Michelle Malkin » Neeeever mind (again!): Obama abandons windfall profits tax

Neeeever mind (again!): Obama abandons windfall profits tax

By Michelle Malkin • December 3, 2008 11:25 AM

Reality bites Barack Obama in the ass again.

Here he was in May/June of this year, vowing to punish the oil companies and redistribute the wealth: “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills,” the Illinois senator said.

And now? Barack Obama is morphing into SNL character Emily Litella. Neeeever mind:

President-elect Barack Obama has shelved a proposal to slap the oil and gas companies with a new windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped so much in recent months, the transition team confirmed today.

“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” a transition aide said. “They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that.”

Obama’s proposal had called for using the proceeds from the tax to give American consumers an energy rebate worth up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per married couple.

As Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, put it: “A windfall profits tax is bad policy at any price.”

Another Obama shift:

Asked whether the energy rebate plan had likewise been put on hold, the transition aide said the rebates were included in a middle class “rescue plan” Obama released last month.

That plan calls for a permanent tax cut of $500 for a worker or $1,000 for a family, with the Internal Revenue Service using 2007 tax returns to send out the checks. Tax cuts also would be extended to seniors.

The policy shift came to light after officials at the American Small Business League noticed that the windfall profits tax language had been removed from the transition team’s Web site in what the group called “an unceremonious and abrupt manner.”

Yeah, that’s happening a lot lately.

Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Printer Friendly

comments (97)

trackbacks (16)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#562553

On December 4th, 2008 at 5:30 am, graysonret said:

“I won the election. The heck with my campaign promises. I can do what I want, now”.
#562610

On December 4th, 2008 at 9:09 am, karl9000 said:

The funny thing (if you want to clal it that) is, the oil companies are still making the same percentage profit per barrel as when the cost per barrel was $140.

Oil company profits are based on volume of sales and costs. When the price/cost of oil goes up, that same percentage that isn’t a “windfall” at $50/barrel suddenly becomes a “windfall” at $150/barrel.

Demand has become the big push in the drop in cost per barrel, not a decision by the oil comapanies or even OPEC to reduce any “windfall” profits.

Any objective person would realize that a “windfall” would exist if the oil companies increased price so as to increase their percentage profit while their costs remained constant.

If the Government had ANY chance of proving that, the oil companies would be nationalized today. But the Government can’t, so all they do is call the Execs in for a round of scolding and threaten “windfall” profit taxes.

The only wind falling out of this is what Obama and others are blowing out their rear ends. Give me whiff of gasoline any day; it smells a lot sweeter and costs a lot less…
#562628

On December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am, conservativesRus said:

On December 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

Dexter – you are of course correct in exactly how the government provides fish. However, how many times have we heard politician talk about how many jobs they will create?
Those who are financially astute (meaning can reason above the level of 5 years old) realize that gov’t doesn’t create jobs, only “demand” creates jobs.
Jobs are created to provide supply to fulfill demand.
#562648

On December 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am, conservativesRus said:

On December 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am, RockyR said:

PS – this deal about Palin taking oil company profits and distributing to them “the people of Alaska” is a terribly wrong-headed idea

Pardon me for my ignorance here – exactly what did Palin do? Did she impose additional “profits” taxes specifically on the oil industry or did she increase lease/royalty payments rates. There is a vast vast difference between the two. I honestly don’t know and don’t have time this morning to look. Sorry for my ignorance on this.