[Tanada]

Given that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have both said they are not going to oppose any moves by President Obama because it would adversely effect the GOP Presidential campaign this has an excellent chance of passing.

President Barack Obama is about to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” And he hopes to fund it with a tax on oil.

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/o ... get-000038

[GHung]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/04/investi ... -stack-dom

President Obama wants to impose a huge new oil tax.

The White House on Thursday proposed a wave of clean transportation investments that would be paid for by oil companies through a $10-per-barrel fee on oil.

The proposal comes at a time when the energy industry is hurting from the dramatic 70% crash in oil prices in the last 18 months. Almost all oil companies have cut jobs, many have filed for bankruptcy, others have defaulted on their loans, and even the largest oil companies have posted huge drops in profits and slashed plans to invest in their business expansion.

The tax -- which is very unlikely to get through Republican-controlled Congress -- would be phased in gradually over five years.

Obama wants the new revenue to pay for an upgrade to the country's transportation system. The plan calls for boosting spending on clean transportation infrastructure by 50% and includes integrating new technology like self-driving cars.

The new tax "creates a clear incentive for private sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our futures," the White House said.

The oil fee would also provide for the "long-term solvency" of the Highway Trust Fund, a dwindling pool of money that helps finance surface transportation projects.

Republicans in Congress aren't expected to support the tax.

"It really has no chance. It's dead on arrival," said Joe McMonigle, a senior energy analyst at Potomac Research Group who previously worked as chief of staff at the Energy Department.

Maybe a ploy to get federal fuel taxes raised, after they sell off the SPR. Who knows?

From the article: "....would be paid for by oil companies through a $10-per-barrel fee on oil."

Nah. The consumers would pay it in the end, like every tax.

Revision to the original CNN article (correction?):

Jeffrey Zients, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters the fee would apply to oil that is imported into the U.S. He said oil pumped in the U.S. that is exported would not be taxed, ensuring a "level playing field" for American producers.

The U.S. imports quite a lot oil even though it has become more self-reliant in recent years. The nation imported 7.4 million barrels of oil per day as of November, down from 10 million at the end of 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration.....

.....It's not clear exactly where along the production chain the fee would be levied or whether it would be imposed on American oil that is not exported..

.

[Subjectivist]

Given that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have both said they are not going to oppose any moves by President Obama because it would adversely effect the GOP Presidential campaign this has an excellent chance of passing.

President Barack Obama is about to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” And he hopes to fund it with a tax on oil.

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... get-000038

I don't know whether to laugh or cry! If this had been done in 2009 it is just barely possible we might have helped ourselves transition to a more sustainable living arrangement. Instead we have everything delayed to the point where either the GOP will kill it, or the affect will never manifest before the public gets it reversed in 2017.

[ennui2]

You're putting a negative spin on this? This is probably the closest we'll ever get to a carbon tax.

I'm all for it.

Of course, within 5 years the shale boom(s) could be over and we'd be toast anyway. It's something that should happen now, not phased in over 5 years.

[jjhman]

"Nah. The consumers would pay it in the end, like every tax."

Well, duh.

Really that's the point isn't it? To make the damned stuff more expensive. Since the federal gasoline tax hasn't been raised since about 1492 while inflation and higher average mileage has eaten into federal highway funds the pavement is going to pot (holes).

Poor Obama. He and his advisors are full of great ideas that just seem to crash against political and factual realities. One does have to wonder why he would bother with something like this with a congress full of raging right wing lunatics. In a rational world it would have happened a long time ago.

[GHung]

You're putting a negative spin on this? This is probably the closest we'll ever get to a carbon tax.

I'm all for it.

Of course, within 5 years the shale boom(s) could be over and we'd be toast anyway. It's something that should happen now, not phased in over 5 years.

Not a negative spin. I just don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell in this political environment. I've been pushing for higher taxes on fuel for years, for a lot of reasons.

[careinke]

That's a really good start. Would I rather have the money replace other taxes, of course. But I'll take any carbon tax over none. So much easier and transparent than Cap and Trade.

Dang, one more thing I like about Obama. I'm going to have to start using the other hand to count them all.

[KaiserJeep]

The oil companies pay for oil leases, and employ people, and this will further depress their business and put people out of work.

If you want to actually reduce the amount of carbon fuels burned, tax the gasoline and diesel fuels themselves at $1 to $3 per US gallon.

Require that all monies collected from fuel taxes be spent only on transportation infrastructure improvements. Let local and state governments decide whether they want to fix potholes in streets, build airports, build trolleys or railroads, canals and locks, etc. etc.

PEOPLE have to be motivated to buy Battery EVs and fuel efficient personal vehicles, and to stop or at least severely reduce fuel consumption. A fuel tax collected at retail sales will do so, a tax on petroleum will not do anything helpful at all.

[Subjectivist]

Two threads, one about the Politico report, one about the CNN report. Kind of confusing to jump back and forth.

[GHung]

The oil companies pay for oil leases, and employ people, and this will further depress their business and put people out of work.

If you want to actually reduce the amount of carbon fuels burned, tax the gasoline and diesel fuels themselves at $1 to $3 per US gallon.

Require that all monies collected from fuel taxes be spent only on transportation infrastructure improvements. Let local and state governments decide whether they want to fix potholes in streets, build airports, build trolleys or railroads, canals and locks, etc. etc.

PEOPLE have to be motivated to buy Battery EVs and fuel efficient personal vehicles, and to stop or at least severely reduce fuel consumption. A fuel tax collected at retail sales will do so, a tax on petroleum will not do anything helpful at all.

Oil is used for a lot more than ground transportation fuel. Why tax only transportation fuels and not other uses? A tax at the well will be reassessed down the line to all uses as it's passed on to whatever industries use their share. Tax it at the source and let them sort it out.

[GHung]

Two threads, one about the Politico report, one about the CNN report. Kind of confusing to jump back and forth.

I haven't seen the Politico report or thread. Links?

[Subjectivist]

Two threads, one about the Politico report, one about the CNN report. Kind of confusing to jump back and forth.

I haven't seen the Politico report or thread. Links?

us-tax-debate-t66179-20.html

[GHung]

Two threads, one about the Politico report, one about the CNN report. Kind of confusing to jump back and forth.

I haven't seen the Politico report or thread. Links?

us-tax-debate-t66179-20.html

The mods can merge if they want, although this was proposed today and is specific to oil. Besides, some of these broad threads get dated, hidden and bloated.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

Oil is used for a lot more than ground transportation fuel. Why tax only transportation fuels and not other uses? A tax at the well will be reassessed down the line to all uses as it's passed on to whatever industries use their share. Tax it at the source and let them sort it out.

Because petrochemicals are used for fertilizers/herbicides/insecticide, plastics (everything from packaging to medicine to durable goods), and fabrics. You don't necessarily want to depress food production, food preservation, medicine, or clothing - you DO want to discourage the use of private liquid-fuel burning vehicles, which is 76% of the total petroleum consumption. Another 21% is commercial and residential space heating, only 3% is manufactured goods and food. (It's actually far more complicated that that, as the by-products of fuel production are used for the other purposes I mentioned - but the percentages of raw petroleum consumed are close enough for this level of discussion.)

If you want to also tax the petroleum and coal and natural gas and propane/butane/etc. that are used for space heating, that is a separate decision and I'm not sure I agree. There are many people who can live without a private vehicle(s) but (especially in colder climates) they can't live without space heating. I already live in a place (Silicon Valley, CA) that has on occasion experienced a temperature inversion which traps wood smoke in the valley, and produced a serious, eye-burning and choking smog. Natural gas is SO MUCH cleaner and healthier than wood heat.

[GHung]

Since, initially, this tax is only on imports, I doubt it's going to have a huge effect on all of those things.

CNN revised the article:

Jeffrey Zients, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters the fee would apply to oil that is imported into the U.S. He said oil pumped in the U.S. that is exported would not be taxed, ensuring a "level playing field" for American producers.

The U.S. imports quite a lot oil even though it has become more self-reliant in recent years. The nation imported 7.4 million barrels of oil per day as of November, down from 10 million at the end of 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration.

[Newfie]

I like the idea of the tax ....but not what the money is to be used for. That's idiotic.

In parallel news today I read that the US railroads have already spent $10 Billion dollars to implement PTC. And a bunch won't make the deadlines and much more is to be spent.

The goals, as stated in the OP are just way to vague. Driverless cars, exactly what problem does that fix? Tanda noted elsewhere 19% of our HS grads can't read, but they damn well seem to be able to get a drivers license and harass me on the road. Maybe that's how we fix our education problem, driverless cars?

Support the transportation trust fund? Why? I thought we were supposed to be reducing the number of cars and miles driven, not increasing them as he supported in his "shovel ready" projects to reinvigorate the economy.

High speed rail? Another subsidy for the upper middle class!

There has to be some ulterior motive behind this baloney. I'll bet it's really about his "legacy", he's just setting himself up as the guy who had good ideas the bad evil congress would smash.

Other possible motives?

[peripato]

Ah, Obama won't prez for much longer, so he can "propose" all he wants. Don't mean jack...

[Plantagenet]

Ah, Obama won't prez for much longer, so he can "propose" all he wants. Don't mean jack...

Obama is the head of the D party and both Hillary and Sanders have a made a big issue out their intent to follow O's policies if elected President.

The real question now is whether Hillary and Sanders will make the $10/barrel oil tax part of the D platform for the 2016 campaign. As ennui notes above, this is essentially a carbon tax, and the timing couldn't be better with oil prices so low due to the oil glut.

If Hillary and Bernie are smart, they'll start start campaigning in favor of Obama's $10/bbl tax on oil now, and then Hillary should push to put it into place after she is elected President.


Will Hillary and Bernie support the $10/bbl carbon tax?

[peripato]

Ah, Obama won't prez for much longer, so he can "propose" all he wants. Don't mean jack...

Obama is the head of the D party and both Hillary and Sanders have a made a big issue out their intent to follow O's policies if elected President.

The real question now is whether Hillary and Sanders will make the $10/barrel oil tax part of the D platform for the 2016 campaign. As ennui notes above, this is essentially a carbon tax, and the timing couldn't be better with oil prices so low due to the oil glut.

If Hillary and Bernie are smart, they'll start start campaigning in favor of Obama's $10/bbl tax on oil now, and then Hillary should push to put it into place after she is elected President.


Will Hillary and Bernie support the $10/bbl carbon tax?

And I've got a big red bridge for sale...

PM me if your interested...

[Plantagenet]

Obama is the head of the D party and both Hillary and Sanders have pledged to follow O's policies if elected President.

The real question now is whether Hillary and Sanders will make the $10/barrel oil tax part of the D platform for the 2016 campaign. As ennui notes above, this is essentially a carbon tax, and the timing couldn't be better with oil prices so low due to the oil glut.

And I've got a big red bridge for sale...

PM me if your interested...

Are you suggesting Hillary and/or Bernie are going to oppose Obama's $10/bbl oil tax proposal?

I don't think that will go over very well with the D base they need to get elected----the D base is mostly looking for a candidate who will continue O's policies.