Energy Continued
June 21st, 2007 | by Craig |This news article touches on similar issues we were discussing in an earlier post. Two things strike me about the article:
1) whether coal to liquid is even environmentally friendly is debatable (isn’t that typical?); and
2) the coal industry is unwilling to produce coal to liquid without massive (and I mean massive!) taxpayer subsidies.
The debate over what is environmentally sound and cost effective energy production is good. But this corporatism (pursued by both Schweitzer and the coal industry) really turns my stomach. It’s painful to listen to Schweitzer and reps from the coal industry tout massive taxpayer subsidies without blinking an eye.
I can’t believe what the rep from the coal industry said: “Why can’t we all hold hands and develop something that works?” Benito would be proud. All I can say is, I don’t support this corporatism, but if policymakers and industry want billions in subsidies to produce energy they should be required to return their profits to the people!
15 Responses to “Energy Continued”
By Jay Stevens on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
Holy smokes! Either I’ve gone conservative, or gman’s talking like a hand-wringing neo-socialist p*ssy!
Well said, and I couldn’t agree more.
By Gman on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
Like I keep saying, Jay, I believe there is agreement b/n progressives and libertarians on this issue of gov’t largesse for corporations. It sure would be nice, though, if progressives loathed social welfare as much as corporate welfare. Let me just say that I’m willing to work for the elimination of corporate welfare before tackling the elimination of social welfare. It only makes sense. And, just maybe, progressives will be more willing to address the inherent iniquity and immorality of social welfare. You want all the benefits of the free society without the free society. I find it interesting that liberals and progressives think it’s bad for corporations to take from others in the form of gov’t largess, but it’s OK for well-organized “social justice” groups to take from others in the form of gov’t largesse. If the abuse of power is what you’re concerned about, regardless of on who’s behalf the power is sought, then join a group that really embraces the principles of the free society. In case you’re scratching your noggin’ about what these principles are, you can read them at …
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3832
By Dave Budge on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
Gman, there may be an agreement between progressives and libertarians on the matter of corporate welfare but you exclude the fact that most progressives think that corporations “earn too much.” They not only want to get rid of various tax subsidies but they want to increase taxes and take even more of what’s not theirs.
Also, I don’t think what Jay said in either case is true. He’s too closed minded to be a conservative and you’re too smart to ever be a “hand wringing neo-socialist p*ssy”.
By Jay Stevens on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
Who knows, gman? Maybe if we cut out corportism from running the government, we might not need social programs, and the point is moot. In any case, I’m more than willing to discuss the issue when the time comes…
By Walter Greenspan on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply
While public agitation over “high” gasoline prices will “force” the political class to “respond” as if they knew what they are doing, we really do not need more of the same “help” from the national or state governments that has placed this country in the already untenable situation where we are dependent on an extremely volatile world market for about 7 of every 10 gallons of gasoline that we consume.
What almost every politician and most of the “expert” talking heads you see and hear on the 24-hour cable news shows do not realize is that, in addition to importing 60% of the crude oil processed by domestic refineries to make gasoline and other distillates, ON TOP OF THAT, WE ALSO NEED TO IMPORT AN ADDITIONAL 25% OF OUR GASOLINE NEEDS TO OFFSET A DOMESTIC REFINERY SHORTFALL (that’s why simply looking at the % of domestic refinery capacity utilized is misleading as it undercounts the true demand for refinery capacity by 25%, and growing).
By Gman on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply
Dave, you’re exactly right. And, I’ll admit that I’m trying to find commonality where I can. Maybe, just maybe, the liberals and progressives will drop their disdain for corporate wealth if it is fairly earned. Wishful thinking, I know. Nonetheless, if I can build a bridge on just one aspect of corporatism, then it seems worthwhile.
And, Jay, it’s not a matter of corporations running the gov’t; it’s a matter of the gov’t funneling largesse to corporations. That’s the causal connection in my mind. That connection creates a cycle of influence and power in which corporations rely on gov’t largesse and politicians rely on corporate largesse. Get it?
If you could break that cycle, liberals would achieve their cause du jour of breaking corporate-gov’t collusion. In thinking how that can be achieved, we need a SCOTUS decision that says that subsidies, tax breaks, etc. to corporations are unconstitutional. It’s essentially a reversal of FDR’s efforts to get the High Court to OK his New Deal programs.
Then, if you really want to nip it in the bud, repeal the tax code (which allows the powerful to manipulate the tax system) and replace the income tax amendment with a constitutionally limited national sales or flat tax.
By Jay Stevens on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply
I do get it, gman, and am on board. I’m all for simplifying the tax code, tho’ I think a sales tax is inherently unfair, and puts the burden of taxation on those that can afford it the least.
A flat tax…I could be persuaded, contingent on the abolition of the payroll tax, an end to corporate subsidies, and raising the minimum level for paying taxes. A lot.
Of course, that’d have to include an end to the money=speech B.S. and the “corporations are people, too” rule…
By Dave Budge on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply
What did I tell you Gman? The simple notion of a “flat tax” completely escapes the progressive mind. And I won’t even begin to argue the anti-liberty idea that money does not equal speech.
Yep, we get a lot of support when we call for an end to corporate subsidies but progressive lay blame on the influence of money corrupting government when the reality is that it is government that enables the corruption.
You want to end the influence of money on politics? I have a rather simple solution - term limits.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 23, 2007 | Reply
We get it. Honest, we do. We understand the concept of “flat tax”. We reject it as unfair to those who earn the least.
By the way, if you couple the payroll tax with the income tax, you’ll see that what we have now approaches flat taxation. WOrking stiffs are paying 24-29% on their last dollar, and the highest taxed class is middle class workers (those making over $64,000 or so) who are paying 39-43% of their last dollar in tax. That is more tax than the poor sould at whom Bush directed his tax cuts.
But the payroll tax doesn’t exist when people talk about who pays tax.
Anyway, Dave, you got your wish. We have a flattish tax. Quit complaining.
By Dave Budge on Jun 23, 2007 | Reply
Is a “flattish” tax a flat tax, Mark? If you think it is you really don’t get It.
Secondly, you have an uncanny ability to change the subject in your own mind. My comments weren’t about the need for this or that type of tax structure but how many progressives just don’t get the underlying arguments. Both you and Jay have proven that here.
By Mark T on Jun 23, 2007 | Reply
Reflect on the effect of the payroll tax and income tax combined - patroll tax kicks out at 96000 or so, leaving only income tax at 35% or so … less than the rate that middle class taxpayers pay. Then stop complaining about income tax inequities. They ain’t so pronounced as you say.
I don’t know how that is unrelated to your comments on our inability to unnastan the flat tax.
My uncanny abilities do not include that of being able to parse your prose. I miss more damned points when dealing with you …
By Dave Budge on Jun 23, 2007 | Reply
Where did I complain about income inequities? Where did I complain here about taxes? I dont; thnk you need to parse my prose. Just read them for what they are.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 23, 2007 | Reply
“The simple notion of a “flat tax” completely escapes the progressive mind.”
Throw a statement like that out there, and expect some debate on taxation. Or, is there another Dave Budge?
By Dave Budge on Jun 23, 2007 | Reply
But there is no “complaint” in that statement. I don’t mind the debate on taxes but I wasn’t debating that.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 24, 2007 | Reply
Your rules are a little complex for me.