president.
Obama talked about a "windfall profits tax" when gasoline was up $5.00/gallon, higher in some places. With gasoline back down to 2004 levels, that tax is no longer necessary.
"What is wrong with you people.. you are worse than the hacks on the right! Just sit back, shut up, and wait to see what he does!!"
This what we were told to do during the Bush years and that man f-d up severely. I think it is important to speak out and always question authority, no matter who the president is. Abraham Lincoln himself could come back from the dead and I might still question his policies, it is our job as american citizens to do so. Sheep will always be sheep!!
tureis
tureis