OPINION/COMMENTARY

Senate Energy Bill Tax Title Hikes Taxes and Promises Higher Prices for Consumers Taxing successful energy sources and subsidizing unsuccessful ones—that is the essence of Washington’s energy policy during the 1970s and early 1980s, and it would be repeated by the Senate’s version of the House’s energy bill (H.R. 6). The bill would raise taxes by an estimated $28 billion over 10 years, mostly from the oil and natural gas sector, and spend much of this money on tax breaks for alternative energy sources like ethanol and wind power. If history is any guide, this approach is likely to backfire, raising prices and reducing energy security. The tax title of the energy bill proposes a number of tax code changes, the combined effect of which would be to raise taxes paid by companies working to expand oil and natural gas supplies. This includes measures eliminating or reducing some existing deductions against income from energy production, most notably the manufacturer's deduction created by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. This deduction, which applies to domestic industries, would be modified to exclude major oil companies. The change would raise taxes on new oil and gas production by $9.433 billion over 10 years. The bill would also impose new taxes, such as a 13 percent excise tax on oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico that is estimated to raise $10.644 billion over the next 10 years. Consumer anger over high gasoline prices sparked Congress's current drive to pass energy legislation, but these measures will not offer any relief at the pump....
Senate Energy Bill Would Increase Gas Prices The Senate is currently debating energy policy legislation that could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline consumers. A review of S. 1419, including the just-completed section on tax changes, reveals that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon (the early May national average) to $6.40 in 2016--a 104 percent increase. The Senate bill aims to slow and ultimately reverse the growth of carbon emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles, mainly through provisions requiring higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and more biofuel content in retail gasoline. The bill does not, however, contain significant funding or organizational plans for increasing the country's supply of petroleum. In addition, the bill contains a section directed at "price gouging." The bill proposes paying for the new mandates and programs with a series of tax increases, most of which would be paid by producers of gasoline. The combined effects of these policy changes would cause retail gasoline prices to increase. The Senate bill contains a number of tax law changes that would also contribute to gasoline prices. Among the most prominent are: * a tax on finished gasoline as it leaves the production facility; * a tax on gasoline produced in the United States and sold abroad; * a decrease in the tax credit offered to producers of ethanol; and * major changes in the tax credits and deductions afforded to gasoline producers under current tax law....
Going Green: The Media Reveal a Major Color Scheme Go green young man. A twist on Horace Greeley’s famous advice is growing from a suggestion into a media mandate. Everywhere, they tell us, America and the world are “going green.” It’s more than just a buzzword term for the eco-elite. The mainstream media are saying people are going green as a reminder that we, too, must join them or risk being behind the times. Or worse, conservative. Just this year, the three broadcast TV networks have cited the term more than 90 times. It defines everything from organic wine to former steel towns. Even the Vatican is “going green.” In print media, there are more than 2,800 uses of the expression since April Fool’s Day, appropriately enough. Sometime Republican/sometime Democrat Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan to convert New York’s taxi fleet to hybrid vehicles early in June. According to the June 4 U.S. News & World Report, the mandate for big green taxis is “going green.” NBC’s Brian Williams told viewers that even “a piece of the rust belt that has seen better days may now be getting a new life by going green.” That June 11 piece was about the one-time Bethlehem Steel location of Lackawanna, N.Y., which is embracing windmill power. Journalists aren’t so much discovering a movement as creating one. Every bit of eco-insanity is now written about, talked about and celebrated – all under the journalism-approved color scheme....
Too Busy Admiring Greens to Notice What They're Really About Environmentalism is hip, green celebrities are “very sexy” and saving the planet is “simple,” according to the media. The deluge of celebrity books, films and even rock concerts is making green look good – because journalists leave out the cost to individuals, businesses and the economy. A June 19 Reuters story said Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts will be “as green as possible,” but left out the point that not putting on seven concerts on different continents would be a whole lot “greener.” “Going green” is all the rage – from Live Earth to “green” weddings and interior decorating. The problem is, media reports imply that people won’t have to make enormous sacrifices to do what is right for the environment. That downplays the reality of environmentalism, which is anti-business and anti-economic growth; even, at times, anti-human rights. Many environmentalists support extreme measures that will cost ordinary citizens tax dollars, create inconvenience and limit technological and industrial advancement. In one recent case, environmentalists have even limited people’s right to travel in their own country....