Tacking the Nat Gas Act onto transportation bill?

posted at 9:50 am on March 7, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

The massive, $109B transportation bill looked – briefly – like it might sail through Congress and to the President’s desk, but now it seems to have stalled again. The delay was not caused by some huge delegation of elected representatives suddenly waking up and realizing they have to spend our money more carefully, though. No, the snag came from one of the usual bugaboos… nobody can agree on all the amendments they want to tack on at the 11th hour.

While we should be giving each and every one of them due scrutiny, there is a particularly nasty one hiding in the weeds. It looks like some members are going to try to sneak the NAT GAS Act through on the transportation bill.

Capitol Hill sources report that a ruling by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will allow the Natural Gas Act to be included in Senate Res. 1813, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2011,” commonly referred to as the highway bill. The highway bill was debated by the Senate Tuesday. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who filed the Senate’s version of the Nat Gas Act in November, told us he added it to the highway bill last night.

We’ve covered the NAT GAS Act here before, so there’s no need to go into it all again. Natural Gas is a great source of energy and we’ve got a lot of it. It will do just fine without being subsidized by the taxpayer. But if we juice up this particular goose, who is going to profit the most? The first name which likely comes to many of your minds is probably T-Boone Pickens. And to be sure, Pickens would profit handsomely. But he’s not the only one.

George Soros and other top contributors to Democrats are one step closer to making millions of dollars off their natural gas investments, thanks to tax breaks and subsidies included in the Natural Gas Act which was filed March 5 as an amendment to the highway bill…

Chief among the beneficiaries of the Natural Gas Act is Soros Fund Management, which according to federal filings, owns 6.6 percent of Westport Innovations, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based natural gas engine distributor and manufacturer. The fund’s position is worth more than $135 million at today’s stock market price. Westport, with three partner factories in China, is a global leader in fuel systems and conversion kits.

It’s time to let your elected representatives know that this particular pile of pork doesn’t need to be fleeced from your pockets. There are plenty of valid items in the transportation bill which may wind up doing some good, but if these jokers really want to pass this subsidy, let it stand alone as its own bill and get everyone on record with a vote on it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

sneaky

I would have gone with corrupt

HotAirian on March 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Oil companies are making record profits right now — tens of billions of dollars a year. Every time you go to the gas tank or fill up your gas tank, they’re making money. Every time. Now, does anyone really think that Congress should give them another $4 billion this year? Of course not. It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And I am asking Congress — eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away. I want them to vote on this in the next few weeks. – Barack Obama

Subsitute the word oil for gas, what’s the difference Barack?

Trafalgar on March 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Wouldn’t it be easier for Reid and Co. to just send Soros a check for $100M than go through this whole charade?

angryed on March 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Algae is going to make all of this academic.

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM

What they need to do is fee the heck out of natural gas, and then “invest” in operations controlled by political allies to compensate for their costs. And then issue a bunch of onerous new regulations, but then imperiously exempt political allies from those rules. And don’t do any of this though one of these “bills” or “laws”. Just impose all of it through regulatory agencies.

forest on March 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Soros good
Koch bad

They will get away with this

cmsinaz on March 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I also heard Glenn Beck talking about the transportation bill he said there is a provision stuck in the bill that will effect spousal pensions and oensions in general.

Zcat on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It’s time to let your elected representatives know that this particular pile of pork doesn’t need to be fleeced from your pockets

Problem being, mine is Marcy Kaptur.

bangs head on desk

rbj on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

This insanity has to stop.

vietvet68 on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Shoot, mine is Menendez.

sandspur on March 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM

People who sneak are also liars & thieves.

Badger40 on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

George Soros and other top contributors to Democrats are one step closer to making millions of dollars off their natural gas investments, thanks to tax breaks and subsidies included in the Natural Gas Act which was filed March 5 as an amendment to the highway bill.

Change this to:

The Koch Brothers and other top contributors to Republicans are one step closer to making millions of dollars off their natural gas investments, thanks to tax breaks and subsidies included in the Natural Gas Act which was filed March 5 as an amendment to the highway bill…”

Post it on your facebook page and watch your lefty friends howl… then break the bad news.

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 AM

It’s always Soros. Always.

search4truth on March 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Three card monte at it’s finest; Washington’s giant cash grab is alive and well.

ghostwalker1 on March 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Soros good
Koch bad

They will get away with this

cmsinaz on March 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM

…they ALWAYS do!
Thank you MSM!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Change this to:

“The Koch Brothers and other top contributors to Republicans are one step closer to making millions of dollars off their natural gas investments, thanks to tax breaks and subsidies included in the Natural Gas Act which was filed March 5 as an amendment to the highway bill…”

Post it on your facebook page and watch your lefty friends howl… then break the bad news.

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I would also replace key words like “gas” with “oil,” and then I think I’ll post it on Facebook. Great idea!

Turtle317 on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

OT: The Left’s War on Women…MM

d1carter on March 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I would also replace key words like “gas” with “oil,” and then I think I’ll post it on Facebook. Great idea!

Turtle317 on March 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Good addition!

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Soros good
Koch bad

They will get away with this

cmsinaz on March 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM

what about:
koch bad!
soros bad!

from a statist perspective, natural gas is a cheaper and an american produced energy source that does not sponsor our enemies. An national defense argument can be made to defend it.

Apart from that, it would be hypocritical of us, to rail against nat gas pork and defend say, petroleum subsidies pork. what is the diference? one sponsers the GOP and the other sponsers the Donks?

so, how many repubs in this thread are for oil subsidies? why?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

so, how many repubs in this thread are for oil subsidies? why?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Um, the right has been calling for an end to oil subsidies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/whats-an-oil-subsidy

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM

In this case you’ve got to separate the oil companies from the natural gas companies.

The oil companies aren’t going to turn up their nose at natural gas strikes if they get them. But natural gas is currently selling at 2002 levels because of all the new shale formation strikes, so the oil companies are only taking it as a bi-product — where they’re drilling is in the shale oil formations in Texas and the Dakotas.

The natural gas companies, like Chesapeake Energy, or people with big gas plays like T. Boone Pickens, are the ones who are in a bit of a cash crunch right now. They assumed natural gas was going to bounce back from its 2009 lows the way oil has, and are scrambling to come up with $$$ to pay debts (Chesapeake just entered a deal to sell most of its West Texas mineral rights leases, because there’s huge oil reserves there and they can get a lot of fast cash now with oil over $100 a barrel).

So while the left just lazily lumps all energy companies together, there’s actually a rift between those primarily chasing oil profits and those hunting profits through natural gas. It’s the latter that doesn’t like how the current supply and demand curve is going and wants the feds to intervene (though both the oil and gas people can agree the enviros are a bunch of anti-progress distorting weenies with their claims that fracking is poisoning the water supplies and setting off earthquakes around the nation).

jon1979 on March 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Fast Forward Financing Innovation

I’ve heard a lot of names for political payoffs but THAT takes the cake. Someone really rose above the crowd, and put that Political Science Degree to work in coming up with that doozie!

MNHawk on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Um, the right has been calling for an end to oil subsidies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/whats-an-oil-subsidy

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM

ok, thanks for the link.

I will quote the thing that is more relevant, that is the tax loopholes given to american oil producing companies.

Broadly Available Tax Provisions Are Not Oil Subsidies

In many cases, what the President and anti-oil crusaders label an oil subsidy is neither a subsidy nor a tax treatment specific to the oil and gas industry. These are broad tax policies that apply to many industries. When the Administration takes aim at these provisions specifically in the oil and gas industry, it is essentially a targeted tax hike. These provisions include:

Section 199 Deduction. This tax deduction, under Internal Revenue Code Section 199, goes to all domestic manufacturing. Producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods produced in the United States are all eligible for the manufacturer’s tax deduction. The Section 199 deduction is unavailable to the service sector, and even that is a stretch, as the tax deduction includes music and movie production. Removing oil and gas production eligibility for this tax break is not removing a subsidy or closing a tax loophole but imposing a targeted tax hike. In fact, Congress already imposed a tax hike on oil and natural gas companies by freezing the deduction at 6 percent when other manufacturers receive a 9 percent deduction.
Foreign Tax Credits and Deferral of Foreign Income. The foreign tax credit and deferral are two critical features of a worldwide tax system that prevent the U.S. corporate income tax from double taxing—and further crippling—the international competitiveness of U.S. companies. The President has proposed cutting deferral and limiting the applicability of the foreign tax credit. This would significantly increase taxes paid by U.S. businesses…

so, what the president zero is saying, is that we should end the loopholes that oil producers in our country have, the same that exist for other producers and manufacturers.
the second part of the argument relating to double taxation, I cant really reason about that, because my tax knowledge is limited :(

question: is it really that bad that we end the loophole of an industry that is thriving? the whole point of making those loopholes is to benefit so industries over other in the supposed greater interest, and that right out of the statist playbook. however, to logically rail against them from a libertarian perspective, we should rail against all loopholes, not just the we like\dislike!
should we not be happy when a certain industry comes out of the loophole and pays the same tax as the rest of the non manufacturing businesses in america?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Most thieves steal because it’s more fun than working a normal job. Same with politicians and greedy businesses; more fun to screw someone else out of their money than to do it in an honest, stratight forward way. I’ll bet they actually giggle when they get this kind of pork added to bills the night before a vote on the original bill.

dahni on March 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Um, the right has been calling for an end to oil subsidies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/whats-an-oil-subsidy

mankai on March 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM

As you see, the proggies have a whole different definition of ‘subsidies’ than we do. To them, the fact that you aren’t taxed at the rate they suggested last year is a ‘subsidy’.

I’m sure that they see the difference in capital gains and ordinary income taxes as a ‘subsidy’.

slickwillie2001 on March 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM

As you see, the proggies have a whole different definition of ‘subsidies’ than we do. To them, the fact that you aren’t taxed at the rate they suggested last year is a ‘subsidy’.

I’m sure that they see the difference in capital gains and ordinary income taxes as a ‘subsidy’.

slickwillie2001 on March 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I understood the semantic trickery they do. just on the tax loopholes issue(tax reduction for manufacturing). why it is still given to an industry that is thriving in america? what is the point?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM

just on the tax loopholes issue(tax reduction for manufacturing). why it is still given to an industry that is thriving in america? what is the point?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM

anyone?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:14 AM

question: is it really that bad that we end the loophole of an industry that is thriving? the whole point of making those loopholes is to benefit so industries over other in the supposed greater interest, and that right out of the statist playbook. however, to logically rail against them from a libertarian perspective, we should rail against all loopholes, not just the we like\dislike!
should we not be happy when a certain industry comes out of the loophole and pays the same tax as the rest of the non manufacturing businesses in america?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

anyone?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM

just on the tax loopholes issue(tax reduction for manufacturing). why it is still given to an industry that is thriving in america? what is the point?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Might have SOMETHING to do with how & why they’re thriving.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

just on the tax loopholes issue(tax reduction for manufacturing). why it is still given to an industry that is thriving in america? what is the point?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Might have SOMETHING to do with how & why they’re thriving.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

do explain me, no snark.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

so, what the president zero is saying, is that we should end the loopholes that oil producers in our country have, the same that exist for other producers and manufacturers.
the second part of the argument relating to double taxation, I cant really reason about that, because my tax knowledge is limited :(
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Again you seem to not understand what you’re posting. The quote you posted explains it clearly – the oil companies do not have any special tax loopholes. The get the same standard business deductions that every other company gets. What you seem to be saying is equivalent to saying we should close the personal exemption loophole, or close the mortgage interest loophole.

If you want to talk about going to a flat tax or national sales tax to eliminate all deductions/exemptions/loopholes – then I’m in favor. But don’t keep saying oil companies have special tax loopholes for using a standard deduction that every company gets.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM

“…
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can’t kill the beast…”

The first step is to admit you HAVE an addiction.

OkieDoc on March 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Do you understand the difference between revenues, gross income, net income, gross profit, and net profit?
The point of deductions is so that companies only pay income taxes on net profits. The deductions are the formula for removing your business expenses from the taxable part of your income. While you and/or libs in general might call it a subsidy, it is nothing more than ensuring you don’t pay income taxes on money you have to spend to run your business.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Might have SOMETHING to do with how & why they’re thriving.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Somewhat – but I would question why anyone would want our corporations to NOT thrive. Why do libs want to destroy the corporations that pay taxes, employ people, produce products that we want/need, and by way of investment provide many of us with investment income for retirement? (rhetorical question really)

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Again you seem to not understand what you’re posting. The quote you posted explains it clearly – the oil companies do not have any special tax loopholes. The get the same standard business deductions that every other company gets. What you seem to be saying is equivalent to saying we should close the personal exemption loophole, or close the mortgage interest loophole.

from that heritage web site:

Section 199 Deduction. This tax deduction, under Internal Revenue Code Section 199, goes to all domestic manufacturing. Producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods produced in the United States are all eligible for the manufacturer’s tax deduction. The Section 199 deduction is unavailable to the service sector, and even that is a stretch, as the tax deduction includes music and movie production. Removing oil and gas production eligibility for this tax break is not removing a subsidy or closing a tax loophole but imposing a targeted tax hike. In fact, Congress already imposed a tax hike on oil and natural gas companies by freezing the deduction at 6 percent when other manufacturers receive a 9 percent deduction.

I read it very carefully. it states that
1) oil industry gets a 199 deduction as a domestic manufacturer
2) claims that their specific oil business is already penalized because they have a 6% deduction instead of a 9% deduction given to other manufacturers. (they call it “tax hike”)

call it subsidy or tax loophole deduction, the fact is, they pay less than non manufacturing businesses like my business.

so, the gist of the argument is, we are oil producers and we deserve the same tax deductions as manufacturing producers in this country.

If you want to talk about going to a flat tax or national sales tax to eliminate all deductions/exemptions/loopholes – then I’m in favor. But don’t keep saying oil companies have special tax loopholes for using a standard deduction that every company gets.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM

they HAVE a special deduction, a 6% tax deduction that the consider a “tax hike” vis a vis other manufacturers 9% deduction. but it is still a 6% deduction when related to non manufacturing or service sectors.

from a libertarian perspective, we should rail against all loopholes, not just the we like\dislike! (as you do). so i repeat my previous question: Should we not be happy when a certain industry comes out of the loophole and pays the same tax as the rest of the non manufacturing businesses in america?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Do you understand the difference between revenues, gross income, net income, gross profit, and net profit?
The point of deductions is so that companies only pay income taxes on net profits. The deductions are the formula for removing your business expenses from the taxable part of your income. While you and/or libs in general might call it a subsidy, it is nothing more than ensuring you don’t pay income taxes on money you have to spend to run your business.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I am not a tax expert, but I do understand those terms.

I dont care about the semantics plays calling it a deduction,loophole or subsidy. the fact is(and correct me if i am wrong), that the oil industry , as a “producer or manufacturer” pays 6% less tax than a normal service business. correct?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Backward thinking, dude.
They PAY 3% more than those allowed to DEDUCT 9%.
Get it now ??
It’s NOT a 6% tax rate, it’s a DEDUCTION.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM

This is utterly corrupt and as good an indicator as any that Congress as a whole will NEVER change their ways until the disaster hits. Nothing short of a disaster a la Greece will be enough to shake up the populace to the degree that we stop sending these pigs swilling at the trough to Washington DC.

Fafhrd on March 7, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Somewhat – but I would question why anyone would want our corporations to NOT thrive. Why do libs want to destroy the corporations that pay taxes, employ people, produce products that we want/need, and by way of investment provide many of us with investment income for retirement? (rhetorical question really)

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM

ok, understood. My point is, the 199 deduction given to the manufacturing companies is 9%(6% for oil). It is given in the statist rational of promoting these producing activities, correct?
if the oil business is already self reliant and very profitable(thriving), what is the point of giving them the 6% deduction?
I remind you that my business as a service business does not have any such deduction.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Backward thinking, dude.
They PAY 3% more than those allowed to DEDUCT 9%.
Get it now ??
It’s NOT a 6% tax rate, it’s a DEDUCTION.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM

duh!
lets see,
1)I am an IT freelancer(service) and I have 0% deduction
2)the oil business is a manufacturer\producer and gets a 6% deduction
3)a car manufacturing company gets a 9% deduction.

who pays more? ME! why the oil business has a 6% deduction at all?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM

So you still don’t understand what you just posted again and wrote. The oil industry is a manufacturer – they take crude oil out of the ground and turn it into gasoline, and many other oil based products. That’s manufacturing. ALL manufacturing companies get a standard business deduction – that is not a subsidy. However, if all manufacturers get a 9% deduction, but Congress wants to limit the oil industry to a 6% deduction, then that is very clearly a targeted tax hike of 3% on the oil industry. It’s not a subsidy if you get less of a deduction than everyone else.

I dont care about the semantics plays calling it a deduction,loophole or subsidy. the fact is(and correct me if i am wrong), that the oil industry , as a “producer or manufacturer” pays 6% less tax than a normal service business. correct?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Do they pay 6% less than non-manufacturing companies – maybe. For a firm answer we would have to look at ALL deductions that ALL different companies get, and also look at what is counted as taxable income for your company vs oil companies.
Manufacturing companies actually produce something that gets distributed as a wholesale product, then further refined and/or distributed as a retail product where various taxes may be applied along the way. Services companies don’t really produce a hard product that goes through multiple steps of wholesale and retail distribution – with additional taxes added.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I remind you that my business as a service business does not have any such deduction.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I am also in the services business, but I have been in companies that also had manufacturing operations. The difference is services companies are highly (100% really) labor intensive – and all costs associated with employment of people are deductible expenses. Manufacturing companies take raw materials and turn them into a product. That requires a very large investment in raw materials, equipment/tools/machinery of various kinds that services companies do not require, as well as labor. Much of those items are taxed at some point in the process of creation and use. Since manufacturing is the basis of wealth creation, the fundamental question should be do we want to ensure we have a manufacturing base to create wealth for society so that all other businesses can thrive as well?

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Senate Res. 1813, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century America Fast Forward Financing Innovation Act of 2011,”

The Senate needs to pass a rule limiting the number of buzzword allowed in the name of a bill.

agmartin on March 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM

So you still don’t understand what you just posted again and wrote. The oil industry is a manufacturer – they take crude oil out of the ground and turn it into gasoline, and many other oil based products. That’s manufacturing. ALL manufacturing companies get a standard business deduction – that is not a subsidy. However, if all manufacturers get a 9% deduction, but Congress wants to limit the oil industry to a 6% deduction, then that is very clearly a targeted tax hike of 3% on the oil industry. It’s not a subsidy if you get less of a deduction than everyone else.

the statist rational of the deductions is to promote certain business over others, which the corrupt politicians in DC think is for the greater good of the country. right? manufacturing produces jobs and wealth so its benefited in the tax code.
but hey, my business also produces jobs and wealth, what about me!!! I have 0% deduction!

if a manufacturer of cars, contraception pills or oil, is denied its 9% or 6% deduction and have the same 0% deduction as I have, that makes me happy!!!!!!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:20 PM

The Domestic Production Activities Deduction was passed into law as part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Section 102 of that Act provides the text for Internal Revenue Code Section 199.

SEC. 199. INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES.

(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION-
(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to 9 percent of the lesser of–
(A) the qualified production activities income of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or
(B) taxable income (determined without regard to this section) for the taxable year.
…….
Hubby is also in the service industry, NOT manufacturing anything himself that contributes to the nation’s GDP, so not eligible.
Thing is, the oil companies (why ???) are only allowed the 6% deduction.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:22 PM

duh!
lets see,
1)I am an IT freelancer(service) and I have 0% deduction
2)the oil business is a manufacturer\producer and gets a 6% deduction
3)a car manufacturing company gets a 9% deduction.

who pays more? ME! why the oil business has a 6% deduction at all?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

You need to learn more about taxes!! As a self-employed IT freelancer you very little capital expense for your business and all sorts of deductions (or should I say subsidies?) every penny you pay yourself is a deductible business expense, as well as everything you spend on supplies, travel, health insurance, all sorts of things, you name it. If you’re not claiming all of those deductions, your business will not survive – or on the other side – you’re giving far too much to the gubmint.

A few years back I had a side business doing computer graphics – I wrote off the entire cost of my PC, printer, software, supplies, partial cost of use of my home office, travel/mileage. On paper I lost my a$$ on that business for 3 years. In reality, I got tax deductions that paid for a lot of stuff.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Btw, hubby is self-employed, sales and service of tools FOR manufacturers who are eligible for the 9%.
Thankfully, he isn’t threatened by that fact.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I am also in the services business, but I have been in companies that also had manufacturing operations. The difference is services companies are highly (100% really) labor intensive – and all costs associated with employment of people are deductible expenses. Manufacturing companies take raw materials and turn them into a product. That requires a very large investment in raw materials, equipment/tools/machinery of various kinds that services companies do not require, as well as labor. Much of those items are taxed at some point in the process of creation and use. Since manufacturing is the basis of wealth creation, the fundamental question should be do we want to ensure we have a manufacturing base to create wealth for society so that all other businesses can thrive as well?

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:15 PM

ok!! very well, you make the STATIST argument that the government KNOWS what are the best businesses that bring more wealth to our society and will benefit them in the tax codes. once you open the door on this statist reasoning, then you will have to explain from a statist perpective, why a THRIVING oil industry should still get its deductions.

and this is it, how can we condemn the dems statists pro nat gas arguments, when we engage in similar statist pro oil arguments?
this is the hypocrisy that I am accusing!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Thing is, the oil companies (why ???) are only allowed the 6% deduction.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:22 PM

the statist argument is, that the oil industry, due the current oil prices, does not need to have a deduction to promote its wealth creation activities. thus, they already have a 3% deduction cut\tax hike and now the dems are gunning for the remaining 6%. and use that money to promote the nat gas industry which can be fully produced in our country, thus reducing our imports and money flow to our oil producing enemies.

from a statist perpective I agree with the dems. the libertarian position I would like to see from the repubs is, that all deductions be cut, but if only some are cut, then I am happy too.
Indeed, this defense of the oil industry by repubs, only makes me think they are in the pockets of the same industry.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM

There’s a HUGE difference between tax-codeincentives to keep mfg jobs in the country, and PAYOFFS and picking favorites, like Solyndra, whose demise was predicted ahead of receiving outright financing. (your money)
Ya wanna take away the 9/6% incentives, go right ahead.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

ok!! very well, you make the STATIST argument that the government KNOWS what are the best businesses that bring more wealth to our society and will benefit them in the tax codes. once you open the door on this statist reasoning, then you will have to explain from a statist perpective, why a THRIVING oil industry should still get its deductions.

and this is it, how can we condemn the dems statists pro nat gas arguments, when we engage in similar statist pro oil arguments?
this is the hypocrisy that I am accusing!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM

No – I make the libertarian argument that anything we can do to reduce tax rates anywhere is a good thing for society as a whole – ideally it should be even across the board instead of using social engineering – but that’s not likely to happen soon.
I would prefer we went to a national sales tax to replace ALL of it and tax consumption instead of production/income, but that’s also not likely to happen any time soon.
I am against direct SUBSIDIES to specific companies – such as Obummer has been doing with the green energy companies and others – i.e. direct loans/bailouts/handouts to specific companies like Solyndra, GM, Chrysler, Fisker, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, etc, etc.

That’s not just semantics – there is a difference.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

A few years back I had a side business doing computer graphics – I wrote off the entire cost of my PC, printer, software, supplies, partial cost of use of my home office, travel/mileage. On paper I lost my a$$ on that business for 3 years. In reality, I got tax deductions that paid for a lot of stuff.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I have to talk to my accountant but I think that is not a deduction, its considered a business cost, and its deducted to the gross profit.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Nathor, I agree with dentarthurdent, completely.
ESPECIALLY the advice that you seriously pay close attention to the deductions you qualify for !!

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:40 PM

There’s a HUGE difference between tax-codeincentives to keep mfg jobs in the country, and PAYOFFS and picking favorites, like Solyndra, whose demise was predicted ahead of receiving outright financing. (your money)
Ya wanna take away the 9/6% incentives, go right ahead.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

What she said!! (mostly)
If you want to take away the deductions – fine – but lower the corporate income tax rate across the board for everyone in return.
We currently have the 2nd highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world behind Japan – and they are talking about reducing their rate to get their economy moving. That would make the US the HIGHEST corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Not a good position to be in if you’re worried about the economy and stopping the offshoring of jobs.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM

No – I make the libertarian argument that anything we can do to reduce tax rates anywhere is a good thing for society as a whole – ideally it should be even across the board instead of using social engineering – but that’s not likely to happen soon.
I would prefer we went to a national sales tax to replace ALL of it and tax consumption instead of production/income, but that’s also not likely to happen any time soon.
I am against direct SUBSIDIES to specific companies – such as Obummer has been doing with the green energy companies and others – i.e. direct loans/bailouts/handouts to specific companies like Solyndra, GM, Chrysler, Fisker, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, etc, etc.

That’s not just semantics – there is a difference.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

lets put it like this, if the the tax deduction given to the oil industry, was immediately used to reduce the tax % that we all pay, would you be for it?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM

use that money to promote the nat gas industry which can be fully produced in our country, thus reducing our imports and money flow to our oil producing enemies.
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Why do you think only the natural gas industry can be “fully produced in our country”? We have tremendous oil fields available if the Dems would get the hell out of the way. Latest estimates of the oil fields available to the US (much of which the Dems will not allow us to use) put our production possibilities far beyond the middle east.

As a manufacturing industry, natural gas companies already get the 9% deduction. Why would we want to tax oil more to give natural gas a subsidy? Natural gas is already heavily used where it is most usable – home/business heating and growing in electric generation. It is not a good idea for the gubmint to push it into the transportation sector where it is less economically feasible.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM

There’s a HUGE difference between tax-codeincentives to keep mfg jobs in the country, and PAYOFFS and picking favorites, like Solyndra, whose demise was predicted ahead of receiving outright financing. (your money)

agree very much!

Ya wanna take away the 9/6% incentives, go right ahead.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I do! and cut the tax % for everybody else!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM

What she said!! (mostly)
If you want to take away the deductions – fine – but lower the corporate income tax rate across the board for everyone in return.
We currently have the 2nd highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world behind Japan – and they are talking about reducing their rate to get their economy moving. That would make the US the HIGHEST corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Not a good position to be in if you’re worried about the economy and stopping the offshoring of jobs.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM

of course, cut the loopholes and reduce the tax % for everybody else that does not have deductions!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM

lets put it like this, if the the tax deduction given to the oil industry, was immediately used to reduce the tax % that we all pay, would you be for it?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM

If you want to take away the deductions – fine – but lower the corporate income tax rate across the board for everyone in return.
We currently have the 2nd highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world behind Japan – and they are talking about reducing their rate to get their economy moving. That would make the US the HIGHEST corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Not a good position to be in if you’re worried about the economy and stopping the offshoring of jobs.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Our comments probably passed in the server.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM

of course, cut the loopholes and reduce the tax % for everybody else that does not have deductions!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM

That’s the important part – cut the overal corporate income tax rate across the board – THEN do away with all special deductions and loopholes. But absolutely STOP ALL direct subsidies.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Why do you think only the natural gas industry can be “fully produced in our country”? We have tremendous oil fields available if the Dems would get the hell out of the way. Latest estimates of the oil fields available to the US (much of which the Dems will not allow us to use) put our production possibilities far beyond the middle east.

I followed the shale gas growth in the last years. there is a reason why natural gas is so low, its really because we have a lot of it. its an energy source like any other and comparable to oil measuring it in “joules”. the problem is, apart from heating and electricity production, we cannot use that much gas. we need to convert what we can to run from oil(gasoline\diesel), to natural gas!
every car that runs on natural gas instead oil, means less oil imports and more domestically produced natural gas.
the oil fields in reserve that we have, should have long have been tapped, of course, but they are no miracle to our oil dependency according to non partisan information i read.

As a manufacturing industry, natural gas companies already get the 9% deduction. Why would we want to tax oil more to give natural gas a subsidy? Natural gas is already heavily used where it is most usable – home/business heating and growing in electric generation. It is not a good idea for the gubmint to push it into the transportation sector where it is less economically feasible.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM

no, with the advent of shale gas, and the consumption of our remaining oil reserves, it makes all the sense to convert as much as we can from oil to nat gas.

the repubs would do the same if they were in power, believe me. the use of our nat gas resources is a win win for everybody and that is why it is passing trough the gridlock in congress.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM

It seems we’re pretty close to full agreement.. change the entire system !!
AND put a stop to the politically inspired SUBSIDIES (money laundering schemes).
The left resists actual, TRUE fairness when it comes to taxes / favoritism.
Wonder why that is ??? ;-)

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM

That’s the important part – cut the overal corporate income tax rate across the board – THEN do away with all special deductions and loopholes. But absolutely STOP ALL direct subsidies.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

sure!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 1:10 PM

no, with the advent of shale gas, and the consumption of our remaining oil reserves, it makes all the sense to convert as much as we can from oil to nat gas.

the repubs would do the same if they were in power, believe me. the use of our nat gas resources is a win win for everybody and that is why it is passing trough the gridlock in congress.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I have to disagree with that. We have lots of it and the price is low, so use it everywhere we can in heating and electric generation – I’d be more than happy to get a reduction in my gas bill for heating my house during the winter – I might even start using my gas fireplaces again. But NOT in transportation. The energy content and the way it burns is NOT the same as gasoline or diesel fuel. Vehicles running on natural gas do not have the same kind of torque and acceleration – and that’s a bad thing for trucks trying to haul big loads up a mountain pass. Also the storage and transfer to a vehicle is more complicated and expensive than pouring gasoline/diesel down a tube, and we don’t have the infrastructure to support it.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM

It seems we’re pretty close to full agreement.. change the entire system !!
AND put a stop to the politically inspired SUBSIDIES (money laundering schemes).
The left resists actual, TRUE fairness when it comes to taxes / favoritism.
Wonder why that is ??? ;-)

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM

truth is, the repubs also do the same. and in this election there is a repub very against what we just talked, and that is Santorum.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM

truth is, the repubs also do the same. and in this election there is a repub very against what we just talked, and that is Santorum.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Can’t disagree with you there. I don’t trust any of them – but I trust the Dems far less. On the Repub side I’m not thrilled with any of the choices – so it’s another hold my nose and vote “whoever” to replace Obummer.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

anyone?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Equality under the Law.

dominigan on March 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Yeah, some righties do the same, but I don’t really think it comes from their CORE, like it does with the left, is all.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

they HAVE a special deduction, a 6% tax deduction

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Even if you are correct (which I doubt), this seems like nothing when you consider that in a recent article, oil and gas companies pay the highest taxes as a percentage, 40%, compared to others industries.

dominigan on March 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Equality under the Law.

dominigan on March 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

that would be 0% deduction like I have.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Yeah, some righties do the same, but I don’t really think it comes from their CORE, like it does with the left, is all.

pambi on March 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

dont be naive… they are all the same. they only difference is that repubs at least pay lip service to libertarian small goverment policies, while dems seem reject them all together.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Even if you are correct (which I doubt), this seems like nothing when you consider that in a recent article, oil and gas companies pay the highest taxes as a percentage, 40%, compared to others industries.

dominigan on March 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

what article?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Can’t disagree with you there. I don’t trust any of them – but I trust the Dems far less. On the Repub side I’m not thrilled with any of the choices – so it’s another hold my nose and vote “whoever” to replace Obummer.

dentarthurdent on March 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

for Rick “I will remove libertarian influence from the GOP” Santorum , I will not vote for sure.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Money laundering! Dems give money to Soros, Soros finances Democrats. legally, and I am certain he gives even more illegally.

American Elephant on March 7, 2012 at 2:38 PM

What do you expect from menendez – he’s just another ass kissing puerto rican democrat to do whatever it takes to ruin the country. Give them their island and set them adrift and see how long they last.

rjulio on March 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Can’t we make gasoline out of cranberries?

(It’s only funny if you know the old Bob and Ray comedy routines.)

Colony14 on March 7, 2012 at 5:21 PM

When it comes to energy, Jazz rules. Thanks, Jazz!

Last week, I doubled up on Westport. Natural gas is the future, and Westport’s a key enabler.

petefrt on March 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM