Democrat: Non-Energy-Producing States Shouldn’t Complain About High Gas Prices

CNS News ^ | 5/12/2011 | Susan Jones

[IbJensen]

(CNSNews.com) - A U.S. senator -- a Democrat – is taking a strong stand against a bill introduced by a fellow Democrat that would end energy subsidies for big oil companies.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Mary Landrieu, from the oil-producing state of Louisiana, said the bill introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) targets an industry that supports 9.2 million jobs and contributes more than 7.7 percent to U.S. gross domestic product.

Ending energy subsidies for oil and gas companies, she said, will not reduce gas prices, but it will eliminate jobs.

Landrieu also took a swipe at states such as Michigan that produce no energy of their own: "There are a lot of states that don't produce, don't conserve, aren't efficient, and all they want to do is yell about high gas prices," she said.

“I’ll tell you, if we passed a law that said every state in America had to produce the energy it needed, we’d have an energy policy all right,” Landrieu said.

“Just like in the old days, if you wanted food, you produced it. Every state in America, all 50, if you consume energy, you need to produce something. You can produce it by wind, you could produce it by hydro, you could produce it by nuclear, you could stop driving all your automobiles and everybody walk. You could give everybody a bicycle -- we don’t care.”

Landrieu noted that Louisiana, on the other hand, is doing a great job in providing for itself:

"We produce enough energy for everybody in our state, what we need -- and we export it to everyone else in America that needs it. And what do we get? We get bills like this (the Menendez bill) that go after, directly, the big companies in our state, that work in our states, to somehow put them in a position to make them feel like they're not really good companies, they're not American companies, they don't pay tax, they get all these subsidies. I'm going to read into the record what taxes they pay. It's going to surprise you. And then on top of that, we get moratoriums. We get 'permitoriums.' We can't even drill for the oil we have. We can't even look for the oil we might have."

Sen. Landrieu said her constituents ask her -- since Louisiana produces so much energy for the country -- why are Louisianans paying $4 a gallon for gasoline?

Oil producing states should be helped to produce more, she said: "But we get shut down by bureaucracy, moratoriums, permitoriums, rules, regulations, EPA, refuges...”

Landrieu said U.S. oil and natural gas companies pay more than $86 million to the federal government in both income taxes and production fees every day. In addition, she said, since 2000, the oil and gas industry has invested almost $1.7 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives, while reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.

As for energy subsidies -- Landrieu said it might surprise American taxpayers to know that of the $16.6 billion spent on U.S. energy subsidies over the course of one year, oil and gas subsidies account for less than 13 percent of the total, while renewable fuels, such as refined coal, nuclear, solar and hydro, account for more than 85 percent.

“You would think, because of this (Menendez) bill, that the big oil and gas companies are getting all the subsidies, making all the profits, paying no taxes, and the rest are suffering. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Landrieu said.

[Ben Ficklin]

"every time Bush called for lifting the drilling ban in the gulf she voted against it"

On the surface it might seem that way, but issue wasn't about drilling, it was about the royalties.

Bush was opposed to royalty sharing and she was for it.

And when Congress finally passed the GOM Energy Security Act of 2006 which opened a very large area known as Area 181 and South 181 to drilling, she was a prime mover behind that legislation and obviously voted for it.

In that legislation TX, LA, MS, and AL were given royalty sharing.

Now, the states of VA, MD, and NC on the Atlantic coast have expressed varying degrees of willingness to drill off their coast. All of that is predicated on those states receiving royalty sharing.

There is a history dealing with how the coastal states, interior states, and the feds economically benefit from drilling the shelf. It starts with the Truman Proclamation in 1945, Eisenhower's Submerged Lands Act in 1954, CARA-CARA 2000-CARA Compromise, and the 2006 legislation.

[sportutegrl]

Southern Dems generally drift to the right of Yankee Republicans.

[JLLH]

Not so true. Jindal, Vitter, more and more conservatives being elected (not to mention we voted SOLIDLY as a state against the current creature in the WH - which is more than many so-called conservative states can say).

[JLLH]

She won’t have switched parties, but she’s leaning right now because she’s in deep trouble. She didn’t win handily last time and got a real run for her money. Yes, she was re-elected — but it sure wasn’t a landslide and will be even harder next time. She has the Louisiana Purchase as part of her legacy now -— and it’s not popular. It will be an Albatross around her neck.

[rollo tomasi]

I guess the Landrieu brand is a fantasy and the populous never, ever, vote against their interest over last names including, in Mary's case, a CINO and the “cuteness” factor. Like you said this happens in a lot of other States as well. All this = irrationality on the part of the electorate which was my point in the first place.

[bray]

Ethenol companies and farmers actually do get subsidies while oil companies get tax cuts for exploration expenses.

Pray for America

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I don’t care what her motive is, what she has done in the past, nor which party she is with, in this case she made a good speech and mad some great points. Why dismiss that because of your other complaints?

[NC28203]

>>>Ethenol companies and farmers actually do get subsidies while oil companies get tax cuts for exploration expenses.

There is no subsidy for ethanol producers. Congress has provided the motor fuel industry with a tax incentive for blending ethanol with gasoline in the form of 45 cents per gallon of ethanol tax credit known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

There is also a tariff on imported ethanol. But that is essentially a tax taking in revenue, not a subsidy paying out benefits.

Corn farmers do get subsidies, but they got those prior to the recent boom in ethanol. In fact the demand from ethanol may actually reduce subsidies paid to corn farmers. In the past couple of years, market prices for corn have been sufficiently high that most of the corn subsidy resulted from crop insurance in areas where there were crop losses rather than from counter cyclical payments that are received when prices are low.

[TheOldLady]

DONATE

DONATE