Capitol Confidential
Big Government
9/23/2011
Just a little over a month ago, we reported that House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee had called off a hearing on a natural gas boondoggle that would have lined the pockets of T. Boone Pickens and George Soros with taxpayer dollars. We were proud of the GOP for taking a step back and reconsidering a plan that could have been an unqualified disaster as government funds were directed not to programs that would assist in the development of market-friendly alternative fuels, but would have forced demand- and supply-side subsidies for natural gas, creating an unstable and unnatural market.
This week, unfortunately, House Ways and Means leadership has placed these energy subsidies and “tax credits” back on the agenda.
On April 6, 2011, Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) introduced H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011. The bill currently has 184 bipartisan cosponsors, although a number of Members of Congress have removed their names as cosponsors. Referred primarily to the Ways and Means Committee, H.R. 1380 includes tax credits related to compressed and liquefied natural gas (CNG and LNG), including credits for the fuels themselves, credits for the purchase and production of vehicles powered by CNG and LNG, and credits for refueling property related to CNG and LNG. Whether such credits represent good energy policy or an intrusion into the free market has been the subject of vigorous debate.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Tiberi said, “Energy security and comprehensive tax reform are two of the most important priorities we can pursue to create jobs and ensure the long-term strength of the U.S. economy. As the committee with jurisdiction over energy tax policy, the Ways and Means Committee should examine whether there sometimes can be tension between these priorities, and how this Committee can design tax policies that achieve our energy security goals while also staying true to the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth that drive the Committee’s tax reform agenda.”
Anyone paying attention to Big Government would know the “tax credits” contained within this act are only tax credits because Congress chooses to define them as such. These tax credits are really heavily disguised taxpayer subsidies, doled out to people who choose to make radical, impulse decisions about which engines they put in their large vehicles without considering the long term effects of their actions. One Washington report explained the bait-and-switch rather nicely…
The article continues at Big Government.
Related: EPA Wants to add 230,000 MORE Bureaucrats
Federal government doled $170 million to a Spanish company to build a wind farm in Illinois
In 2010, as a part of the Treasury Department’s 1603 Renewable Energy Grant Program (a program created under the first failed stimulus package), the federal government dispensed $170 million of taxpayer money to Spanish energy company Iberdrola. To build a wind farm. In Illinois…
Green energy stimulus bang for buck costs 5.5 million per job
I don’t know about you but if I ever get a choice between a govt. backed green energy job or the cash equivalent, I’ll take the 5.5 million cash equivalent instead.
Yes folks, the numbers are coming in and it looks like we got 3,000 “permanent green energy jobs”, as a result of our 20 billion of govt. stimulus and loan guarantees we injected into this industry…and many more “investments” are on their way.
Using an archaic formula only government numbers crunchers know, this is success and offers the model for moving forward into green energy independence. My only question is how much more success can we afford?…
Oversight Report Exposes Questionable Accounting Methods in Counting “Green Jobs”
On Thursday, September 22, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing entitled, “How Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs,” which was accompanied by a staff report, documenting President Obama’s efforts to follow many European nations down a path of heavy subsidization to promote alternative energy at the expense of traditional, carbon-based sources. The report also outlines how these efforts have failed abroad and in the U.S., and at what cost to the economy.
Update: Thorium Could Replace Gasoline
Common American Journal welcomes readers from OpenCongress where we urge you to read about the money trail behind H.R. 1380
