No windfall-profits oil tax
posted at 2:06 pm on December 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
This shouldn’t shock anyone who pays attention to the price of gasoline, but it raises plenty of questions about the next administration’s ambitious agenda. Barack Obama won’t impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, breaking an oft-repeated campaign pledge. He had originally planned to use the revenues he expected to fund his spending plans:
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is not planning to implement a windfall profit tax on oil companies because prices have dropped below $80 a barrel, an aide said on Tuesday.
“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” an aide on Obama’s transition team said. “They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that.”
Oil prices have fallen from a record $147 a barrel in July to under $50 this week.
Obama, who signaled early in his campaign for the White House that he would take an active approach to oil markets as president, had planned to use the revenue from a windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate for low- and middle-income families struggling with high energy prices.
The reality of the oil market made the notion of a windfall-profits tax untenable, simply because the revenues no longer existed. The profit margins actually never existed, but the Obama campaign misled voters by focusing on the dollar amounts rather than the margin percentage, which was actually quite modest, between 8-10% during a time when other industries averaged two or three times that return.
Obama now claims that his tax relief, based on refundables rather than actual cuts in marginal rates, no longer relies on the supposed income that windfall-profits taxes would have generated. If so, it’s difficult to see where the money will originate in a sharp recession. They want to raise the marginal rates on top earners, with some suggesting an increase from 36% to as high as 44%, which will have the effect of halting capital investment and extending the recession. Under static analysis, that money might exist, but any dynamic analysis will show that the revenue from those rate hikes not only won’t fund the expansive vision of new government spending Obama promised, it won’t pay for the massive refundables either.
The best way to lower profits for the oil companies would be to allow for greater investment in domestic production. Oil companies would love to invest in drilling off the OCS, in shale formations, and in ANWR, as well as new refinery sites. That would not only produce stability and security in American energy production, it would employ millions of Americans and stop the vast transfer of American wealth to foreign oil producers. It would also have the beneficial effect of robbing states like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia of the vital support high oil prices give their regimes. That will produce the boost in the economy needed to invest in research and development for alternative energy sources, without the government going even deeper into debt than it already is.
Perhaps Obama might have awakened to that reality. Let’s hope so. If it took a Nixon to go to China, maybe it would take an Obama to open up the OCS and ANWR.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Those aren’t the oil companies I knew.
Firebird on December 3, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Good Luck on that. Wishful thinking.
upinak on December 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM
ED, I think this needs a sarcasm tag or some other identification as a joke.
Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I don’t think it was EVER a good idea for Nixon to go to China.
That said, at least Obama seems to have some common sense, even though he’s clearly a liar in regard to his campaign promises. I hope he lied about everything he said he’d do.
But I think I’m holding my breath.
BTW- oil companies REAL profits are not that great. Ed has it right-we need to develop our own resources. I am tired of giving $$ to countries that hate us.
Let’s only buy stuff from countries with out best interest at heart.
I know I’m dreaming.
Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM
If the Democrats create policy where failing corporations are rewarded with “bailout” payments and successful corporations are punished with “windfall” taxes, it is inevitable that we will end up with more failing corporations and fewer successful corporations. It’s not rocket science, but it is counter intuitive to those who analyze things based on which policy generates more political capital and political contributions.
RedSoxNation on December 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I guess the myth of price gouging can be put to rest now that gas is under $2. Heaven forbid an American company actually be successful.
I’m sure the next industry to do well will attract the attention of greedy Dems on the Hill. People who have made millions shorting the market are probably next in line.
lodge on December 3, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Oil haters outrage in 3-2-1…
loudmouth883 on December 3, 2008 at 2:16 PM
How many liberal sacred cows can Obama slaughter before his own rabid base turns on him and shreds him like coleslaw? Perhaps we’ll find out.
aero on December 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Obama won’t impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies…
yet.
catmman on December 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM
As Geraghty said:
I think this is not so much common sense or awakening to economic reality, as it is Obama realizing that his “hopeychangey” crowd would turn on him real quick if they realized he really wasn’t going to pay for the gas in their tank!!!
INC on December 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yeah, since oil prices have tanked, there isn’t that much profit. Maybe the oil companies can apply for a bailout?
This is such a common sense idea, that I can’t help wondering if there are some venal motives in the federal government for not going this route.
rbj on December 3, 2008 at 2:19 PM
It’s going to be a blast for the next few years watching the hopes and dreams of the Obamaniacs deflate like left-over balloons.
ErikTheRed on December 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM
How about a windbag politician tax?
We could balance the budget on the Democrat Congress alone.
NoDonkey on December 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Now that he is facing reality, he sounds more and more conservative…the people voted in a fantasy, and is getting reality.
right2bright on December 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM
so , exactly how much hope and change has “changed”?
anyone got a running total of broken promises yet?
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on December 3, 2008 at 2:21 PM
That would be called the BLM and the USGS (depending on State) dragging their feet concerning permitting and leases.
Trust me on this.
upinak on December 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM
When will we all awake to the fact that Obama has no solid beliefs. We make him out to be more complex than he is.
Obama is afraid of conflict, period.
That’s why he always tells people what they want to hear.
That’s why he’s against war. That’s why he wants to talk to our enemies.
That’s why he never wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review. That’s why he voted present. That’s why liberals love him.
Psychologists have this to say about people with conflict avoidance issues:
Anyone thinking Iran or Pakistan here?
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Obama hasn’t moved to the right. He’s acting like he did in the State Legislature; he’s going to do as little as possible before beginning to run for re-election.
jacrews on December 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Folks this is common sense. He’s still going to try to move the country terribly to the left through programs and ecological ruse.
marklmail on December 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I agree. And these, of course, are govt. employees.
No surprise there.
Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Nah. Chameleons never show their true colors.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I blame Booooooosh! Cheney stole all the profits and used them to build a secret Halliburton ninja force that sneaks around the planet funding evil plots to deliberately increase greenhouse gases.
Laura in Maryland on December 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM
“The best way to lower profits for the oil companies would be to allow for greater investment in domestic production. Oil companies would love to invest in drilling off the OCS, in shale formations, and in ANWR, as well as new refinery sites. That would not only produce stability and security in American energy production, it would employ millions of Americans and stop the vast transfer of American wealth to foreign oil producers. It would also have the beneficial effect of robbing states like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia of the vital support high oil prices give their regimes. That will produce the boost in the economy needed to invest in research and development for alternative energy sources, without the government going even deeper into debt than it already is.”
Can someone please send this quote to Washington DC?
This is the smartest thing anyone has said about this whole issue.
Thank You
izoneguy on December 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM
State Government employees and Federal are completely different. States like Texas and Alaska work their bunz off. Federal sit and hmm and haaaa concerning something and get to it the next week.
My opinion, but then this is what I know.
upinak on December 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM
This is change I can believe in.
CP on December 3, 2008 at 2:28 PM
The oil Co. stand to make the same profit at $1.70 per gl and $49. per bbl of oil as they did this summer. (see the price of Exxon-Mobil stock vs. the dow jones. – they are still making a profit.)
Oil Co. don’t create oil. They buy it, expolre for it, pump it refine it and retail it, and make 9 – 14 cents per gl. if it is 30 cents or 4 dollars.
GOVERNMENT takes a percentage – of the total price. At 8% who makes more money on a 4 dollar a gallon gas price, the Gov’t or the oil company.
Wander on December 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Problem is, he’ll change his mind again next week. Or next time the gas prices go up again, whichever comes first.
aero on December 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Follow the money. No windfall profits, no windfall profits tax. Besides, in a recession, it doesn’t make sense to tax a sector that is doing well, and drag it down with everyone else.
It remains to be seen whether Obama will be open to offshore drilling. It might be a head-fake for now, followed by following the Dem-greenie talking points once he’s inaugurated. If he does that, we’ll probably be hearing a LOT from Sarah Palin over the next 2-4 years.
If Obama does agree to offshore drilling, and really does govern as a centrist despite his campaign, we would end up with a McCain policy without McCain. So much for HopenChange, which would become just campaign rhetoric to fool the sheeple.
Obama might be learning the lesson of vacuum cleaner salesmen: talk is cheap, but reality sucks.
Steve Z on December 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
There might not be excessive oil profits, but there are still evil rich people. The threshold will change from $250,000 to $100,000 now.
ctmom on December 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Wait. Wait for it…there is no need to drill for oil in ANWR or on the Outer Continental Shelf. Demand for oil and gas are way down right now, don’tcha know?
Since gasoline is so cheap, right now, Obama will have to raise the tax on gasoline, because the government needs the money for all those bailouts, and because we can’t be selling gasoline for less than 2 bucks a gallon. It’s just not right for gasoline to be so cheap. Otherwise how will the government convince people to buy those expensive electric cars that congress is designing?
Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Not exactly the case. I work as a contractor for a federal agency, specifically on environmental issues. The slow pace of work progress is seldom as a result of indecision or sluggish work habits. (Though that does exist in some agencies.)
There are more layers of bureaucracy that really are a drag on moving things along quickly. Unfortunately, many of the extra layers are mandated by law and the only way to get them removed is to change the laws. It becomes really insane if there are consultations with other agencies that regulate laws, such as the endangered species act for example. NEPA is the biggest culprit to adding time though.
Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM
What about a Washington smell Tax?
Firebird on December 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Marine, but sweetie… everyone knows that as a Contractor working for a State or Federal agency… YOU will worker harder then all of them.
*smiles*
upinak on December 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Most industries average 24-30% return? Really?
unclesmrgol on December 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM
mo’ betta
thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Touché
I can’t argue with that one.
Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Obama buck the established liberal theology? Has hell frozen?
GarandFan on December 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Maybe most is hyperbole, but Microsoft profitability is in the 35% range, and Coca Cola is in the low 20s.
Vashta.Nerada on December 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Now if someone could pass the message to my governor here in Wisconsin, Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/HoChunk-For Sale),….
steveegg on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Nothing new , it has bean a Palin talking point before she got picked as VP. But what does she knew..
the_nile on December 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM
There is not enough money in all the world’s treasuries to pay such a tax on the stench that is emanating from Congress.
Note to Ed: it would save electrons if everyone just quit commenting on promises that PE-BHO has reversed himself on, and only commented on those he will keep. Oh… wait; blank pages are not that interesting. Proceed…
Yoop on December 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM
You just stop it right there. It’s all in fun until somebody loses and eye (or arm and a leg). All it takes is one Dimmicrat to see your post, and we will be knee deep in additional gas taxes. Of course, Al ManBearPig Gore will claim he invented your idea.
No go to the black board and write “I will not let Democrats hijack my sarcasm” 100 times in cursive.
Laura in Maryland on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I think it was obvious from the start that the “windfall profits tax” would produce very little in the way of benefit.
It only would have forced producers to abandon relatively expensive sources of supply, thereby reducing overall supply and driving prices up even more. That, and the passing-on of the tax to the consumers would have meant that it was nothing more than a tax on the folks who use fuel (ie. us) that cost more than the net revenue increase, yet contributed nothing in terms of net benefit.
Equally obvious is that large slabs of The Dear Leader’s agenda must either be lopped off, or funded through other means. There are two alternatives: slug the taxpayer (what politician can resist that), or borrow massively and inflate the debt away (a likely angle for a government that styles itself after those in South America and Africa). Either way, it’s not good.
mr.blacksheep on December 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Wander on December 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Seriously? Do some research. The govt taxes to lease the land, to get permits to drill, enviro taxes, and others. Then they tax it right out of the ground with royalties, severence and conservation taxes, and others. Then they have pipeline taxes, then tax it again when it’s refined, tax the royalties that part owners get on leases, tax the oil company as a corporation, and they have a gasoline tax that the consumer pays. The government makes a crapload of money off this deal.
theotherKate on December 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Hmm Alaska was doing quite well on theirs. And are still doing pretty good. But then we also have a sliding scale for the Oil Companies when it flux’s like now.
upinak on December 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Will Obama’s last standing campaign promise please turn out the lights!
Chuck Schick on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Interesting. How was it implemented? How much does it yield per BBL? Are there different rates for wells in production before the tax vs. after? Did it affect drilling and exploration? I know in Alberta they were talking about increasing the “royalties” (essentially a wellhead tax), and it almost shut investment down.
mr.blacksheep on December 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Drill Barry Drill!
EnglishMike on December 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Laura,
You are a little late. With Michigan in an economic death spiral and increasing unemployment Gov. Granholm wants to raise the gas and sales tax. Nothing like shooting a dead horse because it won’t get up and pull the wagon anymore. This is the liberal version of Economics 101. And Jenny is on BHO’s economics advisory panel!!!
Michigan Gas Tax, Registration Fees May Have to Rise
Posted: 11/10/2008
A report says Michigan should consider reconfiguring the 19-cent-a-gallon state gasoline tax so there’s more money for transportation infrastructure such as roads. The option is one of many suggested by a task force created by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Legislature.
The report being released today says it may be better to tax the wholesale price of gasoline instead of taxing gas on a per-gallon basis. That’s because people are using less gas in the age of more fuel-efficient cars and higher prices.
Other ideas include raising vehicle registration fees, increasing the gas tax and boosting the state’s 6 percent sales tax by one penny on the dollar.
Yoop on December 3, 2008 at 3:13 PM
This guy breaks promises faster than a Chicago politician…
oh wait…
franksalterego on December 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I’d bet the farm Bubba Obama is going to increase the Federal gas tax since gas is so “cheap” now. If he don’t propose it, Pelosi and Stinky Reid will.
Wyznowski on December 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
awesome
SlimyBill on December 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I’ll believe it when I don’t see it
ToddonCapeCod on December 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Maybe the down economy is a good thing, I mean without all the money coming in they can’t create all of the ridiculous programs that Obama promised. So the dems will raise taxes on everybody, angering the middle class and if the Conservatives step up with the right Regeanesque message we could see another swing.
I’m just trying to stay positive.
saltydogg14 on December 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM
China didn’t have enviro-lawyeres suing to keep our resources off-limits.
Bigfoot on December 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Does this mean I`ll have to pay for MY OWN gas?
ThePrez on December 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Peggy the Moocher will be piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissed.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Heaven help us!
Laura in Maryland on December 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
So The Black Caesar is not a Green President afterall? This is all money-motivated? Hmmm, the lefties he told that he would bankrupt any new coal plants are going to be pissed. Add them to the list of the lefties upset that he picked Gates to stay on at Defense and we may actually see some pretty decent in-fighting among the Dems.
grdred944 on December 3, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Captain Ed, did I read that right?
“The best way to lower profits for the oil companies would be to allow for greater investment in domestic production.”
Senator Obama wants to tax windfall oil profits.
Presumably, you meant “the best way to raise profits?”
hatespam on December 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Obama was dishonest about tapping the oil companies with a windfall tax. You are dishonest about an increase in oil production being able to stem balance of trade and bringing energy security and stability.
lexhamfox on December 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Now that it feels like I am making $30 every time I fill up my tank, I’m sure my new windfall will be subject to confiscation.
TexAz on December 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Comment pages: