Posted on 12/13/2007 11:26:18 AM PST by thackney
WASHINGTON — Facing a veto threat from the White House, the Senate today by one vote rejected a bid to move forward on an energy bill that would dramatically boost vehicle fuel mileage requirements and raise taxes on major oil companies.
In response, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said leaders would strip out a tax provision that had bothered the Bush administration and many Republicans in the Senate.
And leaders from both sides said that would ensure the rest of the bill would pass.
"There is no reason why we shouldn't pass the energy bill today," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.
The cloture vote, which would have ended debate and prompted a simple majority vote on the bill itself, was 59-40 but needed 60 affirmatives to pass. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was absent.
The energy package's centerpiece is a requirement that the nation's fleet of cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans achieve an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Proponents argue that requirement would save the nation 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, comparable to about half the oil the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Reid pushed for the $21.8 billion energy bill to include a rollback of tax breaks for the five largest integrated oil companies — Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell Oil Co.
That money would have been used to help fund a series of tax incentives aimed at promoting use of alternative energy and mitigating release of carbon dioxide emissions.
Targeting conservation The bill aims to boost the nation's use of renewable energy, set new efficiency standards for appliances and — most dramatically — set aggressive new fuel mileage requirements for cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles.
After failing to muster enough votes to bring a House-passed energy conservation package to the floor for a vote, Senate leaders have been tinkering with the legislation.
On Tuesday, Reid announced Senate leaders were dropping a provision that would have required utility companies to generate a portion of their electricity using renewable energy sources.
ExxonMobil made $39.5 billion in profits last year.
They also paid $97.5 billion in taxes.
Sales-based taxes - $30.381B
Other taxes and duties - $39.203B
Income taxes - $27.902B
ExxonMobil’s 2006 Financial and Operating Review
http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/fo_2006.pdf
Page 22
- - - -
ConocoPhillips 2006
Net Income $15.5 billion
Taxes $31.0 billion
Income taxes $ 12.783B
Taxes other than income taxes $ 18.187B
ConocoPhillips 2006 Annual Report
Consolidated Income Statement
http://www.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/CA84868B-CB7C-4A44-BB60-AD5EFF254023/0/64_67.pdf
Hillary wants the profits too
Great. Now our washing machines won't wash and our driers won't dry. Just like in Europe.
So they will be like toilets? Three tries before you got the result you want.
Nope. You just take your wet clothes out of the drier and hang them on indoor drying racks. Don't know why they even bother with the drier. A old-fashioned wringer and a drying rack would do just as well. Of course, you always have to step around the drying rack.
Chevron
Income $3.8 Billion
Taxes $8.4 Billion
Taxes other than on income $ 5.533B
Income Tax $ 2.859B
CHEVRON CORPORATION 2006 ANNUAL REPORT
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/130102/reports/cvx_annual_2006.pdf
page 48
Assuming you wait a day for drying.
Unless you live in Humid Houston, Texas. Then the clothes take about 5 years to dry.
Exxon revenue of $377.6 billion has gone up 81% since 2002 according to that, while income taxes have gone up 330%.
Or you can say tax on income was 37% in 2002, but it’s now 41%.
What tax breaks?
Many places now outlaw “environmentally friend” clothes drying...
i.e. Clothes lines are unsightly and bring down property prices...
HOA’s have taken home owners to court over this...
Well, that's the joke. England is big on drying racks these days--because of the lousy driers. It ain't Houston. But it ain't the Mojave either. The clothes don't get dry.
I understand the general sentiment, but that's a bad example. You know the latest, greatest front-loading washers we have here? The ones that clean better while using less water, energy and soap? The really expensive ones? That's been standard in Germany for a long time. Our best washers here are about equal to the average washer over there, and their top-end is better than what you can get here.
The guy at Sears was describing to me their high-end $1,200 washer. Apparently one of the big sales lines to impress customers is "It spins at an amazingly fast 1,200 rpm so you don't use so much electricity drying your clothes!" He was surprised when I told him German washers go up to 1,800 rpm, and you can get 1,200 rpm in a $300 washer.
So, which laws are the Democrats willing to pass to fix the problem of getting those $300 dryers from Germany? I think I’ll get into the dryer business if the margin is $900 a dryer.
“He was surprised when I told him German washers go up to 1,800 rpm, and you can get 1,200 rpm in a $300 washer.”
I’ve got an older engine from a 1998 Honda VFR800 F.I....kickin around here...about 110 HP, redlines at 13,000 rpms or so....
...now you got me thinkin....hmmmmmmmmmm...I got a NOS kit here too...............
Nice data!
LOL!
Energy and water are expensive in Germany, so they've just been concentrating more on such things. People in the US only recently woke up to this, so even the average level of energy saving in Germany is a premium money-saving thing here, pay a lot up front, save down the road.
What will get them over here is simply higher consumer demand, no laws needed, unless we have high tariffs on such things now.
Well, they may have great stuff in Germany for wealthy folks. I recently spent some time in England and stayed with three different families, all upper-middle-class. They all had TERRIBLE driers and had to use drying racks. Really, they were so bad I wasn't joking elsewhere on this thread when I said you might as well just wring them out. Our clothes never did get properly dry.
What is possible and what normal folks can afford are two different things. At least Al Gore and our Senators will have dry clothes.
I bet those were the kind of dryers that didn't have an exhaust, but instead collected the water condensed into a drainable reservoir at the bottom. Yeah, those suck, but they're all you got when you have no vent to the outside.
ping
Note the total amount of taxes versus profit. These companies and resulting numbers are from producing the oil, refining the oil, transporting and distributing the products so they give an example of how much the governments collect through the whole process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.