Senate Republicans reject Obama call to end 'big oil' tax breaks
March 29th, 2012
12:46 PM ET
6 years ago

Senate Republicans reject Obama call to end 'big oil' tax breaks

Washington (CNN) - Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic measure championed by President Barack Obama to end tax breaks for the major oil companies.

The procedural vote of 51-47, which failed to reach the needed threshhold of 60, killed the measure, which was given little chance of eventually winning approval in the Republican-controlled House. Four Democrats opposed the bill while one Republican supported it.


Filed under: gas prices • President Obama
soundoff (32 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    Lizzie wrote:

    Rudy NYC, youre not in the oil industry, oil companies would drill on government owed land, would gladly pay royalties but the EPA under this administration makes that impossible?
    Let me get this straight. Oil companies do not currently drill on any federal lands? You need to get your facts straight. Big oil complained about having to pay royalties when they were not removing any oil. Sounds reasonable. Right?

    So they gave the oil companies a tax credit on their lease royalties if they do not drill on the land. Why do you think they are so hot to get more and more? Because more leases mean more tax credits.

    March 29, 2012 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  2. Rudy NYC

    Lizzie rewrote history:

    Oil companies do not receive subsidies, green energy companies do, they also receive taxpayer money. If you take away tax deductions from one industry, let's take them away from ALL of them. Why not take over ALL industries and let the government run them, why not let the government just pay for everyone's everyday expenses, why not make President Obama Emperor let him tell you what, when, where and how.
    Oil companies have received subsidies for the past hundred years. Subsidies are not tax deductions. You can have zero income and still receive a subsidy. In fact, subsidies are not even within the jurisdiction of the IRS. You do not know what you are talking about in the least.

    March 29, 2012 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  3. The-Least-Unelectable

    Just like the contraceptive issue, the gas price argument will also backfire against the GOP as soon as Rmoney starts to rake in big oil donations for his campaign

    March 29, 2012 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  4. Independent Voters

    Vote all the republicans out of the office they are maken are gas stay high.

    Republican are destroying our country

    March 29, 2012 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  5. Truth and Nothing But the Truth

    Rudy NYC - If it is "chump change", then why the all the fuss?
    Because $2 billion is still real money that we have to borrow from the Chinese. We currently borrow FOUR billion A DAY. So you can see the amount really is miniscule. The objection is the Democrats funnelling this money to their favorite bogus imaginery market called "green energy". The only thing green about it is the billions of greenbacks Obama and the Democrats have WASTED on it. We CAN'T put ALGAE in our gas tanks!

    They get tax credits on leased federal land if they are not drilling there. Doesn't that sound backwards to you? They get paid not to drill.

    March 29, 2012 02:12 pm at 2:12 pm |
  6. The REAL Truth

    Big OIL does not drill on leased Govt land (in excess of 900 Million acres at last count BTW) because they MIGHT actually FIND oil there, and they receive a Tax Credit for NOT drilling. If they drilled, they would then have to produce oil or shut it in. If they produce oil, the price per barrel drops and so does their shareholder value (dividends). NOT GOOD! If they shut it in, public backlash occurs. NOT GOOD!.. it's far simpler to NOT DRILL, get a Tax Credit and whine about not being able to drill!

    March 29, 2012 02:13 pm at 2:13 pm |
  7. Truth and Nothing But the Truth

    RudyNYC, since you seem to be the expert on oil "subsidies" can you please list EXACTLY what this $2 billion comprises? You see, I've learned the leftists have their own reverse lonney language with things like "tax expenditures", which are actually MY EARNED WAGES that the government has deemed me worthy of keeping. In other words, your definition of a "subsidy" and everybody elses is most likely NOT the same.

    And how do you know the removal of these "subsidies" won't drive UP the cost of oil?

    March 29, 2012 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
1 2