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

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

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 ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...