Skip to main content

End the Subsidies!

In the House yesterday, the vote to strip oil companies of the subsidies that they've so enjoyed in the past years (from 2005-2009, worth $485 billion) failed, the GOP voting as a block, with several Democrats, to keep the unnecessary subsidies for Big Oil going. This from the same party that sees any aid to alternative energy as creeping socialism, from the same people who voted to cut heating subsidies for the poor and want to use this budget debate to zero out funding for NPR and PBS, just to get back at them for perceived "liberal" bias.

What's worse than this is that I had to find out from a friend's post on Facebook. That's right, as yet no media coverage on this from the main media channels. An internet search found just three stories, all based off the original from ThinkProgress (DailyKos and ClimateProgress were the others). They link to the original House vote in the story.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/01/house-gop-big-oil-subsidies/

We see now just how far their commitment to fiscal discipline goes; the oil subsidies were a ripe target for the budget ax, as I think it is clear at this point that the oil companies don't need taxpayer help. Yet again, for whatever reason the GOP did not agree and decided to protect them. So, let's review, cutting corporate subsidies to balance the budget, bad, cutting salaries and laying off workers to balance the budget, good.

I think every Tea Partier should see this, see it broadcast nonstop on every channel. The headline might be something like this: "GOP betrays its voters."

We see just how far their commitment to "fiscal sanity" goes when it comes to dealing with corporations. Hypocrites all. End the subsidies now!

Comments

  1. It was brought to my attention by someone more knowledgeable on House procedure than I am that the vote in question was a procedural one rather than on the question of the subsidies. In light of that, I must fully retract this blog as containing inaccurate information. I hope that the results of any vote on oil subsidies will give me cause for joy rather than a post similar to this one. There is no shame in admitting to one's own error; the only shame is in persisting in that error once one has been made aware of it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...